Sitting of 18 June 1992

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)
Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 25 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Shotguns
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to initiate a review of the law on shotguns.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): Controls on shotguns were strengthened under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. The firearms consultative committee has a statutory duty to keep the controls of the Firearms Acts under constant review and make proposals to my right hon. and learned Friend as it considers necessary.
    Mr. Milburn: Is the Minister aware that the number of shotgun offences in the northern region has more than doubled in the past six years? Is he concerned at the fact that the existing laws allow a shotgun certificate to be obtained without a person either giving good justification or undergoing proper training? Does he believe that it is in the public interest that children as young as 12 are allowed, legally, to hold a shotgun certificate? When will the Minister bring forward proper proposals to protect the public better from lethal weapons?
    Mr. Wardle: I am aware of the increase in the number of offences involving weapons. However, it is worth bearing in mind that out of all the recorded incidents in 1990, only 0.2 per cent. involved the use of such weapons. I have seen the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion. Of course, he will understand that I cannot comment on the incident in Darlington because it is under investigation by the Police Complaints Authority. The consultative committee has a statutory duty to keep the law under constant review. In the debates we had before the enactment of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, consideration was given to placing shotguns under section 1 control. It was decided not to do that and that controls were best left in the hands of the police. The chief officer of a police force is empowered to withhold a licence if he believes that the public will be at risk or that the person applying for a certificate is unsuitable. The controls have been strengthened.

    Identity Cards
    Sir John Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration has been given to the introduction of identity cards; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am not at present persuaded of the case for a national identity card system.
    Sir John Hunt: My right hon. and learned Friend's reply is a bit disappointing. Is he aware that there is growing support in the country and, I believe, in the House for a system of identity cards as a means of combating fraud, terrorism and illegal immigration? As most of us

    1023
    carry a variety of plastic cards at all times, what is the possible objection to another one, with a photograph, which would add to our safety and security?
    Mr. Clarke: I said in my reply that I was not at present persuaded, but, obviously, my hon. Friend will try to persuade me in the course of time. The last time the Government considered this issue we were simply not satisfied that there were any great advantages, from the law enforcement point of view, in introducing a national identity card system. That was then the opinion of most people in the police service. However, I am aware that, recently the Association of Chief Police Officers offered a rather different opinion when it gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I hope that it will send its representations to me and work out in more detail what value it thinks such a system might have for law enforcement. At the moment, I do not see that case.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that Labour Members are certainly not persuaded that there is any justification for such a scheme? It would be extremely unfortunate if in peacetime, despite terrorism, identity cards were reintroduced in this country. Some of us might consider that that is another continental idea that we can well do without in Britain.
    Mr. Clarke: Countries on the continent are divided on the issue. Eight European Community countries have identity cards and four do not. The bulk of people in Britain are prepared to support anything that helps the police and other authorities in their proper work of law enforcement and detecting crime. We must be persuaded that identity cards would be of substantial help to them and that they would be used in a way that did not damage relationships between the police and any section of the community.
    Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the first point that the police must establish is identification? What better way is there to make that identification than through an identity card with a photograph, and even a fingerprint, which would enable us to go back to the days when people were identifiable. That would surely help the police.
    Mr. Clarke: All of us are used to having to produce some modest proof of identification on a number of occasions. Most people do not object to producing their driving licences or credit cards for someone who is entitled to ask to see them. A national identity card scheme would have to be much more secure, and a cost and difficulties would be involved in issuing identity cards. The police would have to put a case forward for saying that there was a sufficient problem in identifying people to make it necessary to go to those lengths.
    Mr. Darling: Does the Home Secretary accept that a compulsory requirement to carry identity cards would be the subject of deep resentment for many people? Has he had any discussions with his European counterparts about the possibility of compulsory ID cards being introduced in the European Community after the removal of frontiers in continental Europe? I appreciate that we shall maintain our frontiers—the right hon. and learned Gentleman has our support—but what is the position on the carrying of identity cards by British citizens in this country and in continental Europe?
    Mr. Clarke: As usual, the House is accurately representing the range of views on whether people would object to carrying identity cards in this country. In the first place, it all depends on whether anybody can make a satisfactory case for carrying them from a law enforcement point of view. We shall then look at the objections that might arise.
    There is no pressure on us to introduce a European-wide identity card and no such suggestion is coming from our partners in the Community. I have explained to our partners that, from the point of view of immigration control, we believe that we are entitled to continue to rely on our present system of frontier controls, and that is what we shall do.
    Mr. Ashby: My right hon. and learned Friend must look at the reality of the situation. When internal frontiers disappear, as undoubtedly they will, a form of smart identity card will have to be introduced. Is this not the time to start planning for that? We should be going ahead with such a scheme for that, if for no other, reason.
    Mr. Clarke: We stand ready to sign an external frontiers convention when the Spanish withdraw their objections to one of its provisions. But that will not provide the European Community with some impregnable external frontier which will obviate the need for internal controls from the point of view of illegal immigration, terrorism, drugs and other matters. We are satisfied that we are entitled, under our treaty obligations, to retain our present system of frontier controls and that is what we propose to do. We are not looking at identity cards in that context at this time.

    Young Offenders
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the penal institutions for young offenders which Home Office Ministers have visited in the last 12 months.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The young offender institutions visited in the last 12 months were Portland, New Hall, Finnamore Wood, Moorland, Northallerton, Feltham, Drake Hall and Huntercombe.
    Miss Lestor: Those visits having been made, the hon. Gentleman must be aware of the enormous concern that is felt by specialist groups and others about the conditions under which some young men are being held, with a lack of educational and recreational facilities and a lack of specialist psychiatric treatment. Is he aware that if we are to avoid more suicides and attempted suicides among people at a very vulnerable age, more measures must be taken now to ensure that proper accommodation and facilities are provided, particularly for the very young?
    Mr. Lloyd: Much of the accommodation is extremely good, as the hon. Lady would know if she visited some of the establishments. There are, of course, great worries, and Judge Tumim highlighted a number of them in his report. He also said that good work was being done. I am concerned that there should be positive and purposeful activity in all institutions for young offenders. That is the aim of the prison service and that is what the governors of those institutions are dedicated to providing.

    Prison Building
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the prison building programme.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Sixteen of the 21 new prisons in the Government's building programme have now opened, providing 8,000 additional places. Within the next 12 months, four of the remaining five are due to open, providing 2,250 places. In addition, this year we shall be spending nearly £200 million on improving the existing prison estate.
    Mr. Devlin: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on that wonderful answer—[Interruption.] It is in sharp contrast to the 20 per cent. cut in prison building under the last Labour Government. We look forward in Stockton-on-Tees to the imminent opening of Holme House Farm prison. I suggest that the police in Stockton-on-Tees, who have faced a spate of riots among drug gangs on the Ragworth estate, should be given every encouragement to apprehend all those behaving so disagracefully and to ensure that they are thrown into the new prison as soon as possible.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend may certainly congratulate me on my answers in those terms as many times as he wishes. It is true that there has been a spectacular prison building programme during the 1980s, after decades in which the prison service's needs were sadly neglected, which is why we still have so many old and unsatisfactory buildings. The new prison in Stockton opened this year and is a valuable addition to the service. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police on their handling of the disorders in Stockton. The disorders began when the police made arrests in an attempt to tackle a drug problem on that estate. I am sure that the police have the support of the vast majority of the inhabitants of the estate in dealing with the trouble caused by those young hooligans coming to the town.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary discontinue the practice—some people would say the sharp practice—pursued by his predecessor of holding up the publication of Judge Tumim's reports for so long that their criticisms are somewhat blunted? Why has he not accepted the report in respect of the young offenders institution at Feltham, which is a damning indictment?
    Mr. Clarke: I refute the suggestion that Ministers have ever deliberately held back Judge Tumim's reports. My predecessor did not do so; nor have we. Delays have not been the result of ministerial decisions. I welcome Judge Tumim's reports, despite the fact that he is often outspoken in the public interest about the conditions that he finds in prisons. He describes the difficult situation in Feltham, which is being tackled by the prison authorities. Judge Tumim's reports are helpful to us in identifying problems and stimulating the efforts of the governor and his staff to deal with them.

    Safer Cities
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many areas are now covered by the safer cities programme; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): In the current safer cities programme, there are 20 local authority areas selected, on the basis of high crime rates and other factors, from among the 57 urban programme areas in England. We are considering how to implement and expand the programme in the light of achievements to date.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that scheme has already notched up some significant successes, with a 40 per cent. cut in burglaries on a Wolverhampton housing estate, a 35 per cent. drop in car crime in a Nottingham car park and a 16 per cent. drop in crime in the centre of Birmingham? Does he agree that that shows that the Government have the policies to combat crime?
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his correct statement on some of the notable achievements in those areas in our safer cities programme. I am sure that he will be pleased to learn that Nottingham has been a beneficiary of those achievements. The whole approach that he illuminated for the House falls within the philosophy of the safer cities programme—that of reducing the fear of crime among vulnerable groups such as the elderly, ethnic minorities and particularly women. We shall certainly develop those imaginative initiatives.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that there may be people who are not yet aware of the programme? At a recent meeting in south Belfast I discovered that work had been going on but people were unaware of it. Is there not a need for greater publicity and co-ordination of efforts?
    Mr. Jack: I am always delighted when hon. Members ask for information, and I can immediately produce a copy of a report dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a copy of it and that copies are made available for any of his constituents who are interested in the subject.

    Car Crime
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the contribution made by the insurance industry to car crime prevention.
    Mr. Jack: The industry has responded to the problem of car crime in a number of ways, including setting up the motor insurance anti-fraud and theft register. On premium levels, some reductions have been offered where anti-theft equipment has been fitted, but that has generally been limited to new cars. I hope that the industry will do more.
    Mrs. Peacock: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I appreciate that many car crimes involve vehicles that are left open, but many more involve locked vehicles. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that motor manufacturers make all vehicles much more secure and to encourage insurance companies to give even bigger discounts to all motorists?
    Mr. Jack: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that many car manufacturers have woken up to the fact that the installation of security equipment as standard on many models is a major sales feature. As we approach the peak August registration period, my hon. Friend can look

    1027
    forward to many advertisements recognising that fact. I am shortly to have meetings with representatives of the Association of British Insurers and shall press them to do more in respect of not only new cars but to the many millions of second-hand cars on which people can fit immobilisers and alarms. I should like the insurance companies to show greater recognition of those suggestions.

    Prisoners
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the prison population.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The prison population on Wednesday 17 June 1992 was 46,955.
    Mr. Grocott: Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Council of Europe figures clearly show that the prison population in this country is the highest in western Europe and that as many as two thirds of offenders are reconvicted within two years of being sent to prison? Does he think that we have that dreadful record because the British people are uniquely delinquent or does he think, as I do, that the Government are uniquely incompetent when dealing with crime prevention, particularly reoffending?
    Mr. Clarke: I am aware of the Council of Europe figures, although I always treat international comparisons with care. It is not the case that the levels of crime—for example, violent crime—in this country are particularly high when compared with other European standards, but they are quite high enough. The public require the Government to provide the courts with a full range of penalties and require people to be committed to prison where the severity of an offence justifies it. We are about to bring into effect the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to give the courts a wider range of effective penalties. The courts may decide to use non-custodial sentences in appropriate cases, where previously they may have given prison sentences.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, desirable as it no doubt is to reduce the prison population, it is absurd to expect judges to reduce the prison population by obliging them, under the Criminal Justice Act, to take no account of a man's previous convictions?
    Mr. Clarke: The Criminal Justice Act tries to bring greater rationality into sentencing by setting out more clearly the matters that courts should and should not take into consideration. I have no doubt that the courts will continue to use the penalties at their disposal to the fullest effect that they think necessary to protect the public. I am sure that the Criminal Justice Act will not inhibit judges' ability to do so.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is it not amazingly complacent for the Home Secretary not even to mention in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) that, at the end of March, 11 prisons were overcrowded by 50 per cent? There are now almost 2,000 prisoners held in police cells. Is it not the Home Secretary's job to resolve the problem quickly? Will he start talking to judge Stephen Tumim and listening to his recommendations, rather than pursuing the silly policy of privatising prisons?
    Mr. Clarke: I have already welcomed judge Tumim's report. An independent inspector of this kind is an added incentive to raising standards. There is still overcrowding in our prisons, but it has dropped dramatically in the past two or three years. We have somewhat reduced the capacity of our prisons by introducing a programme to get rid of slopping-out by the end of 1994. I believe that the whole House supports that. Five prisons are under construction or have been commissioned; they will add 3,000 extra places. We are producing more capacity for the prisoners and improving the regime in the prisons. We have quite a long way to go, but there has been a spectacular improvement in the past two or three years.

    Vehicle Thefts
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department is including motor cycle thefts and business vehicle thefts in its plans to prevent crime.
    Mr. Jack: I can confirm that both motor cycles and business vehicles are included in our overall strategy to prevent vehicle crime.
    Mr. Streeter: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that the increase in the theft of motor cycles in my constituency is a problem taking up a great deal of police time and resources? Does he agree that the main responsibility for the prevention of the theft of motor cycles lies with motor cyclists themselves, by ensuring that they have taken adequate security measures?
    Mr. Jack: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's problem in his constituency. I hope that he will be pleased to know that we in the Home Office play our part in assisting the process that he has described. In the next edition of "Practical Ways to Crack Crime" we will incorporate a section of advice on motor cycle theft. A motor cycle theft action group has been established throughout the industry to deal with the problem and I attended, under the auspices of the Institute of Motor Cycling, the launch of a new security device. Technology and practical advice are being brought to bear on this important problem.

    Prison Conditions
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he met the chief inspector of prisons to discuss his latest report on prison conditions.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary met the chief inspector for a general discussion on 30 April. I met Judge Tumim on 28 April and again on 7 May, when I attended the inspectorate's training seminar in Eastbourne.
    Mr. Cox: I thank the Minister for that reply. He and his right hon. and learned Friend will be in no doubt about the continuing criticism by the chief inspector of our prisons, the conditions in which many inmates are kept and the sad increase in suicides in prison. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is obvious from talking to senior prison governors and prison officers that the root problem in our prisons, as today's exchanges have shown, is gross overcrowding? It is

    1029
    not building new prisons that will release the tensions and solve the troubles in our prisons. When will this issue be faced up to?
    Mr. Lloyd: Having spoken to the chief inspector, I am well aware that he believes that there are many excellent prisons, with good work being done in them. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, the number of suicides has fallen in recent years. Any suicide is one too many, but there are fewer suicides now.
    My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the building and refurbishment programmes, which are extensive. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will resist those members of the public who object to the building of new prisons in suitable places—as they are naturally inclined to do.

    Burglaries
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the proportion of domestic burglaries which do not involve forced entry.
    Mr. Jack: The last British crime survey carried out in 1988 showed that 18 per cent. of all burglary victims interviewed said that their homes had not been left secure when they went out. However, the latest data from the Metropolitan police district showed that 29 per cent. of domestic burglaries involved no forced entry.
    Mrs. Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of my constituents consider that at least part of the responsibility for rising crime in Derbyshire should be taken by the county council for not funding the police properly? As such a considerable proportion of break-ins are not forced, will my hon. Friend suggest that the public help themselves by locking up properly and by joining neighbourhood watch schemes such as those that operate in Erewash?
    Mr. Jack: I hope that at the county council elections the people of Derbyshire will lock the door and throw away the key on Derbyshire county council. We have heard of their misdoings for too long. But in fairness, some members of the Derbyshire police force are making their contribution to solving the problems that my hon. Friend enumerates. I pay tribute to Inspector Rosey Kiddy for her work on neighbourhood watch schemes. I commend to the House an excellent crime prevention newspaper which advertises some of the excellent work that is being done by neighbourhood watch schemes to enable individuals to protect their properties as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that Derbyshire county council has a decent standard spending assessment so that the services needed can be provided? The Government, not the county council, are responsible for any problems that exist in Derbyshire, which has been acting within the Government's framework.
    Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman will convey messages back to Derby about the effective use of resources, particularly spending up to the amount that is available to be spent on the police service, I am sure that his remarks will be listened to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received recently about the operation of the Shops Act 1950.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: So far this year we have received 149 written representations broadly in favour of more Sunday trading and 819 against.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for promising to produce the Government's considered thoughts on the matter by the end of the year. Is he aware that Sunday trading is popular with the majority of shoppers, shopworkers and shopkeepers? Is it not high time that the British people were free to decide whether to shop or not to shop, to work or not to work on a Sunday?
    Mr. Clarke: First, I have not promised to produce anything by the end of the year, so my hon. Friend will have to wait to see whether his thanks are premature. We are committed to bringing proposals to the House once the law has been made clear by the European Court of Justice for whose judgment we are still waiting. Then we shall obviously have to consider what to do to produce a solution that the House finds acceptable for the future. Meanwhile, I agree with my hon. Friend. Sunday shopping seems extremely popular with my constituents and is certainly not giving rise to any protests from anybody in my part of the world.
    Mr. Ray Powell: The Secretary of State may not have promised to prepare anything before the end of the year, but I have prepared, with the Keep Sunday Special campaign, a Bill to change the law on Sunday trading. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at the Bill and give it the Government's support? It contains measures that were accepted on both sides of the House. On 22 January when I produced a similar Bill, 224 hon. Members voted in favour of it—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to test my patience in that way. He should put his question.
    Mr. Ray Powell: I do not wish to test your patience, Madam Speaker, but—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I was not giving the hon. Gentleman pause for a second breath.
    Mr. Clarke: We are awaiting the judgment of the European Court of Justice on the Shops Act 1950 to see whether that can still be enforced. It certainly seems to be the case that no one wants the Shops Act 1950 still to be in force and people are proposing variations upon it in all directions. By the time we reach the hon. Gentleman's Bill, the position will be clearer and no doubt we shall debate the matter then. But I shall be surprised if there is any proposition which has only four opponents in the House.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a great deal of sympathy for the Bill being introduced by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)? Will he ensure that there is a proper free vote on that Bill when it comes before the House?
    Mr. Clarke: As I have said, we have not yet committed ourselves to introducing any measure of our own. We have

    1031
    therefore not yet taken a decision on the handling of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. However, I appreciate that views on the issue run across party lines and that strong views are held on both sides of the House. A feature of the proposed reform is that it seeks to distinguish between one type of goods and another, one type of shop and another and one type of hour of day and another. All those solutions are difficult to envisage in practice, but we shall consider them all once we have the judgment of the European Court of Justice and are clear about the present legal position.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Home Secretary aware that Government incompetence has resulted in Dewhurst's having to announce the closure of 600 of its high street shops—one third of its network—because of illegal competition from certain super-stores? That has meant a serious loss of consumer choice and of jobs. As we can now expect an early decision from the European Court about the state of the Shops Act 1950, will the Home Secretary tell the House whether he is committed to introducing legislation as a matter of urgency after the decision has been announced, or whether he is going to connive with the law breakers like his predecessors?
    Mr. Clarke: The Government presented a Bill that would have enabled us to reform Sunday trading. I spoke in favour of that Bill on Second Reading and voted for it, but the last Parliament threw it out on Second Reading and left the House unable to do anything about the existing state of the law. The House must address the issue and reach some clear conclusion. No one is breaking the law, because the House of Lords has decided that it is not clear what the law is. That is why the matter has been referred to the European Court of Justice; when we have a decision from the court, we shall know the basis on which we are starting.
    I do not accept that any company has been closed down by the impact of Sunday trading. If the Labour party's only contribution is to undertake to protect Dewhurst from competition, I do not think that that is a very good starting point. What we need is an accepted law on Sunday trading, within which all retailers can compete on level terms.
    Mr. Higgins: Should not the principle of subsidiarity apply in this case?
    Mr. Clarke: Our national Parliament has not made a tremendous success of getting the law right in this regard. Of all the legislation passed by the House, the Shops Act 1950 lends itself to least defence, and we all now want to change it.
    Our European commitment extends simply to ensuring that national laws do not place any impediments in the way of free trade within the Community. This country is strongly in favour of that. We shall wait to see whether the European Court decides that it extends to the Shops Act; there is a real possibility that it will say that this is a matter for the House of Commons to decide. If it says that, we shall face up to all the arguments that have just been presented.

    Walton Gaol
    Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently held in Walton gaol.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Yesterday, 1,205 prisoners were being held in Her Majesty's prison, Liverpool.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Given that the prison is the largest of its kind in the country, and given the close proximity of other penal institutions across north Merseyside, how can the Minister justify proposals to build another prison a mile away at Fazakerley in my constituency, and to introduce prison ships on the River Mersey? Does he not understand that the recommendations of the Woolf report on prisons in the community did not mean that all the prisons should be built in my area?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He has referred to other establishments. Certainly, there is an assessment centre for disturbed juveniles in the area, but that belongs to the local authority. There is a secure psychiatric hospital at Ashworth; that belongs to the national health service. Neither of those establishments belong to the prison service.
    The prison at Walton is overcrowded. We do not believe in keeping prisoners in overcrowded conditions. There is no proper place for young offenders on remand, and there is a need on Merseyside. A study by the Office of Population Census and Surveys of the prison system suggested that some 1,900 prisoners had Merseyside origins; even when the prison is built at Fazakerley, there will be only 1,600 places for them in Liverpool.
    Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the amount of interest shown in prison overcrowding during today's Question Time does not reflect the concern of our constituents? They are more concerned about the incidence of crime and its victims.
    Mr. Lloyd: The supplementary question to which I am replying is not on all fours with the sentiments expressed earlier about overcrowding by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). We have put in a planning application and we shall see what the council says. I shall take close notice of its views.
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Given that Liverpool is already the home of Walton prison, Ashworth and Dyson hall, will the Minister accept that many of my constituents are outraged at the proposal to build a further prison at Fazakerley? Does he have plans to privatise that prison?
    Mr. Lloyd: We have no current plans to privatise that prison. As I explained earlier to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), the assessment centre belongs to the county council. It is not for prison service occupation but for disturbed juveniles who are not inside the prison system. The same applies to the psychiatric hospital. There is a need for extra prison places on Merseyside and our proposal would provide them.

    Special Constabulary
    Mr. Hawksley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for expanding the special constabulary.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: A campaign was launched last year to increase the numbers of special constables in the forces of England and Wales. Our intention is to recruit an extra 10,000 special constables and bring totals up to 25,000.
    Mr. Hawksley: I thank my hon. Friend for those encouraging figures. However, it is disappointing that he does not offer any specific proposals for increased methods of recruitment. Will he consider setting up a special constabulary on the same basis as the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Wardle: A three-year promotional campaign is under-way and it has started with promise. At present there are some 18,000 special constables and, in the first year of the campaign, an extra 14 per cent. growth has been seen. So the incentive is there. Comparison with the Territorial Army suggests a bounty scheme. That has been considered by the forces that have special constables and the Dorset constabulary is planning a pilot scheme.
    Since my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) mentioned special constables, I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will allow me to mention the murder 11 days ago of special constable Goodman. Mr. Goodman was one of those special constables who, like their colleagues in the regular force, put their lives at risk in the line of duty. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister have sent their condolences to Mrs. Goodman and I know that the House will wish to join me in expressing similar sentiments to the bereaved family.

    Immigration Officers
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the system of training immigration officers on the conduct of their duties.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Immigration officer training is designed to ensure high standards of courtesy and professionalism, and emphasises race and equal opportunities awareness and the development of inter-personal skills.
    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Minister look into the case of Mr. Adol Owen-Williams of Maryland in the United States who came to this country at the time of the Los Angeles riots? He was accused, without evidence and solely because he is black, of trying to escape criminal prosecution in the United States. As a result of his questioning, he was imprisoned for two days in a cell that reeked of urine and was kept without adequate food. I should like the Minister to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of that injustice and ensure that Mr. Owen-Williams receives adequate compensation for the injustice he received.
    Mr. Wardle: I must refute what the hon. Lady has said. The Owen-Williams case has been thoroughly investigated and a reply has been sent to Mr. Owen-Williams as a result of that investigation. I have seen that report. The refusal of leave to enter conformed to immigration rules and hinged largely on false information being given about his current employment status and the fact that he shipped a car and large amounts of luggage into the country. He was detained at a police station because there was evidence of previous criminal convictions in the United States. If there is anything to regret about this unhappy episode, it is that some critics who should know better have impugned the professional integrity of hard-working men and women in the immigration service without even bothering to check the facts of the case.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the country is right to be proud of its immigration service and that there is no more important cornerstone of good race relations in this country than having a firm and fairly implemented immigration policy that prevents the fears of the indigenous majority from being reflected in the sort of ugly episodes that we have seen abroad?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may wish to know that such matters are emphasised in immigration officers' induction training and consolidation training courses, which continue after they have been in post for between one and a half and three years. Vocational courses are also available to them.

    Crime
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he is considering to prevent the rising incidence of crime; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jack: We shall continue to take vigorous action to tackle crime by improving the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and developing our crime prevention strategy through the involvement of the whole community in this task.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister prepared to reconsider the sentencing guidance that is given to judges? Is he aware that, under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, judges are being advised and invited to consider only two previous convictions when sentencing a convicted person? Would not it be a more effective deterrent against rising burglary and house-breaking if judges were given more flexibility in the disposal of those cases?
    Mr. Jack: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member said. He will be aware that one of the new guiding principles in the Criminal Justice Act is the introduction of consultative councils, of which, I am pleased to say, the judiciary will now be part. I am sure that some of the matters that he mentioned in his question will be discussed by those bodies.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Official Visits
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to Bury.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I shall be making further visits to many parts of the country and hope to include my hon. Friend's constituency among them.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at tonight's annual general meeting of the Bury, South Conservative association we shall celebrate our recent victories in the local and general elections and welcome my right hon. Friend's recent speech on the citizens charter to the Adam Smith Institute, in which he made it absolutely clear that in the battle between the Goliaths, who want greater state intervention, and the Davids, who want greater individual freedom, he backs the Davids every time?
    The Prime Minister: I wish that I could be with my hon. Friend this evening for his celebrations. The people of Bury, South made a wise choice, and they certainly did in the general election. My hon. Friend is right: I want to see a change in attitude in many areas of public services. We need public services that meet what the public want, not what the so-called experts tell them they should have.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Woolwich.
    The Prime Minister: I will be making further visits to many parts of the country and hope to include different parts of London among them.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Prime Minister share the enthusiasm of the President of the Board of Trade for the economic regeneration of the east Thames corridor? Does he share the views of previous Secretaries of State for Transport that the Jubilee line is essential for that economic regeneration and that it can be achieved at far less cost to the Exchequer than building the east London river crossing and without the environmental damage that would ensue from the road?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that in due course we shall be able to proceed with the Jubilee line, but we shall wish to see the private sector contribution that we previously set as the sum necessary to ensure that we can proceed. Providing we can achieve that, I hope that we will be able to proceed with the Jubilee line. Economic regeneration is welcome everywhere.

    Engagements
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in nuclear weapons that was agreed between President Bush and the Russian President is good news and is to be welcomed? However, will he assure the House and the nation that he will maintain strong United Kingdom defences within NATO and will continue with the Trident programme?
    The Prime Minister: I warmly welcome the announcements that were made after the meetings in Washington between President Bush and President Yeltsin. We shall certainly continue to maintain our own independent nuclear deterrent. We shall maintain it, build it, arm it and deploy Trident.
    Mr. Kinnock: On this day on which unemployment has gone above 2.7 million again, does the Prime Minister recall that it is exactly a year since he said that economic recovery would begin—and I use his words—"within weeks" and that Britain would come out of recession by the end of 1991? Why was he so absurdly wrong?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have been very pleased to see the economic indicators this week in the light of that remark—very pleased indeed. He will have been pleased to see that manufacturing production has risen for three months in a row for the first
    1036
    time in two years, that retail sales are up again, that the rate of increase in average earnings has slowed further to 7 per cent. and is now at its lowest level for 25 years. While the increase in unemployment is very unwelcome, it is clearly now slowing, so I think that the right hon. Gentleman can now see that we are on the road to recovery.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am always glad to see any movement out of the trough into which this Government's policies have pushed the British people and the British economy, but, after the Chancellor's statement yesterday that Britain is three years away from full recovery, as he put it, is not it clear that whenever the Prime Minister or the Chancellor have made optimistic comments about the economy, they have simply not been telling the truth to the British people?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not be misled by everything that he reads in newspaper headlines; he should read the speech itself. He should recall that in January he relied a touch too heavily on a press report and criticised me when he was confusing taxes and interest rates. The reality was that what my right hon. Friend actually said yesterday was:
    "In two or three years' time…people will look back and see that it was now, at this critical juncture, that the right decision was taken."
    He did not say that it would be two or three years before recovery.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister giving us a date for recovery? He used to be very anxious so to do. I remind him that this time last year he said that it would start "within weeks". This time last year he said that there would be recovery by the end of the year. Why is he much more coy now, a year later, in giving us a firm forecast on when Britain can rejoin the countries that enjoy some growth, since we have now had two years with negative growth under his Government?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman should now know that we are on our way to recovery, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know perhaps why the recovery was later than it might have been, I quote the words of the general secretary of the Labour party who claimed that the Labour party did not win the election because of the
    "fear of high tax, plus general unease about [Labour's] economic competence."
    That did no good at all while the right hon. Gentleman was boasting that he would be sitting on this side of the Chamber.
    Mr. Renton: While I hope that the Irish people will reach a positive conclusion in their referendum today, does my right hon. Friend agree that the holding of referendums on major constitutional issues runs contrary to the practice of parliamentary sovereignty in this country and that further, it would be impossible to boil down the many complex issues of the 134-page treaty of Maastricht into one short, but fair and comprehensive question? Further, has the Prime Minister noted—
    Madam Speaker: Order. One question.
    Mr. Renton: —the recent twists and turns on the European issue by the Labour leader?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is being very unfair in putting so many questions in a short space of time. I call the Prime Minister to answer the first two.
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's comments on the subject of referendums. I believe that he states the classical position concerning parliamentary democracy.
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Fyfe: As the Prime Minister says no to a devolved Scottish Parliament. against the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people. and also says no to a referendum on how Scotland should be governed, will he tell us to what, after 10 weeks of taking stock, he is prepared to say yes?
    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Lady when we have concluded taking stock.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech to the Adam Smith Institute, in which he advocated more choice and opportunity for the less privileged in our society. Does he agree that we have a lot to do for our inner cities—and in particular that we must ensure that standards in inner-city schools are raised?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that. We are determined to raise standards in all our schools, and especially to deal with the problem that clearly exists in many of our inner-cities. I believe that school governors and education authorities must act quickly where inspectors' reports show that standards are unacceptably low. That is too often the case in many of our inner-city schools, and the Government do not intend to stand idly by and see it continue.
    Mr. Ashdown: What will the Prime Minister do about unemployment, which is now rising inexorably towards 3 million? It is now two months since the election, and only a handful of weeks until school leavers come on to the register. Are the Government so consumed by self-satisfaction and so sunk in lethargy that they offer no hope, no policies and no action for those who are losing their jobs?
    The Prime Minister: I am in no sense satisfied with the level of unemployment in this country, and I have made that clear before. We need the right sort of economic policy, which will sustain long-term employment prospects; that is what we are putting into place and we shall ensure that we achieve it.
    When the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asks for action he means short-term subsidy—that is what he is really asking for. His only answer is to subsidise the inefficient, the uneconomic and the out of date. No wonder the Liberal Democrats have so much in common with the official Opposition.
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is the Prime Minister aware that a distinguished predecesor and former Minister for administrative affairs—Mr. Jim Hacker—reaches pensionable age today? In the spirit of that great statesman, I, too, welcome the Prime Minister's speech to the Adam Smith Institute this week. I also ask my right hon. Friend to urge his colleagues at tomorrow's citizens charter seminar at No. 10 to press forward with further improvements to our public services. In particular, will he tell us whether we can expect the publication of a courts charter, to deal with the interminable delays to which so much of our law is subject?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend touches an important matter, which causes frustration for many of our fellow citizens. We are proceeding to produce a courts charter and I hope that we shall be able to make announcements about it before too long.

    Libya (Sanctions)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on representations from Arab countries about sanctions against Libya.
    The Prime Minister: We have had various approaches from Arab countries about sanctions against Libya. We and the Arab League share the same objective—to see a satisfactory outcome to the Lockerbie problem. This, as the Arab League well knows, will require Libya's full compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution 731.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the light of my two letters to the Prime Minister on this subject, will he consider putting in the Library a response to the cover story of Time magazine— not exactly a publication of the left—which challenges the whole basis of the Anglo-American position? Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider approaching Spain on the legal proceedings relating to Monzer al Kassar, a Syrian drugs and arms dealer?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the article in Time magazine; I examined it and sought advice on it. The theories about involvement and links with drugs are not new. They were thoroughly examined by the police during the investigation and were discounted at that stage, at the conclusion of the investigation. No evidence has yet been found to link the Syrian, al Kassar, to Lockerbie—but I shall, of course, examine the matter again in view of the hon. Gentleman's representations.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend enlighten the House about any dealings between Government officials and the Government of Libya over links between the Libyan regime and the Irish Republican Army? Has the IRA received any supplies from Libya recently? Have the Libyan authorities given assurances to the Government that they will not continue to supply the IRA?
    The Prime Minister: The Libyans have provided some information to the Government about their relationships with the IRA; they did so in Geneva on 9 June. The

    1039
    preliminary assessment of that information suggests that although in places it was incomplete and unsatisfactory, it contains some positive elements which may well prove useful. One positive development is the fact that the
    1040
    Libyans have indicated to us that they wish to cease providing assistance to the IRA. We are not convinced that that is yet the case.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 JUNE—Progress in Committee on the Boundary Commissions Bill.
TUESDAY 23 JUNE—Until about seven o'clock, completion in Committee of the Boundary Commissions Bill.
Proceedings on the Protection of Badgers Bill [Lords], Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [Lords], and the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [Lords], all of which are consolidation measures.
Motions on the Criminal Law orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Debate on reports from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (House of Commons Papers Nos. 108 and 326) on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE—Until about seven o'clock, motions on the special grant reports for England and Wales. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order.
THURSDAY 25 JUNE—Debate on the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 26 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 29 JUNE—Remaining stages of British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 24 June to consider European Community Document No. 7857/91 relating to vehicle noise.
There is one further piece of intelligence, possibly rather more welcome, which I can communicate to the House. The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Thursday 16 July until Monday 19 October. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House should not get too excited about that last item of information.
[Tuesday 23 June:
Criminal Law Orders

(a) Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order

(b) Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Amendment) Order

Wednesday 24 June:
Special Grant Reports

(a) Special Grant Report (No. 4) 1992–93

(b) Special Grant Report (Wales) 1992

European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Document
7857/91 Vehicle Noise
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee HC 29-xxx (1990–91) and HC 24-v (1991–92).]
Dr. Cunningham: The welcome for the right hon. Gentleman's announcement of the summer recess is evident. Would it not have been better if that announcement had been made in the context of a debate in the House on the proposals in the Jopling report? May I again urge the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on that important report before we reach the summer Adjournment?
May I welcome the Government's announcement and the decision by the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on the important Rio summit? However, I express regret that the debate will take place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House and not on a substantive motion setting out the Government's detailed ideas and proposals on how they will implement the general agreement reached at the Earth summit in Rio.
I strongly urge the Leader of the House to find Government time for a debate on the appalling level of unemployment. Is it not a daunting—indeed, dismaying —prospect for young people leaving schools, universities and colleges this summer who face such difficulties in finding employment? May we have a debate? May we have a statement at that time about what new ideas, policies or initiatives, if any, the Government intend to take as a matter of urgency to tackle the inexorable and appalling rise in unemployment?
Mr. Newton: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the recess dates. Obviously, I note what he said about the wider proposals of the Jopling report. Although a debate is not scheduled for next week, it is our firm intention to provide time for a debate on the report before the House rises on 16 July.
On the Rio summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear on many occasions that the wide-ranging discussions at Rio were part of a continuing process rather than something that is implemented at one time. The nature of the summit, the problem and the on-going action and consideration that will be required in Britain and elsewhere makes it more appropriate to have a wide-ranging debate on the Adjournment than to attempt to devise a motion along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
On the unemployment figures, there will obviously be several occasions, not least the various Adjournment debates and other occasions during the next few weeks, on which it will be possible to debate the unemployment figures. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not overplay his hand. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in response to questions this afternoon, the figures this month seem to confirm a slowing down of an albeit unwelcome rise in unemployment. As for initiatives, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have registered the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has announced today a significantly higher new target for the Employment Service for placing people in new jobs in the coming year.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing anxiety about the delay in establishing the departmental Select Committees? As there is even less time before the recess than we expected, it is important that they should be set up so that they can appoint advisers and determine their programmes, and so that the Clerks can begin their work. Although there may be particular points which give cause for further

1043
negotiation on certain Committees, there is no reason why most of the Committees should not be set up in the next two weeks.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend is aware of the endeavours that I am making in this respect. The discussions are taking place through the usual channels. One of the debates that I have announced this week, on which I have been pressed from both below and above the Gangway—the debate on Members' interests in relation to Select Committees—is a further step in paving the way to setting up the Select Committees.
Mr. A. J. Beith: May we have a Government statement as soon as possible on the announcement this afternoon that Yorkshire Television is to take over Tyne Tees Television by agreement with Tyne Tees Television? Does the Leader of the House recall that, in debates on the Broadcasting Bill, the Minister was pressed from this Bench many times on possible takeovers of smaller regional companies? Should not the House now be told why the responses and assurances given at that time have been shown to be of no value?
Mr. Newton: Of course, I shall make sure that the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who is responsible for these matters, is drawn at once to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, he is aware that the Broadcasting Act 1987 makes provision for mergers and takeovers with the approval of the Independent Television Commission. I understand that the commission will continue to enforce the original licence conditions.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As a gesture to show our appreciation to the voters of Denmark for bringing about a longer summer break, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on how the British Government can let the voters of Britain know what is in the Maastricht treaty?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to publish a substantial additional document between now and next week. As I believe was fairly commonplace in what might be called gossip around the place at earlier times, it has persistently been the Government's wish and hope to get the House up in the middle of July, in line with one of the Jopling report's recommendations.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Leader of the House send the sincerest apologies of the House to the Government and people of Sweden for the crass behaviour there this week, of vandals who represent only 3 per cent. of football supporters in this country? Will he approach the president of the Union of European Football Associations, perhaps through the diplomatic channels, and ask it not to ban clubs such as Sheffield Wednesday—my club—Manchester United and Leeds United from playing in Europe next season, because there supporters and players have committed no crime and it would be unfair to punish them in that way?
Mr. Newton: I shall ensure that the attention of UEFA is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. On his first question, I am in the happy position of being able simply to say yes.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Members have received correspondence from the Minister for Housing and Planning about the planning inspectorate agency, informing us that the answers to questions normally published in Hansard will instead be put in the Library. Will the Leader of the House consider publishing daily, as an appendix to Hansard, questions asked by Members so that there is some record of what they are asking the planning inspectorate?
Mr. Newton: That issue arose on several occasions during the last Parliament as the executive agencies were being set up. I think that my hon. Friend understands the position. The Government wish to improve access to the letters answering such questions in some circumstances, and have put proposals for their publication to the House authorities. Now that the House Committees have been reconstituted, I hope that it will be possible for an early decision to be taken.
Mr. Tony Banks: Now we know that we are to have an even earlier summer recess, will the Leader of the House tell us when we can debate the vexed matter of research and secretarial allowances? It is a crucial issue and we need to debate it because too many people outside the House seem to believe that research and secretarial allowances are an addition to Members' pay. I had to pay back an additional £5,000 to the Fees Office last year because of excess demands upon my office. We need a debate before the summer recess.
Mr. Newton: I agree that we need such a debate before the summer recess and it is my intention that there should be one, but I cannot give an exact date.
Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are still a seafaring nation? I have been asking for some time for a debate on shipping and ports policy, possibly attached to a debate on transport infrastructure. The problem is being studied by three or four different Departments and it would be useful to have a debate in the ouse to bring it all together.
Mr. Newton: I appreciate my hon. Friend's long interest in such matters in the House, and I note his request. I would not wish to excite hopes of being able to accommodate his wish before the summer recess, but I shall certainly bear it in mind.
Ms. Estelle Morris: Will the Minister find time next week for at least a statement on the rights of parents of children with special needs to choose the school that their child attends? Will he include in his statement a response to the representations that I have made on behalf of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. McNerlin, about their nine-year-old autistic son Daniel, who has not been to school for 16 months as a result of a difference of opinion between his parents and the local authority?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Lady's reference to the case, which will no doubt be examined by those responsible. On the general issue, she will be aware, I am sure, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is working on some education proposals. I shall ensure that his attention is drawn to the matter about which the hon. Lady has expressed concern.
Mr. John Greenway: During Home Office questions today my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department paid tribute to Special Constable Glenn Goodman of the North Yorkshire police. May we have a debate soon on the police service? In recent weeks the Home Secretary has made important speeches about policing policy to the Association of Chief Police Officers conference and before that to the Police Federation. Does not my right hon. Friend share my concern that the arrangements about payment of a pension to Constable Goodman's widow are in some doubt? Is that not a matter that the House should consider?
Mr. Newton: I echo the earlier remarks made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, while I acknowledge his legitimate concern about the matter, I cannot promise a debate. However, I shall bear his request in mind.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on the housing crisis? Is he aware that, this week, my local authority found that it had no bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation for the elderly and had to appeal to the citizens of Halifax to take in the homeless? Is he further aware that the Federation of Housing Associations published a report this week stating that it could no longer build affordable homes, which is all due to the Government's housing policies? Is it not time that we spared just one day for a debate on the homeless to show that we really care?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should observe that the Opposition had a Supply day this week and it would have been open to them to raise that subject if they had wished to do so. However, as I said in reply to the request from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for a debate on unemployment, it will be possible to raise various matters in what remains of the Session before the summer recess. The Government are concerned to make some improvements to housing policy, and that was manifest by out commitment in the Queen's Speech to introduce the Housing Land and Urban Development Bill. That will certainly provide the hon. Lady with many opportunities to discuss housing later in the year.
Mr. John Butcher: In the aftermath of the events in Sweden, in which the sub-humans who call themselves football supporters dragged England's name through the mud, may we have a debate on civil liberties? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we do not interfere with the civil liberties of that mindless minority, it will damage the civil liberties of us all?
Mr. Newton: I need not go so far as to promise a debate in the terms sought by my hon. Friend. However, he will probably be aware that we have reached an agreement with the Swedish Government whereby English supporters who are convicted of football-related offences in Sweden may be made the subject of restriction orders. That would prevent them from causing further trouble at overseas matches, which is something that the whole House wants to ensure.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on his reply to the hon. Member
1046
for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) on the safety of vessels? He will be aware of the Select Committee report from another place that dealt with that matter. Will the House be able to consider that report in order to give us some idea of the Government's position in relation to it?
Mr. Newton: I have enough difficulty from time to time in accommodating the desire to debate the Select Committee reports of this House without entering into a commitment to debate Select Committee reports from another place. The hon. Gentleman can press me further and, clearly, he intends to do so. However, I cannot promise any more than I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill).
Mr. James Paice: Will it be possible to have a debate soon on the problems caused by travellers? Many Conservative Members have commented in meetings at which I have been present about the widespread problems that are caused by travellers. The problems are caused not by the traditional romany but by Johnny-come-latelies, who park anywhere, take no notice of people's property and have no respect for the law or anything else. We need a debate, and some action to tighten up the legislation.
Mr. Newton: That subject has been raised on several occasions during business questions in the past few weeks. Although I cannot add to what I have said before, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that our hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) is to initiate an Adjournment debate on Monday 29 June under the heading "Camping by travellers".
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, instead of packing up and going on holiday on 16 July, we should debate next week, and extend the other business into the holiday period, the question of opencast mining? Several early-day motions appear on the Order Paper relating to opencasting in many constituencies. Is he further aware that opencast production has more than doubled in recent years? Does he appreciate the need to withdraw a circular that was issued in 1984 which enables opencast mining to occur not on the basis of planning conditions but in relation to whether the coal is needed? As we do not need coal through opencasting—because we have plenty of deep-mined coal—let us debate the whole subject, including that planning arrangement, so that the circular can be withdrawn and we can reduce the amount of opencast mining that is blighting countless constituencies in Britain.
Mr. Newton: Without endorsing everything that the hon. Gentleman said, I am aware that there is concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent coalmining areas about some aspects of the matter. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House will be debating legislation concerned with coal this Session, so I am sure that there will be a number of opportunities to raise the issue.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate whether the Secretary of State for Health should kindly provide skilled counselling or other help for Labour Members who seem to be slating

1047
one another on their election tactics when what they really need to do is come to terms with the fact that the British people just do not want a Labour Government?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may think that that is a good subject for a Supply day debate, but I had better leave the Opposition to make their own decision on that.
Mr. David Winnick: Will it be possible for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement early next week on whether a formal application will be made by the British authorities to ensure that any funds owned by the Maxwell foundation are returned to this country to be used for the pensioners who were swindled? Is he aware that, when we went to the Swiss embassy yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and I made that point strongly and were told that no formal application had yet been made? Perhaps we could have a statement about that.
Mr. Newton: I will draw that request to the attention of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of what has been reported from those concerned with some of the funds allegedly held in Liechtenstein, and he has probably welcomed some of the comments made in recent days about that. I am sure that the unit that my right hon. Friend has set up will do everything possible to assist in any way, whether in Liechtenstein or elsewhere, to ensure the maximum possible recovery of funds for the Maxwell pensioners.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are many matters of current concern—from the situation in Yugoslavia to the activities of certain sections of the press—which could, and probably should, be the subject of Select Committee inquiries? May we have a definite assurance that before the House rises the Select Committees monitoring the work of all Departments will be established?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what were intended to be as helpful as possible remarks that I made on the subject earlier. In view of the well-known fact that there must be extensive discussions on those matters, I cannot give my hon. Friend the definite assurance he is seeking, but I assure him that I shall continue to use my best endeavours to make progress along those lines.
Mr. Peter Hardy: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities to the House, may I ask him to look soon at the question of the future leadership of the Council of Europe delegation? Does he agree—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with the business for next week. Perhaps he will rephrase his question so as to make it acceptable.
Mr. Hardy: Will the Leader of the House do it next week? Will he, in the coming few days, consider whether it is desirable to ensure that the democratic factor is not overlooked and the fact that it would not be desirable, although it might be unavoidable, for some Opposition Members to lodge an objection to the British credentials should an unfortunate decision be made?
Mr. Newton: I know that the hon. Gentleman raised that matter in the Council of Europe a few months ago, and I followed his comments carefully and what happened afterwards. I can do no more this afternoon than note what he has said.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make an early statement to the House about the safety of electrically operated car windows? That would provide an opportunity for us to find out what motor manufacturers are urgently doing to increase the safety of such windows, particularly by applying sensors. My right hon. Friend may care to know that the recent tragedy of Lucinda Richardson occurred to a family in my constituency.
Mr. Newton: In the light of my hon. Friend's final point, may I, on behalf of the whole House, join in the sympathy expressed by many people to the parents of the child killed in that tragic accident? I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my hon. Friend's request.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Next week, or before the House adjourns for the summer, will the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General make a statement about the fate of Sir John May's inquiry into the miscarriage of justice in the Guildford and Woolwich cases? It is now two years and 10 months since that inquiry was set up in an atmosphere of some urgency and the Home Secretary make a statement to the House, but Sir John May has not yet commenced the main part of his inquiry. There is a widespread view that he will never be permitted to do so because of where the trail of responsibility leads.
Mr. Newton: I recall the hon. Gentleman raising that matter in the Whitsun Adjournment debate, when I ran out of time and could not comment on it. As I told him informally afterwards, I have drawn his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I shall do so again in the expectation that my right hon. Friend will wish to respond to him in an appropriate way.
Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate London's docklands and the project to extend the Jubilee line? Is he aware that Canary wharf accounts for only some 150 acres out of 5,500 acres in docklands, and that the Jubilee line is needed to help to revitalise south as well as east London and is of major importance to the future of our capital city?
Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but he would not expect me to add to the answer given a few moments ago by the Prime Minister and, a day or two ago, by the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Tom Pendry: Is the Leader of the House aware that, whatever good wishes the House may wish to extend to the people of Denmark, leaving early for the summer recess is not one of them? I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we have come here to do a job and would like to continue working to a later date. Will he make a statement next week, having thought again about that date for closing down? The Government should recognise that they gave an obligation to legislate on ticket touting and, since January 1990, they have been saying that when parliamentary time allows they will

1049
legislate on it. On 16 May, the Prime Minister said the same. We now have time to do so, so will the Leader of the House consider it?
Mr. Newton: I note the request and, with some amazement, the fact that this must be the first time that any Leader of the House, having announced the dates for a recess, has been confronted with a demand that it be delayed.
Mr. Bob Dunn: May I revert to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on traveller families? As my right hon. Friend knows, many of our constituents are fearful that they face another summer with wave upon wave of traveller families attacking our communities, with no protection from or application of the law. May we please have a debate on the matter before the House rises?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give the undertaking precisely in the terms for which my hon. Friend asks, but he will be aware of the concern expressed following the incidents that occurred in the west country a few weeks ago. The lessons of that will, as far as possible, be learned by police forces throughout the country, and that may he at least as effective as seeking to make hasty changes in legislation.
Mr. Andrew Miller: In the light of earlier comments to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about unemployment and comments earlier this week on the Rio summit, will the Leader of the House ask the President of the Board of Trade and the Department of the Environment to address the House next week on the fact that 108 people have been dismissed from the Kemira factory, which manufactures fertilisers, in my constituency? It is suffering drastically from eastern European dumping in circumstances that would be untenable in this country and in environmental conditions that we would not tolerate.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that next Thursday there is to be a wide-ranging debate on environmental matters arising out of the Rio summit. It struck me as he was asking his question that it would require only a modest amount of ingenuity to work his point into that debate.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Further to the questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), will my right hon. Friend reconsider his position on gipsies? Does he agree that the problems of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 are at the root of the difficulty? Is he aware that my constituency has the biggest problem in the county of Leicestershire? Some farmers in my constituency have been told by illegal travellers that they will have their ricks and barns burnt if they do not let them reside on their land.
Mr. Newton: I deplore any behaviour of the sort outlined in my hon. Friend's latter remarks. Three of my hon. Friends have now expressed concern, which I am sure is widely shared, about the issue. I shall draw that fact to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement next week on the Leeds-Bradford electrification scheme for which, as the Leader of the House may be aware, authority has been granted for overhead electrical
1050
equipment but not for rolling stock? The Government are recommending leasing, but the Industrial Bank of Scotland is refusing to go ahead on the present terms as it is unhappy about the proposed privatisation and does not believe in the marketplace when it can operate against its interests. That is placing the scheme in jeopardy. We need a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport to clarify the position on the much-needed scheme as the commuter services between Leeds and Bradford are heavily used. If the scheme does not go ahead, 200 jobs in Leeds will be lost.
Mr. Newton: In my statement, I referred to a debate next week on the remaining stages of the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill, and only a modest amount of ingenuity would be required for the hon. Gentleman to raise his question during that debate.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity to debate the European Union (Public Information) Bill? If the British electorate are not to be given an opportunity to express their views in a referendum, the Government should at least give them the opportunity of knowing what their Members of Parliament will decide on their behalf in light of the profound and fundamental constitutional issues at stake in any treaty of union.
Mr. Newton: Having urged the exercise of ingenuity on other hon. Members, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's ingenuity in finding a way of raising an issue about which he is anxious. However, I do not think I can promise time to debate that Bill next week.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the second time that I have been called this Parliament, and I am delighted and grateful.
In view of recent events, in view of the fact that the Press Commission under Lord McGregor of Durris, with its self-regulatory code, is proving less efficient than its predecessor the Press Council, and in view of the fact that the trial term of the Press Commission is about to finish, may we have a debate next week on the necessity for proper regulation of the conduct of the popular press in this country?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is about to embark on a review of the Press Commission, which is coming to the end of its trial period. I am sure that in his review my right hon. and learned Friend will wish to take into account the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a full debate on the arts, certainly before the summer recess, so that the excellent new National Heritage Department can set out its arts strategy? Another reason for a debate is that the Arts Council has recently published a consultative paper on its strategy, comments on which must be returned by July. I think that my right hon. Friend would agree that the House should have a say in that consultation process.
Mr. Newton: I share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of these matters, but he would be surprised if I were to respond in exactly the way that he invites me to do. I want first to make sure that I have time for debates on the Jopling report and office costs.
Ms. Liz Lynne: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 266?
[That this House, noting that the profits of the electricity supplier Norweb have risen by 96 per cent. in the last year, calls on the company to issue a clear statement as to how the £138 million profit is to be invested; notes that all the regional electricity companies are overcharging their customers; and urges that some of Norweb's £138 million profit makes its way back to the consumers through reduced prices.]
Will he find time next week for an urgent debate on the profits of all the privatised utilities?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady would be surprised if I were to respond quite as she requests me to. I merely observe that I sometimes wonder about the complaints that I hear to the effect that many industries which for long periods performed extremely badly and invested far too little are now far more successful and are investing large sums in providing much better services for their consumers.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend initiate an early debate on law and order, especially to emphasise what happens to offenders who are on bail, on parole or on home release from prison, and the problems of ensuring that those who have left prison do not reoffend? Chief police officers are keen that those whom their officers arrest should not immediately return to the streets to offend again before they even come to court.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate on that, although I well understand my hon. Friend's concern and will draw it to the attention of the Home Secretary.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to be made by the Government on the proposed halving of the number of Customs officials engaged in anti-smuggling activities at Birmingham and Coventry airports—cuts which could open the west midlands to the easier importation of drugs, pornography and terrorism? Can the statement be made in the light of the Prime Minister's recent commitment to maintaining effective border controls—a commitment which will have a shamefully hollow ring if the cuts take place?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges by implication the determination that the British Government have expressed on a number of occasions to ensure the continued effectiveness of controls to prevent, for instance, drug offences. I also note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I know that the Leader of the House will not be aware of the details, but recently the Department of Transport sanctioned the closure of the driving test centre in Rutherglen without giving notice to the public or me. Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's support for the citizens charter, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come to the House next week to make a statement that matches the ideals of the citizens charter against the behaviour of the Department of Transport?
Mr. Newton: I must acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is right to think that news of the closure of the
1052
driving test centre at Rutherglen had not yet reached the Privy Council Office or that of the Leader of the House, but I will ensure that the news reaches the office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Mr. Norman Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the Prime Minister state that the Government continue to take stock of the Scottish situation that resulted from the general election. What is the apparatus within the Government for the stocktaking? When will it be completed? And may we have a debate on the future of the government of Scotland?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman obviously heard what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's questions. I intend to take the cautious line of adding nothing to it.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: As it appears that the Home Office is reviewing the rules and procedures for dealing with entry clearance appeals on cases refused under the primary-purpose rule, and that such cases are not being listed for appeal, will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on the exact purpose and, in due course, the outcome of that review? It appears that it is connected with a case before the European Court on which judgment is expected in late July, so may we have a statement before the House rises for the summer recess so that changes on this important matter are not made at a time when the House is in recess?
Mr. Newton: I am beginning to feel, as on one previous such occasion, that I am being asked questions that hon. Members were unable to ask during Home Office questions earlier. However, I shall draw that question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that many hon. Members representing constituents who are facing acute difficulties during the summer while the recession continues and unemployment continues to rise do not share the satisfaction evident on the Government Benches at the unduly long summer recess? Will it not be the longest recess of modern times, and does not that suggest that the Government are running out of steam in their first year?
Mr. Newton: Anyone who believes that will believe anything.
Mr. Mike Hall: Will the Leader of the House read early-day motion 201?
[That this House calls upon the Government to support Article 89 of the European Parliament resolution on a Community tourism policy by instigating a scheme of compensation for tourists who are not only victims of crime but who have suffered bodily harm as a result of a criminal act; and believes such compensation should be set at a European average level with an addition for any legal costs that may be necessary.]
It calls upon the Government to support moves in the European Parliament to introduce a compensation scheme for the victims of crime and those who have suffered actual bodily harm as a criminal act which should be paid at European level with additional payments for any legal costs incurred. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week to explain why Britain is opposing such moves in the Council of Ministers?
Mr. Newton: I understand that Britain already has probably the most generous criminal injuries compensation scheme anywhere. More than 60,000 claims were resolved in 1991–92 and the better part of £150 million was paid in compensation. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept too many strictures on the Government's record in that respect.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

Statutory Instruments, &c.
  COAL INDUSTRY
  That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  PARALYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 1387) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974
4.11 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.
The draft order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, under which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. I accordingly owe it to the House to give an account, obviously curtailed, of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland during the past year. In particular, I shall describe how, through talks with and between the four main constitutional parties, we have advanced our search for alternative political structures, just and durable in character, by which Northern Ireland may in future with general acceptance be governed.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State so early in his speech, but does he agree that those of us who have been involved in the talks have a responsibility to preserve the degree of confidentiality which has been so valuable thus far? For that reason, I do not intend to contribute to the debate. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also support my word of caution to the news industry, particularly the London heavies which persist in publishing reports which will destroy their credibility when they are contradicted by the facts?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of confidentiality. We have gained greatly from the extent to which the undertakings that all gave have been complied with. It is of great importance, at what is a particularly sensitive time in the process, that discussions take place within the privacy of the meetings themselves and are not conducted or supplemented in public. As to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, what he said speaks for itself.
What is our purpose in Northern Ireland? It is primarily to help the people of Northern Ireland themselves to secure a tranquil, just and prosperous way of life. Its people remain divided as a community, but I sense that increasingly there is manifested by ordinary people from each side a deep desire to see co-operation taking place to secure that aim. It is the Government's desire to foster that, because the people of Northern Ireland reside in what is part of the United Kingdom; not simply by virtue of the cartogropher's pen but by the will of a majority of them. They have and will continue to have from us the constitutional guarantee whose terms are very familiar to the House. We owe them that responsibility to help, just as we owe it to the peoples of England, Wales and Scotland.
The Government are in no doubt that the present arrangements for dealing with Northern Ireland's affairs must remain in place for the time being; but they are very long in the tooth—much longer in the tooth than is becoming for arrangements that were intended from the outset to be interim. We want the indignity that is inherent in those arrangements to be lifted from Northern Ireland as soon as is practicable.
Political talent abounds in the Province. That talent has been and remains eager to shoulder greater responsibilities

1055
of government within Northern Ireland, but there are complex and often conflicting interests to be accommodated—hence the Government's determination to do all in their power to help the participants in the talks to reach agreement. In the meantime, the Government will continue to do the job entrusted to them by Parliament with unflagging commitment to the people of the Province.
Let me explain how we have discharged our responsibility. Last week, the House had an opportunity to discuss security, which it did—properly and valuably—at some length. I do not propose, therefore, to detain the House long on the subject today, crucial though it is.
Over the past year, the campaign of violence by terrorists on both sides of the community has been maintained. When I opened Wednesday's debate, I illustrated the toll that had been exacted. Little is to be gained from rhetoric, for revulsion speaks for itself; nor is much to be gained from criticism that is confined to generalities rather than dealing with particulars. What is required is the resolute application of properly thought out, clearly formulated and co-ordinated policies, within the unbending discipline that is imposed on us by the rule of law. There has been, and there will be, no acceptable level of violence.
Our first priority has been to work towards the permanent elimination of terrorist crime. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, with the support of the armed forces, has operated to that end with courage and skill, and with the high degree of success that I described last week. Those forces will continue to need and receive our fullest support.
As I know the House recognises, to be fully effective security policies must be complemented by active social and economic policies: certainly that is the Government's view. The performance of the Northern Ireland economy is central to those policies. During the 1980s, Northern Ireland's rate of economic growth broadly matched the rate achieved nationally, but ever since then the local economy has been adversely affected by the worldwide recession.
None the less, the Province's economic performance has proved remarkably resilient in the circumstances. Regrettably, unemployment has risen by 5,300 over the year, and it now stands at 104,500. That figure represents 14.3 per cent. of the work force, and it is far too high. The rate of increase has, however, moderated in recent months, and is substantially below that of the United Kingdom as a whole. Similarly, although output and employment levels in Northern Ireland have fallen by about 2 per cent. over the year, that compares with United Kingdom decreases of about 3.5 per cent.
Moreover, recent business surveys point to an increase in business confidence in Northern Ireland, and to a welcome revival in export performance. Taken overall, the past year has provided encouraging evidence of Northern Ireland's economic resilience and capabilities.
The Province has a particular need for a strong economy, by reason of its special circumstances. Strengthening the economy is therefore a compelling objective for the Government, and we are pursuing it in a number of different ways. Within industrial support schemes, we have placed increasing emphasis on the types of measure that will secure material improvement in business performance and assist the companies that have
1056
the greatest potential for growth. We have set up an industrial research and technology unit within the Department of Economic Development. That will have the task of promoting innovation and higher levels of research in Northern Ireland industry. Those matters are vital if we are to secure competitive advantages in world markets.
The Local Enterprise Development Unit has recently completed an overhaul of its portfolio of assistance so as to reflect its new approach to the task of stimulating enterprise and developing small businesses. A combination of world economic conditions and renewed paramilitary attacks on business have undoubtedly made it a difficult year for attracting inward investment in Northern Ireland.
However, I am encouraged by the fact that more Northern Ireland companies than ever before participated in Industrial Development Board-sponsored trade missions and trade exhibitions last year. They illustrated the growing willingness and ability of Northern Ireland companies to look for export markets. I have already visited a fairly new company that exports pharmaceuticals to more than 90 countries. The IDB's efforts have produced immediate results, with £12 million-worth of orders generated and potential orders in excess of £48 million.
That trend has also been seen much closer to home. The evidence is the growing interest of industry and commerce in exploiting the opportunities that exist for trade with the Republic of Ireland. The Government believe that there is scope for a substantial increase in trade, which would lead to more jobs and greater wealth in both economies. We are co-operating fully with the major business organisations to bring that about.
I pay tribute to the efforts of the Industrial Development Board. It has been working very effectively with the Irish Trade Board to develop exhibitions and road shows that will help companies from the north or south to demonstrate their products and capabilities to each other. We are seeking also to open up the public purchasing market in Northern Ireland and in the Republic to small firms from all over the island.
Good communications are vital in facilitating trade. The Belfast-Dublin rail link, which the British and Irish Governments announced two months ago, will result in valuable time savings on the journey between Belfast and Dublin. Work on it will start later this year.
During the year, the activities of the Training and Employment Agency have increasingly reflected the need to stimulate improvements in company competitiveness. Therefore, we have substantially increased the agency's budget for management development programmes and a new company development programme has been launched to assist companies to improve skill levels and performance throughout their entire organisation.
The year 1991 was encouraging for the tourism industry, with Northern Ireland recording its highest ever number of visitors—1.19 million. Within that figure there was an increase of 18 per cent. over the previous year in the number of holiday visitors, which stood at more than 250,000. Earlier this year, legislation was introduced to give more powers to the Northern Ireland tourist board. We have increased the board's budget and that should provide a solid platform for further advance in developing Northern Ireland as a competitive and attractive tourist destination.
Although it is important for the Province to be prosperous, its society must be just. Therefore, the

1057
Government remain unequivocally committed to eradicating inequality of opportunity and relative disadvantage based on prejudiced discrimination wherever they exist in Northern Ireland.
The Making Belfast Work campaign has been at the heart of our effort and will continue to be so. This year, I announced that we were making available to the programme a further £26 million which will be carefully targeted. That will make the total allocation to date more than £100 million and by the end of 1994–95 the total will be more than £148 million.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Secretary of State's point about the Making Belfast Work campaign, but why has Belfast, South been ignored when grants have been given to north, east and west Belfast? There are some areas of extreme deprivation in south Belfast; it is not all the Upper Malone.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's proper concern. I am certain that Belfast, South is not ignored. Applications for grants under the Making Belfast Work campaign may not have been successful—not every grant can be. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who will reply to the debate, will consider that question and, if possible, reply in more detail.
Funding for the Making Belfast Work campaign is over and above the resources that Departments continue to put into these areas through their normal mainline programmes. The Government recognise, however, that significant inequalities persist in the social and economic conditions experienced in the two principal parts of the community in Northern Ireland. We believe that greater equality of opportunity can be achieved by improving the social and economic conditions of the most disadvantaged areas and people in Northern Ireland. If we can do that, the connotations for the healing of deep-rooted divisions in the community are obvious.
For that reason, the Government established the targeting social need initiative as a high public expenditure priority—the third, in fact. Targeting social need is a long-term programme. It will identify where the highest levels of disadvantage and deprivation exist and will analyse the precise extent to which Government policies have a differential impact on each side of the community. It will target resources and programmes more sharply on areas that suffer the highest levels of social and economic disadvantage. By those means, we intend to remove differentials and to rectify inequalities of that character. Work is afoot to put in place mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing not only this but other Government policies and programmes and to develop consequential action plans.
Our efforts to improve community relations between the different parts of Northern Ireland's community provide another component of our endeavour to promote a just society. We are committed to encouraging and securing greater contact between the communities.
I realise that it sounds extraordinarily trite to observe that greater acceptance of cultural diversity is necessary, but observations are trite only because they do not admit of dissent. The Government do not shrink, therefore, from proclaiming the need for acceptance, nor from putting their money where their mouth is—or, more accurately, the taxpayers' money. Support for community relations projects, co-ordinated by the central community relations
1058
unit and the Department of Education, has increased rapidly from about £250,000 in 1986–87 to £7 million in this financial year. Those measures should, over time, yield a worthy return.
I should now like to deal with the political talks that were initiated with such patience by my predecessor. As the House will understand, the talks have been a major preoccupation since my arrival as Secretary of State. In recent weeks, there has been intense activity, to which the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has already referred, as the parties have fully engaged on strand I issues. Those issues are to do with the nature of the relationships between the peoples of Northern Ireland, including the relationship between any new institutions and the Westminster Parliament.
The talks have been variously carried forward in plenary sessions, in sessions consisting of meetings between party leaders—either en bloc or individually with me—and in sub-committees chaired by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary or by senior officials. All involved have demonstrated an unflagging will to press on with the work in hand, even at the most difficult moments—and there have been some. I express my admiration and gratitude for that, as I do for the constructive tone of our discussions.
It would not be helpful for further progress if I were to describe the course that the discussions have taken. The important thing is that I can report to the House that in my judgment there is now wide agreement on the next steps in the process of the talks. Accordingly, on the joint invitation of the two Governments, Sir Ninian Stephen has convened a meeting of representatives of the two Governments and of the four participating parties for tomorrow. It is intended that a possible agenda for strand 2 shall be discussed. The Government and the Irish Government teams will be led on that occasion by senior officials.
The two Governments are also to hold a meeting next week to give preliminary consideration to the issues likely to arise in strand 3, when relationships on the east-west axis will be considered. The meeting will be attended, for at least part of the time, by observers from each of the Northern Ireland parties.
In my brief time as Secretary of State, I have been touched by the public's desire—"yearning" would not be too strong a word to use—that this time the talks shall succeed. I have gone out to meet people in the streets of Londonderry and Belfast, and they have impressed it on me there. I meet with it in all sectors of the community and in all places. Certainly, we can take heart from the fact that the talks continue to make headway and are following a constructive pattern.
That this is so is due to the participants' commitment and in great measure to their courage. Those qualities I know to be undiminished, but I owe it to the House and to the participants in the talks to warn that a task of great magnitude still lies ahead in the strands yet to be embarked on.
Mr. John Hume: Given what the Secretary of State was saying about the commitment of hon. Members from Northern Ireland, and given that, as is usual when Secretaries of State speak in the House, he began his remarks by guaranteeing to the people of Northern Ireland the state to which they belong, do the Government agree that, if the death and destruction that have taken place on our streets had taken place on the streets of Britain, that

1059
would have been the major issue in the general election? If the matter were then debated in the House, would not the House be packed? It is noticeable that there is only one hon. Member here who does not come from Northern Ireland, apart from Government and Opposition spokesmen. Do not the Government conclude from that the same as appears to us—there is a total lack of interest among the people of Great Britain and their representatives in the House?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that I should do well to address the right hon. and hon. Members who are present rather than reflect on those who are not. However, if there is a conclusion to be drawn, it might be to reinforce all of us in our desire to end the indignity to which I referred, whereby the people of Northern Ireland have very little local representation in matters affecting their government. That should therefore spur us all on to the goal of the talks, which is to set in place—if we can do so in a just, workable, durable and acceptable way—newly devolved administrative and political structures for the government of Northern Ireland by people answerable to the people of Northern Ireland in the first instance.
I was warning lugubriously, at the end of a speech which has, I hope, been other than lugubrious in tone, that we face a task of great magnitude in the remaining process of the talks. The Government will, of course, become a participant to strands 2 and 3. There are many difficult obstacles still to overcome which have hitherto proved intractable but
"if hopes were dupes, fears may be liars",
and I believe that all who are engaged are heartened and perhaps even inspired by the public desire, to which I referred, that we break out of the cycle of the past 20 years. Until we do so, Northern Ireland must continue to experience direct rule, and accordingly I commend the order to the House.
4.34 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: There were times during the Secretary of State's speech when I felt that he was almost tempted to stray into the next debate, on the appropriation order. But he manfully resisted the temptation, and in the next debate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) will respond to some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
On such occasions it has become a ritual almost as old as direct rule itself to express hope that more acceptable and mutually agreed political institutions will obviate the need for a further renewal of the order in 12 months' time. This time, however, there are some reasonable grounds for genuine hope that that is more than just a pious aspiration. The talks, which have been in progress for the past eight weeks, offer the possibility—I put it no higher than that, bearing in mind the warnings which the Secretary of State has just given the House—that new agreed arrangements may be in place by this time next year.
The Opposition have given full support to the present initiative since it was launched by the previous Secretary of State in 1989, and we shall continue to do so, in the knowledge that the best way to resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland is through a process of negotiation and agreement involving all the constitutional interested
1060
parties within the island of Ireland and between the two Governments. We therefore wish the participants in the talks well in their endeavours to secure agreement. None of us has any illusions about the difficulty of achieving that, and we recognise the great qualities of imagination and determination required of the negotiators. We firmly hope that they will live up to the expectations placed upon their shoulders not only by the people of Northern Ireland but by the people of the island of Ireland—and indeed by the people of all these islands, who have suffered and are under threat as a result of the situation in Northern Ireland.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that it is regrettable that greater interest is not shown by the House in the debate. Sadly, Members of the House may be reflecting the attitudes of constituents, and of the people of Britain in general. Indeed, I wonder if the attendance would be so depleted if a conscript rather than a volunteer army were serving in Northern Ireland.
We believe—to use a cliché—that no stone should be left unturned in the search for an agreement. We hope that the talks will cover all the relevant issues, and we feel strongly that they should move rapidly to strands 2 and 3. Above all, we hope that the Secretary of State will be able to present an agreed package to the House in the autumn, or early next year.
In the meantime, the Government remain solely responsible for the good administration of Northern Ireland. Last week we discussed security, so I have no intention of embarking upon that subject today. We shall discuss appropriation later. Now we are considering the whole subject of the direct rule of Northern Ireland, so it is important to consider one or two of the other issues, some of which the Secretary of State mentioned.
One issue which the Opposition feel must be regarded as a priority is that of equality of opportunity between the two major traditions in Northern Ireland. For us the principle of equality of opportunity is non-negotiable, and we were pleased to hear the Secretary of State underline that in his speech.
Equality of opportunity in employment is especially significant for those of us who hope to establish a just and peaceful society in Northern Ireland. A number of recent cases have shown the need for continued vigilance and progress on that score. The Government must make it clear to all employers and all employees, and especially to the state organisations, that neither they nor the House will tolerate discrimination, whether direct or indirect, and that remedial action must he taken to eliminate any unacceptable practices.
In that respect, the decision by Queen's university to review its employment practices after recent cases is to be welcomed, and we hope that it is a model that will be copied elsewhere. However, it is of the utmost regret that, years after the passage of the Fair Employment Act, it should be said of the Eastern health board by the tribunal dealing with the case of a woman applicant that it had
"spun a web of deceit. It was one of the most blatant pieces of discrimination by a state authority."
Mr. John D. Taylor: That report affects my constituency. The Protestant community in Northern Ireland regrettably see the Opposition spokesman as being concerned only about the under-employment of the Catholic community. At no time does he express concern about under-employment of the Protestant community. He has now referred to two cases, both of which affect

1061
under-employment of the Catholic community. There is massive discrimination against the Protestant community in the Eastern health board area. Some 75 per cent. of the people who live there are Protestants, yet only 55 per cent. of the employees are Protestants. When will Labour's official spokesman speak up for the Protestants of Northern Ireland as well?
Mr. McNamara: I do not speak up for the Catholics of Northern Ireland, or for the Protestants of Northern Ireland; I speak up for individuals who suffer discrimination. I will speak up in favour of those who suffer discrimination, whether Catholic or Protestant. If the right hon. Gentleman had paid a little more attention to speeches by Labour Members at the time, for example, of discussions on employment prospects at Harland and Wolff, and at times when there have been closures in other industries in Northern Ireland in which Protestants were the main employees, he would have heard vigorous attacks on Government policies that resulted in the threat of unemployment and actual unemployment for many members of the community for which he speaks. I hope that he, as a Member from Northern Ireland, does not speak only for the Protestant community, but that he speaks for all his constituents, Protestant and Catholic, who may suffer discrimination in any way.
The Secretary of State will also be aware of the increasing suggestions that race relations legislation in Britain should be extended to Northern Ireland to afford proper protection to the ethnic minorities there. Although we accept that a simple extension of the legislation would create difficulties with the existing legislation on discrimination by gender, religion and political opinion, we suggest that the Secretary of State considers the best way in which he can meet the spirit of the suggestions put forward by organisations such as the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
SACHR is a body whose importance the Opposition do not ignore. However, we feel that its effectiveness would be enhanced if the Government occasionally acted on its suggestions. Two years ago, SACHR produced its second report on equality. The report identified a number of issues on which progress could be made. SACHR proposed that the provisions of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 governing discrimination by Government Departments and by public bodies be strengthened and brought into line with the relevant provisions of the European convention on human rights. We believe that a bill of rights is necessary for Northern Ireland, but we think that, in its absence, partial measures such as those proposed by SACHR would at least demonstrate the Government's commitment to equality of opportunity.
SACHR also proposed that the impact of equality of opportunity and the treatment of all legislation, administrative decisions and policies should be monitored. We are happy to endorse that suggestion. We believe that such measures should be introduced immediately and that regular reports should be presented to Parliament and to any assembly that may emerge in Northern Ireland on matters such as the siting of industry and what effect that has on employment patterns in the area.
SACHR also proposed that discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of religion and political opinion be outlawed. That would bring
1062
Northern Ireland legislation into line with sex discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland and with race relations discrimination legislation in Britain. That proposal seems eminently sensible to the Opposition.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has spoken for some time on the laws governing discrimination, and on relating the law in Great Britain to the law in Northern Ireland. Surely, as a United Kingdom, we should have exactly the same law across the kingdom on these matters. Will he therefore support the concept of extending to the minority ethnic communities of Great Britain the laws that look after the interests of the various communities in Northern Ireland, especially in regard to employment?
Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman had read our election manifesto, he would have seen that we proposed a great strengthening of the law with regard to racial legislation within this island based on the principles and experience of what had been carried through in Northern Ireland—
Mr. John D. Taylor: There were no Labour candidates in Northern Ireland.
Mr. McNamara: The courtesy and good humour of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) are outweighed only by his intellect and by his ability to interrupt from a sedentary position.
Mr. Taylor: When will you give us candidates?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is widely known that seated interventions are to be deprecated.
Mr. Taylor: The Opposition spokesman has suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) should have read the Labour party manifesto. Does he understand that no one in Northern Ireland read it because the spokesman for the Labour party refused to allow candidates to stand in Northern Ireland?
Mr. McNamara: Again, the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The spokesman for the Labour party cannot prevent Labour party candidates from standing in Northern Ireland. The decision not to organise in Northern Ireland properly rests with the conference of the Labour party, which took a wise decision on the matter. We have every confidence in our sister party in Northern Ireland, the Social Democratic and Labour party. We have every confidence in its socialist principles and its ability to carry through socialist policies. We regret only that we are not sitting on the Government Benches with the SDLP supporting us.
Mr. David Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McNamara: This will be for the last time. I thought that this would be a short debate.
Mr. Trimble: I am a little curious about the hon. Gentleman's description of the SDLP as his "sister party". Did any Labour party candidates standing in the recent election receive a personal endorsement from any member of the SDLP? Did any other persons receive such an endorsement?
Mr. McNamara rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Gentleman continues with his speech, I must inquire how this matter relates to the motion.
Mr. McNamara: The matter relates to direct rule, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Hume: As leader of my party, I make it clear that I was proud to canvass for Labour candidates in the election.
Mr. McNamara: So too was the leader of the Irish Labour party. We are indeed an international party.
The Government have not treated the second SACHR report with the importance that the issues deserve. The response contrasts unfavourably with the attitudes of previous Secretaries of State when facing an earlier SACHR report on inequality in employment. We appreciate that there are many demands on the time of the Secretary of State and of his Ministers, not least at the present time, but we regard the equality issue as so fundamental that we urge the Government to take action. No one should have an excuse to claim that the British Government act only when forced to do so by international pressure.
This debate comes at a moment when the future of Northern Ireland is in the balance. We hope that a new system of government for Northern Ireland will emerge —a system that will command the consent and loyalty of the majority of its citizens, a system that will be capable of putting an early end to violence and a system that will bring about the peace, justice and prosperity for which the people of Northern Ireland long and for which so many of them have worked so hard for so long. If they achieved that, it would be a boon to not only Northern Ireland but to the whole of the island of Ireland and to the whole of the British Isles. Regretfully, we support the continuation of the legislation.

Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Mauritius Republic Act 1992

Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992

Pittenweem Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1992

Mersey Docks and Harbour Act 1992

British Railways (No. 2) Act 1992

Northern Ireland Act 1974
Question again proposed.
4.50 pm
Mr. William Ross: This has been an interesting debate so far. I begin by expressing my thanks to the usual channels and the Government for switching the orders so that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland might be discussed first. The constitutional position is the fundamental basis on which everything else in the Province is built, and it has properly been put first on the Order Paper.
I must confess that when I listened to the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) I began to wonder whether either or both of them would get around to the constitutional position. They talked about everything under the sun except that. Perhaps that is understandable, given the delicate negotiations that are being held at present. Nevertheless, this is a debate on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, its place in the kingdom and the desire of the House to uphold the will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the kingdom.
The statutory instrument is short and simple; one can read it in a few seconds. It does not appear to say very much, but, of course, the consequences are far-reaching. It is not the first time that we have had such an order before us. It is now 20 years since the Stormont parliamentary system was suspended and replaced by the present temporary system. But then, I believe that income tax was originally a temporary tax-raising system. It has persisted for an awful long time. I hope that, unlike the income tax system under which we currently labour, we shall eventually see the legislation come to an end and we shall not have to come back here year after year.
There are a couple of ways in which the temporary legislation can come to an end. One is to alter the present constitutional position of Northern Ireland by restoring a devolved parliamentary system—whether it is legislative or merely administrative is, for the purpose of the argument, immaterial. The other way is by so-called total integration into the rest of the kingdom. Of course, in either case, this annual jamboree would come to an end. So long as it continues, some people are encouraged in their violent acts. I shall come back to that later.
The order is not just short. It conceals within two lines the denial of democracy, as it is commonly understood and practised in the western world, to the people of Northern Ireland. There is no democratic accountability whatever in the Province. When that is understood, people begin to understand the resentment felt by not only Members of Parliament on these Benches but many people in the Province.
The denial of democracy subsists in the fact that, although we have elections, the people who are elected have no power whatever over the disposal of the revenues expended in Northern Ireland at the highest level of Government and very little power over the disposal of resources at the level of local government, where local finance is raised and expended.
The denial of democracy also subsists in the fact that policies resisted by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland have been put in place and sustained in an effort to buy off violent people. A great deal of what has been done in Northern Ireland has been an effort to buy off violent

1065
people by being nice to them. It did not work when the Danes were raiding not only England but Ireland, and it is not working now. It will never work.
The end result is that the system of government is out of touch with the ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State can go out on the streets of Londonderry or any village or town of Northern Ireland and talk to people there, but he is not just an ordinary chap from England. He is the Secretary of State and everyone there knows him as the Secretary of State.
When the Secretary of State makes himself available to his constituents, a different relationship pertains. When he goes to a meeting of his constituency association or holds a surgery, he will come away from such meetings or confrontations with a much clearer idea of what people think than he would ever get from talking to half a dozen folk on the streets of Northern Ireland. It is a different ball game. If the Secretary of State does not come away from meetings in his constituency with a clear idea of what people think, there is something wrong with his constituents. They must choose their words with rather more care than mine do.
The system of government in Northern Ireland is also ineffective. If the Secretary of State denies that, will he be kind enough to lay his hands on the report of yesterday's meeting of the Public Accounts Committee as soon as it is published? A scandalous state of affairs was exhibited to public view at that meeting, principally with regard to the purchase of X-ray equipment in the health service. I should like to believe that, if responsibility for such matters lay in the hands of Northern Ireland people, such scandals simply would not happen. The system of government and administration is ineffective and inefficient and it needs to be replaced. There is no reason why matters such as the purchase of equipment for the health service cannot be under the control of people in Northern Ireland.
The system is also secretive, in that no one in Northern Ireland and certainly no one on this Bench has any detailed knowledge of how, and how much, money is spent in Northern Ireland. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will come back to that point in the debate. Information on where money is spent emerges only when the consequences are seen. Sometimes that can take years; sometimes the information never emerges fully. We are aware of what has happened to money as if we are perceiving it through a mist. That is not acceptable to me and it should not be acceptable to those on either the Government or the Opposition Front Bench. People should know. We should be able to question. A Select Committee on Northern Ireland would perhaps go some way towards enabling us to do so.
When my hon. Friends and I listened to the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee yesterday, we found it not only interesting but sad. It was sad because there was no Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland on that Committee. A Northern Ireland member of the Committee would have known what matters were to be discussed and could have asked questions of people in Northern Ireland. He might have been able to put even more penetrating questions to those people appearing before the Committee than other Members of Parliament who do not have roots in the community and do not know what goes on in Northern Ireland. Personal detailed knowledge of a constituency is one of the great features of
1066
the House of Commons system of government and we should not abandon it in Northern Ireland. A vacuum exists at that level which needs to be filled.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of our party, has already said that he does not propose to take part in the debate because of the present discussions. Given the delicate nature of what is apparently going on, that is a wise decision. However, the discussions are designed to correct some of the matters that I have touched on in my remarks. I have no detailed knowledge of what is going on, as I am outwith those discussions.
Mr. John D. Taylor: And rightly so.
Mr. Ross: As my right hon. Friend should know, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley has taken the Trappist vow of silence in regard to those discussions and has stuck rigidly to it.
Mr. Taylor: That sounds like a sectarian comment.
Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend is making sedentary remarks again, and they are as amusing as ever.
A team of people have been given responsibility for these matters and are getting on with it. They also know that sooner or later they will have to sell the idea to the Unionist executive—a factor that has to be kept firmly in mind.
Mr. Taylor: Is that a threat?
Mr. Ross: No, it is not a threat, merely a statement of fact. Every party has its democratic views.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that he should be addressing me in the Chair. It looks as if a private conversation is going on on those Benches.
Mr Ross: I very much regret that you should think that you are being ignored, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been acquainted since I came to the House and I know better than to cross swords with you because I usually come off second best.
Whenever we, who are outwith the discussions, read the press reports, watch television or listen to radio broadcasts on the subject, it is interesting. I cannot figure out who feeds those things to the media. If it is the Northern Ireland Office press officials, they are to be condemned. If the information being given out by the press and other news media is accurate, it does not square with what has been leaked out by other means and appears in other newspapers. If the information that appears in the press here and in most of the papers printed in Ireland—both north and south—is correct, there is something wrong, as one will know if one keeps an assiduous eye on The Irish Times, which seems to have not leaks but torrents. Until now it has published all, or certainly most, of the initial positions of the parties involved in the talks.
The articles printed in the Irish press and those that have appeared in the rest of the media are so different as to make one wonder who is giving who a steer. If The Irish Times is correct, the innuendo and slant of everyday press reports seem to be so far from reality that one must think that they can be designed only to create mischief, which would do no one in the island of Ireland any good.
I long ago concluded that democratic principles do not have elastic boundaries—a thing is democratic in practice

1067
or it is not. A system is either ruled by the people or it is not, and the system in Northern Ireland is not. If some people have their way, it never will be. There seem to be many folk who are opposed to the Union and who are determined to resist the idea of democratic rule and practice to the last ditch.
Democracy cannot be denied to Northern Ireland any more than it can be denied to anywhere else. If the system that is brought into being is not democratic, it will not work; and if it does not work, it will cause greater misery, for it will be proof to some people that politics has failed. If we are to avoid that danger, we must have practical and workable structures, and those can only be democratic. Nothing airy-fairy will do, or will be accepted by the people of Northern Ireland.
The crunch issue in Northern Ireland is not social and economic, as is the issue between the spokesmen on the two Front Benches. In Northern Ireland it has always been a question of which nation we belong to. As far as most of us are concerned, the well-being of our people is tied in every way to the nation to which we belong. The vast majority of us desire to belong to the British nation, we consider ourselves British and we intend to stay that way. Elsewhere in the world when the power and dangers of nationalist feelings were ignored and trodden down, they burst forth again. It is very dangerous to try to tell people that they must either belong or be thrust out of the state of which they are a part. If politicians and civil servants try to bypass the will of the people, that will eventually bring its own reward. We saw that clearly in Denmark a short time ago.
People have an emotional tie to the nation to which they belong and will maintain it. Some folk like to analyse problems; some will analyse until doomsday, but will never reach any conclusions. The problem in Northern Ireland is simple. There is a divided community, but the two sides have much in common. Divided communities are not unusual but are common throughout the world. However, I reject the desire of one side of that community to cling to the idea that they must for ever be separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, in language and culture, thereby making the division within the island of Ireland deeper and more bitter.
I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has left us, as it must be especially galling to him—he has been so much in the lead in seeking ever closer union between the peoples of Europe—to find that he has to represent the separatist culture in Northern Ireland. If the desires for ever closer union expressed by the hon. Member for Foyle, which he promotes so assiduously, ever came to pass, there would not be two communities in Ireland, or a dozen in Europe, as they would all be one. If he is not working towards that end, what is he working towards, because that is the logical conclusion of his European policy?
The Government have been confused and have allowed themselves to follow a tortuous course, which has always seemed to have as its objective the avoidance of any democratic accountability in Ulster. They have been urged down that weary course by people who want a united Ireland. Perhaps we should ask why such a departure from normal democratic principles has been necessary to bring about such an end for Northern Ireland. Surely those who
1068
instigated that journey towards a united Ireland, the purveyors of that policy, know that their product is so unsaleable that no one in Ulster who values the British connection will ever purchase it. They would try every possible course of action before they would submit to being submerged in a united Ireland.
We have had tried the concept of power sharing, which is another name for minority rule. We are now presented with the concept of foreign commissioners being selected or elected to run part of the United Kingdom. If that came to pass, it would represent an abdication of responsibility to govern by the Government. Twenty years have passed since the first concept was introduced. The introduction of the second concept now simply confirms that our political opponents know that their product is not very good and that it is not now acceptable, never has been and never will be to the vast majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland. They do not have even the confidence to defend those policies for themselves. They need others to force them down the throats of the unwilling Unionist population in Northern Ireland. That policy has not worked and will not work.
If we are to find a reasonable solution to the problems of Northern Ireland, we must consider the United Kingdom as a whole. We must have the same basic system of government throughout the kingdom, but I accept that the various parts of the kingdom need a large measure of decentralisation from Whitehall. The Whitehall machine has become far too centralised: that belief would be echoed by many people on both sides of the House. We need a basic, sound structure to which to attach, or bolt on, as the Prime Minister said, bits to meet local needs.
There is nothing new in that. The legislation on the Northern Ireland statute book has long been separate, legally, from that of the rest of the kingdom. The Scottish legal system is also different. We have a Welsh Office and a Scottish Office, so we know that it is possible to create systems of administration that are somewhat different and take care of the needs of individual parts of the kingdom. They can and should be created.
On 1 June, the Prime Minister made an interesting speech in Ayr. He set out the clear limits that he would put on such bolt-on structures. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has studied that speech carefully, because of the backwash effect it will have on thoughts of what is possible in Northern Ireland. It is clear that the Prime Minister understood that a devolved Parliament would be a disaster if it were led by separatists. He called it
"a step half-way across a chasm".
He was right.
Devolution within the United Kingdom will work only if it is run by unionists, who desire to maintain the unity of the kingdom. If it is run by separatists, it will not work. It is bound to create a separate Scotland and a separate Northern Ireland, divide and destroy the kingdom and weaken its voice in the world. The Cabinet is clearly aware of that. The Secretary of State is constrained in what he can do in Northern Ireland because he knows that it must bear comparison with the policy in the rest of the kingdom. That is a fundamental fact of political life and he must learn to live with it, as the rest of us must.
It is strange that the Northern Ireland Office is unique and its policies are so different from those enunciated by the Prime Minister. The Northern Ireland Office is remote from the Prime Minister's control; it was also able to defy

1069
the control of his formidable predecessor. It carries on its policies regardless of changes in Government, elections, changes of Prime Minister or damage to the people and society in Northern Ireland. The policy of the Northern Ireland Office is to keep Northern Ireland at arm's length, and as different as possible, from the rest of the United Kingdom. Elected Governments are supposed to make policies and to have the strength and the will to put them into practice. If there are people in the machine who do not want to carry out those policies, it is the duty of Ministers to bring in people who will.
When we look back over the last 22 years, we see a tortuous policy that has kept the constitutional position of Northern Ireland in doubt. That policy is the root cause of violence in our Province. Until the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is put beyond doubt—both in words and in action—the violence will continue. The IRA and its fellow travellers will retain the hope that they will eventually achieve their ends.
Only the Government can make the changes. They know what must be done. The 1979 Conservative Party manifesto recognised what could be done. The Government know what can and must be done now. However, only time will tell whether they have the guts and the capacity to do that or whether the present incumbents in the Northern Ireland Office will fail the people of Ulster as much as their predecessors have done. The Secretary of State knows the score. Let him get on with it.
5.16 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: We have been invited by the Secretary of State to support the renewal of a system that is known as direct rule. No hon. Members thus far have put on record any details about what direct rule entails. If we are to make a qualified judgment and valuation as to whether we should support such a proposition, it might be worth while considering exactly what direct rule means and how it works.
I do not intend to give a detailed critique of the Government's economic strategy in Northern Ireland. To some extent, that was done by the Secretary of State when he underlined the present high unemployment figures. Many of us, including the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), are aware of the strong criticism that the Public Accounts Committee has made of some of the Northern Ireland Office's work. I suspect that in the debate on the appropriation order there will be further criticism of the fact that tens of millions of pounds have been spent on equipment that has not been used for three years, when it probably has a life of five years only before it needs to be updated. No doubt we shall come to that later.
I do not intend to go into details on the security situation in Northern Ireland. Suffice it to say that more than 3,000 people have been murdered during the period of what is known in Northern Ireland as "the troubles". There is no sign that the Government are grasping the nettle of terrorism or that they have the will to defeat it by taking the necessary steps. The number of people maimed and mutilated in Northern Ireland is now well over 30,000. Those cold statistics of violence trip off the tongue quickly and easily, but each of them represents a real story of anguish and sorrow to families the length and breadth of Northern Ireland.
1070
In a small community of 1.5 million people, with 3,000 people killed and 30,000 maimed and mutilated, few families have not been touched by the hand of terrorism. The failure of the Government to have the necessary resolute security initiative to tackle terrorism is inexplicable to those who have suffered at the hand of the Provisional IRA and their fellow travellers and terrorists on both sides of the community. We recognise that the terrorists are no less able today to continue their acts of terrorism than at any time in the last decade or so.
I wish to consider direct rule in terms of its political impact. When the House deals with legislation for England, Scotland or Wales, hon. Members who are sent here by their constituents have the opportunity of a First and Second Reading and Committee and Report stages of a measure, which then goes to the House of Lords, where a similar procedure takes place, and the measure may return here with amendments made in the other place. When we in Northern Ireland deal with such matters, by and large we deal with them through Orders in Council and we have the privilege of one debate, which in most cases lasts for an hour and a half.
When hon. Members who represent other parts of the kingdom deal with legislation, they can table amendments and hope to have them debated. Not so when we deal with Orders in Council. We are not permitted to amend legislation affecting important facets of life in Northern Ireland. We must take it or leave it. With a secure Government majority, that means that we must take it as presented by the Government.
In such circumstances, no real attempt is made, when we are presented with such legislation, to provide changes that would suit the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, there is ample evidence to show that on many occasions when all the parties in Northern Ireland represented here have been opposed to legislation, the Government have thought that they knew better and proceeded with that legislation.
So we have an unrepresentative system. It is undemocratic and inefficient. If it is all of that when we are dealing with legislative matters, it is just as much that when we are dealing with Executive and administrative matters. While in every other part of the kingdom, locally elected representatives in local government on the mainland have the power to deal with matters concerning education, health, housing, planning and so on, in Northern Ireland that is not the case. There, local government does not have any of those responsibilities. Local government representatives in Northern Ireland can deal with technical services —such as choosing the day when the bins shall be emptied —with the burial of the dead and with community centres and recreational facilities, but that is the sum total of the powers of local government in Northern Ireland.
We are being asked to endorse that system. The Secretary of State presents that system to the House and asks for support. It is not a system of government that any elected representative from Northern Ireland believes is satisfactory. When other parts of the United Kingdom want to deal with issues such as health, education or trade and industry, there is a Select Committee where such issues can be dealt with in great detail. Does Northern Ireland not deserve a Select Committee? Does it not have as much right as other parts of the kingdom to handle detailed consideration of such issues? We do not have those opportunities in the House.

1071
So direct rule is not a satisfactory system of government. As the Secretary of State knows—because I have been boring him and his colleagues for the last seven weeks—I believe in devolution for Northern Ireland. Power should be delegated to its elected representatives. That would be the best way of having local flavour in Northern Ireland legislation. It would involve using properly the knowledge of those elected directly by the people of Northern Ireland. They would have more say in decisions affecting Northern Ireland.
Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) referred to the Prime Minister's speech in Ayr. I had the privilege of being there when that speech was made. In it, my right hon. Friend demonstrated the effects of devolution on the future of Scotland and the suggestion of it being one step towards removing Scotland from the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that devolution would be right for Northern Ireland? I warn him that it would be one step towards what I feel sure he does not want, which is the separation of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom.
In my view, every Conservative Member believes that Northern Ireland should be totally integrated into the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is in danger of making a speech rather than an intervention.
Mr. Robinson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He will appreciate that in addition to making those remarks in Scotland, the Prime Minister referred to proportional representation during the election campaign as "Paddy's roundabout". Yet the Government perpetuate that system in Northern Ireland for elections to local government and, indeed, to assembly elections. So there seem to be double standards, not only in terms of devolution but in terms of representation from the point of view of the franchise.
Devolution is not new to Northern Ireland. We had it before and it was successful. I suspect that those who lived through the old Stormont Parliament, even from a nationalist's standpoint, recognise that it was more accountable to the people of Northern Ireland than under what we know as direct rule. The devolution that we had in Northern Ireland did not endanger the Union. Northern Ireland was as much a part of the United Kingdom as any other part.
I do not accept that every part of the United Kingdom must be dealt with in exactly the same way. Northern Ireland should not be dealt with in any less satisfactory a way than other parts. The remoteness of Northern Ireland from the centre of Government in the United Kingdom makes it essential that there is a form of devolution in Northern Ireland, with regional government for the Province in Ulster. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) need not worry greatly about the possibility of devolution in Scotland leading to separation. If I were allowed to go further, I would suggest to him that probably the reverse is true. Failure to have devolution in Scotland may lead to separation, and the future may reveal that to many hon. Members.
As for the relationship between direct rule and Northern Ireland, for the reasons I have stated, we need accountability in government in Northern Ireland. We
1072
need people who are answerable to the electorate there taking the day-to-day decisions. For those reasons, the talks process is vital, and that is why my party is committed to it, recognising that Northern Ireland should remain an integral part of, and have a close relationship with, every part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, in the context of devolution—perhaps devolution throughout the United Kingdom—it may be particularly important that the talks process takes account of what happens in other parts of the kingdom.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that no Unionist representing a Northern Ireland constituency would walk enthusiastically through the Lobbies to support the renewal of direct rule. The Secretary of State did not tell the House that we are doing more than simply endorsing the renewal of direct rule. Another piece of paper goes to the heart of how decisions are taken in Northern Ireland but does not come up for endorsement by the House, despite the fact that it is part of the Government's programme in Northern Ireland. Obviously, I refer to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Direct rule permits the Government of the Irish Republic, through that agreement, to have a role in Northern Ireland greater than that exercised by any elected representative from Northern Ireland. The Anglo-Irish Agreement can be given life because of direct rule. It is one of the main reasons why Union representatives participate in the talks process with such enthusiasm.
Therefore, the only message that I can give the Secretary of State tonight is that there is no enthusiasm on these Benches for direct rule or its renewal. Like the Opposition spokesman, I trust that this is the last time that we shall have a renewal debate. I want a permanent solution to the problems that have beset Northern Ireland. I want structures of government to be set up, which the people of Northern Ireland can support. in which their elected representatives can take part. and which will bring confidence to the whole community.
The Secretary of State said that he would say little about the matters going on in the talks process and both he and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) spoke about confidentiality. As a talks participant, I am bound by the same rule. However, I can tell the House that my colleagues and I are totally committed to that process and to doing everything within our power to ensure that it works. We are also committed to the people of Northern Ireland, and we say to them that our participation in that process is consistent with the principles that we share with them: that Northern Ireland is and will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom.
5.32 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Like many Northern Ireland Members, I am circumscribed by the confidentiality to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred in terms of the Anglo-Irish talks. However, it would be permissible to say that the people of Northern Ireland, from whichever part of the community they come, earnestly desire a fruitful conclusion to those talks. They strive for a resolution to our problems, which will give them, first, peace in their communities and homes and, secondly, an opportunity to strive a little further and faster in economic and social recovery. That is why so

1073
much rests on the participating parties and Governments in all three strands of the talks in which we are now engaged.
It would not be appropriate for me to discuss the detail of the talks in respect of the concept of direct rule. It is paradoxical that we are not allowed to address the subject matter of the debate. However, I can rebut some of the comments made in the debate. One of the problems in dealing with the situation is that people do not look at the problem before dealing with the solution. The remarks of the hon. Member for Derry, East (Mr. Ross) show that there is still a blinkered vision, at least in some quarters, of the problem before us.
To suggest that, in the present context of deaths and injuries referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, the history of the past 50 years and 20 years respectively amounts to the same problem as that experienced by Wales, Scotland or England is simply to deny the existing position.
Mr. Trimble: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that substantial nationalist movements exist in Wales and Scotland, as well as in Northern Ireland. The only factor distinguishing Northern Ireland from them is the fact that some nationalists in Northern Ireland resort to violence.
Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to history, which I know that he is well aware of. I shall not go into the historical causes of Northern Ireland's problems and the division that was imposed by force in the 1920s when Ireland was partitioned, creating the concept that force has its own success. For that reason, some people to this day take sustenance from the mistaken belief that force can achieve political change. I hope that we are in the process of illustrating clearly that that is not so.
Mr. William Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell the House that the Irish Republic would have come into being even if no force had been used by the IRA?
Mr. McGrady: I do not wish to be drawn aside at this sensitive moment in the talks, but history as it is written in books shows clearly that the force and the threat of force were major factors in the settlements of the early 1920s.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: On the point made by the hon. Member for Derry, East—
Hon. Members: Londonderry, East. There is the problem.
Rev. William McCrea: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to change the name of a constituency that has been decided by the House? The name of the constituency is Londonderry, East and no one has a right to change that.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Each hon. Member must be responsible for what he says, and I would not wish to intervene in that matter.
Mr. Mallon: With reference to the point made by the hon. Gentleman who made the previous interjection, is he suggesting that, if the rising had not taken place in 1916, the Republic of Ireland would still be an integral part of Britain? If so, he is not considering the progression that has taken place within Ireland, Europe and many other parts of the world.
Mr. McGrady: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention on an intervention. On constituency names, I have been surreptitiously successful in changing Hansard to record my constituency not as "Down South" but as "South Down" for obvious reasons. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the 50 years before the 20 years. It is the tradition of his party and may, for all I know, be his ambition on behalf of his party today, to re-establish a totally separatist, devolved Stormont Government. Again, if he examines history on that subject, he will find that it could not survive because of the manner and means of its administration.
I have strayed into constitutional matters, which I had hoped to avoid. I must return to the Secretary of State's comments on the stewardship of the Northern Ireland Office during the past year, although he can take the credit or blame for only about 25 per cent. of that year—the tenure of his office. He said that he would like to secure a just society for the people of Northern Ireland, and I shall comment on that aspect of the stewardship as distinct from the constitutional one.
The Secretary of State said that the economy was resilient and that business confidence—inspired by the possible and long-forecast economic recovery—meant that the economy was ready to spring forward. I refer him to the conclusions of a recent report of the Department's Northern Ireland economic council which gives one of its most depressing economic forecasts of the past three years. There seems to be some contradiction between the Government's interpretation of the economy and that of the Northern Ireland economic council.
Anyone considering that report, the lack of job creation results achieved by the industrial development board and its sister organisation, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, would become despondent about where the Northern Ireland economy is heading. Many of us are disturbed and perturbed about the IDB's change of objective away from targets towards the more nebulous sectors of marketing, research and promotion which, while good and proper in themselves, will not provide signs of the efficiency and worthiness of the enterprise. I hope that, in the ensuing months, the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for economic development will address that problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to fair employment and job opportunities. Many press reports have appeared during the past couple of weeks on the eastern health board and, more recently, about Queen's university and the can of worms that is opening there. In his wind-up speech, will the Minister of State say in what way, how often and against whom—in both the private and public sectors—the penalties of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 have been used? In how many cases have Government Departments taken action against firms and boards in the public and private sector?
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the way in which Protestants in Downe hospital in his constituency are discriminated against?
Mr. McGrady: I cannot join the hon. Gentleman in his condemnation, as it is based on a false premise. If he wishes, he can ask the Fair Employment Commission to report on that issue. He would then find that he would have to withdraw his accusation.

1075
I well remember that there was opposition from Unionists to the concept of fair employment. There is an old saying in my constituency that one should not hide behind the bush and shake it at the same time. It seems strange for people who opposed and condemned fair employment legislation to complain that there are no weapons to defend it. Will the Minister of State tell us what action the Government have taken to deal with people and organisations who have been found guilty, particularly as appointments to some of the bodies and boards mentioned are made by Government Departments?
Health boards have recently made some catastrophic announcements. I shall parochialise the debate and draw on my experiences in South Down. In the past few months three homes have closed: St. Leonard's at Warrenpoint, and Mourne House and Navan House in Newcastle. The Cowan-Heron hospital at Banbridge has also closed, and it is proposed to close the Nidurne hospital in Kilkeel and the Downe hospital in Downpatrick. That will mean that every hospital facility in the constituency of approximately 750 square miles of mountainous terrain will be closed, as will the old people's residential homes to which I referred.
If that is how the Government intend to secure a just society in Northern Ireland in terms of equity of treatment, opportunity and availability of health resources, God help the rest of us. I appreciate that the Northern Ireland Ministers present today have not been in their positions for long, and the policies may be a hasty translation of civil service intent.
Mr. Trimble: I am sure that it was merely a slip of the tongue by the hon. Gentleman, but I must correct him. Cowan-Heron hospital is in Dromore in his constituency, which underlines the difficulties. While there is still currently a hospital in Banbridge in my constituency, which is adjacent to his, there are ominous signs that it may face severe cuts or even be closed in the near future. That would aggravate his constituents' problems.
Mr. McGrady: On this occasion, I can thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and support, and I take note of what he says about the two hospitals at Banbridge and Dromore. However, the concept is the same—a pattern of closure.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to the imposition of the English health and social security regime by way of Order in Council. Implanting that system in Northern Ireland, and translating the education order—without a letter of it being changed—into an entirely different system—will reduce the effectiveness of the education system in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister ponder whether such activities are the result of financial constraints or a dogmatic translation of party philosophy? If those developments are the result of financial restrictions, we know where the answer might lie. If they are the result of party dogma, the policies must be adapted so that they suit the requirements of Northern Ireland.
I hope that the process on which we are now engaged will bring us together to address those issues. At either departmental or ministerial level, the policies seem to diminish the quality of life and the opportunities available
1076
to the people of Northern Ireland. If that is what direct rule means for the future, the people of Northern Ireland are in for a lean time.
5.48 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I am happy to say that, since the point when the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) intervened in the Secretary of State's speech to point out how few Members were present, there has been a slight increase in numbers in the Chamber. I could not help thinking at the time, however, that, although the Secretary of State had announced that he was using this speech to give an account of the way in which direct rule had operated over the past year, the absence of interest in the Chamber stemmed from the fact that he was not giving a proper account of direct rule. This is not a true exercise in accountability; it is merely a ritual which offers pretence accountability.
If there were true accountability, that would be shown at the Northern Ireland Office in the same way as it is shown at other Departments: the proper Committee system of the House would be used to subject the Northern Ireland Office to scrutiny. That does not happen. To pretend that a short speech delivered to empty green Benches is an exercise in accountability is to insult the intelligence.
A few months ago we marked the 20th anniversary of direct rule. It was introduced in 1972 in an Act whose title included the words "Temporary Provisions." I refer to the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972. Those temporary provisions have lasted 20 years.
When the then Administration decided in 1972 to suspend the Northern Ireland Parliament and to take direct control of affairs there, they did not need to put in place arrangements for direct rule. It was necessary only to suspend the Northern Ireland Parliament. The Parliament came into operation in 1921. Before then the affairs of Northern Ireland were treated in this House in exactly the same way as those of any other part of the United Kingdom—and so they had been ever since this Parliament was created. Since the creation of this Parliament in 1801 right through to 1921, the United Kingdom operated, generally speaking, as one political unit and the affairs of its constituent parts were handled in the same way.
Legislation meant proper legislation—the introduction of a Bill, First Reading, Second Reading, Committee and so on. That was what primary legislation meant, and matters were handled thus with no problems or difficulties between 1801 and 1921.
Between 1921 and 1972, Northern Ireland was granted devolution. The Conservative Administration wanted to terminate this form of devolution, however, and to achieve that they needed only to suspend the Northern Ireland Parliament and the status quo ante would be restored—legislation would be passed in the usual way, Ministers would be appointed in the usual way and there would be, one hoped, the usual accountability.
In 1972, the then Administration, followed by every successive one, took a deliberate decision to disapply normality so as to ensure that normal procedures were not followed. They did so by instituting for the first time in 1972 and thereafter renewing every year since the system that we call direct rule.

1077
The Secretary of State referred to this as an inherent indignity, which is putting it mildly. The indignity is inherent in direct rule, not in the circumstances that obtained in Northern Ireland before 1972. The indignity was created for the first time in 1972 as a deliberate act of the then Government and it has been repeated by every Government since—subjecting the people of Northern Ireland to a continuing indignity. So the apologies of the Secretary of State carry no weight with anyone familiar with the situation.
What is happening is misrepresented elsewhere, too. Like other Members, I cannot comment directly on the discussions taking place elsewhere, but I want to say one thing about those talks. I refer to an editorial in The Times on Monday this week. It was a curious piece, replete with inaccuracies:
"Fifteen years of direct rule are widely regarded in Northern Ireland as having been, on balance, a good thing."
There are two obvious errors in that statement. There have been 20, not 15, such years, and direct rule is not widely regarded as a good thing. One wonders what the editorial's source of information was.
The editorial goes on to say:
"direct rule has left intransigence more entrenched, local politics swamped by gang war … Direct rule has driven communal leadership away from politics, leaving extremists to rule the petty baronies granted them by direct rule. Public money has been spent as nowhere else in the United Kingdom".
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): That is true.
Mr. Trimble: I take it that the Minister is referring to public money having been spent in Northern Ireland as nowhere else in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Mates indicated assent.
Mr. Trimble: The obvious rejoinder is to ask whether the money has been wisely spent, and the evidence from the Public Accounts Committee yesterday shows that it has not been.
Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the confidentiality of the discussions to which I and all the other Members are adhering. What would he think of anyone involved in confidential discussions who, during those discussions, met leaders of paramilitary organisations to keep them informed of what was happening at the talks?
Mr. Trimble: I would not approve of that. I confess that I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's question. I am not aware of any such contacts with paramilitary leaders, but if the hon. Gentleman is, I should be grateful if he would tell me what they are. I am happy to give way to him for that purpose.
Mr. Mallon: Ask the Secretary of State.
Mr. Trimble: I notice Ministers shaking their heads. I know that it is a lot to ask, but perhaps when the Minister replies he will give us some elucidation—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have pointed out before that we must not have muttered seated interventions. They make for confusion.
Mr. Trimble: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has certainly caused a great deal of confusion in our minds. It seems that he is perfectly sure who has been meeting paramilitary organisations. He is free in this House to make the names public; he cannot be sued outside even if he makes an inaccurate statement. Giving the names would allow those whom he is accusing by innuendo a chance to reply.
Mr. Trimble: I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman's comments have understandably caused a great deal of muttered bemusement. He has hinted at improper conduct by members of my party—I am sure, wrongly. Later he suggested that the matter was connected with the Secretary of State.
Mr. Mallon: I did not.
Mr. John D. Taylor: A serious smear has been cast on the Floor of the House to the effect that one of the members of one of the delegations to the inter-party talks at Stormont has been confiding details of the talks to a paramilitary organisation. The only Member of this House to have had contacts before with paramilitary organisations is the leader of the party of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who met Sinn Fein before the inter-party talks commenced. It is an even more serious matter if someone participating in the talks is passing secrets to paramilitary organisations.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that the Secretary of State knows which member of which delegation is revealing the secrets to the paramilitaries. Will the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate to reveal the name that the Secretary of State apparently has?
Mr. Trimble: I thank my right hon. Friend. I have already said that I should like whoever replies to the debate to touch on that matter. I have also given the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) opportunities to substantiate the hints that he has dropped. I was prepared to give way to him on that point earlier, and I am prepared to give way to him now.
Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is easy for someone to come to the House and question the integrity of a number of other hon. Members or persons connected with the talks? If such a Member does not name the person or withdraw the allegation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that puts a question mark in the minds of a number of other hon. Members about the integrity of the person concerned? As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has brought the Secretary of State into the matter, does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the Ministers on the Front Bench should draw the matter to the Secretary of State's attention so that he can return to the House and make a statement? A serious question mark has been placed over the integrity of a number of hon. Members.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) continues, I make the point once again that interventions, however strongly felt, should be brief.
Mr. Trimble: I am sure that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) will

1079
take your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, to heart. But their interventions were justified, if only to underline the seriousness of what has just happened and the reluctance of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to speak further on the subject.
When the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh intervened, I was quoting from an editorial in The Times, which said:
"Direct rule has driven communal leadership away from politics, leaving extremists to rule the petty baronies granted them by direct rule".
That is a curious sentence. There are petty baronies that operate with indirect rule and there are people who rule over petty baronies. The implication of the editorial and the way in which it is expressed is that they are extremists. They are not defined, but the earlier sentence referring to gang war might lead one to think that they were members of paramilitary organisations or other bodies. Some areas are effectively dominated by terrorist organisations, but I suppose that Ministers would say that it is not their policy to encourage those organisations.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it possible that, despite that juxtaposition, "petty baronies" might be a reference to the elaborate growth of quangos which are unaccountable to the House or anybody else?
Mr. Trimble: Precisely. My hon. Friend anticipates the point that I was about to make. The petty baronies that are flourishing under direct rule—they exist under direct rule and are nourished by it—to which the large sums of public expenditure to which we have referred are granted are unaccountable bodies, quangos, creatures of the Northern Ireland Office, operating in an unacceptable manner and free from any proper accountability within the House or to the House. It is towards them that criticism should be directed.
I shall not refer further to the comments in the editorial on the inter-party talks because, as we said earlier, those matters should be regarded as confidential, but I could not help but notice that, in The Times on the same day, Monday 15 June, its Northern Ireland correspondent, three times—once on the front page and twice on an inside page—said that the discussions that would take place in the afternoon of the next day were the first occasion since 1914 that there had been talks between unionist and nationalist leaders. Some of my hon. Friends are laughing, and well they might.
To say that there were no such talks after 1914 is to display a lamentable lack of knowledge about what has happened in the time in between; to ignore the discussions that took place in 1921 and 1922, particularly the Craig-Collins pact; to ignore the treaty of 1925 negotiated between north and south; to ignore the ministerial meetings that took place afterwards; to ignore the numerous meetings that took place from 1926 until the late 1960s at official level on a range of matters; and even, although it is not a matter of particular pride to me and my colleagues, to ignore the participation of some unionists in the Sunningdale talks in 1973.
That is the quality of the information available to readers of a paper of record. I can assure them that the other comments in the paper on the inter-party talks, in so far as they touch on matters of which I have knowledge, are wrong. I shall say no more about that.
1080
In the equivalent debate last year on 20 June, when I touched on certain matters, the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), said that he had no doubt that I would return to those matters. He was right: I shall. The points that I wish to develop relate to another aspect of the inherent indignity of direct rule.
The argument which I developed last year and which I want to place before the House this year is that the direct rule procedures in Northern Ireland are not just offensive, an insult and an indignity, but also contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under international law and a breach of the United Nations covenant on the protection of civil and political rights and other matters.
On that occasion, I referred to article 25 of the United Nations covenant on civil and political rights, which
states:
"Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country."

The hon. Member for Peterborough endeavoured to reply to the point by saying:
"I am not sure that I accepted the premise of his argument because all citizens of Northern Ireland enjoy the right to elect representatives at local and parliamentary levels and themselves to stand for election."—[Official Report, 20 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 573.]
That is a correct and fair point to make. But it is pertinent only to article 25(b), whereas for the purpose of my argument the crucial provision is paragraph (a), which says:
"take part in the conduct of public affairs."
Other international human rights documents contain equivalent provisions and spell out a little more what is meant by the phrase "public affairs." For example, in the American declaration on rights and duties, clause 20 says:
"Every person having legal capacity is entitled to participate in the government of his country, directly or through his representatives".
The African declaration of rights includes exactly the same phrase:
"the right to freely participate in the government of his country".
I think that the reference to public affairs implies not only the opportunity to be elected to a body, but to effective participation in governmental organisations.
Article 25 of the international covenant on civil and political rights uses the words
"without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2".
Clause 1 of article 2 states:
"Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
The point is reinforced by article 3, which states:
"The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant."
Article 2 mentions various distinctions—those of race, colour and sex. We are familiar with those distinctions in the context of anti-discrimination legislation; legislation

1081
exists in part of the United Kingdom in regard to all of them. However, the article also mentions national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Surely there can be no doubt that to treat Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland differently in respect of civil and political rights is to fall foul of the anti-discrimination provision in the article.
There may be some argument about the precise definition of, for instance, "national … status" or "other status"; there may also be some argument about whether the United Kingdom contains several different nations. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that to provide different rights—lesser rights—for those in one part of the United Kingdom constitutes a breach of the anti-discrimination provision in the covenant. Linking article 2 with article 25, which relates to the opportunity to take part in public affairs or to participate in government, provides clear evidence that discrimination against part of the United Kingdom in that regard constitutes such a breach.
When I raised the matter in the House a year ago. the hon. Member for Peterborough—then Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—responded briefly in his winding-up speech. Some time later, however, on 27 September 1991, the then Secretary of State gave a slightly fuller response in an interview in The Irish Times. The interviewer had contrasted the Government's position on devolution for Northern Ireland—which they had advocated—with their opposition to Scottish devolution, and had happened to mention my name. That seemed to trigger off a slightly different response from the Secretary of State. Rather than answering the question about the contrast in the Government's two attitudes to devolution, he said:
"I hesitate to cross swords with a distinguished academic … but my recollection of 1886 and the crisis in the Liberal Party when Mr. Gladstone brought forward the proposals relating to Home Rule included observations by a very distinguished constitutional lawyer who was strongly opposed to the principle of Home Rule and indeed took a High Tory position on it, but who did acknowledge as a constitutional lawyer that there was nothing about the constitution of the United Kingdom which required the manner in which the different parts of the kingdom are governed to be universal."
That of course, was a reference to Mr. Dicey.
A number of responses can be made to that. First. we are living not in 1886 but in 1992, and the United Nations covenants on international and human rights to which I have referred post date 1886. Secondly, I am not arguing for absolute uniformity; it is reasonable to expect variations. There must be some leeway, but the question is, how far can that leeway go?
In the United Kingdom, as in other countries, there are various systems of local government. England and Wales have a system that involves district councils, county councils and so on; Scotland has a system of regional councils. There are slight differences between English and Scottish local government. The differences, however, are matters of administrative convenience; they are not fundamental to the system. I doubt whether the differences between English and Welsh local government and Scottish local government can be seen as depriving people of an opportunity to participate in public affairs or in government.
But what if there were no local government? What if it were decided to abolish local government in part of the United Kingdom so that county councils, district councils, parish councils and the like no longer existed? Would that
1082
be regarded as a breach of the articles? I think that it would. That is virtually the position in Northern Ireland. There are bodies there called district councils, but, as we all know, they have no real function. Effectively, Northern Ireland has no local government.
A good analogy is the Potemkin village. In Tsarist Russia, when the Tsar was visiting certain areas, the local administrators would build facades of villages to convince him that everything was all right: they looked fine on the outside, but the reality was somewhat different. Similarly, the Northern Ireland district council structure boasts marvellous buildings, and some roads—I shall not describe them as marvellous. Behind that facade, however, there is nothing; there is a complete absence of opportunity for participation in public affairs or government. That, surely, is a breach of the covenants to which I have referred.
The same applies to law-making functions. Hon. Members have mentioned the indignities of the Order-in-Council procedure, which deprives us of an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the way in which legislation is enacted. Again, it could be said that the empty green Benches in the Chamber reinforce the view that this particular law-making function—such as it is—is a ritual event.
What I have said does not apply only to modern international law. We are part of the United Kingdom; surely that very phrase must imply a single entity, with the same rights running through it. The principle was there, although perhaps not very clearly expressed, even in the treaty and the Acts of Union produced in 1800. Article 6 touched on what was a major point at that time—the principle that, in any treaties dealing with matters of trade, Ireland would be treated in the same way as Great Britain. Even the Act of Union included an obligation to treat all parts of the kingdom on an equal footing—limited to trade in article 6, but endorsing the principle that I am addressing: the principle of uniformity on, at least, core citizenship rights.
In a sense, it is in the treaty of European union. It tries to define the citizenship rights that would attach to the new European state—if it should come into existence, but that is another matter. The fact that the states involved felt that the treaty should specify the rights that attach to citizenship reinforces the point that certain core citizenship rights should exist throughout the Union.
I welcome the comments made about race relations legislation by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He is right in saying that there should be protection for the civil rights of persons of different races residing in Northern Ireland. There may not be many of them, but the quality of one's rights should not depend on numbers. It should be the same whether it is a handful of people in Northern Ireland or thousands in England.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also referred to employment. To correct comments that have been made elsewhere, let me say that we do not oppose, and have never opposed, the concept of equality of opportunity. I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North used the phrase "equality of opportunity". We are complaining about the way in which that concept is being applied by a particular quango in Northern Ireland.
Criticism has been made of my former employer, Queen's university, Belfast. It is not perfect and I will not

1083
say that it was incapable of discriminating. In fact, I was a victim of discrimination on the ground of religion and political opinion. On that occasion I approached the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission to discuss the matter. I was left in no doubt that, if I attempted to pursue the case through him, I would be unsuccessful.
There is a distinction to be drawn between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is consistent with fair employment legislation. To try to compel equality of outcome in every different place of employment and at every different level in Northern Ireland is foolish and unlawful. The Secretary of State is nodding his head. If he is agreeing with me, I hope that he will speak to the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission, because equality of outcome in every different place of employment in Northern Ireland is the declared policy of that quango. It is not consistent with the legislation or with good sense. To use the words that the Home Secretary used on a previous occasion, it will be damaging, dangerous and difficult.
I touch on those points because we are dealing with the concept of core citizenship rights that should include freedom from discrimination on racial and other grounds. Any concept of core citizenship rights must have at its centre the right to participate in the political process in a realistic way. The direct rule system denies that to us. Direct rule is an indignity, an insult, a breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under international law and worse. As I said at the outset, in 1972 it was not necessary for Her Majesty's Government to impose direct rule. Suspending Stormont, in the absence of any other provision, would merely have involved a reversion to the status quo before 1921. No additional legislation was necessary. The normal position with regard to legislation and administration would simply have swung into place.
Instead, the Government decided to introduce a system that kept the affairs of Northern Ireland at arm's length. That deliberate decision nto to treat Northern Ireland as a genuine part of the kingdom sent a signal to others that Her Majesty's Government were, in some respects, qualifying their attitude to the Union and the rights of the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that earlier in his remarks he gave way to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). In that intervention there was the clear implication that some delegate in the talks process had been divulging confidential information to paramilitaries during a meeting that he or she may have had with those paramilitaries. When the hon. Gentleman challenged the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, he invited him to ask the Secretary of State. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to do that?
Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it again draws the Secretary of State's attention to the issue and reinforces and underlines to the Minister who will be replying that we expect this matter to be touched on so that that slur can be refuted. It is untrue of myself, and I am sure that it is untrue of my colleagues. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was referring to his colleagues or other
1084
persons who are not present today but who are part of the talks process. All those persons deserve to have that slur removed from them.
By keeping the citizens of Northern Ireland separate, direct rule was carrying a signal to various people. This Tuesday was the birthday of a distinguished colleague who was active in the House for many years. I am referring to the former Member for South Down, the right hon. J. Enoch Powell. I remember vividly, a year or two ago, watching BBC's "Question Time" in which Mr. Powell was taking part. A member of the audience asked him when he thought that the violence in Northern Ireland would end. As quick as a flash, Mr. Powell said, "It will end when the British Government stop encouraging it." There was a gasp from some members of the audience, who did not appreciate the force or accuracy of his comment.
Mr. Powell was perfectly correct. Before violence can end, it will be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to stop encouraging it. They are encouraging violence because they repeatedly send to others, including terrorist organisations, the signal that the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom is qualified and conditional and may change. That is an encouragement to those persons to believe that by their violence they may achieve what they would call progress. If we are to see that violence end, a significant step—it may not be complete —would be to end that signal by ending direct rule.
My next point goes back to comments made in 1986. It sums up the quality of democracy available to the people of Northern Ireland. In an interview broadcast to the electorate of Northern Ireland on the eve of the by-election referendum that my hon. Friends had organised on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the then Minister of State said:
"It doesn't matter how you vote, it won't make any difference."
As I have said, that was an accurate description of the quality of democracy. People who wish the ballot box to triumph over the bomb and bullet must ensure that voting enables elected people to play a genuine part in public affairs. That requires the ending of direct rule.
6.29 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: The main political parties in the Republic of Ireland—Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Irish Labour—contested the last local elections in County Cavan. For the first time, there were candidates with another title—the pothole candidates. Not surprisingly in Irish politics, they topped the poll and won the seats. The person responsible for potholes in Northern Ireland is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; he is charged with the responsibility of checking potholes and ensuring that they are filled and repaired. That is direct rule in practice, and one day my constituents will bring to my attention the various potholes in my constituency and I will have to table a series of questions to the Secretary of State asking when he intends to fill them in.
The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that that is a ridiculous situation. It was outlined in greater detail by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who identified the nonsense of the direct rule system. The people of Northern Ireland have no say in the main public decision-making process and in decisions affecting planning, housing and most aspects of local government

1085
such as health and education. Yet those things could be achieved if the Government had the will to introduce them in Northern Ireland.
Devolution is not necessary to give people democratic powers over planning, health, schools, roads, sewage and water supply. After all, there is no devolution in Scotland or Wales, but people there have control over those issues. There is no logical reason why such elementary matters are withheld from people in Northern Ireland.
One reason why it does not happen is the inconsistency within the Conservative party and the Government on matters affecting the government and administration of the various parts of the United Kingdom. The Government recommend inter-party talks in Northern Ireland to get an agreed solution to the next system of administration and government of that part of the United Kingdom. That, apparently, is the policy of the Conservative party; yet in Scotland it boycotts and campaigns against inter-party talks on the future administration of Scotland. The inconsistency in Conservative policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland stands for everyone to see.
Conservative candidates stood for the first time in the most recent United Kingdom election. They campaigned against devolution, yet the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), proposed a policy for inter-party talks. It was noticeable that he spent only 20 minutes campaigning for those Conservative candidates. His absence had an effect, because those candidates made little progress in the election. If the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had advocated the same policy as Conservative candidates, the people of Northern Ireland would have had more respect for the Government.
It is not good enough to say that it is for the people or parties of Northern Ireland to reach a decision on how and when they will be ruled and governed. The Government also have a responsibility, but for 21 years all Governments have shirked it. The Government must remove all doubts about the status of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say, "Our position on Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is well known and I need not repeat it," only to imply in his next few sentences that it is much the same as his attitude to Scotland, Wales and England. We know that that is not so, and it is misleading the House to say so. There is always a condition in the Secretary of State's support—and, in fairness, in that of his predecessors—for Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, which does not apply to Scotland or Wales: that Northern Ireland should remain a part of the United Kingdom as long as that is the wish of its people.
The Prime Minister talks about how he will fight to strengthen and support the union between England and Scotland, but he has not yet said that he will work to support and strengthen the union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We need new consistency in Conservative party policy on the union and on how the different parts of it will be administered and governed.
The Secretary of State said that he was here to give an annual report—a bit like a school report—on how the Government had administered Northern Ireland under direct rule. Direct-rule Ministers have a difficult job. At a personal level, they are very welcome, but at a political level they represent a system of government that is
1086
offensive to the people of Northern Ireland. They are not elected by the people of Northern Ireland, nor are they answerable to them for their decisions. Scottish Office Ministers are elected by the people of Scotland and are answerable to them for their decisions, but that is not so in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland must be involved in the administration of that part of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State referred to transport systems and mentioned the improvement in the rail system between Belfast and Dublin. One welcomes any improvement in transport systems in the island of Ireland and the British Isles, but we must get our transport priorities right. A political decision has been made by Conservative Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to concentrate moneys on road and rail systems from Belfast to Dublin, at the expense of our main transport systems to Great Britain. In the past few years, schemes to Larne and around the city of Belfast have been dropped and money has been reallocated to the road to Dublin. That, of course, has taken place since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The Secretary of State, in an attempt to support his programme of improving the transport systems to Dublin, referred to the support that he was receiving from business and industry. But only 5 per cent. of Ulster business goes to the Republic of Ireland; 95 per cent. of our trade goes elsewhere, and the routes that that trade uses should be getting the priority attention of the Secretary of State. He should concentrate on the routes to Larne and from Belfast to Great Britain and actively work with the Scottish Office to improve the transport systems on the west coast of Scotland. That is where 90 per cent. of people want the routes improved, and those are the priorities on which the Secretary of State should concentrate rather than merely bringing into practice the Anglo-Irish Agreement and its preference for routes to Dublin.
Mr. Barry Porter: One of the uses of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body is that we could make a study of the transport issue. Although 90 per cent. of the trade comes from Northern Ireland, how much trade comes from the Republic via Belfast and Larne because of Government investment in those ports? The answer is, a great deal.
Mr. Taylor: That is an important point, with which I agree. I believe that about 30 per cent. of the loads of the ferries from Lame to Scotland is now taken up by trade and business from the Republic of Ireland.
As I said, we want improvements in road and rail structures, but not just those from Belfast to Dublin. We want the Secretary of State to concentrate on the links to Larne and to make the No. 1 priority the improvement of the road and rail systems on the west coast of Scotland. Only then will the natural option of Northern Ireland industry and of southern Irish industry to use those routes be properly dealt with.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the present talks at Stormont. We all read The Irish Times every day to see what is happening at those confidential talks and, of course, the reports are of interest. We congratulate those who are contributing their time and effort to try to reach some accommodation in Northern Ireland and we wish them well in their work. Suffice to say at this stage that, just as the Anglo-Irish

1087
Agreement is offensive and has helped to bring about the present stalemate in Northern Ireland, no agreement will be acceptable to me if it gives Dublin a role in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. I want to make that clear now.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also made a serious accusation. He said that one of the 40 delegates taking part in the inter-party talks was having other secret meetings with a paramilitary organisation. We have many such organisations—the Irish National Liberation Army, the Irish Republican Army, the Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Volunteer Force and others. We know that, before the talks commenced, the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party had meetings with the IRA, but I gather that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was not implying that it was his party leader who was secretly revealing what was happening in the inter-party talks with a terrorist organisation. However, he announced that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland already knew the name of the delegate to the inter-party talks who was in contact with a paramilitary organisation.
That is not only a serious slur on one of the 40 participants in the talks: it must make most of those taking part in the talks ill at ease if they know that, every time they converse at the so-called confidential talks, one of their number is revealing the contents of those talks to a paramilitary organisation. It is regrettable that, when given the opportunity by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh did not withdraw his allegation. Apparently, he stands firmly behind the allegation that a member of the Stormont talks is in contact with a terrorist organisation.
A great responsibility now rests on the shoulders of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or whichever Minister replies to the debate to clarify the serious allegation so that those taking part in the talks and the public might be put at ease. The Secretary of State or the Minister must confirm that there is no substance whatsoever to the hon. Gentleman's allegation.
6.44 pm
Mr. Barry Porter: I shall be brief.
Complaints have been made about the green Benches always being empty for debates on Irish affairs. That is because we are sometimes subject to lectures, as though we were naughty children, about what O'Flaherty said in County Mayo in 1874. Some hon. Members could get jobs as history lecturers if the electorate were to treat them badly in due course. Someone pointed out that we live in 1992, not in the era to which reference was made.
I accept some of the criticisms that have been made about direct rule, but when it was introduced—rightly or wrongly—it was seen as a temporary short-term measure while another method, post-Stormont, could be worked out for governing Northern Ireland. I do not understand why the Government or I or any other Government supporter should be castigated for what happened in 1972. It was not our responsibility then, and, in a sense, it is not our responsibility now.
Direct rule was introduced in the best possible faith. It was to be for a short period. Stormont had not worked; if it had, it would not have been dissolved. The troubles that arose were partly the result of the political organisation
1088
emanating from the treaty in the 1920s. Rightly or wrongly, some people regarded Stormont as a sign of Protestant supremacy. Whether they were wrong or right does not matter, because that is how they saw it, and that was part of the trouble.
Successive British Governments—mainly Conservative Governments—have struggled to find a replacement for Stormont and for direct rule. I have not approved of any of them. I did not approve of Sunningdale, although I was not then a Member of the House; nor did I approve of the sort of devolution that Lord Prior suggested when he was Secretary of State. I certainly did not approve of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and I still do not approve of it. I agree with the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor); I would oppose any solution to the problem—if it be a solution—which involved a direct input by the Dublin Government into the affairs of Northern Ireland. I would not wear that.
Some of us said that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would not work because, apart from being fundamentally wrong, it simply would not work, and it has not. Some of us said that rolling devolution would not work, and it did not. In any case, it was wrong in principle.
I hope that no one thinks that I am involving myself in a family fight, because I am not. I believe that the more Englishmen who take notice of these matters the better, but I do not know what the solution is. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that the solution was devolution, but of what sort I am not entirely sure. One hon. Member gave us a smattering of integrationism—I add my birthday congratulations to Enoch Powell—but I do not quite know what that means. It is impossible to suggest that the Province is Yorkshire or Surrey, because it is not, and self-evidently it is not.
I am sure that the Government would wish to get rid of direct rule as soon as they could. They are not power-crazed people who wish to go around filling in potholes. Of course we would like to find a sensible and democratic solution.
I also agree that it would be extremely helpful if Ministers could say in the clearest, most unequivocal terms that the unity of the kingdom includes Northern Ireland as much as it includes Scotland, Wales and England. I have asked them to do so many times over the years. I do not think that "as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish it" is a condition, but it is a flavour which need not and should not be there.
I do not know what form of government there will be in the future, nor whether the secret public talks will get anywhere. The atmosphere among the kith and kin on the Opposition Benches make me mildly suspicious that those talks will not get all that far. But please, gentleman, the English cannot solve the problem for you, but you might be able to solve it for yourselves—or perhaps there could be a combination of all those things.
There is one thing that the Dublin Government could do. They could withdraw their territorial ambition and their claim to the territory of the United Kingdom. That claim gives a bogus legitimacy to some of the activities of some of the bodies operating in Northern Ireland.
I have had a ramble round the course. It is for people in positions of power and influence in the Province to reach some accommodation and to make some progress. In the 20 years that all this has been going on more than 3,000 people have been killed. We have tried almost everything by way of political progress. I wish my right

1089
hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State well. He knows that he has a difficult act to follow in my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), to whom I pay tribute, although I had to disagree with some of what went on in his time. At least he tried. At least the Englishmen are trying. I hope that some of the Irish will do us the honour of trying as hard.
6.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We have had an interesting debate which has touched on a number of topics. I am grateful to the House for the generally constructive and helpful way in which it has debated the order which will renew direct rule for another 12 months.
Apart from the present political talks, which have inevitably loomed large in the debate, many other matters have been raised, and I shall deal with them first. As has been rightly said, it is disappointing that there are not more hon. Members in the House to discuss the issues, but clearly most hon. Members are leaving the discussion to those more directly affected, and we should be grateful for that. It would be wrong to discuss such issues in Committee. The proper place to discuss so important a subject is on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked about the allocation of the Making Belfast Work funds. He wrote to the Secretary of State recently —on 12 June, I believe—and he will shortly receive a substantive reply. We recognise, as the hon. Gentleman must also recognise, that south Belfast receives an allocation of resources under the scheme and has an action team in place. I can assure him that its problems are taken as seriously as those of any other part of Belfast. Let us wait for the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that we took no notice—or perhaps took no action—on the reports of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. In fact, SACHR is a well-respected body and the Government are fully committed to creating equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. We issued a comprehensive response to the second report, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That was laid before the House and placed in the Library, and therefore made public, before the general election. It is a valuable report which should assist informed and constructive debate; we continue to examine its recommendations in consultation.
At this point it is appropriate to pay tribute to Sir Oliver Napier, who retires on 1 July, to be succeeded by Charles Hill QC. Sir Oliver has served very well indeed, and I assure both him and the House that the Government read the reports most carefully.
Mr. McNamara: I join the Minister in paying tribute to Sir Oliver Napier. Will the hon. Gentleman help the House by publishing in the Official Report the recommendations in the various SACHR reports and saying which ones the Government have accepted?
Mr. Hanley: I shall willingly consider the hon. Gentleman's request.
1090
Last night's Public Accounts Committee meeting has been mentioned. I have not seen the questions, nor heard the answers. Some hon. Members—and perhaps some right hon. Members—who are here now were present then. However, I saw the newspaper reports when I woke up in Belfast this morning, and I believe that some hon. Gentlemen may be quoting figures from those reports. The newspapers said that £48 million worth of X-ray equipment was in store. In fact, £48 million happens to be the total value of X-ray equipment in the Province as a whole. The value of X-ray equipment in store is about £0.3 million. A press notice has been issued putting the matter straight. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee criticised the fact that £0.3 million-worth of equipment was in store, and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for health and social services will consider the report carefully.
Notwithstanding the seriousness of the comments made by the PAC, it is a novelty to be accused of paying teachers too much. Nevertheless, I shall read what was said and see whether I draw any conclusions therefrom.
Mr. Trimble: I am not sure of the details yet, because I have not seen the PAC report, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that the complaint concerns the alleged freedom with which education boards and other bodies grant teachers premature retirement with enhanced pension rights. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the widespread belief—it certainly exists in my constituency —that there has not been equity of treatment between the controlled sector and the maintained sector with regard to enhanced pension rights for teachers taking early retirement. Written answers to my parliamentary questions have tended to bear out that belief.
Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for that clarification, and I shall examine the issue carefully when I see the PAC report and the minutes of last night's meeting.
At least four hon. Members mentioned the legislative procedures. I assure the House that the Government fully recognise that the current legislative procedures are less than satisfactory. The Order-in-Council procedure is hardly ideal, but under direct rule it is the only practicable way to deal with most Northern Ireland legislation. We have constantly invited hon. Members to enter discussions on possible ways in which the present arrangements could be improved. If it were possible to create a local administration in Northern Ireland—
Mr. Trimble rose—
Mr. Hanley: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to give way again, I shall, but it will take time from his colleagues in the later debate.
Mr. Trimble: I shall try to observe a self-denying ordinance hereafter.
Will the Minister consider the Boundary Commissions Bill, or the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, both of which are now going through the House, and both of which apply to Northern Ireland without causing any inconvenience?
Mr. Hanley: Indeed, perhaps hon. Gentlemen would consider exactly that experience when they determine whether the current talks will be successful, so that we can pass legislative powers back to local politicians and give them greater scope to debate and decide legislation for the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. John D. Taylor: We must pursue this matter more honestly. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill and the Boundary Commissions Bill, which have nothing to do with the talks at Stormont. Please let us not raise that as a side issue. Such things happen irrespective of the talks at Stormont. All that was necessary in those two Bills, which apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, was one clause of five or six words saying something like, "This Bill will extend to Northern Ireland." That is all that we have to do, irrespective of the talks. Let us not use the talks as an excuse for everything that is bad in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Hanley: I believe that the House knows why we have preserved a different legislative procedure for Northern Ireland. It grants to Northern Ireland the possibility of the privilege of its own government, which is largely agreed by right hon. and hon. Members. Many may disagree. We have continued with the way in which we legislate against all the difficulties. I assure the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that there will be many changes to the legislative process and to the way in which Bills go through the House if the talks can be brought to a successful conclusion. That is not an excuse. It goes to the heart of how the legislative process for Northern Ireland will be dealt with in future.
Some hon. Members have mentioned the Northern Ireland Select Committee and the absence thereof. We believe that the arrangements for the scrutiny of matters within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are best taken forward as one of the areas under discussion in the talks. I am not at liberty to discuss whether we have mentioned the subject of a Select Committee. I say merely that it would be remarkable if, during the procedures we are undergoing, we did not mention the subject of the Select Committee. The Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Procedure—it is largely a matter for that Committee—is to say that we are keeping the matter under review.
The Fair Employment Act was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). Since 1 January 1990, when the Act came into force, the Fair Employment Tribunal has issued 186 decisions. The applicant was successful in five cases and unsuccessful in 21. Thirteen complaints were resolved by conciliation and the balance of complaints were withdrawn. Many other complaints await hearing. In the first monitoring round, 16 employers were prosecuted and fined up to £150, and in the second round, in 1991, five employers were prosecuted. One employer was disqualified from receiving a public contract and Government grants because of continued failure to make a return. The disqualification was lifted when the company complied. A major effort is being made to address the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Rev. William McCrea: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hanley: I will give way for the last time.
Rev. William McCrea: There is deep concern in my constituency about the Fair Employment Commission's lack of will to tackle the problems facing many Protestants in the constituency. I have referred on numerous occasions, in the presence of the former Minister with responsibility for economic development and in the presence of Mr. Cooper, to certain areas for investigation.
1092
I have not even had a letter acknowledging that Mr. Cooper is looking into the matter. Is it not about time that there was fair treatment for both sides of the community?
Mr. Hanley: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I will pass on his comments to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I hope that he will be able to respond in due course.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) argued that the present arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland might be inconsistent with article 25(a) of the international covenant on the protection of civil and political rights. I was not aware of that article until the hon. Gentleman raised the subject in an Adjournment debate some months ago, so I studied it with some care as the Government might be the subject of accusations under that covenant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not respond on this occasion, as I know that he can respond at length on the issue because of his very great knowledge.
The opportunities afforded to Northern Ireland politicians or citizens to participate in the Government at Westminster and at district council level, and in a wide range of public bodies in Northern Ireland, may be sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the covenant. Even if they are not, and even if there were a question about the result of the absence of any structures of government at regional level, the Government's efforts to find a solution, including the efforts we are making now in the talks process, show that we are trying to produce a wider framework for stable relationships in the community.
The vast majority of comments this evening have involved the political talks. It was natural that they should be prominent in our thoughts and in our words. On behalf of the Government, I must tell the House how much I welcome the expressions of support which have been forthcoming from hon. Members of all parties. There have been well-deserved tributes from hon. Members of all parties, which I support, to the courage and tenacity of the participants in the talks.
The obituary notices for the process have been written on more than one occasion. It is greatly to the credit of the parties that the talks are still up and running, and continuing to make headway. We are present at history in the making; I hope that the history will be good for the future of Northern Ireland.
Under the agreed ground rules, which were underlined by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), it would not be appropriate for any of us to divulge details of the discussions, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State explained that in his opening remarks. There has been a constructive and intensive engagement since the new talks reconvened on 29 April and much common ground has been identified, although there is still much to be resolved. Anyone with knowledge of Northern Ireland will know that, although much has been achieved, we are still a long way from final success. Nothing can be agreed at any one stage of the discussions until everything is agreed in the three strands as a whole. Over the weeks ahead, it will be a matter of continuing the good work of recent weeks, and of further developing the trust and understanding that have been developed so far.
The talks are an unequivocal demonstration of the right way in which to attempt to resolve differences in a civilised society. If there is to be trust and understanding based on

1093
mutual respect, it can be achieved only through proper political dialogue, and not through guns or bombs. That is why the Government will continue to do everything in their power to ensure that the talks continue their forward momentum.
Another issue was raised by a number of hon. Members. I admit that I did not hear some of the exchanges. Neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend has any evidence of the matters being raised, so I have decided not to pursue them at the moment.
Mr. Mallon: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hanley: I will not give way at this point, because I must end my speech. I do not intend to pursue the matter at this stage. I repeat that neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend has any evidence of any such matter, and I stress that.
Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister saying unequivocally that the Secretary of State has no knowledge of what was suggested and that no knowledge was made available to him from any other source?
Mr. Hanley: Many accusations can be made by different people in different ways. Accusations can be made by newspapers and all sorts of comments can be made. But the Secretary of State and I must act on evidence. We have no evidence of the things that were referred to earlier.
In the meantime, through direct rule, the Government will continue to help the people of Northern Ireland to secure a tranquil, peaceful, just and prosperous way of life and one in which both sides of that community can work together to achieve that goal. I commend the order to the House.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 11.

Division No. 36]

[7.10 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Ancram, Michael

Cox, Tom

Arbuthnot, James

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Ashby, David

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Atkins, Robert

Devlin, Tim

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Dover, Den

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Dowd, Jim

Bates, Michael

Duncan, Alan

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Elletson, Harold

Beresford, Sir Paul

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Body, Sir Richard

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Booth, Hartley

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Boswell, Tim

Fabricant, Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Bowis, John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Brandreth, Gyles

Forth, Eric

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Foster, Donald (Bath)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Freeman, Roger

Burt, Alistair

French, Douglas

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Fry, Peter

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Gallie, Phil

Carrington, Matthew

Gardiner, Sir George

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gillan, Ms Cheryl

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clappison, James

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hague, William

Coe, Sebastian

Hampson, Dr Keith

Congdon, David

Hanley, Jeremy

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hawkins, Nicholas

1094

Hawksley, Warren

Morley, Elliot

Hayes, Jerry

Neubert, Sir Michael

Heald, Oliver

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Patnick, Irvine

Hendron, Dr Joe

Pawsey, James

Hendry, Charles

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Powell, William (Corby)

Horam, John

Richards, Rod

Hordern, Sir Peter

Riddick, Graham

Hunter, Andrew

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jenkin, Bernard

Roche, Ms Barbara

Jessel, Toby

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Kirkhope, Timothy

Spink, Dr Robert

Kirkwood, Archy

Sproat, Iain

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Steen, Anthony

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

Stephen, Michael

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Stott, Roger

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sweeney, Walter

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Sykes, John

Legg, Barry

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Leigh, Edward

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Lidington, David

Thomason, Roy

Lightbown, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Thurnham, Peter

Luff, Peter

Trend, Michael

Lynne, Ms Liz

Twinn, Dr Ian

McGrady, Eddie

Tyler, Paul

MacKay, Andrew

Viggers, Peter

Maclennan, Robert

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

McNamara, Kevin

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Watts, John

Mallon, Seamus

Wheeler, Sir John

Malone, Gerald

Whittingdale, John

Mans, Keith

Widdecombe, Ann

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Willetts, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Yeo, Tim

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Mates, Michael

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Merchant, Piers

Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Mr. Sydney Chapman

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Livingstone, Ken

Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

McCrea, Rev William

Trimble, David

Maginnis, Ken

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Tellers for the Noes:

Paisley, Rev Ian

Mr. William Ross and

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Mr. Clifford Forsythe.

Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.
Mr. Trimble: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the previous debate, while I was speaking, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) intervened to allege that a person involved in the present inter-party talks in Northern Ireland had arranged a meeting with unspecified paramilitary persons for the purpose of conveying to them information about the talks. I gave the hon. Member the opportunity to intervene again to identify that person and to substantiate his allegations, but he declined. However, he made a comment from a sedentary position which I did not hear clearly at the time but which some of my hon. Friends heard. When I asked him to substantiate his claim, his comment was, "You should be blushing." That is a clear allegation that I was the person he was accusing.

1095
Needless to say, that allegation is totally false and without foundation. Is it in order for hon. Members to make such allegations and, when given the oportunity to substantiate them, to fail to do so, and to fail to withdraw them when they are clearly denied?
During the following debate, when the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh returns to the Chamber, would you give him the opportunity to do the honourable thing?
Mr. Molyneaux rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Is it further to that point of order?
Mr. Molyneaux: Yes. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will appreciate that I have a responsibility to protect the reputation of my team of 10 in the talks. That would also apply to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) with his team; and one other party, which is not present in or elected to this Chamber, would have the same difficulty. To avoid prolonging the discussions, perhaps the most effective way to deal with the matter would be for the Secretary of State or the Minister to say that this matter will be referred to special branch to investigate and report to the Secretary of State before the next plenary session of the four teams of 10.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members will be aware that all sorts of comments are made from a sedentary position, none of which has any status in the House. I think that that answers the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who raised the first point of order. The Secretary of State and Ministers have heard the comments made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) on the second point, and it will be for them to decide how they wish to respond.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was judged by the House for something that I was accused of saying when seated. I find it amazing that some new rule has suddenly been
1096
introduced about such interventions. I was sitting in the Gallery, I never even stood up, and I was thrown out of the House. Hansard reported that I had said something that was in order, yet I was thrown out for saying something while sitting, and I was not in the House. My hon. Friends, sitting on this side of the House, plainly heard what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are stretching the point. I have made my ruling and have made it clear. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will accept that. Perhaps we can now move on.
Mr. John D. Taylor rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that this is a new point of order.
Mr. Taylor: It is to confirm my—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my question: is it a new point of order?
Mr. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully accept your ruling about a statement made from a sedentary position, but that was not the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who was referring to an allegation made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) when he was on his feet. That point of order had nothing to do with the personal allegation that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) "should be blushing." It was a specific allegation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Had the right hon. Gentleman listened attentively to the whole of my response, he would have heard me say that the Secretary of State and Ministers on the Front Bench would have heard the right hon. Member who raised the separate point of order. I hope that hon. Members will confirm that. Certainly Hansard will do so. Perhaps without further ado we can move to the next order.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): It might be helpful to the House if I make it clear that debate on the order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible, with the exception of police and security matters.
7.26 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.
The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, authorises expenditure of £2,874 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sums voted on account in March, this brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments to £5,014 million, an increase of 9 per cent. on 1991–92 provisional outturn.
The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office. The House will be aware that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office, for law and order services, are not covered by the order before us today.
As is the custom on these occasions, I shall highlight the main items in the estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision sought in the two agricultural votes amounts to some £152 million, an increase of £8 million over 1991–92. Vote 1 covers expenditure of £33 million by the Department on various market support schemes which operate throughout the United Kingdom. This includes £12 million for capital and other grants to improve farm structures, to stimulate investment on farms and for conservation—£19 million is to support farming in the less favoured areas, by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
Vote 2 seeks provision of £119 million for local measures to support agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Of that, £53 million is for agricultural, scientific and veterinary services. That covers a wide range of professional and technical services to the industry and reflects the importance of maintaining the highest possible quality of Northern Ireland agricultural products. The sum of £27 million is for arterial drainage, fisheries and forestry—including expenditure on watercourse management, angling development and the management of state forests.
The Department of Economic Development's vote 1 seeks provision of £168 million, which will enable the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland to carry out its role of strengthening the industrial base there and to meet its existing commitments, primarily in the area of selective assistance to industry. The introduction and development of internationally competitive companies, providing the basis for growth in durable employment, is the main aim around which all IDB's activities are centred. Existing companies are being encouraged and assisted to improve their competitiveness in terms of productivity, design, quality and marketing.
In vote 2, £44 million is sought for the Local Enterprise Development Unit— LEDU—Northern Ireland's small business agency. The agency is placing greater emphasis on
1098
increasing the number, and improving the competitiveness, of small companies. Recent initiatives include the business start programme, which is aimed at assisting people to set up in business. The number of projects assisted under the scheme will be trebled to some 1,200 this year. Existing businesses will be supported through the business advance programme, which aims to assist some 2,000 local companies to stimulate growth.
Also in vote 2, £9 million is sought for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, which was launched in March with the aim of improving the competitive edge of Northern Ireland products in an increasingly demanding marketplace. Continuous, well-directed research and innovation are crucial to long-term economic health. The unit will give a greater impetus and sharper focus to Government's activities in that important area of activity.
Finally, in vote 2, £11 million is sought to enable the Northern Ireland tourist board to assist the further development of the tourist industry. Last year, for the third successive year, a record number of visitors—1.18 million—came to Northern Ireland. An 18 per cent. increase in the number of holiday visitors confirms that Northern Ireland is again being considered as a serious contender in the world's holiday markets. The additional funds proposed—nearly £4 million more than last year—will enable the board to build on that success and, in co-operation with all involved in the industry, to realise the potential of the tourism sector to generate additional economic benefits and to create jobs throughout Northern Ireland.
The Department of Economic Development's vote 3 seeks £189 million for the Training and Employment Agency. A sum of £46 million is for the youth training programme to support 12,700 training places. Some £51 million is for the action for community employment programme, to provide 9,600 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. More than £18 million is for the job training programme, which offers training and work experience to unemployed adults. That is £2.3 million more than in 1991–92 and will allow the programme to expand from 3,600 places in March 1992 to 5,400 by March 1993. The sum of £13 million is for the company development programme, which will assist some 225 Northern Ireland companies to improve their competitiveness in external markets.
Since April 1991, more than 34,000 people have been placed in employment after completing programmes provided by the agency. About 35,000 people are currently engaged on various programmes. It is particularly encouraging that 90 per cent. of apprentices on training centre courses enter permanent employment on completion of their training.
A token provision of £1,000 has been taken in vote 4 to cover expenses to be incurred in the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity supply industry. A supplementary estimate, covering the actual expenses and proceeds from the sale, will be presented later in the year.
With regard to the Department of the Environment, £169 million is sought in vote 1 for roads, transport and ports. Some £142 million is for the roads programme, to finance the operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's roads and bridges and for new construction and improvement works.
The Department's vote 2 covers the important area of housing, where £187 million is sought to provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the

1099
voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing by the Housing Executive, rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing will be about £531 million in 1992–93.
The Department's vote 3 provides for water and sewerage services, with gross expenditure in 1992–93 estimated at £152 million. Of that, £98 million is required, mainly, for normal operation and maintenance and £54 million is for expenditure on capital works, including schemes to improve further the quality of drinking water in line with the standards laid down in European Community directives.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister has said that money has been allocated for the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity industry. We are now discussing the water industry. Today, a report in the press said that the Government have decided to proceed immediately with the privatisation of the water and sewerage systems in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister tell us exactly what is happening about the future control of water in the Province?
Mr. Mates: I am aware of the report to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The Northern Ireland citizens charter makes clear the Government's intention to privatise the Department of the Environment's water and sewerage functions as soon as practicable. In line with that commitment, the Government are reviewing the timetable for, and the best approach to, the privatisation. It is hoped that we will be able to make an announcement soon.
Also included in vote 4 is £38 million for urban regeneration measures, which will be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need. As in previous years, that will generate much higher overall investment through the successful partnerships that have been established with the private sector.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,213 million, an increase of 6 per cent. over last year. Vote I includes £743 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase of £54 million over 1991–92. It includes £389 million for school teachers' salaries, which should enable the pupil-teacher ratio to be maintained at present levels. Also included is £237 million for expenditure on schools and on further education services. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), made an announcement about that this morning, when he launched a report on the future structure of further education. The sum of £117 million is for libraries, youth, transport and administration. Vote 1 also seeks £50 million for boards' capital projects, including provision for new laboratories and technology workshops to enable further progress to be made on education reforms. The sum of £6 million is sought for integrated schools and £123 million for voluntary schools.
Vote 2, seeks £266 million including £89 million for universities which will enable them to maintain parity of provision with comparable universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. The sum of £126 million is for student support, including grants and student loans. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including £3 million for community relations.
1100
The next set of votes relate to the Department of Health and Social Services. In votes 1 and 3, total net provision of £1,243 million is sought to maintain and improve the standard of the Province's health and personal social services. This is an increase of £74 million over estimated outturn for 1991–92. Spending on the family health services will be £252 million, while £887 million is for health and social services boards' current expenditure. The sum of £46 million is sought for capital development to maintain a substantial programme of works, including a further £14 million for Antrim hospital.
In vote 3, £385 million is sought for the Department's administration and other costs. That includes £245 million for miscellaneous social security benefits, including housing benefit.
Vote 4 seeks £1,022 million for a range of benefits administered by the Social Security Agency. That is an increase of more than 13 per cent. on last year and includes £187 million for disability benefits, £567 million for income support and £268 million for family and other benefits.
In the Department of Finance and Personnel, vote 3, more than £4 million is sought for the community relations programme. Support for community relations projects, co-ordinated by the central community relations unit and the Department of Education, has increased from about £250,000 in 1986–87 to £7 million in 1992–93. A new feature of the programme in 1992–93 is the provision of suitable venues to encourage greater cross-community contact.
I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that all the programmes that we are discussing today have one important thing in common. To each of them applies the principles of the citizens charter. The Northern Ireland charter, which was published in February, describes how we plan to raise the standard of public services. That is supported by individual charters for the main customer-oriented services. Those explain in detail what precisely a citizen can expect of the service, what his or her rights are, and what the citizen can do if the service falls below standard.
Our programme in Northern Ireland has been launched with the advantage of a public service whose professionalism and commitment are second to none. I am therefore confident that we shall achieve the charter aim of good service, based on respect for the customer and his or her views.
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is all very well for the Minister to make that sort of statement and to be applauded for it, but many people in Northern Ireland feel sore about the fact that money is being diverted to the north-south road while other roads that are needed to get us to the ferry and roads around the airport are being insufficiently funded. People are asking why that money should he diverted to the north-south communication, particularly as across the water in Scotland, our neighbour, there is great need for the railway line to be re-opened and for money to be spent on roads there to link with Northern Ireland roads.
Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman did not hear that matter being raised in the last debate because he was not in his place. I believe that the issue of roads is likely to

1101
figure at some length in at least one speech to be made in this debate. Roads are the responsibility of the Minister of State who will reply to the debate.
In my opening remarks I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the order. In reply to the debate, the Minister of State will respond to points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.
7.41 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: I will limit my remarks, to enable hon. Members from the Province to take part. in the debate. At the outset I wish, on behalf of my party, to say how pleased we are to see my hon. Friend—I call him "my hon. Friend"—the Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) in his place. I am sure that during his tenure of office all the people of his constituency will be assiduously represented here. I understand that he hopes to speak in the debate.
I read an article in The Observer by the Minister of State about his hopes and aspirations for the rejuvenation of the economy of Northern Ireland. I shall concentrate my remarks on economic development and the economic future of Northern Ireland.
Ministers have a long tradition of spreading optimism about the economy of Northern Ireland, none more so than a former Northern Ireland Under-Secretary, the present Minister for Trade, who will be a hard act for the Minister of State to follow. We do not criticise Ministers for spreading optimism. That is part of their job. We are always delighted when Ministers and officials succeed in preserving or obtaining jobs for Northern Ireland, but we cannot allow Ministers to get away with facile optimism.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council published two useful reports in the last three months, one on the European Community structure and the other on economic assessment in Northern Ireland, documents which I hope the Minister has had time to read. Let us hope that Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office reject the scorched earth policy of their colleagues at the Treasury and ensure that the council continues to provide a focus for economic analysis and value to the Government, employees and trade unions. The National Economic Development Council which operated in the rest of the United Kingdom provided such useful information, and I regret its demise.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council's spring economic assessment makes gloomy reading, I regret to say. Indeed, the council admits that it has not produced such a depressing document since the early 1980s. Contrary to the trend in recent years in Northern Ireland, which was relatively insulated from the United Kingdom recession, the council concludes that the United Kingdom's recession exerts
"a depressing grip on local economic conditions in Northern Ireland."
The recession is in many ways worse than the first Thatcherite wrecking job which devastated manufacturing industry. This second wave of destruction spares no sector of the economy and, what is worse, the council is convinced that, when the long-awaited recovery materialises in the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland will lag behind in benefiting from the end of the recession.
In those circumstances, we have a right to expect action, not propaganda, from the Government. Can we expect to see more of the "agit" and less of the "prop" from the Minister? What measures is he taking now to
1102
ensure that when the recession ends, Northern Ireland will benefit as much and as rapidly as other regions of the United Kingdom? The Government's self-satisfaction contrasts unfavourably with the vigorous efforts of the CBI in Northern Ireland and of the Confederation of Irish Industry to promote and provide cross-border trade and prepare the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, for the single market.
Lest the Minister is in doubt about the seriousness of the crisis which it is his task to resolve, the unemployment figures published this afternoon—14.4 per cent. of the work force unemployed, according to the seasonally adjusted total—are a disgrace anywhere in the United Kingdom, but they are particularly disgraceful in Northern Ireland. In addition, it was announced this afternoon that there will be 400 redundancies at Shorts. That should dispel any complacency that exists in the Department.
In recent weeks, the future of the European Community has received much attention, but we are in danger of neglecting the changes to which we are already committed under the Single European Act and the implementation of the single market. The Northern Ireland Economic Council has provided a salutary reminder that we still have a long way to go to prepare Northern Ireland for the single market, let alone the degree of European unity which Maastricht promised.
Many people in Northern Ireland, not least its elected representatives, will be keen to find out why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary forgot that they were responsible for Northern Ireland when they agreed to exclude the Province from the cohesion fund agreed at Maastricht. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
The NEC points out that, on current trends, Northern Ireland will remain behind the EC average until well into the 21st century. The report concludes that present policies have been inadequate, particularly in relation to the structural funds. Not only has Northern Ireland not gained as much financially as it should have gained from the funds, but there is growing doubt about the effectiveness of the way in which the money is spent.
Receipts from the European social fund have fallen since 1987–88 and little has been done to create the high-tech growth industries which will be the prime beneficiaries of the single market. There is yet to be an integrated approach to rural development to counter balance the expected decline in support for agriculture. The council points to the lack of proper evaluation of programmes to see if they are working and the lack of co-ordination and integration in the various operational programmes.
In addition, it criticises the inadequate, rushed and anti-democratic way in which bids for structural fund support were prepared. What, if anything, do the Government intend to do about that? Can we expect the usual inaction, or can we at least be assured that any elected Provincewide authority that may emerge from the current talks will be associated with the next tranche of structural fund allocations?
Mr. John Hume: To put the facts on the table, will the Minister explain why, when the structural funds were increased, Northern Ireland, as an objective I region, received an increase of only 9 per cent., whereas the Republic of Ireland received 17 per cent., Portugal 114 per cent. and Greece 171 per cent.? Will the Minister explain

1103
why our objective 1 region did so badly and why the Government failed so miserably? Instead of silently staring at me, will the Minister explain why that happened?
Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend makes his own point and I have no doubt that the Minister will have heard what he said. I am glad that he made that point because I have referred in detail to my worries about the way in which the structural fund in Northern Ireland has been handled. I have asked why the Northern Ireland economy could not benefit again from the cohesion fund. That is for the Government to answer. Regrettably, we are not on the Government Benches; therefore, it is up to Ministers to answer the questions.
I wish to discuss two other matters. The first can only be described as the rifling of the economic, social and public expenditure programme for the security budget. Such practices are unacceptable and dangerous. The Government should make it clear that the necessary security costs will be met from contingency reserves if necessary, without impinging on other programmes; otherwise, it is tantamount to telling the terrorists that they can win the economic war and make the stakes too high for the British Government. The defence of society against terrorism is beyond price, so any further rifling of other budgets to substantiate and sustain the defence and security budgets is unacceptable.
Secondly, there is much concern about the performance of the industrial development agencies in the Province—the 1DB and LEDU—in terms of job creation. The Secretary of State alluded to that earlier. In the public sector, if back office jobs are excluded, only 158 jobs were promoted by the 1DB. It is not that we have anything against back office jobs or the public sector, but one does not have to be a Thatcherite to be worried about the excessive dependence on the public sector for employment in Northern Ireland. How does the Minister intend to secure further inward investment in the light of those difficulties?
As someone who, for the past three years, has been banging on the Dispatch box about the vacillation of the British Government and the Republic's Government about the upgrading of the Belfast-Dublin railway line, may I say how pleased I am to hear from the Secretary of State that work on improving that line will commence later this year? Not only is that line symbolic for the island of Ireland, linking Belfast to Dublin, but it makes economic and transportation sense. It also makes sense because of the single market, which is now exercising everyone's attention. It is right that the island of Ireland's economy should begin, to some extent, to integrate financial services, transport infrastructure and power supply. the island of Ireland, given its peripheral nature in relation to the rest of Europe, is to be at the races in the single market, those things must happen.
I am pleased that gas interconnectors are being provided between Scotland and the island of Ireland. I am pleased also that the Republic is considering an interconnector between Dublin and mainland United Kingdom. Furthermore, I am encouraged to see that the new team at Stormont is keen to resurrect the electricity interconnector between the Republic and Northern
1104
Ireland. One should not allow terrorism to stand in the way of economic progress and the unification of the European grid.
Although I have been critical of some of the Government's actions, there have been substantial improvements in economic activity in the Province, largely brought about by Northern Ireland Members through self-help. They have gone out and looked for inward investment in their constituencies, and I pay them credit for doing so.
7.55 pm
Dr. Joe Hendron: Although two months have passed, I presume that it is still in order to wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, well in your new post and a happy four or five years.
The tradition of the House is that new Members pay tribute to their predecessors. My predecessor, the President of Sinn Fein, did not take his seat in this House. Hence west Belfast had no parliamentary representation for nine years. It is fair to say that, because of adverse media coverage, my constituency has been grossly misrepresented to the world at large. A young Belfast student recently gave vivid expression to what I hope will be our shared vision for the future when he wrote:
"in morning sunlight over Belfast, a fragile ray of hope grows bright".
I have been privileged to serve the people of west Belfast—Catholic and Protestant, nationalist and Unionist—as a family doctor for more than 25 years. They are magnificent people and I salute them for their indomitable spirit, resilience in adversity, kindness, courtesy and great sense of humour. When I was elected on 10 April, it was clear to me that, although the vast majority of my votes came from nationalist west Belfast, I nevertheless received a significant number of votes from Unionist-Protestant parts of the constituency. I therefore consider myself deeply honoured that my mandate crossed the sectarian and political divide.
Catholic families on the Falls road have similar problems to Protestant families on the Shankill road in terms of unemployment, inadequate housing, social deprivation and paramilitary intimidation. There is a different political emphasis between the people of the Falls and the Shankill. but I want them all to know that at Westminster I shall act with integrity at all times and represent all of them to the best of my ability with regard to their social, economic and community interests.
The constituency of Belfast. West has one of the most spectacular urban settings in these islands, situated at the edge of the Antrim plateau and dominated by the Divis and Black mountains, which arc visible from every part of Belfast. Tradition has it that St. Patrick himself established a Christian church in Belfast in 454 AD, at Sean Chill, which means "the old church" and is anglicised today as "Shankill".
Centuries later, on 14 October 1791, in Crown Entry, off High street—which exists to this day in the constituency—the first Society of United Irishmen was founded by, among others, Wolfe Tone, Henry Joy McCraken and Thomas Russell, with the aim of bringing together all the people of Ireland in a spirit of brotherhood, harmony and toleration of diversity. The late 18th century was Belfast's golden age, with a growing prosperity and a social, cultural and intellectual awakening stimulated by the American and French

1105
revolutions. 1 pay tribute to the spirit and idealism of those first united Irishmen, and to their noble and non-violent aims that sought to unite all the people in a brotherhood of affection.
Belfast was among the first cities to be influenced by the industrial revolution. There is a 17th-century reference to a corn mill operating at Millfield, a thoroughfare that links the Falls and Shankill road. In the late 19th century a travel writer described Belfast's location as
"an ugly picture in a beautiful frame".
He was referring to the appalling and crowded, two-up, two-down rows of housing in long terraces, with poor sewage and waste disposal facilities that were erected by the mill owners to house the thousands of families who flocked into west Belfast in the aftermath of the great famine of the 1840s. Unhealthy working conditions and overcrowded housing combined with limited medical facilities produced rampant disease and low life expectancy.
The constituency was, I believe, first created for the 1886 general election at the time of the first Home Rule Bill. The first Member of Parliament for West Belfast was Thomas Sexton, a member of the Irish parliamentary party and a close associate of Charles Stewart Parnell. I am honoured to continue the tradition of those who have represented my constituency in the House.
Every hon. Member has a constituency that is unique, but Belfast is peculiarly unique. I do not believe that there is any territory in these islands where people have suffered as much. More people per thousand of the population have died through violence in west Belfast than anywhere else in western Europe; the figure is just over 500. There have been, and continue to be, more people imprisoned in west Belfast per thousand of the population than anywhere else in the islands.
Using the Government's own indicators of social deprivation—the Jarman indices—west Belfast is at the top of the poverty league. The great majority of people living in my constituency and far beyond in Northern Ireland want peace. In particular, they want the paramilitaries off their hacks. The Provisional IRA has mounted a continual campaign of violence, murder, intimidation and extortion. Its members have murdered hundreds of people, both civilians and members of the security forces.
The Provos are not defenders of the nationalist people; they do not have a mandate for murder. The vast majority of Irish people—north and south—oppose them. The Sinn Fein leadership tells our people to get up off their knees, while its paramilitary wing blows the knees off our people. I am referring to the knee-cappings of young people involved in alleged anti-social behaviour.
The main loyalist paramilitary organisation—the Ulster Defence Association, better known as the UDA/UFF—has also been responsible for hundreds of murders, mostly innocent Catholics. Their most recent victim was the mother of two young children, Mrs. Philomena Hanna, who was gunned down in her workplace on the Springfield road. Yet the Northern Ireland Office has continually refused to proscribe the UDA.
I demand that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State act immediately to proscribe that organisation. It is inexcusable not to take such action. In the aftermath of the Brian Nelson case, it is important that the faceless men in charge of military and covert operations be made
1106
accountable to both the judicial system and public representatives for their actions, as at no time can any life be sacrificed in the interest of security. Other paramilitary organisations that slaughter our people include the Irish People's Liberation Organisation, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Ulster Volunteer Force.
I appreciate that normal policing is impossible because of the IRA campaign of violence. However, the vast majority of the people in west Belfast support impartial policing; they will support the police, provided the police support the people on the ground. Young people who are continually harassed on our streets or who are treated with indignity in interrogation centres might have difficulty in giving such support. Interrogation centres would not be necessary if paramilitary organisations stopped their campaigns of violence. Yet it is morally wrong and counter-productive to ill-treat young people in centres such as Castlereagh. There is ample medical evidence that such ill-treatment has taken place. I have given such evidence. Soldiers who harass young people become recruiting sergeants for the IRA and other paramilitary organisations because they further alienate those same young people.
To the families of all those who have died in Northern Ireland—whether soldiers, policemen or civilians—I extend my sincere sympathy.
Among the greatest trials with which the people of west Belfast have to contend is the scourge of massive unemployment. Notified unemployment in the constituency as a whole is nearly 40 per cent. but in some districts such as Ballymurphy, Turf Lodge and Lower Falls, it has been reported as being more than 70 per cent. It is not unusual to meet families where the males have been unable to obtain gainful employment for two or more generations. Unemployment has always been endemic on the nationalist Falls road, but in recent years the Shankill road has also suffered badly as large companies such as Mackies have gone into decline. In estates such as Glencairn, unemployment is reported to be as high as 60 per cent.
Previous Governments have been guilty of gross neglect. However, in recent years the Make Belfast Work campaign has been having some positive effects. Government agencies such as IDB and LEDU are anxious to help. I accept that there has been an improvement recently, and the position is better than it was three or four years ago. I would like to pay tribute to the former Minister with responsibility for economic development, now the Minister for Trade, who was so genuinely concerned about deprivation in inner city districts particularly in my constituency.
Paramilitary violence has made it difficult to attract inward investment, but a number of companies are anxious to locate in west Belfast. In campaigning to bring employment to my constituency, and so ensuring a decent future for the families and young people of west Belfast, I will spare no effort to speak to any industrialist, lobby any Minister, or make any reasonable representations on behalf of all my constituents.
New and imaginative policies need to be devised—for example, a fiscal initiative that could lead to the adjustment in the rate of corporation tax for inward investment in order to make west Belfast fully competitive with the Irish Republic's 10 per cent. manufacturing tax, and greater attention to training for real jobs. The

1107
development of the Springvale initiative is extremely important, and I am pleased to know that there will be first class training facilities for 300 young people.
I pay tribute to the dedication and commitment of the schools and to the generations of teachers, parents and pupils who despite an almost intolerable background of deprivation and for two decades of violence have turned out thousands of highly motivated, well educated and public-spirited pupils. At the same time, far too many young people, through no fault of their own, do not benefit from the education system. That problem must be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
The study of the Irish language and other cultural pursuits are much to the fore in my constituency. The promotion of the Irish language has always been close to the hearts of the people of west Belfast. Cumann Chluain Ard in Hawthorn street has been at the centre of the Irish language revival for more than 50 years, and, at Shaws road, we can also boast the only significant Irish-speaking community in Ireland. Many voluntary bodies, including Glor-nGael, have fostered a vibrant cultural life for Irish speakers in the city.
Recently there has been growing interest in the Irish language in Unionist areas. As we have a shared cultural heritage that is a welcome development. The first Irish language secondary school in Northern Ireland, Meanscoil Feirste, which opened on the Falls road last September, has so far received no Government aid. The Northern Ireland Office accepts the necessity for nursery and primary education in Irish; it is only logical that it should support this school too.
Given the history of violent conflict and social deprivation in west Belfast in the past 20 years it was inevitable that hundreds of our young people would get involved directly or peripherally with paramilitary organisations. It is important that great sensitivity and, when possible, clemency, be shown to republican and loyalist prisoners, especially if their release would not endanger the public. Just as Private Thain, whose crime was committed in west Belfast, was transferred to an English prison before his early release, so Irish prisoners in England should be allowed to serve their sentences in their own country.
It is grossly unfair that prisoners' families should be made to suffer and that they should have to make long and arduous journeys to prisons in Britain over periods of many years. There are many female prisoners from my constituency in Maghaberry prison. They have had to endure the degrading practice of strip-searching, which both they and their families greatly resent. I ask the Secretary of State to intervene immediately to stop that.
I want to refer to a prisoner who is now dead. His name was Guiseppe Conlon. He was a patient of mine who came from the Lower Falls nationalist area of west Belfast. When Mr. Conlon's son Gerard—later to become known as one of the Guildford four—was arrested after the Guildford massacre, his father came to see me in my surgery in Divis street. I still have some of his medical records. Like any father, he was deeply concerned about his son, so later that evening he crossed on the ferry to England to be near Gerard.
Guiseppe Conlon was a sick man with chronic lung disease—he would have been out of breath if he had
1108
walked even 100 yards. On top of that he had never been to England, yet he was arrested, charged with making bombs, sentenced and eventually allowed to die in Wormwood Scrubs prison on 23 January 1980.
It did not take a forensic expert or even an intelligent judge to know that Guiseppe Conlon was completely innocent, yet to this day his widow, Mrs. Sarah Conlon—she is a great lady—has never received an apology from the Government or from any relevant authority. She too had to make the long weary trek backwards and forwards to various prisons in England, entirely at her own expense.
There are those in this House who will say that violence in Northern Ireland has been fuelled by hope—the hope that violence will achieve political objectives. That is not my view. Quite the contrary. Violence is fuelled not by hope but rather by despair, and any Member of this House who is prepared to walk the streets of my constituency with me would immediately understand and recognise that despair. If belief in society is diminished, it becomes easier to listen to voices which seek not to accommodate diversity but to eliminate it—hence the despair of young people who are daily humiliated, harassed, insulted and abused by British soldiers in their own streets. Some of these young people are involved in joyriding—joyriding which, night after night, has provoked unprecedented anger and anxiety among the residents of west Belfast.
I deviate from my prepared script at this point to say that I have read quite a bit about joyriding in various parts of England; but it all started in west Belfast. Joyriding is a misnomer. These young people kill themselves and others. Two young joyriders in Belfast were not so much shot dead by British soldiers as riddled with bullets by them. No joyrider has ever been a member of a paramilitary organisation. I have been saying that for years, and I cannot understand to this day why those two young people were shot dead. I have heard nothing more about the soldiers involved, but they were certainly not brought to court. There is an urgent need for a co-ordinated strategy to deal with this terrible problem.
It is the climate of despair which encourages violence because those who feel that despair are easy prey for those who exploit the failure of society to deal with these problems who exploit the anger and who exploit their frustration so as to suck more and more people into the descending spiral of poverty, despair, violence, destruction and economic disintegration.
My task as the Member for West Belfast must be to try to break the vicious circle: to bring hope to the streets of my city; to bring jobs for its unemployed; to bring investment for its decaying infrastructure; to bring a fair and just policy of law enforcement; and, by doing these things, to bring peace to my city.
I need the help of the Government in undertaking this work—indeed, I need the help of every Member of this House who is prepared to help. My constituents have a right to the concern of the Government and of this House. They have a right to a better future than the one which stares them in the face every day when they waken. They have a right to peace, to security, to freedom, to justice and to their fair share of prosperity.
In the words of John Hewitt, the great Belfast poet, in his poem "The Bloody Brae":
"and from that mercy, kindness seized a chance, to weave together the broken halves of this land, to throw his shuttle across the separate threads and make us a glittering web, for God's delight with joy in the placing of colours, side by side."

1109
I pledge myself to the wonderful people of west Belfast, to work for them for as long as they continue to elect me to represent them in this House.
8.19 pm
Sir James Kilfedder: I listened with great attention to the speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). His reputation preceded his appearance in the House. Therefore, I was not surprised to listen to a speech imbued with compassion and toleration. I hope that, before he leaves the House, he will see peace restored not only in west Belfast but in every other part of the Province.
The people I represent, the people of North Down, are concerned about what happens in west Belfast, as indeed they are concerned about what happens in every other region of Northern Ireland. The great dilemma for ordinary people in Northern Ireland—a dilemma that is carried on the shoulders of the Government with, perhaps, some agony—is what to do about terrorism.
If one defends people against acts of terrorism one can, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, alienate people in the community in which those terrorists live. All of us in Northern Ireland must not only pray for an end to terrorism, murder and mutilation, but work and contribute towards bringing peace to our Province. I hope that that peace will come. but it requires an effort on the part of every decent person in the Province who believes in law and order and a future for the young people of Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State, in his sober but hopeful speech this afternoon, referred to the coming single European market and the opportunities that that would provide for Ulster. His remarks were made against a background of 14.3 per cent. unemployment in Northern Ireland. Many of those who are unemployed are in west Belfast, many in the west of the Province, but a considerable number are in my constituency of North Down. Full employment—I echo the words of the Secretary of State—is one of the bases for racial and religious harmony. That is why it is so essential to deal with the terrible scourge of unemployment.
Many of those who are unemployed in North Down are school leavers and young graduates. Unemployment is a dreadful scourge. I hate to see anyone unemployed, but Many unemployed people discuss their problems with me—not only the problem of obtaining a job but that of running a home and raising a family on limited means. Unemployment is like a cancer which eats away at the self-esteem of the individual and undermines his morale. For anyone who wants to work it is an appalling experience, and for young people it is devastating. More could he done to attract new industries to the North Down area where, during the past 12 months, unemployment has increased. I therefore ask the Government to consider whether North Down is getting a fair deal in the context of Northern Ireland.
The problem in attracting inward investment is that the terrorist campaign and paramilitary activity result in a lurid and distressing picture of Northern Ireland being broadcast to the people of the United States, Japan and elsewhere. That is how people abroad view the people of Northern Ireland and the situation there. But that is not the true picture. Of course people do die dreadful deaths at the hands of the terrorists, but the majority of people in
1110
Northern Ireland go about their daily lives doing their jobs and providing for their families. The picture that should go out is one of a beautiful land full of hope.
I have just received the CBI's special supplement on Northern Ireland. It is an extremely good document which should have the widest possible circulation. Let me quote two paragraphs from one article in the pamphlet. It says:
"If only the outside world would now and again take a closer look at what is going on in Northern Ireland, rather than relying on media reports, it would surely be impressed by both the growing cross-border co-operation and the business achievements.
Because terrorist violence is newsworthy and highly visual and plays on the emotions, its place is assured in the television news coverage that is spread globally by satellite. And because these news bulletins have no time to show anything as undramatic in instant news terms as the positive side of Ulster, the imbalance is perpetuated."
Those who live in the Province realise the horror of terrorism and sometimes suffer at the hands of the terrorists who not only seek to take away life and limb, but wish to bomb more and more people on to the dole queue. The people of Northern Ireland and of west Belfast must realise that terrorism brings grief and suffering regardless of religion, whether Protestant or Catholic; it brings unemployment and all the consequences that the dole means for any person. We cannot ignore the terrorists in Northern Ireland. They kill ruthlessly and without remorse. But all of us must seek to create political stability and business prosperity which is one sound way to counter the terrorist.
Northern Ireland's principal means for publicising the Province's industrial and commercial advantages and attracting investment is the Industrial Development Board, which has been referred to by the Opposition spokesman. I pay tribute to Mr. John McGuckian, who is the dynamic chairman of that board. In the CBI's special supplement, he says:
"Since 1982 when the Industrial Development Board was established, for example, more than a billion pounds of public and private sector money has been invested in large-scale manufacturing projects. To date, this partnership has resulted in the creation of around 30,000 new jobs.
A growing number of these have been in new industries such as medical technology, software development, electronics and tradeable services. The expansion of these industries is playing an important part in off-setting the decline of employment in traditional sectors such as heavy engineering, shipbuilding and linen-making.
I always demand more money for Northern Ireland. As has already been said, Northern Ireland depends to a tremendous extent on public sector employment, on the taxpayer. I recognise that, if money could bring peace to Ulster, that peace would have been bought many times over by the vast amount of taxpayer's money which has been put into the Province. The people of Northern Ireland are grateful for that money, because the Province is a part of the United Kingdom that, for over 20 years, has suffered from one of the cruellest campaigns of terrorism that any people could expect to endure.
I believe that there is an overwhelming case for a devolved Government and assembly at Stormont, where locally elected politicians would assume full responsibility for the allocation and expenditure of taxpayers' money. We must move forward, and to do so we must break the shackles of the past—the shackles of prejudice and hatred—and the mould that unfortunately divides the community into two separate camps.

1111
I feel hopeful about the future—not just because of the talks, which may succeed or fail. I hope that the people now realise that it is in their hands to achieve some progress by helping the process of reconciliation.
Let me finish by mentioning a problem that I have raised more than once in the House, although the Minister may not know about it: the problem of Mr. Ignatius Geddis's farm, which lies next to Crawfordsburn country park in my constituency. The area is one of great natural beauty, but Mr. Geddis's farm is a dump. I could use worse language, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not wish to be reprimanded by you. It is a dump; yet tourists and local residents have to put up with it.
I have the utmost sympathy for those local people, and I put their case to the Minister's predecessor a number of times. The last letter that I received from him said that he would look into the matter again. I invited him to come and see the dump for himself. Let me now extend a warm invitation to the present Minister to come and see the beauties of North Down, and, in particular, this blot on the landscape.
Something must be done. Tourists come to the area from all parts of the world. We have heard about the increase in tourism: 1.9 million people visited the Province in 1991. I do not suppose that they come to see Mr. Geddis's dump, but that is what they see when they visit the country park or walk along the main road to observe the beauties of North Down.
The Minister should either vest the property and hand it over to the country park, or designate the area as environmentally sensitive. As I have said, those who live there have to put up with it, but people who have visited Northern Ireland telephone me afterwards to ask, "Do you know that there is an awful dump in your constituency?" I have to tell them that I have been plaguing the Department of the Environment for years about it.
Our new Minister has a tremendous reputation. I look to him to resolve this awful problem.
8.33 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) on his maiden speech. We look forward to hearing more speeches from him in the future; he is certainly more welcome than his predecessor.
Let me make my usual protest about the disgraceful Order-in-Council method of dealing with Northern Ireland business. The House would be disappointed if I did not do so at the beginning of my speech. Depending on one's mood, the system could be described as a travesty of justice, a pantomime or—quite seriously—a tragedy for all Northern Ireland democrats.
If hon. Members do not mind talking in a vacuum, of course, a host of problems can be aired on such occasions. Usually, we find ourselves listening to a litany of constituency matters. Hon. Members could talk about housing and repairs; on another occasion, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) talked about chimney flues. They could talk about electricity and the inadvisability of unnecessary privatisation. They could talk about the Department of Health and Social Services and the grants that are supposed to be available but are
1112
not available; about the infamous social fund, which is anything but a social fund; about roads and potholes; about lack of lighting, flooding, lack of drainage and the dramatic changes that have taken place in Northern Ireland's education system. Unfortunately, those education changes have done the system no good: it has almost been destroyed, and it is still on its feet only because of the efforts of the teachers.
The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) talked about planning. We could talk for hours about that—about the non-enforcement of conditions that should be enforced and about the fact that there is no standard planning system throughout the whole of Northern Ireland.
In many ways, using a scatter-gun approach to the order presents the Minister with opportunities to avoid answering awkward questions and to give long-winded explanations of relatively minor points. I refer, of course, to the present Minister's predecessor, as this Minister has only just entered his post.
I intend to concentrate on one of the most important subjects, which was mentioned several times during the previous debate—roads and transportation. I wish to illustrate the complete lack of long-term, consistent, sensible strategy—remembering that the sole responsibility for such matters lies with the Department of the Environment, for which the Minister is responsible.
The so-called block grant tends to encourage the incorrect assumption that Northern Ireland is in a favoured or privileged position vis-a-vis other regions in the United Kingdom. The centralised Government structure and the presence of its enabling bodies or quangos—which were referred to earlier and to which I have often drawn the House's attention—tend to support the misinformed view that seemingly enormous sums are being channelled into every conceivable area of public provision. Yet, when we analyse the expenditure per sector or per project, an entirely different and altogether more accurate picture emerges.
In respect of roads, transport and ports, the Government have stated their objectives clearly in their booklet "Northern Ireland Expenditure Plans and Priorities", Cm 1917, published in February 1992. No sensible or reasonable person could object to those objectives. The first is to
"operate and maintain the road system efficiently and economically, with due precedence being given to the main traffic route network".
That is fine. The second is to
"make the most effective use of the existing road system through appropriate traffic management arrangements".
That is fine. The third is to
"improve and develop the road system".
That is fine. Another objective is to
"make it safe for all road users."
That is to be supported.
I accept that it is not necessary for all works to have been completed yesterday, but, I challenge the system by which priorities and expenditure are determined. I do not wish to take up too much time but I must illustrate my point. The Department of the Environment published a sequence of priorities from 1987 to 1991. In 1987, according to parliamentary answers, it was said that work on the Killead bypass should start in 1989–90. Since then, it has been pushed back continually and it is now due to

1113
start in 1995–96. Stage 2 of the A26 dualling was a priority in 1987 and was due to start in 1989–90. Work on it, too, has been pushed back and is now due to start in 1995–96.
The Newry bypass roads, in another constituency, were mentioned in the Department's programme for the first time in 1988. Stage 2 was due to start in 1991–92, but now stage two, the bridge is due to start in 1992–93 and stage three, the road, is due to start in 1993–94. Therefore, work on two roads that were priorities in 1987—the Killead bypass and the A26—has been pushed back to 1995–96, whereas work on the Newy bypass roads, which were not included until 1988, is due to start two or three years earlier.
If those facts are not a clear example of inconsistency or something more sinister, it could be said that Denmark is an enthusiastic member of the European Community. In the interests of other hon. Members, I shall refrain from presenting further instances of inconsistency, underfunding, the development of exotic—rather than vital—projects or worse.
Northern Ireland's economic arteries remain our sea routes to the United Kingdom. When the channel tunnel opens, Great Britain will no longer have to contend with the difficulties that occur at present on its shortest sea route to the continent. In contrast, Northern Ireland will continue to compete under that disadvantage. Our tourist and commercial lines of communication will continue to be our recognised sea routes to Belfast: Larne and Warrenpoint handle about 80 per cent. of our tonnage between them, and our other ports handle the remaining 20 per cent.
That is a sufficient handicap without being faced with the totally inadequate through routes from Scottish and English ports. Hon. Members representing north-west England or south-west Scotland constituencies are only too aware of the fundamental difficulties experienced on the A74 and A75. It would be hypocritical of us to criticise the Scottish Office or the Department of Transport about those roads while we tolerate the shortcomings of Northern Ireland's internal infrastructure.
We welcome the construction of the cross-harbour link, but one little thing has been forgotten. It will be unfortunate if that link means that the Belfast terminal will be in a less suitable location for foot passengers. In 1990, 2,245,000 tonnes came in through the port of Larne and 1,756,000 tonnes went out. In addition, 178,026 vehicles came in through that port and 170,113 went out. It was reported in 1986—I know that it has changed now—that Lame accounted for 85 per cent. of the passenger traffic by sea into and out of Northern Ireland and one third of all surface passengers into and out of the island of Ireland.
Therefore, it seems odd that there is no mention of Larne's chief approach road, the A8, in the Department of the Environment's priorities. It has not been mentioned since 1987. The A8 must be upgraded to the proper standard before the number of accidents increases out of control. If the Minister feels that that cannot be justified under the Government's investment appraisal criteria, perhaps he will make a case for the A8 in Northern Ireland and the A75 in Scotland to be considered as a single route and accorded similar status to that apparently received by the north Wales A5-A55 corridor. The generous investment allocated to the Welsh corridor might then be applied to the north channel, including the A8.
The Government have disregarded that vital point of economic integration. They will claim that Northern
1114
Ireland's infrastructure and roads are of a high standard. I challenge that on two points. First, one sees that our road system has survived even the confusion of the Department of the Environment's year-on-year priority list. Secondly, relatively short, but key, sections of access roads require major upgrading. I have already mentioned the A8 to Larne, which is an essential road. I remind the House of the A26, which forms a bottleneck between the north-west and the area hospital in Antrim, the north-west and the international airport, and the north-west and the M2. That is followed closely by the Killead bypass, which blocks the access road from the south to the international airport. However, despite both difficulties, that airport handled 2.25 million passengers and 23,719 tonnes of freight in 1990.
Almost everyone, except the Department of the Environment—by that I mean the Ministers up to the present—recognise that the conditions on those sections of road are detrimental to the well being of everyone in Northern Ireland. Earlier in my remarks, I referred to the inconsistency of the Department of the Environment's priorities, which succeeded in giving greater priority to the Newry bypass roads by pushing back the legitimate claims of recognised bottlenecks at Killead, the A26 and the A8 to Larne. The A8 to Larne carries 13,800 vehicles per day, whereas the road to Dublin through Newry carries 6,000 per day.
Why has the policy changed, and who changed it? Why, suddenly, are connecting roads to the Republic a higher priority than Northern Ireland's roads? Where is the logic in completing roads that, after crossing the border, will grind to a halt because the routes with which they link will not be able to cope with the traffic in the foreseeable future? Let us get our own house in order in Northern Ireland before bending over backwards to please another country. If the Government are not prepared to do that, the only conclusion that the people of Northern Ireland will reach is that this is being done for political rather than investment reasons.
I remind the Minister that he is responsible for the roads of Northern Ireland and our connections with the rest of the United Kingdom. We expect him to carry out his responsibilities to the Northern Ireland travelling public—our commercial traffic, our business men and women and, above all, United Kingdom citizens who live in Northern Ireland.
That responsibility extends to our other major concern—expenditure on maintenance. Dr. Snaith's recent report found that 1,000 miles of road in the Province is decaying at an alarming rate. Northern Ireland Members of all parties did not require a report to tell them that. We have all complained about such matters in debates on appropriation orders. Perhaps our new Minister will resolve the situation.
Mr. William Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although Dr. Snaith's report was apparently made available to the road service headquarters, we have not seen it? I telephoned the Minister's office two or three weeks ago to ask whether a copy could be made available to me, but I am still waiting. Perhaps we could be made aware of the present situation, especially as one of the report's recommendations was that lightly used roads could be dispensed with and abandoned. One

1115
wonders what effect that would have on some of the difficulties that are experienced in rural areas in trying to get our little-used roads kept up to scratch.
Mr. Forsythe: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, with which I agree. It reminds me of when I tried to get information about quangos, only to be referred to a book in the Library, which could not give me the information that I required. Perhaps the Minister, who, I am sure, heard what my hon. Friend said, will take that into consideration.
I return to my remarks about the incorrect assumption regarding the block grant. In England and Wales, £12,500 per mile is spent on maintaining trunk roads, yet the figure in Northern Ireland is £3,700 per mile. For all roads, the figure in England and Wales is £3,180 per mile and in Northern Ireland £1,910 per mile. Dr. Snaith's report says:
"However, in the absence of criteria similar to those used for the appraisal of capital schemes being used when planning expenditure on maintenance, it is difficult to be certain that the most cost-effective decisions have been taken when Roads Service allocates funds to capital schemes rather than to maintenance work."
That may account for what has been happening and may suggest trouble for the future. As roads maintenance has remained almost static since 1979, will the Government accept that the Comptroller and Auditor General has made a valid criticism in drawing attention to the importance of the road structure to business in the Province?
8.54 pm
Rev. William McCrea: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to deal with matters that are vital to the people of Northern Ireland, particularly the people of the constituency that I have been honoured to represent.
I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) on the honour that he received in Her Majesty's birthday honours list. I listened carefully to his speech, especially to the part about the new site that will now be a tourist attraction. As I plan to visit his constituency at the weekend, I must obtain the address so that I can share with him some of the beauties to which he drew the House's attention. He has now identified a tourist spot for the future and probably will charge because of the help that he has given in putting the place on the map.
My colleagues and I will not divide the House on the order, because we are delighted to receive funds for the Province. The usual inference that is drawn in these debates, especially by hon. Members from England and Scotland, is that Northern Ireland is given preferential financial treatment. One of the reports to which I shall refer shows that that is in the minds of certain right hon. and hon. Members. I trust that, tonight, appreciation will be expressed where it is due and that certain matters that need a response will be drawn to the Minister's attention.
I represent a large rural constituency. Farming is vital to the district. Indeed, many of our people are employed in the agricultural industry and we hold it very dear. We want to ensure that decisions to be taken by the Government—not only here but in Europe—will be taken with the best
1116
interests of the farming community at heart and that no decisions taken in the Councils of Europe will destroy or harm it.
I congratulate the new Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) on his appointment and I hope that he will gather much enjoyment from his dealings with the matters that we raise and from seeing some of the most beautiful countryside that any Minister could see—of course, I include North Down as well as the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends and my own.
Some time ago, I had a meeting at Dundonald house with worried farmers and the then Minister responsible for agriculture. The farmers were worried about the meat industry and a problem being introduced into the industry by a few of their number. The deputation was to deal specifically with the problem of what is known as angel dust. Will the new Minister assure me that his Department will make certain that the problem is stamped on with resolve and determination, and that the greedy and miserable people who are putting such a vital industry in jeopardy will be removed from that industry?
If a rogue doctor were to use practices which were not accepted by his profession, he would be removed from the list of practitioners. I believe that resolute action must be taken against farmers who are willing to put the whole industry into the melting pot for financial gain. The matter must be handled with great determination. The principle officer in the Department referred to the issue on radio and television. I pay tribute to the manner in which he dealt with the subject and trust that his resolve will be carried through into action.
I welcome the moneys allocated under the Department of Agriculture's vote 2 for the Omagh flood defence—£1,705,000 this financial year and £1,575,000 to complete the project. Will the Minister assure me that the project will be carried out and that the Department of Agriculture will work hand in hand with the Department of the Environment so that this matter, which has caused great concern and trouble around Campsey right down to Omagh, will be attended to once and for all? I hope that the moneys allocated will be spent wisely and will resolve the problem.
I appreciate the fact that before the previous Minister left office, he announced the finances that the Department would be making available. He assured me that he would endeavour to get the Department of the Environment and his Department to work hand in hand so that the best possible use of the moneys would be made. Therefore, I ask the present Minister to give me the same unequivocal assurance.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sad that there is now no Minister to answer directly to us in the House for the largest industry in Northern Ireland —agriculture—and that the representative is in another place? Does he agree that it does not bode well for agriculture that we have no direct access to the Minister responsible?
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Under-Secretary of State who participates regularly will speak about these issues in the House and will listen carefully to what hon. Members of all parties have to say. I hope that all hon. Members will

1117
recognise that representation of their worries and interests will not diminish because my hon. Friend will convey messages as necessary to my noble Friend in another place.
Rev. William McCrea: I thank the Minister for his information. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was pointing out that he and many people genuinely believe that it would have been better if, as in the past, the Minister responsible for such an important industry were answerable at all times, thus enabling all Members of Parliament from the Province to have immediate contact with him on the Floor of the House. However, I have no doubt that the Minister who will answer will take up those matters and I trust that there will be close consultation throughout his period in office.
Money has been allocated for the Omagh flood defences, yet no moneys have been allocated to the Castlederg flood defences. The people there have endured an intolerable situation, and the Minister who was previously responsible for agriculture received a delegation on their behalf. It is vital that that matter should be dealt with, and I ask that it be passed to the Minister now responsible for agriculture for immediate action. I trust that it will be resolved—that the money will be spent in Castlederg, which has suffered much.
I listened to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) talking about his constituency, but no-one can deny that the Castlederg area has suffered more than any other rural small town on the verge of the United Kingdom. The matter must be resolved. That will take money, but I trust that the money will be allocated urgently.
With regard to the schedule on the Department of Economic Development, it gives me no joy to tell the House that my constituency has the second highest unemployment in the United Kingdom. That is a tragedy; it ought not to happen. It causes me grave concern, bearing in mind the fact that we are in the middle of a recession. It is true that the recession did not hit the Province at the same time as the rest of the United Kingdom, but our people fear that when the recession has been lifted everywhere else and the rest of the kingdom faces brighter days, Northern Ireland will still be affected. I trust that that will not happen, but unfortunately it has always happened in the past.
I urge the Government to act. Our community needs jobs—it is crying out for them. I trust that Cookstown and the rest of Mid-Ulster will enjoy the necessary financial injection.
I asked the Minister whether a study could be made of the amounts of money spent on industrial development in the Mid-Ulster constituency compared with that spent in other constituencies. Few large industrial enterprises have been directed towards or have invested in Mid-Ulster. We have to rely on the local community, with small industries mushrooming. Local enterprise is healthy, and I respect and give great credit to those who have faced the challenge and moved forward—but we need inward investment. We need to look further afield, and there have been disparities between the finances coming into Mid-Ulster and those coming into other constituencies. Other constituencies are closer to the ports, and we are far away, so it is vital that additional finance is made available for industries that might consider coming to constituencies such as mine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (M r. Ross) spoke about another important problem which
1118
has hit the headlines—the closure of Coats Vyella in the Magherafelt area. The Minister is well aware of the great concern. Some 560 jobs were lost in Magherafelt with just a crack of the finger. Other jobs are in the balance. I ask the Department to ensure that not one stone is left unturned in securing other jobs in the Magherafelt area which are in the balance. If the Department do not take effective measures to help us in creating and keeping jobs in the area, we may find ourselves in an industrial wasteland.
The Magherafelt area and my constituency generally have suffered greatly from the threat of terrorism and from the disaster of terrorism. The terrorism continues to the present. In recent days, the IRA has continued the bombing campaign in my constituency. That is why I hope that every arm of government will move forward together—the security forces with every other arm of government—to ensure that we bring stability and an end to social deprivation for the people of Mid-Ulster.
To allow industry to move forward, we need proper expenditure on energy. There must be a fair deal in the allocation of money for job creation in various areas. We need further help from the Industrial Development Board and from the Local Enterprise Development Unit in job creation.
Recently many jobs were lost at the Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital. Mental patients used to be treated at the hospital, but more patients are now treated outside hospital. There is a beautiful site there which will be left vacant. I ask that the Government take action to ensure that the hospital does not lie vacant and become derelict. I ask that offices should be opened there and Government jobs put in.
It is true that the Government have said recently that they would direct public sector jobs from Belfast to the city of Londonderry. The hospital building in Omagh, the county town of Tyrone, should not be left derelict, but filled with proper public sector jobs and other developments. The site is massive and I do not want to see it left derelict.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is concerned about the county town of Omagh. There seems to be a conspiracy to attack the town. There is the whole hospital controversy. I know that my hon. Friend has invited the leaders of the three parties to take part in a deputation on the issue. This large building in the middle of Omagh could be used, yet no push or energy seems to be put into getting tenants for it. Will my hon. Friend reveal to us his anxiety about what is really happening in the Omagh area?
Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I am deeply concerned about the whole life of the Omagh district and about the rest of the area, including Cookstown, Castlederg and the part of Magherafelt which is in my area. I am dealing with the specific matter of Omagh, which is vital and which is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Services.
The hospital building used to be used for those who were mentally ill. Many employees were then removed from there. We now face a new and serious problem and Omagh certainly needs help. My friend in that area, Councillor Oliver Gibson, prepared an excellent dossier on rural development in and around Omagh. I trust that the Minister will take care to read it. It was certainly

1119
forwarded to his Department. A beautiful document was also prepared on the former Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital. There is an urgent need to find tenants for the building. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North for his assistance in that matter.
I move on to the Department of the Environment. Once again, we face serious problems in the Mid-Ulster constituency. I listened with care to the hon. Member for Belfast, West speaking about the needs of his constituency. I welcome him presenting the case for west Belfast. But I inform the Minister that we shall monitor carefully what happens to Government finances because it is feared that they go in certain directions, to the detriment of other constituencies. I certainly will not stand back and see Government resources pumped into west Belfast in an effort to court the people away from Sinn Fein. I will not allow my constituency, which has been a base for Sinn Fein support in the past, to fall by the wayside. I assure the Minister that there will be strong protest if finances are handled unfairly.
We have all received a document entitled "Department of the Environment: Structural Maintenance of Roads". I have that document before me and I should like to read out part of the review of structural maintenance in Northern Ireland. The report tells us the mileage of roads in each area—Ballymena 2,000 miles; Belfast 1,000 miles; Coleraine 2,000 miles; Craigavon 3,000 miles; Downpatrick almost 2,000 miles; Omagh 4,800 miles.
The report was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 6 February 1992. It itemises the major findings of Dr. Snaith's report of December 1986. It says:
"A high percentage of the roads in Northern Ireland were coming into the last quarter of their lives. Over the next few years rapid deterioration would become increasingly evident and, in the Omagh Division, serious deterioration had already occurred."
People usually say that Northern Ireland has more money spent on it than any other area. Let us examine the document. In 1987–88, £12,526 per mile was spent on maintaining trunk roads, excluding motorways, in England and Wales, compared with £3,669 in Northern Ireland. The expenditure on all roads in England and Wales was £3,181 per mile compared with £1,961 in Northern Ireland. That is not some statistic that I have thought up. We are always told that Northern Ireland receives more than the rest of the kingdom. and that money is pumped in. Yet £12,526 per mile was spent on maintaining trunk roads in England and Wales, compared with £3,669 in Northern Ireland. It is up to the Minister to fight for Northern Ireland. It is up to the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office to fight to change that discrepancy.
The report goes on to tell us some interesting facts. It gives the maintenance backlog from 1985 to 1989 and the cost in millions. In the Ballymena area, there was a £7.74 million backlog in 1985; in 1989 it was £2.85 million. In Belfast, the backlog was £13.13 million in 1985 and £5.18 million in 1989. In Coleraine, in 1985 it was £6.69 million, and in 1989 it was £6.10 million. In Craigavon, the backlog was £13.2 million in 1985, and £9.15 million in 1989. In Downpatrick, the backlog was £14.56 million in 1985 and £9.77 million in 1989. In Omagh, the backlog was £22.45 million in 1985, and £25.33 million in 1989.
1120
In the years between 1985 and 1989, the Omagh division was the only area to have an increased maintenance backlog. We are sick, sore and tired of seeing yellow marks on the roads. The Government Department pays an official to put a yellow mark around potholes. but that does not mean that they will be attended to. I could take hon. Members to places where holes have been marked four time but have never been filled. I am not sure whether the Department of the Environment roads service intends to fill the holes with yellow paint, but I can tell the Minister it does not do the trick.
I am telling the House that—on the basis of that Government report—I am sick, sore and tired of being discriminated against, and of my constituents being discriminated against. It is about time things changed.
During the recent election campaign, a member of the Social Democratic Labour party said that the wonderful roads in the Foyle constituency stopped when one reached Mid-Ulster, and he used that against me for political purposes. I ask the Minister to tell me why there are beautiful roads in Foyle, which has an SDLP Member of Parliament when, between 1985 and 1989—during the time that I represented the constituency—there was an increased backlog in Mid-Ulster? The party of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) raised that matter, and the situation must now be changed. I demand that moneys be redirected. If there have to be pull-backs, they certainly should not be in my constituency, because the problems there must be rectified.
I am making a demand and I assure the House that I shall not stop—I shall mention the problem again and again until everyone is sick of it and something is done. I shall not allow the people of Mid-Ulster to be left with nothing but humps, hollows and holes in second-class roads, when other areas have such lovely roads. We shall have justice and it is about time that we saw some action.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should give an assurance that the shortfall in the hon. Member's constituency has not resulted in contractors not being paid for work done, and that that is not the reason why the potholes have not been filled?
Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's answer.
I am not looking for some magical answer tonight. I would rather have a clear, definite and in-depth answer. I want the Minister to tell me about the money being spent on roads in the Mid-Ulster constituency and to tell me what has been spent in the other 16 constituencies. We shall have a wee bit of equality. We hear a lot of huff and puff about discrimination, and all the rest of it, but it is time for the whole can of worms to be opened and for us to find out what is happening in the Departments. It is about time officials answered for the way in which they have been handing out money or making recommendations about our roads.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a shame that we have been told that it is all right to close the maternity unit in Omagh because it is claimed that the roads are so good that the women can be transported across them to Enniskillen? Is it not a disgrace that, despite the fact that some roads are not in good condition on the Department of the

1121
Environment's own confession, another Department has said that they are so good that one can close the maternity unit in Omagh hospital and take everyone to Enniskillen?
Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention.
The Department's report speaks for itself and 1 simply present its findings, of which every hon. Member has a copy. The document, which contains the conclusions reached by Dr. Snaith, states:
"A high percentage of roads in Northern Ireland were coming into the last quarter of their lives. Over the next few years, rapid deterioration would become increasingly evident and, in the Omagh Division, serious deterioration had already occurred."
The Omagh division has received extra money to deal with its maintenance backlog when every other division has received less. In Omagh. the funds allocated have risen from £22.45 million to £25.33 million. The total backlog is worth £58.38 million, and it is interesting to note that practically half of that sum has been given to the Omagh division. Answers need to be given by the Departments and officials better come up with good ones because we will not stand for any more false claims on the matter. It is about time that we had a fair crack of the whip and a proper allocation of finances. We will not accept anything less.
The Government say that they want to encourage new jobs, and it is disgraceful that Magherafelt bypass, which is urgently needed, has still not been built. We have been waiting for that bypass for years and years. It is necessary, because the roads are chock-a-block as people try to get through. The lack of a bypass is hindering the industrial development of an area that is on the verge of becoming an industrial wasteland.
We are crying out for a bypass in Cookstown, but again the work will he delayed. The second phase, the completion, of the Omagh bypass and the Newtonstewart bypass are also urgently needed. They are all in my constituency. We urgently need money to be spent.
We need to improve the Coagh to Stewartstown road. The environment and the roads in Sion Mills in my constituency are a disgrace after so many years. The Department must give us not only answers and promises, but clear action.
I welcome the provision of the finances for education, but there are two many mobile classrooms in my constituency. Other hon. Members will say that that is true in their constituencies. My constituency has an increasing number of disgruntled and angry students, who wish to continue their further and higher education. Because of the lack of a proper grant system, they are unable to do that. When we consider the amount of money that is spent on students from the Irish Republic and the assistance given to them, we begin to worry about our people from the United Kingdom and their chances of continuing their further and higher education.
I warn the Minister that there is alarm and concern in my constituency about grants. We should he encouraging our young people, especially in Mid-Ulster, where there is so much unemployment, to stay on at school and get the best education that we can possibly give. It is not enough to say that that is what we would like. It costs money to put that into action. Therefore, 1 make a further appeal to the Government tonight.
I must again raise the case of a former teacher in Cookstown, Mr. Crozier. I have raised this matter with
1122
every Minister since I entered this place, but I regret to say that no action has yet been taken. Mr. Crozier believes that he was done a terrible injustice, and I continue to be concerned about the matter as I read letters and documents about it. It is time that the Government agreed to carry out an inquiry into the whole issue. Let all the hooks be opened at an independent inquiry.
We have had the Birmingham Six, and many other cases have been looked at afresh. Mr. Crozier's case should be examined in that light, with openness. It should be investigated, not by those who in the past have had a vested interest, but by an independent inquiry. Will the Government allow an independent inquiry into the case of Mr. Frederick Crozier? I have been dealing with the case for years. I have gone cap in hand to every Minister. I have written hundreds of letters to, among others, the Prime Minister, the heads of the civil service, people in the DPP's office and raised the issue at meetings with the RUC. Let us bring the matter to a conclusion by examining independently the injustice that Mr. Crozier feels he has suffered, and put the case to rest once and for all.
Hon. Members will not be surprised when I raise a health and social services matter that causes me grave concern. I refer to the maternity services at the Tyrone county hospital. Many representations about the matter have been made and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North said, we hope to continue making representations. Of three leaders, I have yet to speak to one, but the other two have agreed to take part in a delegation to the Earl of Arran.
The consultant medical staff at the hospital wholeheartedly support the Government's citizens charter and hope that it will be applied to the maternity services in Omagh. The charter aims to improve quality and make services more responsive to the needs of citizens. That aim is unlikely to succeed if the decision of the western health and social services board to remove the present maternity services from Tyrone county hospital is ratified.
I fully understand the concern of the people of the county town of Omagh about the removal of those services. About 37,000 people have signed a petition urging the retention of their maternity services at that hospital. As they say, that service has existed for years. I ask the House to support the people of the area, and throughout Fermanagh, in ensuring that the existing services are retained.
Tyrone county hospital at present offers a high quality, comprehensive maternity service with a high standard of personal care and attention resulting from being a small rurally based unit serving its own community. The citizens charter says that citizens have an opportunity to influence decisions made on their behalf. The area health council, the body that represents the local citizens, has recommended the maintenance and upgrading of both the Tyrone county and Erne units. Although 37,000 people have signed that petition, thereby making their voices heard, the Western health and social services board has decided to close the Omagh maternity unit.
That is a despicable disgrace. The decision has been taken by one of the quangos that is answerable to no one. The public representatives have been removed from what used to be the boards. Now, each of the members are totally unanswerable to the general public. I deplore that, because it is not democracy but a complete denial of democracy. I demand that we allow democracy to work again for my constituents.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will not my hon. Friend deplore publicly, in this House, how that was done? One hospital against another, one maternity unit against another, and one group of neighbours against another. Then, once the controversy was going between the two hospitals, they decided on the one in Enniskillen. Is not that a disgraceful way to deal with public health, especially with pregnant mothers who are about to bring new life into the world? Is it not a disgrace that hospitals have been set at one another's throats?
Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his interjection. I wholeheartedly support what he says.
It is vital that the citizens charter, which makes commitments about quality, responsiveness to need, patients' choice and value for money, should be applied. No sooner was the citizens charter printed—the ink had not even dried—than the first action was taken to deny patients' choice and not give citizens their rights. For example, there is no evidence that the removal of the Omagh hospital maternity service will improve quality. Instead, accessibility to the vast majority of people will be decreased. Responsiveness to need lessens rather than improves. As for value for money, what evaluation of value for money has been made? What costings have been done concerning the proposed change? If any have been done, will the Minister make them available in Hansard so that everyone can scrutinise them?
I regret that the management unit choose to ignore rather than listen to my constituent's cry from the heart. The doctors in my constituency aim to provide the best service possible and strive to improve the standard of medical care available to all our citizens. They support wholeheartedly the retention of services in the Omagh and Erne maternity units.
Many problems deeply worry my constituents. The matters that I have laid before the House deserve attention. For example, the Cookstown adult centre deserves financial aid. Promises have been made to have that adult centre established in Cookstown to cater for the needs of the ever increasing mentally handicapped adult population in the Cookstown area. Promises, promises, promises—but nothing else. It is about time that promises were put into action. I trust that tonight the trend will be turned.
Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford): We must draw the argument to its logical conclusion. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has exposed the inadequacies of the Western area health hoard. It goes to the crux of the problem in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) rightly said, the board is a quango. Its members arc appointed by a Conservative Minister from England who is not elected by the people of Northern Ireland or answerable to them. None of the members of that quango are answerable to the people of Northern Ireland. The members of that Western health board, like those of other hoards, are interested only in serving the Minister because he appoints them.
How can the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster be surprised that the board makes decisions that are not in the interests of the people whom he represents? He should not be surprised, as that is the natural consequence of the evil system of government that exists in Northern Ireland
1124
today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me when I say that I have no confidence in the western health board serving the interests of his constituents.
Rev. William McCrea: I join the hon. Gentleman in saying, without equivocation, that I have no confidence in that board. Many of those who were appointed to it were unknown to the Minister. They were Government civil servants who were usually chosen on personal preference. It is strange that they seem to come from one political party which cannot get a Member elected to the House. They are usually political rejects who have stood before the general public and been refused by them. Those are the credentials of many of those who have been appointed by Government Departments.
I do not believe, and nor should the House, that such a system is democratic, and the mother of Parliaments should be ashamed of it. It is about time that power was put back in the hands of the ordinary, good people of Ulster. That is why my hon. Friends and their parties are seeking a devolved Government in Northern Ireland to attempt to bring back power. If that were to happen, an electric shock should run through a number of people who have looked to civil servants and Government Departments to be assured of their fancy positions. I must make it abundantly clear that the day when the skids go under the heels of some of the civil servants who are party to the system may not be far off. They may have to answer for some of the sins of the past that they have committed on the hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland.
It seems that it was not enough to insult the people of Northern Ireland by taking away their Parliament and robbing them of democracy in every sense of the word. they replaced officials with 'yes' people who carry out Government wishes and philosophy. It is an absolute disgrace that they would even rob a mother about to hear her child of the right to give birth in her local district under the excellent service that has stood the test of time. I defy any hon. Member to say that Tyron county hospital and its maternity services have not stood the test of time and are willing to face the challenge of the future. I guarantee that they will do so with great determination and skill.
9.43 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East): I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) on his maiden speech. If he continues to represent his electorate as he did tonight. I have no doubt that west Belfast will have a constitutional politician in the House for many years.
I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to raise a number of issues affecting my constituency and the rest of Northern Ireland. As has been said, this is a wide-ranging debate.
We are voting money to the Department of Agriculture. I urge the Minister with responsibility for agriculture to consider the problems throughout the Province arising from the cost to farmers of disposing of fallen animals. A real threat to public health is caused by the irresponsible dumping of carcases and by unsatisfactory burial sites on farms. I pay tribute to the vast majority of farmers who accept responsibility for the cost of the disposal of their fallen animals, but I regret that too often carcases end up on roadsides and even on our beaches, so the cost of disposal is transferred from the polluter to the ratepayer.
Is the Department of Agriculture monitoring this problem; and has the Minister any new proposals to

1125
overcome the problem of the unlawful disposal of dead animals? Must we rely solely on local detection and the prosecution of offenders who are caught?
The fishing season is well under way in Northern Ireland, as is silage-making throughout the Province, with its attendant risk of the seepage of effluent into water courses and rivers. Many visitors are attracted by opportunities to fish our many rivers and lakes, where angling skills are rewarded by fine catches. We have clean rivers and lakes, teeming with trout and salmon, and they continue to attract tourists from Great Britain and overseas.
We must closely supervise fishing at all times, however, to ensure that there is no poaching that would prevent salmon from getting upriver to spawn, and to ensure the early detection of pollution which could result in large fish kills.
I also hope that there are adequate controls on and supervision of salmon netting offshore, to protect the salmon that ought to go upriver. That in turn will maintain stocks.
The money allocated to the Department of Economic Development includes provision for the administrative costs of the executive of the Industrial Development Board. Does the Minister agree that it would be unwise to blame the IDB solely for the small number of new inward investment projects attracted to Northern Ireland in 1991–92? Does he accept that each Member of Parliament representing a Northern Ireland constituency is anxious to assist the IDB to become more successful in the years ahead?
With a record low number of new jobs from incoming projects last year—apart from the 350 office jobs provided by the public sector—surely this is the time for the IDB to offer opportunities for greater participation in attracting inward investment to the elected representatives of the constitutional parties in this House. Does the Minister agree that evidence of cross-party encouragement and support for IDB efforts can only contribute to achieving more success in future? I am satisfied that all right hon. and hon. Members would readily and jointly assist IDB officers if invited to promote investment in Northern Ireland.
We all want full employment right across the community—with the proviso that appointments are made on merit. Is the Minister satisfied that the policy of the Government, the Department of Economic Development, the IDB and the Local Enterprise Development Unit, which is designed to increase competitiveness among Northern Ireland companies, is effectively securing jobs and providing sound conditions for expansion while also attracting outside companies that wish to invest in Northern Ireland?
I regret to have to say that some would-be investors, potential IDB and LEDU clients, from Great Britain and overseas have not been impressed in the past with some officials. A potential LEDU client told me that he had got his business off the ground successfully without any assistance from LEDU—in his own words, "no thanks to LEDU". A potential IDB client concluded that the procedures that IDB follows are so time-consuming and frustrating that they create a never-ending process. All he needs is an offer which can compete with other regions in Europe.
LEDU and IDB officials cannot go on suspecting that each new overseas investor who comes forward is yet
1126
another De Lorean. Entrepreneurs are real risk takers. Some have positively chosen to locate in Northern Ireland because of the excellence of its industrial relations, the high quality of its education and skills training provision, the excellent reputation of its universities and the high quality of the work being done in our further education colleges. In addition, they have been impressed by the friendliness of the people of Northern Ireland, their willingness to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay and, above all—a matter of great regret—the almost unlimited pool of skilled labour that is available.
What recent evaluation has been carried out to determine whether incentives presently on offer compare favourably with those on offer throughout the United Kingdom and the EC? I take this opportunity to record my congratulations on and appreciation of the success enjoyed by F. G. Wilson Engineering Ltd. of Newtownabbey in my constituency. It is the largest manufacturer of diesel engine generating plant in Europe. The company has provided steady and increasing employment for 500 people in the Newtownabbey area. The prospect of the company's expansion on the recently acquired GEC Alsthom site in Larne will be welcomed by the skilled work force there awaiting employment opportunity. It will bring fresh hope to families who have suffered loss of earnings and income since GEC Alsthom closed its factory after having been the main employer locally for approximately 30 years.
I hope that IDB will respond quickly to F. G, Wilson's proposals for expansion in Larne and that the company can continue to achieve export success, with new products and increased sales even exceeding past achievements, which won the Queen's award for export in 1989 and 1991.
I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will tell the House whether, despite today's announcment of job losses, the recession in Northern Ireland has started to bottom out and whether he has any good reason to believe at this early stage in his new post that prospects for job creation will be brighter.
Has any recent consideration been given to rationalisation of the functions presently carried out by IDB and LEDU, and does the Minister foresee those bodies continuing to operate independently in future?
Northern Ireland has a major resource in lignite. If the Government would give the go-ahead for the exploitation and utilisation of that major resource, it would be one of the quickest ways of providing industry with cheaper electricity which, in itself, would be a major attraction to new investors.
In regard to the Department of the Environment's vote 1 for expenditure on roads, I thank the Minister for keeping me informed about safety measures and further investigations relating to the collapsed salt mines near Carrickfergus. However, a number of my constituents and others who have been inconvenienced by the closure of the B58 new line road request that priority be given to the realignment of the B58. Will the Minister tell us the likely start date for the scheme?
Let me also record my appreciation, and that of my constituents, for the support given by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and others to my efforts to have the A8 upgraded. I do not wish to miss any opportunity to make it clear to the House, and to a wider audience, that there has been disgraceful political

1127
chicanery—direct political involvement—in matters affecting my constituency, no doubt in connection with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Greater priority has been given to expenditure on road development between Newry and Dublin, where an average of only 6,000 vehicles travel daily, than to spending on the A8 Belfast-Larne road, which has an average daily traffic flow of 13,850 vehicles but which has not been mentioned in regard to upgrading.
We see that road as the natural Euro-route, and the natural corridor between Northern Ireland and Scotland. We will not be calmed by statements from Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Transport that nothing is being done to reduce the importance of the Larne-Stranraer corridor. The very fact that millions of pounds are being poured into a route which cannot be justified but which may smooth Anglo-Irish relations could in itself threaten the success and continued employment of my constituents in the port of Larne.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the fact that the Belfast-Lame A8 road has more than double the traffic use of the Newry-Dublin route, and that he will demonstrate his support for our desire for the recognition of the Belfast-Larne-Stranraer corridor as a vital Euro-route. I hope that it will be upgraded at the earliest opportunity, and that the Minister will give an undertaking to make representations to the European Community for funding.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to give priority to other road schemes leading to Dublin via the border at Newry, and to take away the moneys previously allocated to the Larne road and other major road schemes in the Belfast suburbs, was a political decision by the present Northern Ireland Office Ministers? Regrettably, it is supported by the chairman of the Ulster bank, Mr. George Quigley—formerly a senior civil servant in the Northern Ireland Office—who is using his position in the bank to give political support to the reallocation of road funds. The Government are also being encouraged by the CBI.
Does my hon. Friend realise that those of us in Northern Ireland who have invested money in business and industry and have created jobs—95 per cent. of the real business men, not those in the CBI who have not invested one penny from their own pockets—want to give priority to the roadway to Larne rather than to the border road, which is used by only 5 per cent. of our trade in the Province?
Mr. Beggs: That was a helpful intervention, and I agree with every word of it. I am sure that the Minister must recognise that, in time, improvement to the Newry-Dublin road would be acceptable to Unionists. However, it cannot be justified now, especially not at the expense of other feeder routes into the Belfast-Larne road. Those of my constituents who bank with the Ulster bank will be interested in the fact that Mr. Quigley is not promoting what we perceive to be in the best interests of east Antrim and Northern Ireland. Perhaps they will communicate in a positive way what they think of Mr. Quigley's action to date.
The Government recently decided that acute services would be taken from my local hospital in Larne. I am still satisfied that the case for the retention of acute services
1128
there was sustainable and, had we not had a quango making decisions we might have been able to retain those services. It adds insult to injury when no extra money is to be used to improve the tortuous and dangerous Belfast-Larne road that the additional traffic will be forced to use it when patients decide to travel to the new Antrim hospital or to Belfast hospitals for their acute services. More patients and ambulances will be forced on to that road, as will the relatives who go to visit patients outside the Larne area.
The regeneration of the Glenarm village on the north Antrim coast will come about only when the Government provide the necessary funding to relocate the old Whiting mill and limestone works inland, away from the coast road to a more appropriate quarry site behind the village. I urge the Minister to find time to appreciate the excellent views on the Antrim coast road and to see for himself the blot on the landscape on the very edge of Glenarm village. I urge him to support strongly a bid for the necessary funding to give a kick start to the regeneration of that village. I am sure that, as soon as public money goes in, private money will follow. That will provide employment for a mixed community where there is presently high unemployment with little prospect of improvement because the village has been neglected for far too long.
I could raise many issues about the moneys voted to education, but I bring to the attention of the House the plight of 18 pupils who have been awarded grade 2 and who ask the Minister to ensure that sympathetic consideration is given to having them placed in the school of their first preference—Larne grammar school.
The former Northern Ireland Education Minister raised expectations that parental choice would be recognised. Parents and teachers were given every reason to expect that a grade 2 would ensure a place in a grammar school for those 18 youngsters, but they have been extremely disappointed. Despite their great success, in their post-primary careers, they will be denied places because the enrolment number at Larne grammar school is inadequate to meet the needs of this year's intake. It may not be possible for those well above average youngsters to find a grammar school place.
Larne grammar is a voluntary school with a good record and a cross-community intake. We do not have a state-controlled grammar school within 10 miles. If approval were given, it would be possible, with local co-operation, to accommodate all the pupils. A precedent has been set, because a few years ago a school was required to provide accommodation for an entire class group. I hope that, exceptionally, the Minister will urgently examine the need to increase the enrolment number at Larne grammar school this year. It would be the most sensible response from the Department of Education and would satisfy the reasonable expectations of parents and their children.
North Eastern education and library board has given top priority to replacing an exhausted aluminium structured primary school with new permanent accommodation. I ask the Minister to urge his Department to ensure that a start is made in this financial year in replacing Abbotscross primary school. The total sums in Department of Education votes 1, 2 and 3 will be inadequate to enable the demands made on schools by the Education Reform Act 1988 to be met. The Minister must bid for additional expenditure on schools to ensure that, at

1129
primary and post-primary level, the necessary accommodation and equipment is in place to secure the delivery of the national curriculum.
I hope that the report on further education, which I have not seen but which I understand was released today, will permit an early decision to be made about capital expenditure on Newtownabbey college of further education. Only this week, the North Eastern education and library board considered requests from primary and post-primary schools for additional accommodation. In total, requests were made for 61 mobile and specialist classrooms. Of those 61 requests, about 10 per cent. were met. If that problem is multiplied across the other boards in Northern Ireland and account is taken of the needs of the Catholic maintained schools, there is clearly a tremendous shortfall. Ministers should take note and set out to meet those needs.
10.19 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: Tonight we heard the maiden speech of the newly elected Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), and I am glad that at last west Belfast has a representative who comes to the House, takes the oath of allegiance and speaks for the people of west Belfast. I have a personal interest because I represent west Belfast in another place, my wife represented part of it for eight years in the city council and my daughter continues to represent part of it. Therefore, I have something in common with the new Member. I am sure that he knows that he broke every rule of a maiden speech by being very controversial. As I did the same, I appreciate his attitude. I am sure that we shall look forward to his contributions and the opportunity to "have it out" on the Floor of the House as good democrats should.
I shall deal especially with Northern Ireland's health service but first, in case the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), has an idea that I have something against the Minister responsible for agriculture, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I know that the Earl of Arran's title comes not from Scotland but from off the Donegal coast. At least his name has a relationship with Ulster.
I have nothing against the noble Lord, but it is still my conviction that, as agriculture is the largest industry in Northern Ireland, there should be a person in House to answer directly for it. That has always been the view of farmers, and I repeat it to the House tonight. However, I do not want the Minister to set me at odds with the noble Lord, because I shall have to do business with him for the farming community and I want to keep on the right side of him if I can—or also on the left side.
I am sure that the Minister knows that Northern Ireland has a problem with feedstuffs for poultry and with the results of the new heat treatment for the elimination of disease among poultry. He may also know that there is now a great health hazard as a result of the heat treatment and that the increase in the number of flies—like the flies of Egypt—around the places where the poultry is raised has become a menace. There has been a court case, and there are serious troubles among poultry raisers in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to hint at how the Department will handle the problem.
I shall not go further into that subject, because I must also mention the closure of small rural schools. There is a
1130
rural school on Torr head, the most beautiful part of the north Antrim coast. It is a maintained school belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. An attempt is being made to close it. I am fighting as hard as I can, along with every member of the parish including the parish priest, to keep it open. The tragedy is that those above the parish priest are taking sides against the parish to close the school. So you see, Madam Speaker, the situation I am in at the moment. I make an appeal for the man of Macedonia—the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)—to come over and help us. I hope that he will keep that in mind when he is at his desk.
An old people's home in my constituency—Wilson house, in Broughshane—is under threat of closure. There are many other old people's homes in the Province, and the newly elected hon. Member for Belfast, West, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and I joined together in a great rally at the city hall. That, too, was presided over by a lady, Madam Speaker, and we made some progress. I trust that we shall make greater progress under your authority, and that the Minister will take heed of my plea on behalf of old people.
The nation's morality and ethical standing depend on how it treats its old people. If we do not treat the elderly well, we ourselves will not be well treated—some Ministers are becoming elderly themselves, and they should look to the days ahead. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for East Hampshire, points at me, but he too will he old one day; his hair will go grey and his teeth will fall out. He will need support and help in his old age. So I make a plea for the Government to be caring to the elderly in Northern Ireland.
The fight for the provision of comprehensive health care services for the people of Northern Ireland is a battle that all the elected representatives have to fight. We mean to win that battle. Government reports have been published, as have proposals from the repugnant quango systems which have been foisted on the people of Northern Ireland. They have now gone to town against our health care system, and Government health boards in Northern Ireland have developed a new civil service speak, which uses terms such as "streamlining", "rationalisation of services", "new frameworks" and "review of provision". All that talk really means cuts in services. The House must realise that we cannot afford such a catastrophe in Northern Ireland. The present proposals affect not just one parliamentary constituency but every parliamentary constituency.
Here is an issue on which all Northern Ireland Members in the House tonight agree. Please listen to us. The Government say that they will not listen to us when we disagree, so I hope that they will start to listen to us when we agree. Perhaps we should agree more often, which would help the Government.
The Province deserves the best: it deserves equal treatment and equal rights within the United Kingdom. We are not asking for a special case to be made for us. Over the past 30 years, Northern Ireland has made great advances in the provision of health care, and it would be a scandal for the Government now systematically to dismantle those advances and to turn back the hands of the clock by robbing Northern Ireland of its fundamental right to health care services based not on ability to pay but on need. I believe that health services should be based on need, not on the ability to pay.

1131
Last week, Northern Ireland was stunned by the proposals that emerged from the Eastern health and social services board. They highlighted the Government's agenda to deplete the provision for the regions of Ulster and to centralise acute services, leaving rural areas exposed to incomplete services. The purpose of the Government's proposals is to save money. A complete and caring health service cannot be based only on a financial agenda.
I passed through one of the greatest tragedies that has occurred in the past few days. A busload of my Bannside Democratic Unionist branch members had a terrible crash in which five people were killed and more than 40 injured. The diligence, dedication and sacrifice of all the emergency services were brought home to me. There were policemen, Ulster Defence Regiment men, men from other regiments of the British Army, firemen, nurses, doctors and ambulance men.
The tragedy was that, if the crash had happened some time ago, Whiteabbey hospital or the Moyle hospital in Larne could have handled the emergency. The worst injured had to be taken to Belfast City hospital, to the Royal Victoria hospital and as far away as Ulster hospital. When I stood in Whiteabbey and saw some of the serious cases having to be carried into an ambulance again and taken away to other areas, I realised what was happening to our health service. The realisation came home to my heart as never before.
We need to keep acute services in the local areas. I am not with some of the consultants in this matter. They want to live in Belfast and to raise and educate their families there. They want to travel just a few miles to other hospitals and then to go back to Belfast at night. In the old days, a consultant lived in the area that he served. I remember that, when I was a boy, there were well respected and revered consultants in the town of Ballymena. They lived there, their families were educated there and they were part of the community. Many of the new consultants do not want to be part of the community. They want to do it all in Belfast and not have to go out to other places. The general practitioners must be commended for their dedication to their local areas. The GPs are all for the retention of acute services in those areas.
Last week, the Eastern health and social services board announced that it would close six hospitals. Some 750 beds in the area will close and up to 8,000 nursing staff will eventually lose their jobs. The Government propose to close Newtownards, Bangor, Belvoir Park, Down, Forster Green and Musgrave Park. What a list of hospitals to be closed! The six hospitals provide specialist care units for the whole community. Belvoir Park has a specialist cancer unit and an infectious diseases unit which will now be destroyed. That width of experience will come under the axe of health service cuts. There are warnings that two other hospitals that serve the greater Belfast area, Lagan Valley and the Belvoir, may be closed. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) told us what has happened to the Larne hospital. Altogether, eight hospitals in Northern Ireland will be closed. The proposal shows a wholesale disregard for people's needs.
The three hospitals that will now serve the Ards peninsula are the Royal Victoria, Belfast City and Ulster, yet the catchment area of Strangford—the right hon.
1132
Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) is present this evening and knows about this as I do, because I represent the area in the European Parliament—is one of the fastest growing areas in Northern Ireland. In 1981, it had a population of 122,000. Today, it has a population of almost 131,000. Yet the board proposes to close the hospital there. What in the name of goodness has come into these quangos and boards that makes them propose to do such a terrible thing to the hospital provision in Northern Ireland?
Mr. John D. Taylor: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, but should he be surprised at the decision taken by the Eastern health and social services board? We must remember that it is a quango appointed by a Conservative Minister and that it is simply carrying out the policies of Northern Ireland Office Ministers. Some 15 per cent. of the beds that were provided by the last Ulster Unionist Government have been abolished by the Northern Ireland Office.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when constituencies such as North Down and Strangford have 70,000 electors each and the population of Belfast constituencies is falling day by day—each of them is down to almost 50,000 electors—it is an outrage that, simply to placate the Minister who appoints its members, a quango is closing down hospitals outside Belfast in areas which have the most rapidly growing population in Northern Ireland?
North Down and Strangford have some of the worst roads. If someone had an accident in upper Ards near Portaferry, it would take almost an hour to transfer that patient to Belfast City hospital or the Royal Victoria hospital. That is an outrage, and I hope that all hon. Members will join us in North Down and Strangford in opposing the quango's dictatorial decisions.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that the health boards are out of touch with the people. The way in which members are appointed is ridiculous. Anyone who stands as an Alliance candidate and is defeated will be appointed to one of the quangos.
As far as I know, not one Democratic Unionist party member has been appointed to any health hoard in Northern Ireland. All those who are on a board were appointed because they were previously councillors. There is perhaps one Democratic Unionist member of the police authority, but there are none on the health boards. I believe that the Ulster Unionists have the same trouble. The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party has told me that his party has the same trouble. The members of the boards are out of touch with the political parties and how people vote.
I have had a letter from a leading consultant in Ards, Mr. Ferris. He said:
"There has been a great increase in the number of families of the security forces as Newtownards is a 'relatively safe area'. The Police Federation encourages their members to come to this area partly because of the safety and because there is less intimidation."
Yet the hospital services are being cut.
The figures for operations in Ards are excellent. The hospitals are not being closed because they do not do their job. They do their job. In some cases, the hospitals in Ards have better figures for operations than even the Royal Victoria, Belfast City or Ulster hospitals. The hospitals in

1133
Ards do more operations than Down and the neighbouring gynaecological units combined, yet the hospitals in Ards come under the axe.
The waiting lists will not go away. They will increase. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party and I had a meeting with the previous Secretary of State. We put before him the facts about people awaiting heart operations in Northern Ireland. At the present waiting rate, they will die. Some of those people will never have a heart operation. For example, I know of a young business man from Ballymoney. The Minister with responsibility for health and social services, who is not here tonight, did everything to get that young man the necessary heart operation, but he almost died. The Minister showed me a card with the young man's name and a telephone number on it and he told me, "Every morning I ring and cry out for that young man to have art operation, Ian." If that is the way that we have to plead for our people to have heart operations, where will it all end?
I know that a new specialist unit has been set up, but even with that unit working overtime, it is not biting into the waiting list, because more people are joining it. Northern Ireland has the highest rate of heart disease in Europe. In recognition of that fact, the Government appointed a new heart specialist team to complement the work already being carried out in that important area, and the work being carried out at the Royal hospital. However, that team will only maintain the present waiting list and will not be able to reduce it. Two more specialist teams are required and money for them must be made available. It is a matter of life and death. The waiting lists are a scandal and corrective measures a necessity.
I know of people who have had to wait four years for heart surgery and I know how their health has deteriorated in that time. It is a matter of life and death. The most recent figures available in the "Register General Quarterly Returns for Northern Ireland" for 1990 show that the number of heart disease deaths in the Greater Belfast area was: Ards, 165; Belfast, 922; Castlereagh, 188; Down, 215; Lisburn, 218; and North Down, 200—making a total of 1,908. The figures for other heart-related disease deaths were: Ards, 22; Belfast 178; Castlereagh, 25; Down, 21; Lisburn, 28; and North Down, 22—making a total of 296. The grand total is 2,204. The figures show that there were 2,204 fatalities because of heart disease, 1,100 of them in Belfast. The other 1,104 people would have had to travel a great distance to receive acute services. Belfast requires another specialist team to cope with the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) also faces difficulties, because the Tyrone hospital has to cope with heart disease, there.
The north Antrim people in Ballymena in my constituency feel strongly about the removal of their cardiac unit. We all helped with work, bequests and voluntary subscriptions to give the best cardiac unit to the Waveney hospital. What have they done with it? They have taken it away to Antrim, but Antrim did not pay for it, the Ballymena people did. The cardiac ambulance service ought to be maintained at Ballymena. If the cardiac unit is based in Antrim, people from Portglenone, at the periphery of north Antrim, will have to travel 50 miles for treatment. Those from Cushendall will face a round trip of 64 miles, while those from Cushendun will face a round trip of 74 miles. Those figures are scandalous, and the Government must wake up to the problem.
1134
I am well aware of the new hospital programme for north Antrim. The hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Belfast, West and I campaigned together for that new hospital. Eventually, we won our fight and we were told that a brand new hospital would be built in the Coleraine-Ballymoney area. However, the trouble is that the Department is no longer keeping to that building plan. It is running down the old hospitals, but it is not running up the new one. It has now been decided to move the Ballymoney surgical unit, casualty service and the accident and emergency service—traditional to the town—by 30 June, which is not far away.
That unjust and undemocratic decision, which will incur enormous cost, has aroused much bad feeling, especially as that move will have a short-term effect only— seven years—because the new Causeway hospital is set to open in 1999. The whole idea is crazy. The new hospital campaign group, the north-eastern sub-division of the British Medical Association, the combined consultant medical staff committee of the Coleraine and Ballymoney hospitals, the Ballymoney borough council, the Ballymoney new hospital support group, the steering group—which represents the three local councils and the support groups of Ballymoney, Ballycastle and Coleraine—the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees have all expressed opposition to the rationalisation proposals.
The opposition to such so-called rationalisation rests on three arguments. First, people are concerned that those proposals would provide this Government, or any future Government, with the pretext for delaying the building of the new Causeway hospital. Many circumstances will change between now and the stipulated date when the first patients will be admitted. Secondly, existing logistical problems at Coleraine hospital should be overcome—not least the difficulty in admitting surgical patients in the first place. Thirdly, the board and its officers have failed to hold meaningful discussions with those most affected by the board's far-reaching decisions.
I hope that the Minister responsible for hospitals and his colleagues will take my remarks to heart. The board refers continually to a stepping-stone approach, but those stones are too far apart, and we shall fall into a river of destruction.
What does the board think of the good surgeons of Route hospital? Its surgical unit not only has the best day-case figures for the northern area, but it admits more than 40 per cent. of all the surgical cases in Coleraine, Ballymoney and the Moyle district. In 1990–91, more than 40 per cent. of all major and intermediate surgical operations in the district were carried out in the Route hospital theatres, despite a reduced workload due to illnesses. It has now been decided to phase out the work of that hospital.
The hospitals of north Antrim are being penalised for being too efficient. One will be penalised if one works hard and does a good job. There is much at stake. The painful upheaval and expense that will result from the so-called rationalisation does not seem justified, especially as short-term benefits will result, and it should not be permitted.
Whatever else may be said about the decision, the manner in which it has been taken is an indictment of those who hold power without accountability and it will be long remembered by the people. There must be accountability.

1135
In that context, let us remember that we do not even have a Select Committee here to examine Northern Ireland issues. Not one Northern Ireland Member is on the Public Accounts Committee to ask important questions that need to be asked. Why is the Northern Ireland Office not scrutinised? I believe it is because the civil servants are making the running and do not want to have to answer.
I used to be chairman of a public accounts committee in another place. Ministers and civil servants would sweat when they came to be questioned on their stewardship. I urge the Government to give an account of their stewardship. They should be proposing the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee so that they can be cross-examined. It is vital that we have such a body, and a Public Accounts Committee.
When this matter was raised at a certain confidential meeting, we found that the people most against a Select Committee were the civil servants. I hope that it will not be long before a Northern Ireland Select Committee is formed, and it will give me great delight to be a member of it. I will then have the opportunity to cross-examine some of the civil servants. We will see how civil they are when they are put in the vice.
A whole district in Ballymoney is insisting that, instead of indulging in incredible interim expenditure, the Department of Health and the Northern health and social services board should act within the terms of the recommendations of the House. We must take into account the record of prevarication on the part of the Northern board since 1977 and demand that the new Causeway hospital is completed by 1997.
I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Robb, even though he and I are politically as far apart as heaven and hell, and that is a long way.
Mr. Stott: Which are you in?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I leave that to the hon. Gentleman's imagination. Knowing the twisted way in which he thinks, he will expect me to be going down—[Interruption.]—but he is wrong. Nor will I be in purgatory.
Mr. Robb has done a superb job, as everyone, irrespective of religion, agrees. He happens to be a Protestant; he is a Protestant republican. He owes his conversion to republicanism to the newly elected hon. Member for Belfast, West. I once heard him giving his testimony as a convert at a meeting. Everybody in the community owes Mr. Robb the highest praise for the way in which he has worked for the people and put his life, in sickness, at risk to help the people of the area. I pay that tribute to him with all my heart, soul and mind.
I plead with the Government to look again at provision for the elderly. I shall not dwell on the point because I know that the hon. Member for Belfast, South wishes to speak, and I want him to take part in the debate. I think of homes such as Wilson house, Throne hospital, Mourne hospital in Newcastle, Wilmot house and the Molone View day centre, all of which are facing closure.
The plans to close them are based purely on finance rather than on humanity. The people in those places have a fundamental right to community care. I sat at one home beside an old ex-service man—there were rows of elderly people—and he told me, "This is my home. Where will I go from here when the doors close?" I urge the
1136
Government to heed the appeal of the elderly. Do not ruin the last days of their rest and peace. If such places must be run down, do it with charity and love and not at the behest of a quango.
It is sad to see how the health boards in the Omagh area want to set Members of Parliament against one another. Members of Parliament must fight for hospitals in their areas. They would be worth nothing if they did not. Why is Enniskillen hospital in confrontation with Omagh hospital, dividing and polarising the community? They are fighting for the right of women to have their maternity needs met in their area. What they are trying to do is inhuman.
There is a rape in our health services, based on a promise of cost efficiency; but cost-effective measures and book-balancing are being carried out while ignoring the harsh realities of human life. Closures and cuts to save money are not the answer to our social and economic ills. Let me issue a word of warning: the economy of health should be the economy of well-being. The converse is the economy of disease.
Rationalisation has been argued for on the ground of economy. Wholesale disregard for the people is not the way forward. Incorporating them in plans for the health service and putting them first are the only ways to provide comprehensive health care for all. I want the Minister to listen and act. A cry crosses the religious, political, class and age divides: "Stop what you are doing. Please give heed to the voice of the people and save our hospitals and elderly care centres."
10.47 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I shall take up a point that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made—a plea for a Select Committee on Northern Ireland—but turn it round in another direction. A Select Committee of this House issued a report on maternity provision and included Northern Ireland in it.
We asked the Department to withdraw an out-dated circular that was reissued recently. We also suggested that, before it continues to run down maternity services in rural areas, it should examine what is happening in, for example, Brecon and Radnor and the Bath authority. We received a report of a meeting of the Western health board, and the general manager dismissed the report as of no importance. I believe that he was showing disrespect to the House, because the Government must respond to that report in the House before a mere general manager can discard it as having no authority.
I join others in welcoming the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and congratulating him on his maiden speech. I do so for various reasons. First, it will take some work off me. I remember, shortly after being elected to this House, sitting in the advice centre where Robert Bradford was murdered. A person came in with his disabled boy and said, "Mr. Smyth, I am neither one of your constituents nor one of your flock, but I would not go to the one who is there now, and I am not too sure that I would have gone to the one who let him in." He came to me to argue the case of a lad born with deformity, for whom officialdom was trying to discard responsibility. I am glad that the hon. Member for Belfast, West will take up such issues in future.
Secondly, I welcome the hon. Gentleman because, interestingly, the hon. Member called to speak after his

1137
maiden speech, the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) once represented Belfast, West. When he was being selected as the Unionist candidate, my father nominated him. As a boy who was born in west Belfast, I now represent a part of south Belfast that was originally west Belfast, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House.
I join the hon. Member for Antrim, North in saying that the next time that the hon. Member for Belfast, West speaks, there might be more of a reaction in the House. The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that there were no job opportunities in west Belfast. There may not be enough, but it is a calumny to suggest that jobs have not been provided in the past 10 years. Strathearn Audio and those industries and services that are now in south Belfast, were actually provided by the former Unionist Administration of Northern Ireland to create jobs in west Belfast. It is important to maintain a sense of balance when making charges.
I thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for his earlier response, but I am looking forward to receiving the Secretary of State's letter. I was at the launch of the next stage of the 'Making Belfast Work' campaign. Admittedly, I was unable to stay to hear the Secretary of State's speech, but I received the brochure. South Belfast was not mentioned in relation to the £26,000 that was allocated.
The fact that south Belfast people take the initiative and do things for themselves has been used to move them to other districts. St. George's community work began in Sandy Row, moved to south Belfast and has now been redirected to east Belfast. The federation youth training was started by professionals. An accountant finally resigned from the chair because of the way that the organisation was being treated. Men were volunteering their time to try to equip young people in that district who are now moving away to east Belfast. Those involved with Ormeau youth enterprises cross the spectrum of society and have been pushed around for more than four years. They are placed in any areas of need.
I do not doubt that some money has been invested in south Belfast, but when reference is made to the youth team working in the district it should be remembered that one section is on loan from west Belfast and another section has no relevance to south Belfast. The Taughmonagh district is heavily deprived and is still depressed. Donegall avenue is a lovely old street, in which virtually every house is derelict.
Work is being carried out to improve the Ormeau road, lower Ravenhill and other districts. It is time that officials stopped judging south Belfast by Queen's university, Stranmillis training college and the Upper Malone. There are regions of tremendous need right on the margins.
I understand what the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) meant when he suggested that the IDB officials should not be entirely blamed for lack of development. However, when vote 1 of the Department of Economic Development mentions the cost of the IDB executive, I question whether we are receiving value for money. The hon. Member for Antrim, East and I went to the far east in 1983 and blazed a trail for IDB.
It helped us tremendously: it gave us 100 large brochures to carry. We opened doors. Journalists came to Belfast. When the IDB opened an office in one of these countries, it did not even have the courtesy to advise the journalists of that, even though they had come to Belfast
1138
to discover what was happening in Northern Ireland for themselves. It was only when one of them returned to Northern Ireland that he found out.
So I am talking about a degree of insensitivity. The organisation seems to want to direct matters itself instead of using the networks which exist to be developed for the good of the community.
I recognise the case for co-operation with the Industrial Development Authority in road shows. It is tragic that it appears that the IDA is attracting more inward investment to the Republic. We are competing with the other regions of the United Kingdom for inward investment, and competing with our hands tied behind our backs. Anyone who wants to invest in the Republic can do so. Anyone who wants to invest in the United Kingdom can do so. The problem lies in the question mark over Northern Ireland: will Northern Ireland still be in the United Kingdom in five or 10 years' time, given all the shilly-shallying that has been going on? Our political instability is one of the reasons why we are not attracting the inward investment that we might if we went at it properly.
Why is the Department still pussy-footing over residents' parking? That has been on the cards for years. People in London and elsewhere have the right to park their cars in the streets where they live. The Lisburn, Malone and Stranmillis roads in my constituency are densely populated. There is nowhere to park. The university population abandon their cars in these streets. It was interesting that the Department of the Environment moved quickly enough when it put in parking meters—that was cost-effective. Neither we nor the residents argued that they should not pay for their permits—
Mr. Trimble: I am familiar with the problem in my hon. Friend's constituency—especially in the university and Stranmillis area. I assure him that similar—although perhaps not as great—problems exist in numerous other places, including the town of Portadown in my constituency. There is a great need for the sort of residents' parking scheme to which he refers.
Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend underlines my point.
Under vote 4, I want to deal with planning. I discovered many years ago that television companies in the United States showed devasted areas of Belfast as the work of the IRA. Apart from the fact that some of them are the legacy of Adolf Hitler, the rest of them were the gift of developers who ravaged the city, scattering its population to its four corners. They should have got on with building. I discovered lately that one of the greatest culprits was the road services branch of the Department of the Environment.
Developers in the neighbouring constituency of Strangford have been waiting for more than two years for a decision. When the Minister replies, will he tell us whether the Department has reached a decision? I was told that it would do so within the first two weeks of June. That period has now passed. I understand that the Commission made a decision in September 1991 and it is now June 1992. What is the reason for the continual delay?
A developer in the University road area took years to obtain planning permission. Ultimately, he had to go to a tribunal. When I approached the then Minister about the case, he told me that he could not interfere because an appeal was pending. When I asked the civil servant

1139
involved about the delay, which was resulting in soaring expenses, he told me that it would have been better if the building had been rehabilitated. The developer was being asked not only to maintain the building's facade, which he had promised to do, but to restore a wrecked interior, putting in cornices which had not existed for years. It transpired that that civil servant had not even examined the place when he was asked to do so. It is the cry of many that our officials should have a bit more sense of responsibility, especially when people are investing money in the well-being of the community.
I understand that the Under-Secretary is aware that, under the new education guidelines, a place has been allocated to physical education and swimming. The Department has decided that the Finaghy primary school is over-endowed with land, so there must be a disposal of property. The board sought planning permission for housing but it was unsuccessful. It said that it did so simply to test the land's value, but I am convinced that, if planning permission for housing had been obtained, the land would have been sold. It now says that the Department is pressing it to dispose of the property because it is surplus to requirements.
That land is an open space with a pitch and a swimming pool which fell into disuse in 1987. Belfast council's leisure unit is prepared to take the property over and develop it, but instead of passing it over to the Department of the Environment, under which Belfast council would work at a reasonable or nominal price to provide facilities to serve 10 schools and the community at large, the Department is pressing it to put the property on the open market so that it can be bought by some speculator who hopes to carry out the work.
With regard to vote 1 for the Department of Health and Social Services, I reiterate the concern over the closure of the home. I also question the planning in the Eastern health and social services board. I have referred to the Western board. I have had occasion to raise with the chairman of the Eastern board certain events in the Green Park unit. Having received the usual flannel that officials prepare for a chairman to sign, I discovered that, instead of dealing with the problem, a witch hunt is on to discover who is giving me the information. I believe that it is the board's job to ensure that things are done properly.
Let me give an example. In January 1991, after three public advertisements had been placed, a director of nursing services was appointed to start work on 1 April. The terms of employment stated that over five years she would receive a 20 per cent. salary increase if her performance was satisfactory. Four days after starting work, she was told by the unit manager, "We have changed our plans here. A single director of nursing services will cover Belvoir and Musgrave park."
The director of nursing services was shattered. Where was the forward planning? Three months after her appointment, the management did not know that only one director would be needed, and they appointed someone from London. How can management expect loyalty, devotion and service from the work force if they treat people like that? The person concerned was well qualified. I have known her since I walked the corridors in Musgrave
1140
park 40 years ago as an assistant chaplain, when she was a trainee nurse. I believe that the time has come for greater responsibility and accountability.
I asked a parliamentary question about the number of firms that had been taken off tender lists and subsequently restored. The Minister replied:
"One firm was temporarily removed from the health and personal social services select list of tenderers for the market testing of support services. This firm was reinstated within the past two months and my noble friend does not think it would be proper to disclose details of the firm concerned."— [Official Report, 21 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 243.]
Why was that firm restored, other than to fulfil a contract that it had been given? It was guilty of a ploy to get rid of workers in the health service and in the cleansing department of the hospital concerned. It had been engaged to do that work, and was employing 80 per cent. of the work force in one place who were already in receipt of social security payments. Comments have been made about low sentences in the civil courts. There seems to be no detriment to firms that have been off the list for two months and are then restored.
Finally, let me ask the Minister to tell us why the money was transferred from the Larne line and the other priority road schemes to the Dublin route. A single protest is our only way of calling attention to the importance of accountability.
11.8 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): The tone of much of the debate has been typical of the warmth and friendship that I have encountered in the short time that I have held my present post. I am sure that my colleagues would agree with me about the response that we have received from a wide variety of people in Northern Ireland.
It would be wrong for me to begin my speech without paying public tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), whose achievements were considerable when he held the responsibilities that I now hold. I see my opposite number, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), nodding in agreement. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will know of the commitment and interest shown by my hon. Friend. Following his translation to the Board of Trade, that commitment and interest will still be extremely helpful to Northern Ireland in relation to such matters as inward investment.
This has been an excellent debate. I think that I can speak for all hon. Members in saying that it has been an enormous pleasure to be able, for the first time since 1983, I believe, to refer across the Floor of the House to the hon. Member who represents west Belfast—the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). We have not had the opportunity to do that for a long time. Whatever one's political views may be, the defeat of Adams in the general election was a major and significant achievement for parliamentary democracy.
That defeat produced the new Member who is respected and highly regarded throughout the city for his role as a local general practitioner, which is an added bonus. Whatever might be our views and differences, his maiden speech made clear his knowledge of his constituency and the fact that he has roots in his community. He spoke with force and feeling and made it plain that he will be an excellent representative—a full-blown parliamentary

1141
representative—of west Belfast. We know that west Belfast, like the rest of the Province, needs a parliamentary democrat to represent its views.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that he wanted the Government to help. 1 can give him the unequivocal assurance that the Government will help him in west Belfast as they will the other 17 Northern Ireland Members of this place. We shall, of course, have our differences and arguments, and in that I include the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). That is only right and proper in a democracy. I hope that hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will recognise that the team of Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office will do its best to deal with the concerns and problems of Northern Ireland with as much dedication as have previous teams. There may be differences, but we shall do our best.
My responsibilities for the Departments of Economic Development and for the Environment give me a unique opportunity to help conserve and enhance the natural environment within Northern Ireland and to use that environment as an important foundation in seeking to strengthen the economy through the various policies that are now being implemented. These ministerial roles complement one another perfectly and are, in my experience, indivisible.
I am convinced of the many inherent advantages which Northern Ireland has and which we must use to the full. It is seen from outside as a largely rural and lightly industrialised area, not spoiled by the more traditional heavy manufacturing activities. There is an excellent road network and an excellent supply of good, clean water. Some of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the south-east of England would be inordinately jealous of Northern Ireland's water supply. Northern Ireland has a landscape of great variety and great natural beauty., some of which I have had the opportunity to see. It is largely unspoiled. In today's world, these are substantial assets. Everyone who is involved in promoting Northern Ireland must maximise the opportunities that such a clean and green environment provides.
There will, of course, be occasions when the protectors of the environment and the demands of industry might appear to be in conflict. Where these circumstances arise, there needs to be a careful balance drawn between the interests. We are determined to protect the exceptional environment, but that protection must not in itself be unduly restrictive, nor erect unnecessary hurdles that will inhibit economic expansion. On the other hand, the business and industrial community must recognise that it has duties and responsibilities towards the entire community, and so must take appropriate action, for example, to control production processes, waste emissions and cleanliness and tidiness in its sites. I shall deal with particular sites in due course.
The greater awareness of the environment gives us a real opportunity in our wider economic development policies. As we already have an image as an area with a clean and fresh environment, we can strengthen the image by making it a common theme in all our promotional work, both at Government and industry levels. It will mean Northern Ireland industry in general focusing on making its products more environmentally friendly.
I am convinced that firms that are more sensitive to consumer preferences in this area will gain a market advantage. Industry should also think seriously about how
1142
to make its processes more environmentally friendly. This will become increasingly important in firms' relationships both with their local communities and with their customers, and it can also have cost advantages.
A green approach would mean seeking to establish Northern Ireland in the eyes of the world as a centre of excellence in industrial and environmental matters. If we concentrate on raising our standards, finding solutions and adopting best practice throughout industry, we shall develop knowledge and expertise which we can market to others and which can draw to Northern Ireland industries that need high standards and expertise on their doorstep. That is not an easy or short-term approach and it will require effort not only from industry in Northern Ireland but from everyone whose actions impact on the environment. That approach can offer Northern Ireland a competitive edge in the world of the 1990s and beyond, and I am determined to take it forward.
A number of issues arose in the debate, as I would have expected. Given the strictures that have been uttered about my predecessor waffling on minor points and not dealing with the substance of debates, I shall endeavour to cover as much ground as I can, given the constraints of time. Otherwise, I shall write to hon. Members about the matters that are causing them concern and endeavour to pursue them in greater detail.
The hon. Member for Wigan, who, as an old colleague across the greensward, I am delighted to have shadowing me—as least for a short time—raised a number of matters that I hope to deal with as generalities. However, he particularly asked about structural funds from the EC. Northern Ireland's allocation from the structural funds was disappointing, but Bruce Millan has confirmed that it was our prosperity relative to other objective 1 regions that accounted for the size of the Northern Ireland share.
Our GDP per head is higher than the normal limit for objective 1 status, but we have been assured by Mr. Millan that Northern Ireland's allocation was no reflection on the quality or presentation of our regional development plan. It is satisfying to note that the areas selected for Community support accorded well with the Government's development priorities. The hon. Gentleman's point is well taken and I undertake to continue to ensure that Northern Ireland receives a fair share of funds from the EC.
It was a great pleasure for every hon. Member to hear my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder), particularly as he has now joined the mythical round table. Hon. Members will be pleased to congratulate him on that well-deserved honour. He has been a Member for many years and his work on behalf of his constituents is well known. He talked about a number of issues. One issue that amused the House, although I know that it was serious, was the problem about Geddis farm in Helen's Bay. He spoke so fluently about it—almost mellifluously—that that not only the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) but others will make a beeline to see exactly what is causing such an eyesore.
The Department of the Environment is fully aware of local concern on the issue and has been involved in enforcement action for 10 years. Some successful prosecutions have been brought and compliance with enforcement notices secured. The Department is carrying out a review of the situation and is examining a number of options to solve the problem.
That does not tell the hon. Gentleman anything that he did not know already. I assure him that I shall have a look

1143
[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office]
at the site for myself and perhaps have a conversation with him to see whether we can do more to ensure that what he describes as a dump does not stay that way for very much longer.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) spoke about a number of matters, largely to do with roads and transportation but not exclusively so. As a former Minister for Roads and Traffic, I felt a sense of déjà vu about some of his comments. Hon. Members always want more roads but attack the Government for building more roads and putting concrete all over the place. The problem is almost insoluble. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when I was Minister for Roads and Traffic I tried to switch the balance towards maintenance, particularly maintenance and improvements that save lives and reduce accidents.
I am currently considering road maintenance and I am conscious of the concerns expressed, although I must tell the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends that to travel on some of the roads in Northern Ireland as I have done recently, with the sun shining, is an eye-opener. I wished only that I had an open car and a pretty girl by my side—[Interruption.]—my wife, I hasten to add. The roads were delightful and empty. There was no traffic, except perhaps on the odd occasion when I came across a vehicle checkpoint. Generally, the roads were very good and they complement the countryside in many respects. I think that hon. Members of all parties in Northern Ireland would agree with that.
Nevertheless, the serious point about maintenance is well taken. Although I cannot undertake to wave a magic wand immediately, I am considering the problem and I hope that we can switch the balance a little so that we make a more significant impact on road maintenance than has been the case in the past.
The general point made about new roads came as no surprise. Every hon. Member who spoke mentioned roads in one form or another—how this or that road is needed. In the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State who is responsible for money in Northern Ireland, I should perhaps say that we shall make a firm claim for as much money as possible for new roads, but he will be sure to have a view—undoubtedly backed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or at least by the Chief Secretary—about how much funding can be allocated. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend will have heard what has been said. If he has not, I shall ensure that he hears.
Let me mention one important road in particular, the Newry bypass. It has been a continuing objective to improve and develop the main road links to the Belfast and Larne ports in the interests of Northern Ireland's economy. One of the first meetings that I attended after becoming a Minister was with a number of senior distinguished business men, all of whom said that the Newry bypass was one of the most important things that they wanted. It has been achieved progressively as funds and the demands of competing priorities permit. The improvement of the road system in the Newry area is a long-standing objective.
The A8 Belfast to Larne road is a good quality road, capable of carrying current and foreseeable traffic volumes. However, the upgrading of the single carriageway central section of the route is being considered as a
1144
mid-term objective. As I said, the general point about roads is well taken, and I shall endeavour to reflect hon. Members' concerns when the issues come up for discussion.
In a distinguished contribution that lasted for a considerable time and covered almost every part of his constituency, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) mentioned several matters, including agriculture. I can assure him that my noble Friend whose responsibility it is and who—as I said in a brief intervention—is ably represented by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who will speak learnedly on such matters having had relevant experience when he held a former portfolio, is only too well aware of the worries about angel dust and is doing what he can to effect stringent controls. We all agree that it is a serious matter which must be dealt with.
Incidentally, my noble Friend is duty Minister in Northern Ireland at the moment. Had he not been so, he would undoubtedly have been listening to the debate. I hope that hon. Members will accept that he will get a full report on that and other matters that fall to him, not least those relating to health.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster mentioned the specific problem of the maternity unit at the Tyrone County hospital. As he said, it is undoubtedly a major issue for local people, and I assure them and their representatives that my noble Friend will examine the arguments very carefully. He has recently visited both hospitals and heard at first hand the views of the local communities. He has told them that he hopes to announce his decision by the end of June. I shall draw to his attention the general health issues that have been raised, and he will appreciate hon. Members' concerns.
I know that local communities are concerned when a health and social service board proposes the closure or change of use of facilities and services. But I hope that everyone will agree that if boards are to continue to provide the highest quality services, changes are inevitable. I know that boards take seriously their responsibility to consult their local communities when changes are contemplated—and when change is major and controversial, it must, of course, come to the responsible Minister for endorsement or otherwise. I assure the House unequivocally that my noble Friend takes that responsibility very seriously.
Decisions to close or change the use of facilities will never be taken lightly, and the views of local communities—and especially those of hon. Members speaking forcefully—will, of course, always be given the most careful consideration.
Rev. Martin Smyth: For the guidance of hon. Members from Northern Ireland and of the people concerned, will the Minister tell us how he defines consultation?
Mr. Atkins: The fact that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have raised the matter means that I shall report seriously to my noble Friend about their concerns—I am sure that he will recognise them. Doubtless he will make his decisions and his anxieties known to hon. Members in due course. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.
Matters involving the Industrial Development Board have been raised. I am conscious of the fact that the board

1145
has had a difficult year. We all know that we have been through a recession, and 1 assure the House that the IDB and the Local Enterprise Development Unit, whether under the present chairman or the new chairman, are only too well aware of hon. Member's concerns and of those of other people in Northern Ireland, and are taking them to heart.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked about residential parking. I am told that no legal power exists in Northern Ireland to permit the introduction of residents' parking schemes, but we are in the process of considering how one could be introduced. It would require an enabling power in primary legislation. Again, the point is well taken. I was astonished that there was no such power, and we are considering the idea closely.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State assures me that he would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Belfast, South about Finaghy primary school. No doubt that can be arranged—behind the Chair or elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke with knowledge and, understandably, with some emotion about the dreadful crash a week or so ago involving members of his community and his church—I believe that they were supporters and constituents. It was a dreadful tragedy, and my fellow Minister of State, who was the duty Minister at the time, went to the hospital and publicly congratulated all those involved—as I did myself. We offer our sympathy for the dreadful accident, and ask the hon. Gentleman to convey that sympathy to his friends, supporters and constituents. An investigation is being carried out into what happened, and what we can learn from it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that in the spirit in which it is rendered.
In conclusion, I emphasise again the challenges which now exist with regard both to the environment and to economic development policies, and to their interrelationship. The priorities for all concerned about the environment will be to conserve and enhance the natural environment; to develop greater interest in and awareness of our historic heritage; and to protect public health. The latter includes the condition of inland and tidal waters —concerning which, incidentally, Northern Ireland's record is extremely good, with all 16 beaches meeting EC standards.
Mr. Trimble rose—
Mr. Atkins: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way, but time is running out.
Among our other priorities will be the improvement of air quality, especially emissions from domestic and industrial sources.
With that green approach to economic development, our priorities for industry will be to promote the Northern Ireland green image in a sustained and systematic way—which is especially important for the food and tourism industries—to develop greener products, which will meet or anticipate consumer preferences; to develop cleaner processes and use that as a marketing point; to adapt processes to use fewer materials and to create less waste; and to use energy much more efficiently in all production activities.
I assure the House, and everyone in Northern Ireland, as represented by their Members of Parliament, that the
1146
new team in Stormont—especially as it includes my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has been there for a while—is committed to use all the parliamentary resources at our disposal to use the unique opportunity which is still open to everyone in Northern Ireland to take advantage of the environmental position and current economic development to ensure that Northern Ireland has a real future—not only as a peripheral part of Europe but as a central part of the United Kingdom. That commitment is there for all to see.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 9.

Division No. 37]

[11.29 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Ancram, Michael

Jessel, Toby

Arbuthnot, James

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

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Ashby, David

Kirkhope, Timothy

Atkins, Robert

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Bates, Michael

Legg, Barry

Beresford, Sir Paul

Lidington, David

Booth, Hartley

Lightbown, David

Bowis, John

Luff, Peter

Brandreth, Gyles

MacKay, Andrew

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Malone, Gerald

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Mates, Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Merchant, Piers

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Neubert, Sir Michael

Clappison, James

Richards, Rod

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Congdon, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Spink, Dr Robert

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Sproat, Iain

Dover, Den

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Duncan, Alan

Stephen, Michael

Elletson, Harold

Sweeney, Walter

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Sykes, John

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Thomason, Roy

Fabricant, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Forth, Eric

Thurnham, Peter

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Trend, Michael

Gallie, Phil

Twinn, Dr Ian

Gillan, Ms Cheryl

Watts, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Whittingdale, John

Hague, William

Widdecombe, Ann

Hanley, Jeremy

Wilkinson, John

Hawksley, Warren

Willetts, David

Hayes, Jerry

Wood, Timothy

Heald, Oliver

Yeo, Tim

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Hendry, Charles

Tellers for the Ayes:

Horam, John

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Mr. Tim Boswell.

Hunter, Andrew

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

McCrea, Rev William

Maginnis, Ken

Tellers for the Noes:

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Mr. William Ross and

Paisley, Rev Ian

Mr. David Trimble.

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.

Trust Hospitals (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
11.40 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: This debate centres on the funding of national health service hospitals, especially those under trust status in London and those shortly to gain such status. My hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) will hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that we may have a wide-ranging debate on health matters in London.
In my constituency, St. George's hospital, Tooting, is seeking trust status. There is deep concern among local people about what that will mean for the health of their community.
The evidence shows that many trust hospitals have funding problems, which affect services, staffing and morale. We are aware that changes are made primarily to balance the accounts. To realise that, one need go no further than the comment made to the Select Committee on Health in January by Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the NHS, who said that the "key duty" of trusts is to break even. That is what causes deep concern in London.
An inquiry on London health care, headed by Sir Bernard Tomlinson, is taking place. He has already been left in no doubt by various organisations in London about the problems that the national health service faces: problems of funding, waiting lists, low staff morale, the need for an improvement in primary health care, and for closer collaboration between hospitals and local authorities, which leaves much to be desired in many parts of London. Those are only some of our many concerns.
Obviously, better management can help but the overriding issue is, and will be, the question of how services are to be improved and that will depend overwhelmingly on funding. We have heard on many occasions that even when trusts sell their services on the open market—which will not be easy—there must be some financial input from the Government. We want the Minister to tell us what that will be. We are aware that earlier this year, in the run-up to the general election, a lot of financial funding seemed to be available —waiting lists were reduced and salaries were increased—but we now realise that things have changed considerably.
Money is more difficult to obtain via Government funding and many hon. Members must have read the report in the Observer business section last week entitled
"Cabinet row over impact of public spending cuts."
It went on to say:
"A major Cabinet row is developing over Treasury insistence on dramatic cuts in public spending".
Based on what we already know, that report could be true.
I saw on the news tonight that the Luton and Dunstable hospital trust, which was established last year, has announced that it is cutting 95 jobs. That is on top of the 16 job losses that it announced last week. So, in a matter of a week, 100 jobs have been lost. Such decisions are causing great concern.
We might be told that such job losses will not hurt hospital services, but we know that that is untrue. I have collected more than a dozen press cuttings that highlight existing problems—for example:
"NHS trust 'mishandled' injured baby case."
1148
Two others, which relate to the Guys and Lewisham trust, state:
"Heart patients wait as budget runs out one month early."
and
"Four heart patients 'died for lack of money'".
We have sought the debate to express our deep concerns to the Minister and to the Government in particular.
I do not expect the Minister to reply to the specific issue that I intend to raise, but I have a duty to alert him to the concerns of my constituents and myself about the appointment of the chairperson to the St. George's hospital trust. Two people, who are well known to the public are in running for that post. However, the front runner is a Member of the Upper House, who is well known in Parliament and outside. I do not intend to mention his name, but many of us are absolutely opposed to his appointment.
That gentleman already holds a number of financial directorships, and one wonders how he can find time to do justice to them all. The local people would view his appointment as chairperson of the trust with contempt. Given his current financial responsibilities, they would consider that he had been appointed to balance the books only, rather than to improve local NHS services as a result of trust status. We are opposed to his appointment.
I accept that the Minister may be unable to address that specific issue, but if that gentleman is appointed, I shall make all relevant correspondence, which I have kept confidential, public. I shall leave the matter at that, because I want my hon. Friends to have an opportunity to take part in the debate.
11.50 pm
Mrs. Barbara Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for giving me time in his debate. All London Members are extremely concerned about the future of the capital's hospitals. Devasting cuts have recently been disclosed at University College hospital and Bart's, and the threat of closure continues to hang over the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital, which is extremely famous, is used by many women and is held in high regard. Much public anxiety exists over the future of that hospital, which offers a unique health care service.
All who care about London and Londoners must be anxious about the state of health provision in the capital, as my hon. Friend ably pointed out. The Government have pressed on relentlessly, encouraging hospitals to opt out, regardless of local feeling and opposition. When ballots of staff have been conducted, and public opinion canvassed, the overwhelming view has generally been to reject opt-out, as in the case of the North Middlesex hospital. But the Government have gone ahead regardless of the views of those who work in the service and the people who use it.
Of the two principal hospitals that served my constituency, one is planning to become a trust hospital and the other became a trust a year ago. The Whittington hospital is planning to opt out and has produced glossy brochures and smart newspaper advertisements telling the people that there will be greater accountability, faster response times, a more efficient service and higher calibre staff. But local residents, staff and patients have all told me that that is unlikely to happen and that they do not want a trust hospital. There is also a large question mark over its financial viability.

1149
But even if we were generous enough to give the Whittington the benefit of the doubt and question what local people have told us, we must consider what has happened at the neighbouring hospital that serves my constituency, the North Middlesex, which has opted out. The picture there is extremely grim. It became a trust just over a year ago. Is it locally accountable? While meetings of public bodies are usually open to the public, meetings of the trust board are held in private, so local people and representatives of the community health council and the press cannot attend.
Last week the hospital announced cuts of £1.7 million, and I gather that from last April the general manager of the trust was having almost daily meetings with the Department of Health in an effort to deal with problems that were arising. To enable the latest cuts to be met, the hospital has announced that, instead of two meals a day, patients recovering—and therefore needing nourishing meals—will get one meal and a snack. After 6.30 there will be no evening drinks. Is that how we should run our more caring and more efficient health service? It may he an efficient way to save money, but it is hardly the way to help patients recuperate. It is another example of trusts putting financial savings before patient care.
It has been announced that about 50 jobs will go. My excellent local campaigning newspaper, The Hornsey Journal, confirms that redundancies will occur among auxiliary nurses and nurses in medical wards and casualty departments. I recently questioned the Secretary of State for Health about casualty facilities in my constituency and she asserted that excellent services were being provided. It is also reported that a surgical ward with 26 beds and half of another ward will be closed at the North Middlesex hospital. That is not the way to attract higher calibre staff, but it undermines the confidence and skill of those professionals whom we admire so much.
My constituents are understandably anxious about health care in the community. In April this year, the North-East Thames region had the worst record in England for waiting lists of more than two years. The promises that we were given about trust hospitals have been broken and there are financial crises at both Whittington and North Middlesex hospitals.
I urge the Government to act urgently to ensure that patients' lives are not put at risk for the sake of unrelenting commercialism.
11.56 pm
Ms. Tessa Jowell: I, too, welcome this debate and thank my hon. Friend for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for allowing me to share his time.
We desperately need urgent action to deal with the looming crisis facing London hospitals. The optimistic propaganda from Ministers about the future of London hospitals simply does not square with the experience of constituents who visit my weekly surgery and the many who write to me.
The problem is London's dual role in meeting Londoners' health needs and also securing as a regional and national resource in providing specialist treatment for people from many parts of the country. The issue is how those two roles can be properly reconciled.
I wish to describe how those two responsibilities impact on the local hospitals used by my constituents—King's College and Dulwich hospitals. My hon. Friend the
1150
Member for Peckham (Mrs. Harman), who for many years—since before I arrived in the House—has sought to find solutions to the problem, will share my concerns.
King's College hospital is classed as one of London's major teaching hospitals. It is unusual compared with other London teaching hospitals because seven out of every 10 people treated at the hospital live in the Camberwell health authority area, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and I represent. Three out of every 10 people travel from other parts of the country or from Europe to benefit from the highly specialised forms of treatment that are provided. It is a world centre for liver transplants and for specialities like the treatment of diabetic gangrene of the foot. King's College hospital is also unusual in that, because it is old and desperately in need of refurbishment, its unit costs are lower than those of other teaching hospitals.
I remind hon. Members that the area served by the hospital is described by health care statisticians as one of high morbidity. That means that, for instance, three times as many babies die before they are a year old in Camberwell as in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huntingdon.
This year, King's will have to save yet another £7.8 million as it prepares to become an opted-out trust with effect from 1 April next year. As part of the cuts programme, 120 beds have been closed in the past 18 months.
The brunt of those cuts has been borne, not by the national and regional specialties, but by the services for local people—my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, particularly by the elderly.
The problems arising from the shortage of beds is evidenced almost every day by the queues of patients who have been through the casualty department and are waiting on trollies for a bed to become available. Too often, elderly people have to be admitted, not because they need hospital care, but because they cannot be looked after at home, as the community services have been cut. That shows the perversity of the sorry saga. The casualty department that was built to treat 30,000 patients a year, now regularly treats in excess of 80,000 a year.
We all celebrate King's status as a world-class hospital, but the health care of my constituents will be vulnerable if the Government allow market forces, not the health care needs of local people, to plan London's health services. It is particularly perverse that the hospital that can give the chance of life to someone, from wherever in the world, who needs a liver transplant, cannot admit an elderly lady who lives down the road and has broken her arm, without subjecting her to a long wait in one of its corridors before a bed becomes free.
I hope that the Minister shares my serious worry about these matters and that he will give answers that I can convey to my constituents.
12.1 am
The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on his good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate and on the way in which he introduced it. I also thank the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) for their contribution, and acknowledge the presence on the Opposition Front Bench

1151
of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). All three of them will realise that they have taken a substantial amount of the time available for the debate, so my ability to respond to it has been curtailed. Therefore, I hope that they will not attribute the lack of specificity of my reply to any discourtesy.
The hon. Member for Tooting started by drawing attention to what he believed were the funding problems of trust hospitals and the issue of resources. Without much ado, I shall now address that worry, which was also reflected in the speeches of the other two hon. Members. It is important to understand that, taking the number of acute beds per thousand of the population as an index, in inner London the average is 4.1 and in England it is 2.5. Therefore, in terms of the provision of beds, inner London's quota is well in excess of the national average.
The figure for health revenue expenditure per thousand of the population in inner London is £445, and the average in England is £233. Those are pre-reform figures, but the position has not changed much in the past couple of years. Therefore, contrary to the impression given by the hon. Member for Tooting, the amount of resources spent in inner London is substantially greater than that available in the rest of the country.
I have another piece of information, the relevance of which I believe the hon. Gentleman will understand. The average cost per episode—Department of Health jargon for case—in inner London is £790. The figure for all acute cases in England is £546. The hon. Gentleman will see, therefore, that considerable extra resources are being put into London and that the cost of health care in London is higher than it is in the rest of the country.
The hon. Member for Tooting said that London finds money hard to come by. I remind him that we are in the same financial year as when the general election took place. He will know that the health budget this year rose by 5 per cent. in real terms.
I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point about the possible appointment of a chairman to the potential trust in which he takes a particular interest. If hon. Members have views about the names submitted for such an appointment, I shall be happy to receive them and to take them into account in the consultation process before deciding who should be chairman of a trust. I hope that they find that helpful.
NHS trusts are a central part of the reform programme set out in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. The whole purpose behind the creation of NHS trusts is to improve the quality of health care and to produce benefits to patients. Since the Act came into force in 1990, 156 hospitals and units have become NHS trusts. Now, in the third year, there have been 151 applications so far.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green suggested that this process is driven by the Government.
1152
No so. It reflects the fact that the professional and managerial staff in the NHS are increasingly supporting the Government's reforms.
After the third wave, most NHS health care will be provided to patients through NHS trusts, with up to two thirds of eligible units established as trusts.
We have heard stories this evening of the kind that we often hear. The stories which I can contribute are based not on newspaper accounts but on the facts. NHS trusts in London increased their acute and general activity by more than 11 per cent. in 1991–92 compared with the previous year. The Royal London and associated hospitals NHS trust and the Royal National throat, nose and ear hospital NHS trust each increased its activity by more than 20 per cent.
The Royal National orthopaedic hospital has been able to reopen more than 40 beds which the district had previously had to close. It would have been slightly more convincing if the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green had balanced what she had to say about trusts with the record of non-trust hospitals, which experienced difficulties, financial problems and bed closures long before trusts were ever thought of.
As an example of the improvements that trusts have been able to make, the North Middlesex hospital will open a fourth theatre next month and is planning a major redevelopment of the A and E department. Mount Vernon hospital is purchasing several new pieces of equipment worth £4 million; these include a linear accelerator and two new magnetic resonance imaging scanners. The Central Middlesex hospital is now installing a magnetic resonance imaging scanner in a joint venture with a private company. The Royal Free Hampstead NHS trust has decreased the number of people waiting over a year for general surgery from 560 to just 18. At Guy's and Lewisham NHS trust, the number of patients waiting more than a year for treatment has come down from 2,200 in March 1991 to 680.
I do not suggest that trusts do not have continuing problems to deal with and to overcome, but it does them, and consequently the health care of the people of London, no service to suggest that trusts are inherently evil, non-productive and bad, and that the old system was great, good and marvellous. That was not the story that we heard in the days when trusts did not exist.
I deeply regret that I cannot deal with health care provision in London, but I have no more time. However, I have no doubt that, as we move through the year and when we receive the Tomlinson report, the matter will come before the House on a number of occasions and I look forward to future debates on it, not least because it is important that we should address the problems of London in a way that will protect the health care of its citizens while at the same time freeing resources to be spent in the other Thames regions and around the country.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Thursday 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 ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Engines
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been commissioned into the environmental impact and property damage implications of aircraft engines capable of powering 600-seater aircraft.

  Mr. Norris
  There are no 600-seater aircraft yet in production. The regulatory authorities have not yet been provided with information about any such aircraft which would enable them to undertake environmental assessment. However, all new types of civil aircraft must receive a certificate of airworthiness, covering a wide range of safety and environmental standards, before they are permitted to operate.

  A5-M11 Trunk Road
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest position as regards the consultation study by Acer Consultants Ltd. in connection with its work on the alignment of an east/west trunk route regarding the section between the A5 and the M11.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We expect to receive a report from our consultant this autumn. This will provide information about route options on which we hope to consult the public in 1993.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the first degree obtained by each of the chief executives of DVOIT and the Transport Research Agency; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded;

  (2) how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of DVOIT and the Transport Research Agency as agencies; and whether the cost in each case was borne by the parent department or the new agency.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The chief executives of the DVOIT agency and the Transport Research Laboratory will be writing to the hon. Member.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the maximum salary payable, including performance related element, and the length of time of the contract, of each of the chief executives of DVOIT and the Transport Research Agency.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The chief executive of the DVOIT agency has been appointed from 1 April 1992 for five years. The maximum salary that the chief executive DVOIT agency could be paid in 1992–93 on the basis of the 610
  current scale is £46,671 but a further general increase is expected on 1 August 1992. In addition, the chief executive is eligible for special non pensionable performance related bonus payments of up to 10 per cent. of salary.

  The chief executive of the Transport Research Laboratory has been appointed from 11 November 1991 for five years. The maximum salary that the executive could be paid in 1992–93 is currently £63,000. This figure is subject to annual review in the light of the Government's decisions on the recommendations of the top salaries review body for the senior open structure. In addition the chief executive is eligible for non pensionable performance related bonuses up to a maximum of 10 per cent. of salary for the years to which the bonuses relate.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the additional cost of(a) initiating, (b) administering each year and (c) policing each year the scheme of red routes in London as announced on 11 June.

  Mr. Norris
  I expect the implementation of the red route network announced on 11 June to cost in the region of £50 million (over the next five years) and the cost of administration to be of the order of £1.5 million a year subject to variation in workload. When the system becomes fully operational the annual cost of the additional police officers and traffic wardens will be about £25 million. However, the final cost will depend on the extent to which the boroughs' future involvement in parking enforcement releases existing traffic warden resources.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements relating to regulated parking, pedestrian crossings, cycle facilities and bus lanes or bus preference traffic schemes are possible under red route legislation and not possible under other provisions for traffic and highway management.

  Mr. Norris
  The power for the Secretary of State to designate a coherent network across London and to ensure the co-ordinated implementation of effective measures on it.

  Orbital Trunk Road, M25
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to build an outer orbital trunk road outside the M25.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None.

  Colne Foulridge Bypass
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects construction of the Colne Foulridge bypass to begin.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is Lancashire county council's scheme. Its timing is a matter for the council, although the council is hoping for exceptional central Government funding.

  Selby Bypass
  Mr. Michael Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on the Selby bypass following the conclusion in 1991 of the local public inquiry into the line of the route.
  611
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The joint decision of the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment is awaited. I am aware of the need for an early decision, but in view of their statutory position it would be wrong for me to forecast when an announcement can be made. Of course, they have to consider all evidence before them, including the inquiry inspector's report.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what review is being undertaken of the law relating to wheel clamping of vehicles by private companies in England.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The law on wheel clamping on private land is a matter for the courts. But the recent ruling of the Scottish High Court of Judiciary will be examined carefully by my Department—with other relevant Government Departments—with a view to the position in England.

WALES

  Radionuclides
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken in relation to the conclusions on page seven of the report commissioned by his Department from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on a post-Chernobyl survey of radionuclides in Wales from August to October 1986.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers is one of many dealing with the effects of radioactive deposition from Chernobyl within the United Kingdom as a whole. Since the accident there have been a wide range of laboratory and field studies to improve our understanding of the behaviour of the fallout from Chernobyl in the affected areas, including north Wales.

  The recommendations for further work in this particular report are being followed up. The Welsh Office is currently funding a project examining the dynamics of caesium in soils in upland Wales. As part of its wide ranging research programme the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has also funded work in the migration of radiocaesium in peat, as well as into the presence of strontium 90 in crops before and after the Chernobyl accident.

  Following the Chernobyl accident a comprehensive monitoring programme of all foodstuffs likely to be affected was undertaken in Wales. The results indicated that radioactivity levels were generally well below those at which action was necessary to protect the safety of the food chain—with the exception of sheepmeat from certain parts of north Wales. As a result, sheep movement and marketing restrictions remain in force.

  Access to Records
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what conclusions he has reached on the implications of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Graham Gaskin for people seeking access to personal records for which he has responsibility; and what action he intends to take.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has consulted relevant agencies in Wales about how existing legislation 612
  and practice on the subject of access to social work records might need to be modified in the light of the judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Graham Gaskin.

  I am considering, together with other Ministers, what action should now be taken.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the approval by his Department for the West Glamorgan family health services authority to begin the immediate checking of standards at dental surgeries in the county will include the aim of reducing the rates of cross-infection; and if this initiative will now be extended to the whole of Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The inspection of general dental practitioners premises is a matter for individual family health services authorities to decide as part of their management responsibility for general dental services. The composition of the inspection checklist is stipulated in guidance issued to FHSAs and includes consideration of cross-infection control.

  Penylag County Primary School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review his financial regulations to enable the Penylag county primary school, Deeside to be extended; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No. In accordance with practices agreed with the local authority associations it is for local authorities to determine the distribution of the resources made available to them between services and projects in the light of their view of local needs and priorities.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Penylag county primary school and meet the governors, staff and the parent-teachers association.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no present plans to do so.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will earmark cash in the Sports Council grant aid to enable the Sports Council to list the current stock of school playing fields land.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As indicated in the Government's policy statement "Sport and Active Recreation" published last November, I will be considering with the Sports Council for Wales whether the register of all playing fields in England currently being compiled should be extended to Wales.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reasons the construction of the alternative feeding grounds for wading birds was omitted from the re-advertisement of the specifications of the tender to construct the proposed Cardiff bay barrage in the supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities dated 5 June; and what difference it made to the total estimated construction cost.
  613
  Mr. David Hunt
  The construction of the alternative feeding grounds for wading birds was omitted from Cardiff Bay Development Corporation's re-advertisement since the Select Committee required the provision for the feeding grounds to be removed from the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. The indicative value of £112 million given in the advertisement should have been reduced by the £5.7 million cost of the feeding ground to £106 million. As I indicated in my answer to the hon. Gentleman on 16 June the estimated value in the advertisement is intended to be purely indicative of the scale of the project.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reasons it was decided to increase the volume of dredged material in the specification for the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage from 1,000,000 m3 to 1,700,000 m3, and for sandfill from 1,300,000 m3 to 1,500,000 m3 between the original advertisement in the supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities dated 14 November 1990 and the most recent re-advertisement dated 5 June 1992.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Following completion of ground investigations and detailed design of the barrage, allowance has been made for removal of all soft material from beneath the locks, sluices and Penarth Link, and removal of some soft material from beneath the embankment. This is required to avoid problems during construction and to ensure the complete structure integrity of the finished structure. It has resulted in the increases in dredging and sandfill quantities.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the increase since November 1990 in cost and in percentage terms of the proposed Cardiff bay barrage exclusive of the cost of the alternative feeding grounds.

  Mr. David Hunt
  If the cost of the alternative feeding grounds had been excluded from the November 1990 prequalification notice, the cost of the Cardiff bay barrage would have been £82 million at 1988–89 prices. The equivalent figure for the latest notice is £106 million at 1991–92 prices. Estimated construction costs exclusive of the alternative feeding grounds have therefore risen by £24 million or 29 per cent. over a period of some three years.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what special measures he plans to encourage manufacturing industry in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Development of manufacturing industry in Wales is a high priority. A wide range of schemes is available to encourage investment, research and development, and job creation. Specific initiatives have been taken to strengthen supplier networks, encourage technology transfer and build on the record levels of inward investment that have been achieved.

  Banking Jobs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the loss of banking and finance jobs in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Employment Department figures show that between 1989 and 1991 employment in the banking, insurance and finance sector in Wales increased by almost one third to 90,000.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  War Crimes
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General how much money has been spent on investigations under the War Crimes Act 1991; and how many individual cases have been investigated.

  The Attorney-General
  The War Crimes Act 1991 came into effect on 9 May 1991. Costs associated with investigations in England and Wales in 1991–92 were £1,003,072. This includes running costs and direct expenditure by the CPS in providing advice and other support to the investigators. The corresponding figure for Scotland is £300,000. No individual investigations have been completed. The inquiry is focusing on the case identified in the Hetherington/Chalmers report which appear most susceptible to criminal investigation.

  No figures are yet available for the expenditure in the current year.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will now indicate when the opinion of the Advocate General and the judgments of the court will be available on the case relating to Sunday trading.

  The Attorney-General
  The Advocate-General will give his opinion on 8 July. The court will give public notice in due course after 8 July of the date when it will give judgment.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his attendance at the European Court of Justice on 2 June.

  The Attorney-General
  On 2 June the European Court of Justice heard references by English courts concerning the compatibility of the Shops Act 1950 and Community law. I addressed the court on behalf of the United Kingdom and argued that the Act was compatible with Community law.

  "Final Exit"
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration the Director of Public Prosecutions is giving to instituting proceedings under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 against the publishers or distributors of "Final Exit"; and what criteria the Director of Public Prosecutions applies to such cases.

  The Attorney-General
  In December 1991 the acting director of Public Prosecutions considered a complaint relating to the distribution of "Final Exit" by Derek Humphrey. He concluded that there were no grounds for proceeding against either the publishers or distributors for an offence contrary to section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. In reaching this decision the acting director took into account the High Court's consideration in Attorney General v. Able and Others [1984] 1 ALL ER p. 277 of the circumstances in which supply of a publication may contravene section 2. It is for the police to investigate any particular supply of "Final Exit" which might constitute an offence.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of cases heard by each magistrates court in Greater London and Essex for each week during the past 12 months.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested. However, the Home Office collects and publishes the numbers of people proceeded against annually by petty sessional division and commission of the peace area in "Criminal statistics England and Wales". The 1990 publication, the latest available, is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of court sittings for each magistrates court in Greater London and Essex for each week during the past 12 months.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available centrally in the form requested. The annual number of bench sittings for north-east London is 10,220 in 1990 (the latest year available) and for Essex is 10,217 in 1991. It is possible to provide the numbers of individual bench sittings only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Claims Courts
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if small claims courts are required to issue documents to plaintiffs and defendants by recorded or registered post; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The county court rules 1981 require that any document which is to be served on a person should be served personally or by first class post. There is no requirement for documents to be sent by recorded or registered post.

  Children
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many children have been taken abroad by one parent against the wishes of the other parent in the last year of record.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No statistics are kept of the total number of children taken abroad unlawfully by one parent against the wishes of the other. However, in the year 1991, the child abduction unit of the Lord Chancellor's Department, which acts as the central authority for applications in England and Wales under the Hague convention of 1980 and the European convention of 1980, processed 108 applications involving 149 children who were said to have been wrongfully removed to other contracting states under those conventions.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Wildlife Management
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much is allocated by the Overseas Development Administration to special training 616
  programmes in wildlife management techniques and if he will break these figures down into the amounts spent on (a) annual capture and translocation, (b) management of crop-raiding animals, (c) veterinary diagnosis and management of diseases, (d) operation of culling programmes, (e) the development of village-level use of wild species, (f) management of sports hunting and other associated activities, (g)implementation of reintroduction programmes for both plants and animals and (h) programmes to exterminate damaging introduced and invasive species.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Information is not readily available in the form requested by the hon. Member. However, many of the projects ODA supports in wildlife management include elements for training for developing country personnel. Some examples include:

  (i) £12 million for Kenya's protected areas Wildlife Services project to protect rare and endangered species;

  (ii) £474,000 for the Zoological Society of London to protect black rhinos and other flora and fauna and prevent damage to crops and livestock by predators in the Aberdares, Kenya;

  (iii) £91,000 in support of community education programme to promote conservation and sustainable resource use in Zimbabwe;

  (iv) £30,000 for training and equipment for the Ecological Research Institute at Etosha, Namibia to develop remote sensing techniques for effective environment monitoring and management of wildlife parks.

  We also support training in the United Kingdom on environmental subjects; of the 485 broad-based environment awards in 1990–91, 12 were for specific wildlife management training courses at a cost of approximately £140,000.

  Bahrain
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid Her Majesty's Government provides for Bahrain(a) in real terms and (b) as a percentage of gross national product.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Seal Pups
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian Government concerning slaughter of baby seal pups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Russian authorities are well aware of public concern in the United Kingdom about seal culling. The EC banned the import of harp and hooded seal pup skins in 1983. The United Kingdom persuaded the Community to make the ban indefinite in 1989.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many papers have been withdrawn from the Public Record Office by his Department in each of the last five years.
  617
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In each of the past five years the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has temporarily recalled the following numbers of files from the Public Record Office.

  Number

  1991

  2,425

  1990

  2,113

  1989

  3,316

  1988

  3,324

  1987

  2,851

  All Foreign and Commonwealth Office files temporarily recalled from the Public Record Office are held for the minimum period of time necessary for official business, and are returned to the Public Record Office thereafter.

  Bosnia-Herzogovina
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken towards protection of the chemical plant in Tuzla, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, against the risks of war damage leading to environmental damage.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The best protection for all sites in Bosnia-Herzegovina would be a durable ceasefire. We therefore wholeheartedly support Lord Carrington's and the United Nations efforts to bring this about.

  Slovenia
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that United Nations sanctions against Serbia do not harm the economy or the people of Slovenia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As a United Nations member state, Slovenia has a legal obligation to implement the sanctions imposed on Serbia and Montenegro by Security Council Resolution 757. It is for the Slovenian authorities to take steps, consistent with this resolution, to protect the interests of their economy and people should they be affected by Slovenian implementation of the sanctions.

  Patricia Cahill
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to secure the release of Patricia Cahill from prison in Thailand.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British embassy in Bangkok submitted Patricia Cahill's petition for a pardon from His Majesty the King of Thailand to the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 4 May 1992. The embassy strongly supported the petition on the grounds of Miss Cahill's youth and immaturity at the time the offence was committed.

  Entry Applications
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry clearance at the deputy high commission in Karachi have been outstanding for more than one month.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: There are 745 applications which have been outstanding
  618
  for more than one month. Of these, 528 are non-settlement cases where the post requires further information or the applicants have failed to attend for interview. Of the remaining 217 settlement cases, 50 have been referred to the Home Office for decision, 82 applicants are waiting first interview, and 85 are applicants who have been interviewed but from whom further documents are required.

EDUCATION

  School Toilets
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will update the 1977 survey conducted by his Department and the Welsh Office on how many schools in England and Wales have outside toilets in use by pupils.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no plans at present to update the information contained in the 1977 "A Study of School Building" which gave the number of schools with outside toilets on a sample basis.

  School Governing Bodies
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to strengthen the representative base of school governing bodies by opening up all places on every body to election by parents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  We have no plans to alter the carefully constructed balance of membership of school governing bodies established by the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review the procedure for appointment of school governors by minor authorities to prevent such authorities from removing well-established school governors and replacing them with political appointees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  We have no plans to review the procedure for the appointment of school governors by minor authorities.

  The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 allows those appointing governors to remove them at any time. The courts have, however, taken the view that in doing so they must act reasonably. There is therefore a remedy in law for a governor who considers that he has been unreasonably removed.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest figure for the cost of surplus school places for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The average premises-related cost of maintaining a school place is estimated to be £150 a year for a primary school and £250 a year for a secondary school at 1991–92 prices. The amount that can be saved by removing surplus places will, however, vary considerably according to the particular circumstances.

  School Repairs
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the differences in the arrangements for(a) aided schools and (b) county schools in using school

  619
  budget money to support governors' money for paying for decorations or repairs approved for 85 per cent. grant from his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  County schools are not eligible for grant from the Department for repairs or decorations. Governors of county and voluntary aided schools with delegated budgets may, subject to any conditions in their LMS scheme, spend the budget share of their school as they see fit for the purposes of the school. In the voluntary aided schools, such purposes could include external repairs to school buildings, including decoration, which are their responsibility under the provisions of section 15 of the Education Act 1944 and eligible for grant.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Visits
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will next pay an official visit to Kinsley.

  The Prime Minister
  I shall be making further visits to many parts of the country and hope to include Kinsley among them.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about ministerial responsibilities for HMSO, the Central Office of Information, Chessington Computer Centre and CCTA—the Government Centre for Information Systems.

  The Prime Minister
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Minister of Public Service and Science) will assume responsibility for these bodies from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  The transfer of responsibility for the Central Office of Information and Her Majesty's Stationery Office will take place on Monday 22 June. The transfer of CCTA will take place once the necessary Transfer of Functions Order permits. Responsibility for Chessington Computer Centre will be transferred as soon as the administrative arrangements have been completed.

  These four bodies are largely self-contained units engaged in providing services, mostly on a repayment basis, and mainly to other civil service departments and agencies. They will take their place alongside the Civil Service college, the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency and the Occupational Health Service, which are also self-contained units largely serving civil service departments and agencies and which are already the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy. Bringing these seven units under one Minister is designed to improve their effectiveness and help to provide even better value for those who use those services.

  Millennium Fund
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what benefits are planned to flow to London from the millennium fund.

  The Prime Minister
  It is far too early to say. But the millennium fund, which will commemorate the start of the 21st century, will be one of the areas funded by the national lottery.

  Private Sector Forum for London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what functions will be carried out by the Private Sector Forum for London; and whether its proceedings will be subject to public scrutiny;

  (2) when he intends to announce the membership of the proposed Private Sector Forum for London; and if he is inviting nominations from representative bodies in the capital.

  The Prime Minister
  The forum will promote London internationally as a business, tourist and cultural centre. We are still considering the detailed arrangements for the forum. We will announce our conclusions in due course.

  Rail Travel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has made an official visit by train since becoming Prime Minister.

  The Prime Minister
  I do so when ever the opportunity arises but for practical and security reasons I am unable to travel often by train.

  Royal British Legion (Training Centre)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the most appropriate Department to sponsor the Royal British Legion's bid to PERIFRA II for the establishment of a training centre in Tidworth for providing specific training for members of the armed forces and their families, so as to prepare them for continuing careers in civilian life; what action he will take in consultation with the Royal British Legion; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 June 1992]: The aims of the British Legion proposal are to provide employment opportunities and training for the wives and dependants of service personnel, for ex-service personnel, and for the local community in Tidworth. The Ministry of Defence has the matter under consideration.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to prevent a reporting accountant acting for debenture holders from acting as a receiver.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no such plans.

  Compact Discs
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the pricing of compact discs.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department has received a small number of letters about the price of compact discs and other aspects of the market for recorded music in the course of the last few months. The Office of Fair Trading has also received correspondence on this issue and is keeping the market under review.

  Aerospace Exports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the value of exports by the aerospace industry to Britain for each of the years from 1979, giving the financial value under the headings of airframe, engines etc.

  United Kingdom Aerospace exports

  (£ millions)

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Aircraft

  Aircraft—new

  799

  1,194

  1,030

  1,157

  —other

  275

  877

  942

  569

  Spacecraft

  1

  1

  23

  0

  Aircraft Parts

  1,722

  2,406

  2,498

  3,229

  Guided Weapons

  210

  315

  182

  81

  TOTAL

  3,008

  4,794

  4,674

  5,036

  Propulsion devices

  Reciprocating

  4

  5

  6

  6

  Reciprocating—parts

  26

  36

  44

  34

  Jet and turbo—new

  504

  1,085

  1,133

  912

  —other

  491

  474

  478

  461

  Other than jet

  8

  11

  6

  7

  Jet and turbo parts

  737

  794

  827

  817

  TOTAL

  1,770

  2,405

  2,494

  2,237

  Equipment

  Aircraft tyres

  11

  8

  10

  7

  Radio Communications

  40

  54

  57

  54

  Aircraft radar

  41

  57

  42

  29

  Aircraft instruments

  177

  219

  225

  183

  Seating and furnishings

  16

  48

  53

  58

  Parachutes, rotochutes

  7

  5

  5

  6

  Catapults, launching gear

  5

  3

  6

  5

  Ground trainers

  118

  166

  131

  89

  Spcialised machinery

  1

  3

  6

  8

  Mechanical handling equipment

  2

  3

  5

  3

  Transmission Shafts

  12

  14

  17

  11

  Other equipment

  163

  182

  234

  238

  TOTAL

  593

  764

  790

  692

  TOTAL AEROSPACE

  5,370

  7,962

  7,958

  7,966

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Steel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the value and tonnage of exports of hot rolled coil by the British steel industry for each of the years from 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is given in the table.

  United Kingdom exports of hot rolled coil steel

  Value (£ million)

  Weight (thousand tonnes)

  1979

  23.6

  161.0

  1980

  9.3

  55.8

  1981

  10.3

  79.8

  1982

  7.3

  49.3

  1983

  26.5

  146.9

  1984

  35.4

  198.5

  1985

  39.6

  199.7

  1986

  42.7

  231.1

  1987

  50.4

  257.6

  1988

  68.9

  332.4

  1989

  90.4

  390.3

  1990

  110.3

  493.2

  1991

  124.0

  656.0

  622
  Mr. Needham
  The available information is given in the following table. Figures for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Source: Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau from the Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the value and tonnage of imports of(a) HRC and (b) other categories of steel by the British steel industry for each of the years from 1979.

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

  United Kingdom imports of steel

  Hot rolled coil steel

  Other steel

  Value (£ million)

  Weight (thousand tonnes)

  Value (£ million)

  Weight (thousand tonnes)

  1979

  92.8

  526.9

  901

  3,257

  1980

  97.7

  525.1

  1,173

  4,102

  1981

  63.9

  379.9

  842

  2,935

  1982

  99.4

  524.5

  1,056

  3,312

  1983

  104.5

  520.6

  930

  2,824

  1984

  101.1

  482.5

  1,132

  3,071

  1985

  128.2

  574.6

  1,274

  3,175

  1986

  157.7

  694.1

  1,331

  3,424

  1987

  165.7

  707.7

  1,403

  3,560

  1988

  149.0

  583.0

  1,828

  4,447

  1989

  155.1

  567.0

  2,144

  4,715

  623

  Hot rolled coil steel

  Other steel

  Value (£ million)

  Weight (thousand tonnes)

  Value (£ million)

  Weight (thousand tonnes)

  1990

  166.6

  631.9

  2,053

  4,526

  1991

  118.4

  494.3

  2,065

  4,815

  Source: Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau from the Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the value and numbers of motor cars, vans and lorries(a) imported and (b) exported for each of the years from 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is given in the table.

  United Kingdom trade in motor cars, vans and lorries1

  Imports

  Exports

  Value (£ billion)

  Numbers (thousands)

  Value (£ billion)

  Numbers (thousands)

  1979

  2.85

  1,132

  1.40

  552

  1980

  2.38

  941

  1.40

  485

  1981

  2.40

  861

  1.44

  453

  United Kingdom trade in textiles (£ million)

  Exports

  Imports

  Textile fibres1

  Other textiles2

  Total textiles

  Textiles

  fibres1

  Other textiles2

  Total textiles

  1979

  316

  1,339

  1,655

  476

  1,691

  2,167

  1980

  313

  1,363

  1,676

  376

  1,544

  1,920

  1981

  298

  1,203

  1,501

  376

  1,762

  2,138

  1982

  314

  1,192

  1,506

  411

  1,928

  2,338

  1983

  375

  1,285

  1,660

  476

  2,320

  2,796

  1984

  428

  1,485

  1,913

  597

  2,705

  3,302

  1985

  420

  1,709

  2,129

  663

  3,032

  3,695

  1986

  373

  1,712

  2,085

  547

  3,162

  3,709

  1987

  397

  1,886

  2,283

  658

  3,472

  4,130

  1988

  440

  1,935

  2,374

  688

  3,636

  4,323

  1989

  498

  2,205

  2,703

  681

  3,770

  4,451

  1990

  495

  2,447

  2,942

  549

  3,936

  4,485

  1991

  466

  2,349

  2,816

  453

  3,739

  4,191

  1 Textile fibres are defined as division 26 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  2 Other textiles consist of textile yarn, fabrics, made-up articles not elsewhere specified and related products, and are defined as division 65 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Telecommunications Council on 5 June.

  Mr. Leigh
  The principal item for discussion was a proposal for a Council decision on an action plan for the introduction of advanced television services in Europe. The action plan proposes a subsidy of up to 850 mecu to accelerate development of a market for wide-screen and high-definition television services broadcast by satellite or cable and using MAC (Multiplex Analogue Components) transmission standards. The United Kingdom supported by several other member states, rejected the sum of 850 mecu as unacceptably high. The United Kingdom further stated that a convincing business case for any subsidy had yet to be presented. No Council conclusions were drawn from the discussion. Consideration of the action plan will continue.

  The otherwise light agenda included a brief discussion on the long awaited postal services green paper. The
  624

  Imports

  Exports

  Value (£ billion)

  Numbers (thousands)

  Value (£ billion)

  Numbers (thousands)

  1982

  3.16

  1,007

  1.45

  407

  1983

  4.08

  1,172

  1.39

  364

  1984

  4.14

  1,120

  1.39

  296

  1985

  4.67

  1,172

  1.72

  294

  1986

  5.45

  1,198

  1.70

  250

  1987

  5.76

  1,153

  2.38

  310

  1988

  7.83

  1,506

  2.49

  346

  1989

  8.87

  1,521

  3.23

  444

  1990

  8.20

  1,287

  4.07

  540

  1991

  6.05

  887

  5.02

  744

  1 Motor cars, vans and lorries are defined as items 781 and 782 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Textiles
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the value of textiles exported and imported for each of the years from 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is given in the table.

  United Kingdom strongly welcomed its stated objective of seeking the maximum deregulation consistent with the maintenance of affordable efficient universal letter delivery services. The Council also adopted the open network provision (ONP) directive on leased lines and ONP recommendations on integrated services digital networks (ISDN) and packet switched data services. A resolution on ISDN was also adopted.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the work of the renewable energy advisory group.

  Mr. Eggar
  In August 1991, the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the hon. Colin Moynihan, announced the formation of a ministerial advisory group to spearhead the Government's review of renewable energy strategy. Since then the group has considered evidence submitted by a wide range of
  625
  interested external parties, as well as drawing upon a technical assessment being conducted by the energy technology support unit.

  The group will complete its work under the chairmanship of Dr. Martin Holdgate, the Director General of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. I look forward to receiving the report from the group in the autumn and I expect it to be published.

  Environmental Incentives
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been allocated under the Better Environmental Awards for Industry scheme in each year since its establishment.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The scheme is run by the Royal Society of Arts. My Department has made grants towards the RSA's scheme costs as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  25,000

  1989–90

  29,200

  1990–91

  33,000

  1991–92

  150,000

  The Department acted as a promoter of the Better Environment Awards for Industry scheme in its first year, 1987, but made no grant in that year towards scheme costs.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Potato Marketing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding potato marketing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  None. We shall do so once the European Commission makes its proposals for a common régime, expected shortly.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the potato marketing system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have received a number of representations both for and against continuation of the existing arrangements. We shall not take a decision about the future of the potato marketing scheme until the European Commission publishes its proposals for a common regime for potatoes.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the first degree obtained by the chief executives of ADAS and the Central Science Laboratory; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.

  Mr. Curry
  The chief executive of ADAS was awarded a graduateship from the Royal Institute of Chemistry, equivalent to a first class honours degree in chemistry. The chief executive of the Central Science Laboratory obtained a first class honours degree in biochemistry from University college, London.
  626
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the maximum salary payable, including performance-related element, and the length of time of the contract of the chief executives of ADAS and the Central Science Laboratory.

  Mr. Curry
  The chief executive of ADAS was appointed in June 1991 and the chief executive of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) in May 1991, each for a period of five years. They receive the standard civil service pay at grade 2 and grade 3 respectively. Neither participates in civil service performance pay. Instead, both are eligible for an annual, non-pensionable performance bonus, linked to the achievement of predetermined targets, of up to 12.5 per cent. of salary at the end of the financial year. The maximum payable to the chief executive of ADAS in 1992–93 would therefore be £73,125, while for the chief executive of CSL the 1992–93 maximum would be £57,713.

  Sheep and Beef Quotas
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set up an agency to administer sheep and beef quotas, to provide opportunities for new entrants and to avoid unused quotas in less favoured areas.

  Mr. Curry
  Decisions on the administration of quotas in the beef and sheep sectors will be taken following the adoption of detailed implementing rules by the EC Commission. These rules are expected to include provision for new entrants and for unused quota not to be lost.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set up a procedure to arbitrate on special cases involving beef and sheep quotas which acquire a significant capital value when such quotas are transferred, sold, changed, or when the farm's ownership or management changes, or its operations cease.

  Mr. Curry
  I secured provision in the agreement on beef and sheep quotas for the specific problems linked to the transfer of quota by tenants to be addressed in the detailed Community implementing rules.

  Beef Special Premium
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will apply the 90-head limit on the beef special premiums per age group of animals, and not on a per farm basis.

  Mr. Curry
  The way in which the 90-head limit applies will depend upon the precise wording of regulations implementing the reform package on beef. This has not yet been agreed.

  Environmental and Forestry Schemes
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to make the maximum possible use of the environmental and forestry schemes which form part of the CAP reform package.

  Mr. Curry
  We welcome the positive environmental aspects of the CAP reform agreement. We have a year to draw up our implementation plans for both the agri-environment and forestry measures and we are considering how best to respond to the new regulations.

  Companion Animals
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who will be in charge of checking and authorising the entry procedures of companion animals entering the United Kingdom after 1 January 1993 at the port of entry.

  Mr. Soames
  Arrangements for the legal importation of companion animals have to be made in advance, and so are not dependent on controls or checks at the port of entry. Selective customs intervention which will continue after January 1993 will maintain the effectiveness of controls on illegal imports.

  Set-aside Schemes
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what use non-saleable crops are likely to be permitted under the new set-aside proposals; and when he expects detailed conditions to be published by the relevant authority that will determine environmental options available to national Governments.

  Mr. Curry
  I hope that the draft legal texts implementing the Council agreement will be adopted this month. The Commission will then have to table detailed implementing regulations and proposals on the use of set-aside land to grow industrial crops. Until these are in place, it is not possible to provide authoritative guidance about national management conditions or the preciserange of crops that might be permitted on land set-aside under the new arable regime.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, column 274, on set-aside, what environmental conditions he considers to be vital elements for the new set-aside arrangements agreed in the common agricultural policy reform package in May.

  Mr. Gummer
  The appropriate environmental conditions will vary depending on the individual circumstances of each member state. The most important factors are to ensure that set-aside land is properly managed and that the management conditions offer scope for it to be used in ways which will benefit the environment. We shall be developing our own national requirements in the light of these factors.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is investigating the possibility of issuing scanning equipment to detect the onset of BSE in cattle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Scanning by nuclear magnetic resonance has been experimentally applied to laboratory animals incubating spongiform encephalopathy. But this technique does not at the moment appear to represent a practicable means of diagnosing BSE under field conditions.

  International Whaling Commission
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will name the members of the British delegation to the forthcoming International Whaling Commission meeting in Glasgow.
  628
  Mr. Gummer
  The United Kingdom delegation will comprise 13 members. It will be led by Mr. A. R. Burne, the United Kingdom Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission, his deputy will be Mr. B. S. Edwards. The delegation will also include a number of advisers, as well as representatives of the nongovernmental organisations Care for the Wild (Dr. W. Jordan), the World Wide Fund for Nature (Mr. J. Martin-Jones) and the Environmental Investigation Agency (Dr. R. Reeve), all belonging to the Cetacean Group of Wildlife Link.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the reasons for his decision not to extend stamp duty relief on home purchases.

  Mr. Nelson
  When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the increase in the stamp duty threshold last December, he made it clear that it was a temporary measure for eight months to help bring forward transactions in the housing market. As I explained in the debate on Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 2 June,Official Report, col 770, the cost of any extension of the threshold increase would be substantial and would make it more difficult to meet our public expenditure priorities.

  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the actual revenue that will be foregone in 1992–93 financial year as a result of the temporary arrangements for the relief from stamp duty of property conveyances up to £250,000 in value; what is his estimate of the likely yield from such stamp duties in the year 1992–93 once the temporary relief is ended; and what is the likely yield from properties valued at more than £250,000 in the current financial year.

  Mr. Nelson
  The estimated cost in 1992–93 of the temporary increase in the stamp duty threshold from £30,000 to £250,000 is £290 million. The forecast yield in 1992–93 from stamp duty on land and property below the temporary threshold which becomes chargeable from 20 August is £370 million. The yield in 1992–93 if the threshold were £250,000 throughout the year would be about £300 million. Not all of this will necessarily come from properties valued at more than £250,000. Duty on the grant of a new lease is charged by reference to the premium and the rent payable.

  During the debate on the Finance Bill on 2 June I referred to the total yield from stamp duty on houses amounting to almost £1.4 billion. It may be helpful if I clarify that the total yield of all stamp duty in 1992–93 is estimated to be £1.5 billion, whereas the yield in respect of land and property in a normal year would be almost £1 billion.

  Overseas Pensions
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what regulations govern the payment of taxation on pensions paid from abroad to residents of the United Kingdom;

  (2) whether people living in the United Kingdom who are in receipt of pensions from overseas are liable to taxation.
  629
  Mr. Dorrell
  The general position is that those who are resident for tax purposes in this country are liable to tax on pensions which arise overseas, subject to a statutory deduction of one-tenth. In some cases, for example those who are not domiciled in this country, the one-tenth deduction does not apply and the liability is determined by the amount of the overseas pension which is remitted to this country. Certain overseas pensions, for example German and Austrian pensions payable to victims of Nazi persecution, are statutorily exempt from tax. The relevant legislation for these provisions is in sections 19, 58, 65, 68 and 330, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Relief may also be due under the terms of a double taxation agreement. This will depend on the precise terms of the agreement between the United Kingdom and the country from which the pension is paid.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the number of pensioners in the United Kingdom in receipt of pensions from the United States of America; and what is the total sum of money involved.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not available.

  Inland Revenue Interviews
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place a copy of the Inland Revenue manual "Accounts Investigation Interviews", in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have done so.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the yield of restricting(a) the personal tax allowance, (b) the married couple's allowance and (c) the age allowances and the major tax reliefs to the basic rate of tax in 1992–93.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimates of the direct revenue yields in a full year with the 1992–93 levels of allowances and tax rates are as follows:

  £ million

  Personal tax allowances (excluding married couple's allowance)

  1,100

  Married couple's allowance

  340

  Age allowances1

  nil

  Relief on contributions to personal pensions2

  3170

  Relief on employee's contributions to occupational pension schemes

  290

  1The higher levels of the age-related personal and married couple's allowances given to those aged 65 and over subject to the income limit.

  2Including relief for retirement annuity premia and free standing additional voluntary contributions.

  3This estimate is subject to a wide margin of error.

  No account has been taken of possible behavioural changes resulting from such restrictions.

  Inheritance Tax (Exemption)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often his Department carries out monitoring of land where agreements have been reached on the granting of exemptions of inheritance tax for public access; and if he will make a statement.
  630
  Mr. Dorrell
  Regular monitoring of undertakings given in return for the conditional exemption of land from inheritance tax is carried out, on behalf of Inland Revenue, by the appropriate heritage advisory agency. As part of the regular monitoring, owners are required to submit an annual report to the agency. In addition the Inland Revenue separately review all such cases at five yearly intervals.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of agreements for the exemption of inheritance tax to granting public access that have been broken for each year since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The appropriate heritage advisory agencies monitor the operation of undertakings on public access. Any issues arising are resolved in discussion between the agencies and landowners. Where issues could not be resolved in this fashion, the agencies would notify the Inland Revenue. To date there has been no occasion on which they have had to do this.

  If a land owner breaks an undertaking given in respect of conditionally exempt land, inheritance tax is chargeable on the current value of the property. This provides a powerful incentive to honour the terms of the undertaking.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conditions are imposed on the length of time from agreement on exemptions on inheritance tax for the granting of public access to land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Public access to land which has been conditionally exempted from inheritance tax is required as soon as detailed negotiations have been completed.

  Auditing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, columns 233-34, what are the criteria on which the decision is taken to propose provisions for the auditing of non-departmental public bodies by (a) the Comptroller and Auditor General and (b) private accountancy practices; what evaluation has been carried out of the respective merits of the two kinds of audit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Comptroller and Auditor General is normally appointed auditor for non-departmental public bodies which are wholly or mainly financed from public funds, except in the case of bodies whose operations are of a commercial nature and where it is appropriate for the audit to be carried out by private sector auditors qualified under the Companies Act. In the latter case it is usual to provide for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have a right of inspection of the books and records of the company.

  Betting Duty
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the loss to tax revenue in the current financial year of the reduction in pools betting duty which preceded the setting up of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The cost is estimated to be £20 million in 1992–93.

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

  Mr. Dorrell
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 June 1992, Official Report, column 21]: Unfortunately the estimates given related to numbers of taxpaying employees whose total income was above the current threshold for P11Ds and whose total income was below it. The P11D threshold is applied to earnings, including benefits in kind. About 12.6 million taxpaying employees have earnings above the threshold and 5.8 million have earnings below it. The estimate of 0.8 million taxpaying directors is unaffected.

SCOTLAND

  Modern Languages
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make resources available to regional and island education authorities in order to increase the teaching of modern languages in primary schools; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will give for regional and island education authorities, the cost of introducing the teaching of modern languages in primary schools; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) by which year he expects the teaching of modern languages in primary schools to be universally available throughout Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Foreign language teaching will be made available in the curriculum of all Scottish primary schools within the life-time of this Parliament. Plans to implement this policy are now being prepared and a further announcement will be made in due course.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to reclassify physical education as a practical subject in Scottish secondary schools.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is the responsibility of local authorities, in consultation with headteachers, to determine the deployment of teaching staff in circumstances which may call for formation of smaller groups for certain purposes. Development of the school curriculum may mean that some classes formerly regarded as non-practical may now contain practical elements; the converse may also be true. The most recent statistics on average class sizes in physical education are set out in SOED Statistical Bulletin C7/1992/3 issued in February this year, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the first degree obtained by the chief executive of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.
  632
  Sir Hector Monro
  The director and chief executive of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, Dr. Robert K. M. Hay gained a first-class honours degree in chemistry from the university of Aberdeen in 1967.

  Golf
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to promote Scotland worldwide as the home of the sport of golf; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: I have today written to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the House Library.

  Forests
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to promote the creation of forest reserves in areas where less than 20 per cent. of the original forest remains, and to surround such areas with tracts of modified forests.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: The Government attach considerable importance to the conservation of the remaining ancient and semi-natural woodlands in Britain. These woodlands are protected by the felling controls in the Forestry Act 1967, as strengthened in 1985, and the Forestry Commission offers grants and guidance to encourage their effective management. In addition, woodlands which are sites of special scientific interest are protected under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. These measures are proving effective and we are not convinced that further initiatives of the kind proposed by the hon. Member are needed.

  Cancer
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the average cancer mortality rates in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: The figures requested are given in the table.

  Malignant neoplasm (ICD1 140-208) death rates per 100,000 population

  Scotland

  1982–91

  Male

  Female

  1982

  294

  252

  1983

  295

  258

  1984

  297

  260

  1985

  299

  265

  1986

  301

  268

  1987

  306

  268

  1988

  305

  274

  1989

  309

  278

  1990

  308

  279

  21991

  307

  276

  1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision.

  2 Provisional.

  Rates for cancers for specific sites are given in the Annual Reports of the Registrar General for Scotland, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library.

  Broadleaf Plantings
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 134, concerning the planting of native broadleaf species, what information is held centrally on non-native species planted since 1984.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 16 June 1992]: Detailed information by areas and species, both for Forestry Commission planting and for private sector planting approved by the Commission for grant aid, has been held centrally on computer since May 1991. These records indicate that current broadleaved planting mainly comprises native species. Information at the same level of

  Number of new dwellings completed by local authorities 1979 to 1991

  Areas

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  SCOTLAND

  4,755

  5,048

  3,770

  2,342

  2,311

  2,120

  1,989

  1,733

  1,710

  1,933

  1,474

  1,010

  996

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  14

  11

  29

  —

  —

  27

  16

  22

  17

  —

  31

  —

  29

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  Roxburgh

  4

  12

  —

  51

  45

  43

  8

  8

  4

  28

  18

  —

  —

  Tweeddale

  —

  56

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  54

  4

  8

  6

  Central

  Clackmannan

  155

  132

  —

  —

  —

  1

  23

  30

  —

  35—

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk

  —

  23

  54

  66

  20

  78

  147

  56

  74

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stirling

  9

  42

  168

  8

  18

  37

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  100

  224

  173

  86

  160

  158

  85

  38

  35

  17

  46

  43

  26

  Nithsdale

  129

  78

  49

  18

  27

  6

  70

  80

  66

  74

  81

  33

  10

  Stewartry

  74

  51

  49

  42

  44

  41

  23

  34

  40

  10

  45

  33

  2

  Wigtown

  32

  77

  34

  120

  20

  86

  —

  40

  20

  26

  —

  5

  —

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  110

  129

  —

  83

  89

  26

  58

  60

  178

  132

  11

  —

  —

  Kirkcaldy

  123

  44

  54

  63

  15

  113

  101

  91

  131

  172

  84

  34

  127

  North East Fife

  198

  127

  121

  41

  142

  70

  14

  48

  65

  17

  19

  5

  58

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  430

  518

  372

  134

  47

  117

  178

  45

  93

  136

  109

  71

  62

  Banff and Buchan

  175

  220

  227

  99

  128

  116

  154

  48

  67

  60

  50

  56

  19

  Gordon

  35

  —

  4

  85

  199

  108

  89

  44

  171

  9

  183

  80

  72

  Kincardine and Deeside

  56

  4

  53

  35

  60

  54

  22

  175

  41

  105

  58

  17

  76

  Moray

  87

  567

  111

  156

  139

  85

  75

  100

  34

  169

  70

  87

  16

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  24

  49

  20

  54

  38

  16

  16

  —

  13

  —

  12

  11

  6

  Caithness

  54

  68

  40

  —

  55

  20

  14

  23

  29

  24

  27

  10

  8

  Inverness

  38

  124

  68

  25

  115

  90

  10

  136

  32

  59

  86

  90

  93

  Lochaber

  57

  102

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nairn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  24

  22

  —

  28

  —

  28

  Ross and Cromarty

  89

  64

  96

  48

  31

  65

  8

  38

  46

  26

  27

  1

  —

  Skye and Lochalsh

  11

  46

  9

  13

  —

  10

  14

  46

  8

  25

  50

  8

  14

  Sutherland

  13

  27

  13

  22

  27

  22

  15

  10

  33

  34

  22

  68

  8

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  46

  18

  30

  45

  92

  25

  91

  65

  14

  66

  59

  10

  25

  Edinburgh

  199

  —

  117

  49

  8

  —

  —

  —

  63

  87

  101

  125

  —

  Midlothian

  —

  47

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  14

  —

  12

  —

  25

  West Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  8

  76

  7

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  110

  126

  68

  60

  33

  76

  17

  —

  12

  71

  31

  15

  25

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  36

  67

  27

  56

  12

  —

  16

  —

  35

  6

  —

  6

  —

  Clydebank

  —

  63

  73

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clydesdale

  53

  32

  49

  18

  20

  18

  —

  30

  —

  24

  —

  32

  18

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  35

  54

  3

  —

  16

  8

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  26

  47

  43

  6

  —

  14

  —

  2

  6

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Cunninghame

  102

  68

  90

  45

  85

  44

  54

  34

  —

  55

  —

  31

  24

  Dumbarton

  6

  39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  18

  18

  —

  —

  —

  East Kilbride

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  634
  detail in respect of private sector planting before that date is held in individual files in the commission's local offices. There is no evidence, however, that the pattern of broadleaved planting as between native and non-native species has differed over the past few years.

  Council House Building
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of council houses built in Scotland in each year since 1979; and if he will provide a breakdown by local authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 June 1992]: The information is set out in the table.
  635

  Areas

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Eastwood

  —

  25

  3

  14

  —

  —

  37

  40

  14

  31

  42

  —

  31

  Glasgow

  615

  385

  558

  161

  63

  —

  140

  58

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hamilton

  55

  166

  42

  78

  122

  46

  44

  39

  8

  53

  —

  —

  —

  Inverclyde

  4

  8

  —

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  64

  —

  —

  —

  37

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  101

  62

  27

  —

  —

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kyle and Carrick

  136

  119

  56

  17

  91

  35

  71

  28

  47

  37

  7

  30

  10

  Monklands

  61

  37

  53

  —

  11

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  56

  —

  —

  Motherwell

  167

  173

  104

  50

  —

  —

  —

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Renfrew

  65

  122

  113

  179

  34

  135

  19

  10

  64

  27

  —

  —

  —

  Strathkelvin

  254

  —

  40

  —

  6

  13

  6

  24

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  Angus

  58

  40

  —

  12

  34

  34

  41

  84

  40

  78

  47

  32

  30

  Dundee

  221

  82

  163

  55

  80

  5

  57

  —

  —

  5

  8

  —

  5

  Perth and Kinross

  150

  273

  149

  71

  75

  105

  144

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islands Councils

  Orkney Islands

  34

  25

  26

  18

  43

  16

  6

  6

  12

  41

  13

  42

  8

  Shetland Islands

  55

  121

  81

  31

  43

  25

  33

  20

  20

  30

  20

  25

  63

  Western Isles

  115

  54

  93

  90

  22

  32

  46

  20

  33

  14

  10

  2

  21

  Source: Quarterly returns from authorities.

  Rents-to-Mortgages
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of(a) Scottish Homes and (b) new town Development corporation tenants who have (i) applied and (ii) purchased their home under the rents-to-mortgages scheme for each year of its introduction.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 June 1992]: Information on applications by and sales to tenants of Scottish Homes and the new town development corporations since the introduction of the rent-to-mortgage scheme in October 1989 is shown in the table.

  Applications

  Sales

  Year

  Scottish Homes

  New towns

  Scottish Homes

  New towns

  1989–90

  107

  0

  2

  0

  1990–91

  200

  60

  133

  5

  1991–92

  242

  33

  105

  54

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why officials of the Benefits Agency did not give their names to Mr. M C Vaughan-Chatfield when making inquiries on behalf of his wife's disability allowance; and what are the provisions of the citizens charter in this respect.

  Mr. Scott
  The citizens charter stated that public servants would normally be expected to wear name badges and to give their names on the telephone or in writing. The Benefit Agency's own customer charter also gave a commitment that, other than in exceptional circumstances, staff would give their names when dealing with customers. The arrangements for implementing this are currently being discussed at local level.

  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that staff do not recollect being asked for their names by Mr. Vaughan-Chatfield, although he was given them voluntarily on two occasions.

  If my hon. Friend requires further information I understand Mr. Bichard would be happy to assist.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the speed and efficiency of dealing with claims for, and appeals against decisions on, disability living allowances.

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

  Access to Records
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what conclusions he has reached on the implications of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Graham Gaskin for people seeking access to personal records for which he has responsibility; and what action he intends to take.

  Mr. Burt
  The judgment in this case relates to the access to personal child care files held by social services authorities. However, officials in the Department are studying the judgment to establish whether it has any indirect impact on access to information held by the Department. I will write to the hon. Member when the extent of any implications has been established.

  Plessey
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from pensioners of Plessey plc about their treatment by GEC.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have received a number of representations from and on behalf of pensioners who were employed by Plessey plc prior to the companies' acquisition by GEC/Siemens in 1989. The representations concerned their occupational pension rights which are currently the subject of an agreement which is before the High Court for approval and the withdrawal of a free private health care plan which is a matter for the company as an employer, rather than for the pension scheme.

  Income Support
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review income support rates to ensure that they are adequate to cover a basic standard of living.

  Mr. Burt
  Income support rates are reviewed each year and uprated by the Rossi index. From April this year, income support rates have been increased by 7 per cent., nearly 3 per cent. more than the RPI for the same period.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to his Department of payments towards mortgage interest on the part of income support recipients in each of the years from 1988 to 1991; and what is his Department's estimate of the cost of such payments in the current year.

  Mr. Burt
  The table gives estimates from 1988 to 1990, the latest year for which information is available:

  Amount included in assessments

  Year

  £ million

  1988

  286

  1989

  353

  1990

  554

  Source: Income Support Statistical Inquiries 1988 to 1990.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest million.

  2. The figure for 1991 will be in the 1991 Annual Statistical Inquiry which will be published on 19 June. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support have been receiving amounts in respect of mortgage payments on their home in each of the years from 1988 to 1991; how many are currently receiving such assistance; and what is his Department's estimate of the number likely to be receiving such assistance in the current year.

  Mr. Burt
  The table gives estimates from 1988 to 1990, the latest year for which information is available.

  Number of claimants receiving help with mortgage interest

  Year

  Number

  1988

  300,000

  1989

  281,000

  1990

  310,000

  Source: Income Support Statistical Inquiries 1988–90.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. The figure for 1991 will be in the 1991 Annual Statistical Inquiry which will be published on 19 June. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Benefits
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give reasons for the delay in resolving the case of Mrs. D. O. (reference YB17583A).

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

  Family Income
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate, using the latest family expenditure survey, average equalised weekly income(a) before housing costs, and (b) after housing costs.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest family expenditure survey data to be processed to yield figures in the form requested are those for 1988 and 1989. The results will be presented in the next edition of "Households Below Average Income" which we expect to be ready for publication in July. Copies of this publication will be available in the Library.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the number of income support recipients who ceased to qualify for contributions towards the cost of their mortgage interest payments as a consequence of their home being repossessed in each of the years from 1988 to 1991; and how many are estimated to be in that position in the current year.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not held. Under the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Act 1992 help with mortgage interest will in the future be paid automatically to qualifying lenders. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has given an assurance that it will not seek possession when the mortgage interest due is covered by direct payment.

  Maxwell Pension Funds
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis he reached the decision that £2.5 million would be sufficient to make good Maxwell pension losses until their funds' assets are unfrozen.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department keeps in close touch with the trustees of Maxwell pension funds to ensure that we have the most up to date information about the state of the schemes. The temporary emergency funding of up to £2.5 million will help trustees maintain payments to pensioners who would otherwise have a reduced pension or no pension over the next few months while frozen assets are being released and progress is made in restoring and obtaining other funds.

  Publicity Spending
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, column 481, if he will make a statement on the differences between the estimated and actual outturn for publicity spending in 1991–92.

  Mr. Burt
  The difference of £1.061 million resulted from a reduction in planned campaign activity during the year.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, column 489, if he will make a statement on the variations in the estimated publicity spending of the Benefits Agency as announced in April and November 1991 and the outturn figure.

  Mr. Burt
  The publicity budget of the Benefits Agency is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of
  639
  the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member shortly and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the publicity spending of the Benefits Agency during 1990–91.

  Mr. Burt
  The publicity budget of the Benefits Agency is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member shortly and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

EMPLOYMENT

  Defence Industries
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what policies she has formulated to retrain and redeploy the skills of those in the south west in general and Torridge and West Devon in particular who are affected adversely by the decline of defence-associated industries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There is a range of programmes and services available through the Employment Department, employment service, and training and enterprise councils (TECs) to help unemployed people find new jobs, retrain or set up their own businesses. These measures are available to former employees of all sectors, including defence, in the south west as elsewhere.

  Devon and Cornwall TEC has established operation "Opus", a partnership between it, the employment service and others to give advice and help in defence redundancy situations.

  The Employment Department has published an information pack, "Local Action for Employment Tackling Job Losses", which sets out the way TECs, the employment service and other local organisations can help individuals and communities affected by job losses.

  Training
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places on employment training and youth training schemes have been available in Walthamstow for each of the years 1990 and 1991; and how many are estimated as likely to be available in 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information regarding the number of training places available in Walthamstow is not collected.

  Since 1 April 1991, training in Walthamstow has been the responsibility of London East training and enterprise council (LETEC). At 29 March 1992, there were an estimated 4,800 people in training on YT and an estimated 3,600 people in training on ET in the LETEC area.

  EC Presidency
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what her Department's priorities are for the United Kingdom presidency of the Community.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The overall theme for the United Kingdom's presidency in employment and social affairs will be "A Community at Work".
  640
  The Department's key priorities for the presidency are as follows:
  to focus greater attention on tackling unemployment and creating lasting jobs in the Community;
  to promote even-handed and effective implementation and enforcement of existing EC legislation;
  to continue to remove barriers to the mobility of labour;
  to support the European year of health and safety by taking forward proposals promoting high standards of health and safety at work;
  to manage efficiently the business of the Social Affairs Council.

  Training Places, Carlisle
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training places have been available in Carlisle in the years(a) 1988–89, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1990–91 and (d) 1991–92, respectively.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information regarding the number of training places available in Carlisle is not collected.

  Since 30 April 1990, training in Carlisle has been the responsibility of Cumbria training and enterprise council (TEC). At 29 March 1992, there were an estimated 3,600 people in training on youth training and an estimated 1,300 people in training on employment training in the Cumbria TEC area.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons aged 16 and 17 years who are not in employment or education and are not on youth training scheme programmes there are in Carlisle at the present time.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the local careers service which covers the Carlisle area that there are currently 203 young people in the area who are registered with it as not in employment or education who are not in YT.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussions she has had with the International Labour Organisation about the ban on trade union organisations at GCHQ; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This matter has very recently been discussed in the international labour conference (ILO) where we confirmed that the dialogue with the trade unions on the issue remains open. At the same time we continued to make clear the overriding national security interests involved. The ILO took account of this position in reaching its conclusions which will be published shortly.

  Annual Performance Agreement
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Employment Service annual performance agreement for 1992–93 will be published.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have today placed copies of the Employment Service annual performance agreement for 1992–93 in the Library.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will name the members of the small high level working group which will advise her on issues relevant to women's opportunities in the workplace and beyond.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 June 1992, columns 141-42]: I regret that the list of members of the working group on women's issues given in my reply of 9 June 1992 was incorrect. The list gave the wrong details for Graham Millar and Peter Davis and ommitted Sheila Forbes. The correct information is as follows.

  The first members are:

  LADY HOWE

  Chairman
  Business in the Community's Women's Economic Development Team
  Responsible for Opportunity 2000 (and former Deputy Chairman Equal Opportunities Commission)

  JOANNA FOSTER

  Chairman
  Equal Opportunities Commission

  SUE SLIPMAN

  Director
  National Council for One Parent Families

  BARONESS DENTON
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department of Trade and Industry and Government Co-chair, Women's National Commission

  SUE RORSTAD

  Chairman and Managing Director
  Poppies UK Ltd.

  PETER DAVIES

  Chief Executive
  Reed International plc

  SHEILA FORBES

  Group Personnel Director
  Storehouse plc

  KAY COLEMAN

  Chief Executive
  Harveys & Co. (clothing) Ltd.

  GRAHAM MILLAR

  Managing Director
  Nestlé Rowntree

  DR. SUSAN MCRAE

  Senior Fellow
  Policy Studies Institute

  SIR BRYAN NICHOLSON

  Chairman,
  Post Office

  Chairman,
  National Council for Vocational Qualifications; Former Chairman, Manpower Services Commission

  MARGARET SEYMOUR

  Managing Director
  Seymour Swimming Pool Engineers

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Crime, Armagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on which dates(a) break-ins, (b) burglaries, (c) broken windows and (d) damage to premises were reported to the RUC during May, in the Scotch street, Thomas street, Market street, English street sector of the city centre of Armagh; for which of these dates the RUC has made arrests or charged persons; and if he will make a statement on policing in the city centre of Armagh.

  Mr. Mates
  The information available for the area specified is shown in the table:

  Incidents reported to the police in May 1992

  Date

  Number

  Attempted break-ins

  20 May

  1

  Total

  1

  Burglaries

  1 May

  2

  4 May

  1

  5 May

  1

  7 May

  1

  11 May

  5

  16 May

  1

  18 May

  3

  19 May

  1

  22 May

  1

  26 May

  1

  27 May

  3

  28 May

  1

  Total

  21

  Broken/cracked windows

  26 May

  3

  29 May

  3

  Total

  6

  Other damage to premises

  28 May

  2

  31 May

  1

  Total

  3

  I am informed by the Chief Constable that a number of arrests have been made in connection with acts of criminal damage in the area. One person has been charged with the three offences committed on 29 May and a person has been charged with the two criminal damage offences committed on 28 May. Police inquiries are continuing. Additionally, in an effort to improve the physical security of premises in the area and to resolve the current problems, the RUC is maintaining close liaison with the local community through the chamber of trade, the district council and other groups affected.

  Community Affiliation
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list under the residuary method of determining an employee's community affiliation (DE code of practice)(a) those names to be regarded as Protestants, and those to be regarded as Roman Catholic, (b) those sporting and leisure pursuits to be so regarded,
  (c) those clubs or societies, membership of which would

  643
  indicate such distinction, (d) those qualifications, examinations and educational clauses which indicate a Protestant or Roman Catholic community affiliation and (e) which occupations would indicate Protestant community affiliation and which would indicate Roman Catholic community affiliation; and if he will publish this list.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is not possible to compile a list as requested. The residuary method of monitoring allows an employer to consider a range of possible indicators of community affiliation and then to treat the employee, or job applicant, as belonging to the community with which the totality of the information shows he has a connection, or has the stronger connection. This is a matter for the individual judgment of the employer in each particular case.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of whether the breakdown of Protestants and Roman Catholics in each district council area, based on all those aged 15 to 64 years, is an accurate reflection of the economically active work force.

  Mr. Atkins
  Estimates from aggregated 1990 and 1991 labour force survey (LFS) data indicate that in 17 out of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland, the religious composition of the economically active population is consistent with the revised 1981 census of population figures for the religious composition of persons aged 15 to 64. In the remaining nine district council areas, the LFS estimates suggest that the Catholic proportion of the economically population is higher than that derived from 1981 census figures based on the population aged 15 to 64.

  I understand that the Fair Employment Commission will be publishing, in the near future, LFS estimates on the religious composition of the economically active population in district council areas.

  Data on the religious composition of the economically active population in each district council area will be contained in the Northern Ireland census 1991 summary report to be published in the autumn.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what monitoring has been done to examine any imbalance in the determining of community affiliation as a result of the numbers of Roman Catholics attending controlled or integrated schools.

  Mr. Atkins
  Research has shown that, particularly at primary school level, the number of Roman Catholics attending controlled schools does not have any significant effect on employers' monitoring statistics. Integrated schools are not classified for monitoring purposes.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to introduce a non-fossil fuel obligation for renewable energy following the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity; what form it will take; and how large the first renewable energy order will be.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of Economic Development has commissioned a study into the potential for renewable energy in Northern Ireland and a decision 644
  when to introduce a non-fossil fuel obligation awaits the conclusion of that study. Before making a renewables order, the Department is obliged to consult Northern Ireland Electricity plc and the Director General of Electricity Supply and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the likely form or scale of the first order in advance of that consultation taking place.

  Strip Searches
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide statistics of the number of women's prisons in Northern Ireland that carry out strip search methods as a form of internal prison security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  There is only one prison in Northern Ireland holding female prisoners—Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry. Full searching takes place routinely on certain occasions when prisoners enter or leave the prison and at any other time it is deemed necessary for security reasons.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will earmark cash in the Sports Council grant aid to enable the Sports Council to list the current stock of school playing fields land.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on school playing fields is currently held by the Department of Education and is available to the Northern Ireland Sports Council.

  Hospital Beds
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the hospitals in Northern Ireland which had consultant obstetric or general practitioner maternity beds in 1990–91, and give the number of beds of each type in each hospital.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: The information requested is as follows:

  Average available beds in 1990–91

  Hospital

  Obstetrics

  GP maternity

  Ards

  25.0

  —

  Belfast City

  64.0

  —

  Downe

  23.0

  —

  Lagan Valley

  41.6

  —

  Mater

  24.0

  —

  Royal Maternity

  82.9

  —

  Ulster

  44.1

  —

  EASTERN BOARD

  304.6

  —

  Ballymena Cottage

  10.0

  16.0

  Mid Ulster

  26.0

  —

  Moyle

  19.0

  —

  Robinson Memorial

  —

  14.0

  Route

  19.0

  —

  Waveney

  25.0

  —

  NORTHERN BOARD

  99.0

  30.0

  Cragavon Area

  62.5

  —

  Daisy Hill

  52.0

  —

  South Tyrone

  31.9

  —

  SOUTHERN BOARD

  146.3

  —

  645

  Hospital

  Obstetrics

  GP maternity

  Altnagelvin

  71.0

  —

  Erne

  33.0

  —

  Tyrone County

  33.7

  —

  WESTERN BOARD

  137.7

  —

  NORTHERN BOARD

  687.6

  30.0

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Everton Football Supporters
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision on the case concerning the conviction of the Everton football supporters which had been referred to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 8 June. He will now be aware that we have concluded, after careful consideration, that there are insufficient grounds to justify intervention in the convictions by granting free pardons.

  Prisons (Privatisation)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the benefits which the privatisation initiative will bring to the prison system.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Private sector involvement in the prison service introduces new and different methods of managing modern prisons to high standards of service set by the Government. I am quite sure that the introduction of new private sector management will stimulate improved standards and better value for money.

  Crime Prevention
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce the crime prevention measures recommended by the committee chaired by James Morgan.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to implement the recommendations of the Morgan report.

  Mr. Jack
  The recommendations in the Morgan report ranged wider than had been expected under the working group's terms of reference and have therefore taken longer to consider. The report remains under active consideration within the Department and my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to be able to make an announcement in the near future.

  May Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the May inquiry.

  Mr. Jack
  Sir John May's inquiry is continuing in accordance with the terms of reference given to him in October 1989.

  Police, London
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss sector policing in the capital.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend will be meeting the commissioner on 14 July to discuss the policing of the Notting Hill carnival.

  He will also be visiting Metropolitan police service divisions to see sector policing in action.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give figures for the change in levels of crime in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) South Wales and (c) Neath since 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  Between 1979 and 1991 recorded crime increased by 126 per cent. in south Wales and 108 per cent. in England and Wales as a whole. Statistics for Neath are not collected centrally. Statistics for other parts of the United Kingdom are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Crime, Northumberland
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he intends to have with the Northumbria police authority about crime in Northumberland.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans so for further discussions at the moment.

  Prisoners (Home Visits)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on releasing prisoners temporarily for home visits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prison rules provide that sentenced prisoners may be temporarily released from prison, subject to conditions, for any special purpose or to enable them to engage in employment, to receive instruction or training or to assist them in the transition from prison life to freedom.

  A prisoner who has been temporarily released may be recalled to prison at any time whether the conditions of his release have been broken or not.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to deal with remand prisoners in police cells.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prison service continues to work to increase the amount of available accommodation in order to reduce the number of prisoners in police cells. In addition to the delivery of a large number of new places under the prison building programme, measures taken so far have included the retention of establishments listed for closure and the conversion of under-occupied young offender accommodation to adult use.
  647
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government propose to take to address anomalies in the geographical distribution of remands to prison department custody.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The provision of sufficient places in prison service establishments, which serve the courts by holding inmates remanded in custody or awaiting trial, is a matter which is kept under constant review. Where the current level of provision fails to meet demand or is likely to fail to meet future demand, the prison service seeks to deal with the problem either by changing the role of existing accommodation or through the prison building programme.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for increasing police numbers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The establishments of individual forces were increased by some 800 posts with effect from 1 April 1992. A further 78 police posts have so far been allocated, in respect of policing at ports, airports and the regional crime squads. The vast majority of new posts have been allocated to forces with the greatest relative need for more officers.

  Police, West Yorkshire
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the chief constable of West Yorkshire to discuss staffing levels.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have no present plans to meet the chief constable of the West Yorkshire police. I look to the force and the police authority to ensure that West Yorkshire has its full complement of officers.

  Drug Offences
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total levels of funds sequestrated from convicted drug pushers in the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  The latest figures, which arc in respect of confiscation orders made between 1987 and 1990, are given in table 7.25 of Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1990, a copy of which is in the Library. These show that over £27 million was ordered to be confiscated in those years. The current estimate by the national criminal intelligence service of the cumulative total of confiscation orders made since the Drug Trafficking Offences Act came into force in January 1987. up to the end of 1991, is around £35 million.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place in 1991 in connection with(a) unlawful possession,
  (b) possession with intent to supply unlawfully, (c) unlawful supply and (d) unlawful import of the drug Ecstasy (MDMA).

  Mr. Jack
  Figures for 1991 are not yet available. The figures for 1990 were as follows:648

  Ecstasy (MDMA)

  United Kingdom 1990

  Number of prosecutions

  Unlawful possession

  269

  Possession with intent to supply unlawfully

  87

  Unlawful supply

  40

  Unlawful import

  14

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the penalties for the selling of the drug Ecstasy (MDMA).

  Mr. Jack
  MDMA is categorised as a class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the maximum penalty for supplying or offering to supply is life imprisonment. Consequently, I have no plans to change this penalty.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision is to be taken on the request made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West on 28 April for an application by Mrs. Y. Afzal of Bradford for British citizenship, reference 420258, to be expedited on compassionate grounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As I have explained in my reply to the hon. Member's letter, we have agreed to give Mrs. Afzal's application priority consideration. Our inquiries are underway and a decision should be possible within the next few weeks.

  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are currently under consideration by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, broken down by the year of application.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of applications under consideration at the end of May 1992 was 57,800. A further 11,000 were awaiting the applicant's response to an award offer, and 11,800 were awaiting decision on appeal.

  The board does not record the age of applications in the form requested. However, the percentage of cases resolved within certain periods of time is shown in the board's annual reports, copies of which are held in the Library.

  Fox Hunting
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on fox hunting.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government believe that participation in field sports, including fox hunting, is a matter for the conscience and decision of the individual.

  Prisoners (Medical Treatment)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison inmates have been treated in national health service hospitals in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the number of referrals to national health service hospitals for
  649
  out-patient treatment and for in-patient observation or treatment in each of the three financial years up to 1990–91. Corresponding information for 1991–92 is not yet available. Information about the number of prisoners treated is not held centrally.

  Referrals

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Out-patient

  18,494

  18,740

  18,402

  In-patient

  1,964

  1,988

  1,887

  Age of Consent
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to introduce an equal age of consent in the United Kingdom, regardless of sexual orientation.

  Year and police authority

  Deceased in prossession of firearms

  Deceased in possession of replica

  Deceased unarmed

  Inquest verdict

  1985

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  Yes

  1—

  1987

  Metropolitan

  Yes

  —

  —

  Open

  Metropolitan

  Yes

  —

  —

  Lawful killing

  Metropolitan

  Yes

  —

  —

  Lawful killing

  Metropolitan

  Yes

  —

  —

  Lawful killing

  Avon and Somerset

  Yes

  —

  —

  Lawful killing

  Metropolitan

  Yes

  —

  —

  Lawful killing

  1989

  Metropolitan

  Yes

  —

  —

  Lawful killing

  Metropolitan

  Yes

  —

  —

  Lawful killing

  1990

  Metropolitan

  Yes

  —

  —

  Lawful killing

  Cheshire

  Yes

  —

  —

  Lawful killing

  1991

  Northumbria

  —

  Yes

  —

  Lawful Killing

  West Mercia

  2Yes

  —

  —

  Lawful Killing

  1992

  West Yorkshire

  —

  Yes

  —

  Inquest not yet completed

  1 An officer of the West Midlands police was acquitted of the manslaughter of the deceased. The coroner subsequently decided to exercise his discretion under section 20 of the Coroners Amendment Act 1926 not to proceed with an inquest.

  2 The deceased was in possession of an air pistol which was incapable of being discharged.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of the Fire Service college as an agency; and whether the cost was borne by the parent department or the new agency.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The cost of activities to mark the launch of the Fire Services college as the first Next Steps agency to achieve trading fund status at the outset was about £9,000 and was met by the Home Office.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the maximum salary payable, including performance related element, and the length of time of the contract of the chief executive of the Fire Service college.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The final detail of the total remuneration for the chief executive, whose contract runs initially until October 1993, is under negotiation but the maximum is to be set at a figure substantially less than the maximum (£71,800) for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Service.
  650
  Mr. Jack
  We have no such proposals at present.

  Police Shootings
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of civilians shot dead by police marksmen in each police authority in England and Wales since 1982, indicating whether the deceased were in possession of firearms, replica firearms or were unarmed, and give the verdicts recorded by coroners' inquests in such deaths.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Personal Records
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has reached on the implications of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Graham Gaskin for people seeking access to personal records for which he has responsibility; and what action he intends to take.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The consultative document issued by the Department of Health in February, in the light of this case, recorded the Government's view that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights applied only to social services records. Consideration is currently being given to the question of whether it has any implications for personal records for which my Department has responsibility.

  Sexual Offences
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men were sent to prison in each of the last five years for convictions of gross indecency involving consenting sex with men aged over 16 years and
  651
  under 21 years; how many such prosecutions have taken place in each of the last five years; and how many convicted prisoners there are at present.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table gives information on the offences of indecency between males by a man of the age of 21 or over with another male person under the age of 21 —Sexual Offences Act 1956, section 13 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967, section 3(2). These convictions did not necessarily involve fully consensual behaviour.

  Information on the numbers currently serving a custodial sentence in a prison service establishment in England and Wales for this offence is not presently available centrally.

  Number of males prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to immediate custody for the offence of indecency between males by a man of the age of 21 or over with another male person under the age of 21

  England and Wales

  Number

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Sentences of immediate custody

  1986

  245

  225

  23

  1987

  270

  264

  26

  1988

  292

  250

  13

  1989

  404

  361

  21

  1990

  445

  353

  8

  Prison Population
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those prisons where the population on 4 June was less than the certified normal accommodation for reasons connected to industrial action or refusal to co-operate by the staff.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On Thursday 4 June there were no prison service establishments in England and Wales where industrial action was causing the population to fall below the certified normal accommodation.

  Prison Budgets
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends that prison governors will he allowed to have full, or substantial, control over their budgets.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are currently considering how the present financial delegations to governors might be extended. Our aim is to introduce any changes on or as soon as possible after the prison service becomes an agency in April 1993.

  Dartmoor Prison
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the current programme for refurbishment at HM prison Dartmoor is likely to be completed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The building programme now in progress at HM prison Dartmoor (the refurbishment of A, B and D wings, and the construction of a new kitchen, victualling store, administration and visits complex) is scheduled for completion in May 1994.
  652
  Work is due to start later this year on an all weather sports pitch and on a programme to install integral sanitation in F and G wings and the hospital. The remaining wings are due to be refurbished in 1994–95.

  Juveniles
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15-year-olds were sentenced to detention in a young offenders institution in 1990: and for what offences they were sentenced.

  Mr. Jack
  Information for 1990 is given in the table:

  Persons aged 15 years sentenced to detention in a young offender institution by sex and offence

  England and Wales — 1990

  Offence

  Male

  Female

  Indictable offences

  Causing death by reckless driving

  1

  —

  Wounding or other act endangering life

  2

  —

  Other wounding etc.

  31

  —

  Rape

  5

  —

  Indecent assault on a female

  4

  —

  Burglary in a dwelling

  129

  1

  Burlary in a building other than a dwelling

  70

  —

  Robbery

  34

  3

  Theft from the person of another

  2

  —

  Theft of a pedal cycle

  1

  —

  Theft from vehicle

  11

  —

  Theft from shops

  7

  —

  Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle

  5

  —

  Other theft or unauthorised taking

  24

  1

  Handling stolen goods

  9

  —

  Arson

  16

  1

  Other criminal damage

  8

  —

  Drug offences

  3

  —

  Going equipped for stealing etc

  4

  —

  Blackmail

  5

  1

  Unlawful assembly

  5

  —

  Other offence against State or public order

  3

  —

  Absconding from lawful custody

  1

  —

  Failing to surrender to bail

  1

  —

  Reckless driving

  14

  —

  Summary offences

  Assault on a constable

  4

  —

  Assault, common etc

  1

  —

  Offences against public order

  2

  —

  Interference with motor vehicle

  5

  —

  Unauthorised taking of a conveyance

  57

  —

  Criminal or malicious damage

  2

  —

  Vagrancy offences

  1

  —

  Other summary non-motoring offences

  1

  —

  Driving while unfit through drink or drugs

  1

  —

  Other summary motoring offences

  8

  —

  Total all offences

  477

  7

  Bridewell Prison
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the condition and use of holding cells in Bridewell prison, Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In addition to the hon. Member, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has also
  653
  received letters from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) the rector of Liverpool and the high sheriff of Merseyside about the conditions in Liverpool Bridewell.

  The prison service has received a request from the Merseyside police for the funding of improvements to the holding cells and adjacent areas in Liverpool Bridewell. There are arrangements for the prison service in certain circumstances to meet the cost of essential improvements to accommodation being used by the police to hold prisoners who should he in prison service establishments. The request is being considered and a response will he made as soon as possible.

  Police Expenditure
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how much his Department has increased spending on the police in the last year; and what estimate he has made of the costs incurred directly by the public sector in the provision of policing outside the budgetary responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Home Office expenditure on the police increased from £2,435 million in 1990–91 to £2,830 million in 1991–92. Information on the costs of police forces outside Home Office jurisdiction is not held centrally.

  Police Radio Transmissions
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to overcome the interception of police radio transmissions by unauthorised persons.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My Department, working closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers, is establishing standing arrangements for the supply of speech privacy devices which will render police radio transmissions unintelligible to the unauthorised listener. It is for individual chief constables to implement this solution.

  Applications1 2 received for asylum in the United Kingdom by Somali nationals, excluding dependants, and decisions1 2, 1989–1992

  Applications received

  Decisions3

  Granted asylum

  Granted exceptional leave

  Total decisions

  Total applications outstanding at end of period6

  Refusals

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave4

  Refused under para 101 of immigration rules5

  Total refused

  1989

  1,850

  815

  260

  10

  —

  10

  1,085

  1,140

  1990

  1,920

  280

  75

  25

  —

  25

  380

  2,680

  1991

  1,995

  40

  175

  35

  —

  35

  250

  4,430

  1992

  510

  10

  745

  15

  100

  120

  875

  4,060

  (January to May)

  1 Provisional and estimated figures, rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the year concerned.

  3 1991 decision figures may understate because of delays in recording.

  4 Includes refusals on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country and, up to 30 November 1991, refusals under paragraph 101 of the immigration rules for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period.

  Murder Sentences
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the length of sentences currently being served by women convicted of murdering their husbands.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From time to time I receive representations about individual cases and about the mandatory life sentence for murder.

  Belmarsh Prison
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the board of visitors at Belmarsh prison, or from others, concerning the catering arrangements and the quality of food at Belmarsh; and what assessment he has made of the performance of the private caterers at Belmarsh.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have received no representations about the catering arrangements and the quality of food at Belmarsh prison from the board of visitors. Complaints from prisoners about the food are common to all prisons, Belmarsh included. Action is always taken locally to investigate them and resolve any problems which are discovered.

  The food on offer in Belmarsh is sampled twice daily by the governor. Catering services supplied by contract in Belmarsh are under constant scrutiny. If they are considered by the governor or by the prison service catering specialists not to be complying with their contract, action will be taken.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Somali applicants for political asylum were granted full refugee status; and how many were granted exceptional leave to remain in(a) 1989, (b) 1990, (c) 1991 and (d) the current year;

  (2) how many applications for political asylum were received from Somali nationals in (a) 1989, (b) 1990, (c) 1991 and (d) the current year; and how many remain outstanding from each year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information is given in the table.
  655
  5 From 1 December 1991 only: see footnote 4.

  6 Including outstanding applications from earlier years. These figures are maxima which are likely to overstate because of earlier underrecording of decisions.

  Crime, West Yorkshire
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the increase in crime in West Yorkshire.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The increase in crime figures for West Yorkshire in the last year was attributable mainly to vehicle related theft and burglaries, often involving juveniles. It is one of the force's benefiting from the urban crime fund and entitled to additional Government funding of up to £3.66 million for 1992–93. This will enable the force to undertake special innovative projects to help tackle its particular problem areas of crime.

  Residence Permits
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion. over the last five years, of in-country applications were made within a short period of arrival in the United Kingdom within one week, two weeks and one month.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 16 June 1992]: Comprehensive reliable information is not available. The information available suggests that in 1990 and 1991 around a third of in-country asylum applicants who were admitted to the United Kingdom as visitors or students
  applied within a month of their arrival.

ENVIRONMENT

  Oil Spillages (Thames)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action he proposes to take to reduce the incidence of oil spillages into the Thames;

  (2) how many oil spillages into the Thames have occurred in the past year and from what source.

  Mr. Maclean
  The National Rivers Authority, which we established in 1989, has wide powers to prosecute polluters and to recover its clean up costs, and a vigorous policy of prosecuting those responsible for serious incidents; the courts can and do impose significant fines in respect of major cases, particularly since the Government's increase (to £20,000) in the maximum fine which magistrates can impose. I understand from the National Rivers Authority that in 1991, 23 oil pollution incidents were reported on the tidal Thames, nine of which were classified as major.

  Conservation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to develop a United Kingdom conservation database in a form which could be inter-linked with the World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 12 June the Darwin initiative on the survival of the species. This will draw together and build on United Kingdom strengths in the biodiversity field including the very good work carried out by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. We are currently considering how this initiative will be developed.
  656
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining his Department's policy on the conservation of global commons and the equitable sharing of derived benefits.

  Mr. Maclean
  Global commons are those areas such as the high seas and the atmosphere over which no one country has national sovereignty. I am not aware of any benefits derived from these areas which would need to be subject to equitable sharing.

  Biological Diversity
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage the completion, adoption and implementation of a convention on the conservation of biological diversity.

  Mr. Maclean
  The negotiations on the convention of biological diversity were completed and adopted on 22 May in Nairobi. On 12 June my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister signed the convention on behalf of the United Kingdom. The convention will come into force only after 30 countries have ratified it. We hope that that will be soon.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to undertake research on the effects of habitat fragmentation on biological diversity.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is currently funding two projects relevant to our understanding of the effects of habitat fragmentation on biological diversity.

  Countryside Survey 1990 is a detailed survey of Great Britain, jointly funded by NERC—the National Environment Research Council. A more detailed assessment of key habitats has also been commissioned with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. In addition, the joint nature conservation committee will shortly put out to tender a project on the effect of habitat fragmentation on vertebrate populations.

  London Docklands
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total spending that the London Docklands development corporation is committing to social projects in 1992–93; and if he will break this figure down into amounts to be spent on(a) training, (b) social housing, (c) Tower Hamlets accord, (d) Newham memorandum of agreement, (e) community grants and (f) health projects; and if he will make a statement on the future of the social programme and the future of the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Redwood
  The London Docklands Development Corporation has allocated £12.4 million for social schemes to be undertaken in 1992–93, broken down as follows:

  £ million

  (i) Training and education

  6.0

  (ii) Social housing

  4.1

  (iii) Community grants

  1.7

  (iv) Health projects

  0.6

  The corporation has earmarked £8.5 million for the Tower Hamlets accord and £3.7 million for the Newham

  657
  memorandum in this financial year. Some social schemes listed in (i)-(iv), for example in Southwark or benefiting Docklands as a whole, fall outside the scope of either agreement.

  The corporation will continue to provide funding for projects which improve the social infrastructure of Docklands.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the total area of land in the London Docklands urban development area covered by planning consents or permission for enterprise zone development that have been granted to the developers Olympia and York.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: The London Docklands development corporation has granted enterprise zone consent or planning permission to Olympia and York for the development of 34.6 hectares in the urban development area.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking following the recommendations on aircraft noise prepared by the noise review working party 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's response to the eight recommendations on aircraft noise in the noise review working party's report 1990 were published as part of the Department of Transport's Consultation Paper, "Control of Aircraft Noise", published in August 1991. That paper accepted some of the recommendations outright, rejected two, and invited comments on others. Publication of the consultation paper also fulfilled an undertaking given in the Government's White Paper "Our Common Inheritance".

  In response to one of the recommendations (No. 31) my Department issued for consultation last December a draft planning policy guidance note "Planning and Noise" which incorporates the concept of different levels of noise exposure and relates this to noise sensitive development near airfields.

  The Government are carefully considering the responses to the "Control of Aircraft Noise" consultation paper and a Government response will be announced in due course.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by his Department in fulfilling the targets for emission levels set by the United Nations Commission for Europe convention on long-range transboundary air pollution.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom is committed to two targets under protocols to the convention; to return our annual emissions of nitrogen oxides to 1987 levels by 1994, and to reduce our annual emissions of volatile organic compounds by 30 per cent. from 1988 levels by 1999. We remain on course to meet both obligations.

  Environmental Information
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to the European Environment Council to bring forward the 658
  required reporting dates for environmental information provided for under article 7 of Council directive 91/692/EEC, as published in the Official Journal, No. L 377, pages 48-55, 31 December 1991, following decisions taken on the reporting of environmental information at the United Nations conference on environment and development.

  Mr. Maclean
  The reporting dates specified in article 7 of the directive were agreed as recently as December 1991 following thorough consultation and represent the shortest practicable timetable for implementation. We do not therefore intend to propose that they should be brought forward.

  We fully support the conclusions of UNCED on regular reporting of progress towards sustainable development but this has no direct bearing on the timetable for implementation of the EC directive. The United Kingdom is well placed to follow up UNCED through its established system of annual white paper reports.

  Credit Approvals
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have received supplementary credit approvals for the present financial year; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Redwood
  No central record of credit approvals issued by Government Departments is maintained. To compile a list of supplementary credit approvals issued for the present financial year would involve disproportionate cost.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those functions and areas in his Department and associated agencies that have been identified for market testing in the wake of the White Paper "Competing for Quality".

  Mr. Redwood
  Following the publication of the White Paper "Competing for Quality" a detailed programme of possible opportunities for market testing has been drawn up. A statement will be made shortly by the Office of Public Service and Science.

  Opencast Mining
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those mineral authorities which, in the last five years, have requested the withdrawal of permitted development rights vested in British Coal in respect of opencast prospecting; if he will, in each case, give the name of the site involved, within the terms of article 5 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988; what was his decision in respect of each of those sites; and if he will give details of the cost of compensation to British Coal and other interested persons.

  Mr. Baldry
  In the last five years no mineral authorities have requested the withdrawal of permitted development rights vested in British Coal in respect of opencast prospecting.

  Commissioner for Local Administration
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had regarding the remit of the Commissioner for Local Administration in England; and whether he has any proposals to change that remit.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations on this subject, including representations from the commission itself, and he is considering whether it would be appropriate to make a change in the scope of the remit.

  Acid Deposition
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made by his Department in funding research work to define the tolerance of ecosystems to acid deposition and the development of new standards and controls to ensure that those thresholds are not exceeded.

  Mr. Maclean
  The tolerances of ecosystems in soils and freshwaters to acid deposition, or their critical loads, have been quantified and mapped for Scotland, Wales and much of England. Maps have also been prepared comparing present and predicted deposition loads with the critical loads. These show that substantial progress will have been made by 2005 in reducing areas subject to damage. Copies of all these maps are in the Library of the House.

  All this work has been funded through the Department's air quality research programme, which has also supported projects on abatement strategies and techniques.

  Green Consumer Label
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by his Department towards developing a green consumer label for products.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom has strongly supported the establishment of a European eco-labelling scheme. Now that the European Community regulation setting up the scheme has been adopted we are taking a leading role in progressing arrangements for a launch later this year.

  Power Companies (Appeals)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects to determine the appeals by National Power and PowerGen under section 22(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; if he will undertake to publicise the result of the appeal; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to reject National Power and PowerGen's appeals to exclude information from the public registers on the grounds of commercial confidentiality under section 22(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Decisions on these appeals will be made as soon as possible, and announced publicly. The Secretary of State does not comment on appeals awaiting determination.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the metropolitan and London borough councils which have obtained a higher standard spending assessment settlement per person in the current year than St. Helens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows those London borough and metropolitan district councils which have a higher 1992–93 standard spending assessment per adult than St. Helens.

  Standard spending assessments are calculated using the same principles applied to all authorities. They take account of each authority's own demographic, geographic and social characteristics.

  Local authority

  SSA per adult(£ 000s)

  Hackney

  2,117

  Tower Hamlets

  2,048

  Islington

  1,722

  Newham

  1,686

  Westminster

  1,675

  Lambeth

  1,667

  Southwark

  1,533

  Brent

  1,508

  Manchester

  1,490

  Camden

  1,450

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,439

  Lewisham

  1,402

  Haringey

  1,390

  Wandsworth

  1,388

  Waltham Forest

  1,305

  kensington and Chelsea

  1,298

  Greenwich

  1,298

  Knowsley

  1,287

  Liverpool

  1,286

  Birmingham

  1,284

  Ealing

  1,274

  Bradford

  1,230

  Wolverhampton

  1,180

  Hounslow

  1,137

  Oldham

  1,095

  Salford

  1,090

  Sandwell

  1,081

  Coventry

  1,080

  Enfield

  1,075

  Barking and Dageham

  1,072

  Rochdale

  1,069

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,053

  Croydon

  1,045

  South Tyneside

  1,029

  Barnet

  1,025

  Bolton

  1,023

  Redbridge

  1,018

  Sunderland

  1,017

  St.Helens

  1,011

  Packaging
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to encourage manufacturers to desist from wasting resources by over-packaging.

  Mr. Maclean
  My colleagues at the Department have met representatives of the packaging industry three times this year to discuss ways in which they can eliminate unnecessary packaging and reduce the amount of packaging which is thrown away. We have indicated that, if the industry does not produce substantive proposals, we are prepared to take action.
  661
  As an initial response to the need to minimise packaging waste, the British Retail Consortium recently issued guidance to its members and their suppliers on retail packaging. Following discussions with the Government, I understand that the packaging industry will be announcing an initiative to deal with complaints about over-packaging next week. I will write to the hon. Member when full details are available.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of his formal response to the letter from Mr. Carlo Ripa di Meana in respect of the implementation of the EC directive on environmental impact assessments.

  Mr. Maclean
  The details of article 169 correspondence are, by convention, treated in confidence between the Commission and member states.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the position of beach chalets and static caravans under the council tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the council tax, the treatment of this property will he broadly the same as it is under the community charge.

  A beach chalet or hut which is living accommodation will be banded for council tax on the same basis as other domestic property unless it is available for letting as holiday accommodation for more than 140 days a year, when it will be subject to non-domestic rates. If a chalet is not living accommodation, it will be liable for non-domestic rates.

  A caravan or mobile home which is used as a residence will be banded for council tax in the same way as other residences. The pitch for any other caravan will be liable for non-domestic rates, usually paid by the site operator.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average length of time for appeals to be heard against uniform business rates in Carlisle.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information is not available centrally on the time taken to deal with non-domestic rating appeals.

  Appeals in Carlisle are dealt with by the Cumbria valuation tribunal. Following revaluation on 1 April 1990, the tribunal initially received about 7,800 appeals (including transitional cases) in respect of the whole of Cumbria. Most of these were received towards the end of that financial year and by the end of March 1992 some 4,200 had been received.

  Caravans
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the new building regulations and SI 2768 apply to caravans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. The requirements of the Building Regulations (SI 1991 No. 2768) 1991 apply only to building work, and caravans do not fall within the definition of building contained within these regulations.

  Housing Expenditure, Ryedale
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the sum of money paid to the Ryedale district council when its stock of council houses was transferred to the housing association concerned, the consequent reduction in debt and the amount which was available for capital projects.

  Mr. Baldry
  Ryedale district council transferred its housing stock to Ryedale Housing Association in February 1991 for the sume of £28.3 million. Following transfer, the council was able to repay all its external loan debt of £18 million, leaving some £10 million available for capital projects.

  Merseyside Task Force
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the new director of Merseyside task force will be appointed and take up his duties.

  Mr. Howard
  As soon as possible.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) of 15 May,Official Report, column 237, what consultation he has had with the Commissioner for the Environment of the European Commission concerning the United Kingdom contribution to international efforts to reduce all greenhouse gases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The limitation of greenhouse gas emissions is discussed regularly at meetings involving European Community member states and the Commission, most recently at the Environmental Council of 26 May. At that meeting, the Council expressed its support for the United Nations framework convention on climate change, which will commit developed country parties to adopt policies and measures aimed at returning emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal protocol to their 1990 levels by 2000.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) of 15 May,Official Report, column 237, what progress he has to report on a United Kingdom strategy to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide.

  Mr. Maclean
  The 1990 White Paper on the Environment, "This Common Inheritance", and the first year report on the White Paper give details of measures already being taken to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide. The United Nations framework convention on climate change will commit developed country parties to submit detailed information on their policies and measures to limit emissions of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal protocol.

  Energy Savings Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) of 15 May,Official Report, column 237, what progress he has made on

  663
  the establishment of an energy savings trust; if he will specify what its (a) departmental, (b) regulatory agency and (c) regulated public utility funding is; what its estimated start of operations date is; and what its objectives and purposes are.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Energy Saving Trust is being established to develop and propose programmes designed to promote the efficient use of energy and so protect the environment. My officials in the Energy Efficiency Office are working with British Gas and the regional electricity companies (RECS) to establish the Energy Saving Trust as soon as is practicable. It is hoped that the first pilot scheme to be funded by British Gas will begin within the next few months.

  Green Issues
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who are the Ministers responsible for green issues in each Government department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The environment is not just the concern of one Government Department, and the nomination of Green Ministers in each Department is an important part of our strategy to ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account in all policy areas. Green Ministers follow up the commitments relevant to their Departments in the Government's 1990 White Paper on the Environment. They ensure the integration of environmental concerns with the policy and work of their own Departments. And they broadcast the environmental message in their own field.

  The "Green" Ministers are:

  Department

  Minister

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  The right hon. John Gummer MP

  Defence

  The Viscount Cranborne

  Education

  Eric Forth Esq. MP

  Employment

  The Viscount Ullswater

  Environment

  The right hon. Michael Howard QC MP

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  The hon. Mark Lennox-Boyd MP

  Health

  Baroness Cumberledge CBE

  Home Office

  Peter Lloyd Esq. MP

  Law Officers'

  Sir Derek Spencer QC MP

  Lord Chancellor's

  John M. Taylor Esq. MP

  National Heritage

  Robert Key Esq. MP

  Northern Ireland Office

  Robert Atkins Esq. MP

  Overseas Development

  Baroness Chalker

  Public Service and Science

  Robert Jackson Esq. MP

  Scottish Office

  Sir Hector Monro MP

  Social Security

  The Lord Henley

  Trade and Industry

  The right hon. Michael Heseltine MP

  Transport

  The right hon. John MacGregor OBE MP

  Treasury

  The right hon. Sir John Cope MP

  Welsh Office

  The right hon. David Hunt MBE MP

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will identify the number of civil servants by grade who will be moving from Marsham street to docklands.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 17 June 1992]: No decisions have yet been taken about the number of civil
  664
  servants by grade which will be moved to Docklands. All London posts in my Department are currently being reviewed to assess their suitability for relocation.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the 2,000 civil servants due to move from Marsham street to Docklands have personal contact with Ministers on average once a month or more.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 17 June 1992]: Detailed records of contact are not kept. A review of suitability of posts for relocation to Docklands will take into account the need for personal contact with Ministers.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the steps being taken to follow up the decisions taken at Rio de Janeiro on biodiversity.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 June 1992]: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House on 15 June that he had announced at Rio a Darwin initiative for the survival of species. This will draw on the great strengths which we have in our many centres of excellence in biodiversity to provide practical help to enable countries to meet their commitments under the biodiversity convention.

  My right hon. Friend has also written to EC and G7 colleagues proposing an eight point plan for follow up including the drawing up of plans for action on global diversity.

  World Environment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance was provided by Her Majesty's Government to the United Nations Environment Programme for the UNEP report on the state of the world environment, published on 7 May; and what evaluation he has made of the report.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The United Kingdom contribution to UNEP for financial year 1992–93 is £4.5 million. This helps to fund all UNEP activities including the production of reports. The report on the state of the world environment is a sound and useful document.

  Water Disconnections
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to discuss with the chairman of the North West Water Authority the rise in disconnections of water services between 1990–91 and 1991–92 with a view to providing emergency services to these households;

  (2) when he intends to make a statement on his plans to discuss with the chairman of the North West Water authority the rise in disconnections of water services between 1990–1991 and 1991–1992, with a view to providing emergency services to those households.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Director General of Water Services has the specific function of protecting the interests of customers, including those who are having difficulty in meeting their bills, and is concerned at the sharp increase in disconnections nationally. I welcome the action he has
  665
  taken in issuing revised guidelines to companies and his proposals for further research into the characteristics of those who have been disconnected. It is right that bills should be paid, but also that companies should provide every assistance to customers who are having difficulty in meeting their bills. The legislation now provides that, in virtually all instances, customers will not be disconnected unless they have failed to comply with the terms of a court order for repayment of outstanding arrears. Where a supply of water to a house is disconnected, and is not re-connected within 24 hours, the company must notify the local authority in whose area the house is situated. The terms of an appointee's licence provide that no customer should be disconnected if he or she is seeking assistance from DSS and has notified the company to that effect.

DEFENCE

  Detention Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women are serving a detention sentence in military establishments in England and Wales as of 8 June.

  Mr. Aitken
  As at 8 June there were 232 males and seven females serving sentences at military detention centres in England. There are no detention centres in Wales. In the Army and RAF sentences of less than 28 days are served at local establishments. The numbers detained at local establishments are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Military Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Armed Forces no longer have any military prisons. The last one, Shepton Mallet, closed in 1968. All service personnel sentenced to imprisonment by courts martial serve their sentence in civil prisons.

  Markle and Forss Stations
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has reached a decision on the future use of land at the Markle and Forss communications stations, Caithness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  No final decisions have yet been taken.

  Civilian Establishment, Catterick
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current civilian establishment at Catterick garrison and RAF Catterick; and what is the projected establishment for each successive year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Aitken
  The current civilian establishments at Catterick garrison and RAF Catterick are 1,221 and 85 respectively. In common with many other Defence establishments in the United Kingdom, those at Catterick are currently under review. Until this review is completed, it is not possible to give forecasts of likely future civilians numbers.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 291, what means of self-protection will be available to Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel operating on Cambodian vessels as part of the naval group within the UN transitional authority in Cambodia.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Royal Naval and Royal Marine personnel operating on Cambodian vessels as part of the United Kingdom's contribution to UNTAC are acting as United Nations military observers and, in accordance with the usual practice, will not be armed. The security of all United Kingdom participants in UNTAC is the responsibility of the United Nations and the Cambodian factions. We do however, keep the security position in Cambodia and the possible threat to the safety of United Kingdom personnel under continuous review.

  Plymouth Urban Development Corporation
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much development land at Plymouth his Department has handed over to the proposed urban development corporation; what funds he has made available from the defence budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  None. The amount of surplus MOD land in Plymouth to be handed over to the proposed urban development corporation and the mechanics of transfer of land and funds remain to be worked out in detail.

  Maersk Ascension
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) of 20 May,Official Report, column 185, if he will set out the total amount paid to date for charter of Maersk Ascension since inception of the charter arrangements; what arrangements existed for bulk fuel storage prior to the charter for Maersk Ascension; what assessment his Department has made of the costs of construction of appropriate onshore facilities and of subsequent running costs; and for what purposes bulk fuel storage at Ascension island is required.

  Mr. Aitken
  Since inception of the charter arrangements for the Maersk Ascension in July 1983, the Department has paid just over £23.5 million in charter costs to date. Before the Falklands campaign there was no requirement for bulk fuel storage for the RAF at Ascension island. During and after the conflct temporary storage arrangements were made involving the use of pillow tanks. In 1988 a limited study showed the costs of construction of an appropriate on-shore facility to be around £11 million. No estimate for running costs was made. A detailed investment appraisal is currently being undertaken. The requirement for bulk fuel storage at Ascension island is to support routine flying activities and for refuelling of aircraft flying to the Falkland islands.

  Royal Navy Helicopter Team
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why he proposes to disband the Royal Navy helicopter display team.
  667
  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long notices informing the public of their right to inspect plans of a proposed planning application for the extension of the sewage works at Menwith Hill station were displayed; what was the period of display specified by the defence land agent; and what complaints he has received about the period the notices were displayed.

  Mr. Aitken
  The notices concerning the proposed development of sewage works at Menwith Hill station were displayed on two separate occasions for a total of 14 days. The original period specified by the Defence land agent was seven days in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act Section 65(3). One complaint has been received regarding the period the notice was displayed.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will withdraw a planning application for the extension of the sewage works at Menwith Hill station.

  Mr. Aitken
  No.

  W. S. Atkins Ltd.
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the nature and total value of contracts awarded to W. S. Atkins Ltd. and associated companies by(a) his Department and (b) or International Military Services Ltd. or its subsidiaries, for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has placed contracts with W. S. Atkins Ltd. and associated companies as follows:

  Financial year

  Value of contracts £

  1982–83

  80,730

  1983–84

  48,050

  1984–85

  45,950

  1985–86

  152,307

  1986–87

  155,265

  1987–88

  1,106,893

  1988–89

  850,961

  1989–90

  887,640

  1990–91

  422,233

  1991–92

  1,690,388

  The nature of work includes research, development, design, feasibility and project studies, new building, utilities agreements and production. Records for earlier years are not available.
  668
  With regard to contracts placed by International Military Services Ltd., IMS ceased trading on 31 July 1991. Details of individual contracts concluded prior to this date are commercial in confidence.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each type of operational aircraft currently in service and the numbers of each.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 13 May,Official Report, column 152.

  Iraq
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 5 June, to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),Official Report, column 672, if he will provide details of the type and nature of the evidence that Iraq had developed a crude nuclear warhead design; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Iraqi documentation seized by the International Atomic Energy Authority's sixth nuclear inspection team provided the incontrovertible evidence of Iraq's development of a crude nuclear device. A report on that inspection is available in the Library.

  Brigadier Anthony Cowgill
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance has been provided by his Department to Brigadier Anthony Cowgill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Brigadier Cowgill saw a number of open files from the Public Record Office in the Ministry of Defence. He also saw in the Ministry of Defence several open microfilms of allied documents from the national archives in Washington which that archive had sent to the Ministry of Defence for its permission for their release, as is the normal practice.

  Public Records
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance in searching public records has been provided by his Department to researchers and authors in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Whilst resources preclude us from undertaking detailed research for members of the public, we endeavour to be as helpful as possible with the many inquiries received in writing or orally, by directing enquirers to relevant material in the Public Record Office or elsewhere.

DEFENCE

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the discussions that his Department has had with the Greenwich health authority and the South East Thames regional health authority about the future of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital; and if he will place copies of any relevant correspondence and other documentation in the Library.

  Mr. Aitken
  Officials of my Department have had exploratory talks with members of the Greenwich health authority and, more recently, with members of the South East Thames regional health authority about a number of proposals concerning the future of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital. These talks have been conducted in confidence.

  El Alamein
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations he has received from British veterans of El Alamein about a memorial service to mark the 50th anniversary of the victory; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy that the allied victory at El Alamein in 1942 should be commemorated by a memorial service in London to mark the 50th Anniversary in October.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Ministry of Defence has received a small number of representations from veterans of the battle and a number of questions have been asked in the House of Lords.

  The 50th anniversary of the battle will be commemorated in Egypt at a Commonwealth ceremony and at an international ceremony held jointly with Germany and Italy. I understand that 400 to 500 veterans will be present, in parties arranged by the Royal British Legion and the Eighth Army Association.

  The Government do not arrange memorial services in London to commemorate particular battles of this kind. However, the Royal British Legion's annual festival at the Royal Albert hall will this year mark the 50th anniversary of the battle and I understand the Eighth Army Association is expecting 2,000 of its 3,000 members to be at its annual reunion in Blackpool on 31 October. In addition I understand that the Royal British Legion will invite the Eighth Army Association to lead the Remembrance Day parade.

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions his Department has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions drawing the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the value of work done for his Department by individuals against whom the Director of Public Prosecutions is evaluating evidence with the intention of deciding to prosecute;

  (2) whether he will publish the letter sent by his Department to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland before the final decision to prosecute Mr. Nelson outlining Mr. Nelson's services for the security forces in Northern Ireland.
  670
  Mr. Rifkind
  It is not the practice to disclose the substance of consultations as to the public interest.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department remained vacant on 31 March this year, and on the same date in each of the previous two years, in each of the six district council areas in Cornwall; what arrangements have been agreed to make them available on a fixed-term basis for renting by the local authorities or housing associations; and if he will make a statement on his policy to enable the best possible use of housing stock in rural areas with major homelessness problems.

  Mr. Aitken
  The number of vacant dwellings owned by my Department in Cornwall over the last three years as at 31 March was as follows:

  Number

  1990

  118

  1991

  80

  1992

  98

  Figures for individual district council areas are not available. The figure for 31 March 1992 represents just over 9 per cent. of our total stock and is in line with advice from outside consultants on the appropriate management margin needed to meet Defence requirements. Many of the vacant properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, while others were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly. Wherever possible we do arrange leases of temporarily surplus houses to local authorities and housing associations. We currently have some 950 properties on lease throughout the United Kingdom, including 17 on lease in Cornwall to Kerrier district council.

  The Department's policy is to dispose of all property which is surplus to its long term requirements. Of the 2 MOD dwellings currently being sold in Cornwall, 19 at Padstow were offered to the Council and to a local housing association but the offer was declined. They are now to be sold on the open market.

  Supply Management Unit
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will transfer back to RAF Carlisle the deputy director of supply management 15 unit which is at present situated at RAF Harrogate.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced to the House on 4 June, it is proposed that the RAF's support management organisation at Harrogate will relocate to Wyton as part of the RAF's new Logistics Command.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of staff of the Defence Export Services Organisation are seconded from industry; and what functions they perform.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Head of the Defence Export Services Organisation (HDES) and the international finance adviser (IFA) are both seconded from industry. The IFA
  671
  advises HDES and United Kingdom companies on the financing and credit insurance facilities available to support overseas defence sales.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed in each of the overseas offices of the Defence Export Services Organisation and, in each case, what is the estimated annual cost of the office; and how many are employed in the London office.

  Mr. Aitken
  The following is a breakdown of the Defence Export Services Organisation overseas offices, the numbers of staff employed in each office and the estimated annual cost of each office:

  1992–93

  Office

  Staff numbers

  Estimated costs £

  New Delhi

  3

  91,200

  Riyadh

  2

  86,900

  Kuala Lumpur

  7

  128,500

  Seoul

  3

  109,600

  Ankara

  1

  47,100

  Kuwait

  1

  65,400

  Canberra

  2

  70,700

  Jakarta

  3

  75,800

  Bangkok

  2

  68,800

  The Defence staff in Washington (1992–93 cost estimate £600,000) are no longer included in the Defence Export Services Organisation budget.

  There are 246 staff employed in the London office.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Public Petitions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to respond to the fourth report from the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1991–92, on public petitions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The report was published on 21 May and I am still considering it.

HEALTH

  Nurses
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to decrease the work load of national health service nurses.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for NHS employers to ensure that units are adequately staffed to meet the workload requirements and agreed standards and to ensure that there is no excessive work burden on individual nurses.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the training and support for community nurses when the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 comes into effect.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for regional health authorities to calculate the overall demand for training non-medical staff, including community nurses and to top-slice sufficient funds for appropriate training places. The 672
  Department will be monitoring the way in which regions discharge this responsibility. We shall expect regions to co-ordinate their training plans with requirements identified in locally agreed community care plans.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider establishing confidential counselling for nurses at the unit level at all national health service hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The provision of counselling services for NHS staff is a matter for local management. Where appropriate, they may form part of the local occupational health service.

  Census Information
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when small area statistics of the 1991 census will be available to the public; when they were originally intended for publication; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  In my reply to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 2 June,Official Report, column 454, I stated that every effort will be made to publish 1991 census county monitors by the end of September 1992. Eight were published by 16 June. These monitors contain summary statistics for all local authority districts on all the census topics for which answers were fully processed. The corresponding small area statistics for enumeration districts and wards in England and Wales and for output areas and postcode sectors in Scotland follow the publication of the monitors, and will be released county by county between June and October 1992. The original timetable for the release of these statistics was October 1991 to August 1992. For the reason for the processing problem which caused the delay I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State gave the then Member for Nottingham. South. Mr. Brandon-Bravo, on 5 March at columns 272-73.

  Further details of the census output timetable will be published in "Census Newsletters", copies of which are placed in the Library. The next issue, No. 22, will contain a revised timetable for the publication of individual county monitors.

  Residential Care
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she plans to encourage dual registration of nursing and residential homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is for homes to decide what type of care they wish to offer. We have provided for dual registration so that a single home can provide both residential and nursing care.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that clients of nursing and residential homes are fully informed of the service available in their community when the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 comes into effect.

  Mr. Yeo
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 requires local authorities to prepare community care plans in consultation with local health authorities, housing authorities, voluntary organisations and representatives of service users and their carers. These plans should be published and made widely available to the public.
  673
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she plans to monitor the placement of patients in residential and nursing homes when the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 comes into effect.

  Mr. Yeo
  We shall be monitoring the implementation of all the major provisions of the community care reforms.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the numbers of elderly people in Crewe and Nantwich living in(a) local authority nursing homes, (b) local authority residential homes and (c) private nursing homes for the years (i) 1985–86, (ii) 1990–91 and (iii) 1991–92.

  Mr. Yeo
  Nursing homes are not provided by local authorities.

  At 31 March 1991 there were 1,747 people in local authority homes for elderly people in Cheshire including 240 in the Crewe and Nantwich area. This compared with 1,799 at 31 March 1986. The March 1986 comparative figure for the Crewe and Nantwich area is not known. The number includes some younger physically handicapped people, who are not separately identified.

  Information is not collected centrally on the numbers of residents in private nursing homes. The number of beds designated for elderly people in private nursing homes in the Crewe health authority area at 31 March 1991 was 276 compared with 136 at 31 December 1986.

  Information for 1991–92 is not yet available.

  Hospital Managers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will establish a code of conduct for managers in national health service hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no plans to establish a general code of conduct for NHS hospital managers. Guidance will continue to be issued on specific management matters as the need arises.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will create a training programme for managers of national health service hospitals in staff and personnel relations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The importance of good staff and personnel relations is being increasingly recognised by those involved in training managers of national health service hospitals. The general but strong view in the Department and NHS is that staff and personnel relations training should continue to be integrated into general management training rather than be compartmentalised, thus creating the danger of it being seen as an "optional extra".

  NHS Contracts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to preclude clauses in national health service contracts of employment which restrict freedom of speech, other than in respect of medical confidence.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We shall shortly be consulting with professional interests, managers, and those representing patients, on proposed new guidance to clarify the basis on which NHS staff may express views about the provision of 674
  services. A balance must be struck between the duty of staff to raise matters of professional concern and the need to safeguard confidentiality.

  Dentists
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average income of an NHS dentist, net of expenses, in the Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster family health services authority area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about dentists' net remuneration for particular family health services authority areas is not available centrally.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many eye tests were carried out in the London borough of Waltham Forest in each year since 1987.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Figures are not available in respect of London boroughs. The numbers of NHS sight tests paid for in each financial year by the Redbridge and Waltham Forest family health services authority are shown in the table. The Department does not collect information on the volume of private sight tests carried out.

  Year

  Number of sight tests

  1987–88

  111,070

  1988–89

  118,100

  1989–90

  154,960

  1990–91

  43,070

  1 It is estimated that there were 23,530 tests carried out before 1 April 1989—when NHS sight tests were restricted to certain groups in the population—for which payment was not made until the 1989–90 financial year. The remaining 31,430 paid for in 1989–90 do not represent a full year under the new system, because of the delay in payments.

  Nicotine Patches
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will authorise the supply of nicotine patches for the treatment of smoking under the national health service.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has any plans to make nicotine plaster patches available by prescription under the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The supply of nicotine patches on prescription is currently being considered by the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will make it her policy to ensure that women considering abortions have the option of access to ultrasound scanning facilities to enable them more fully to understand the nature of the operation about which they are being counselled; and to ensure that the existence of such an option is explained to them.

  Mr. Sackville
  The decision as to whether an ultrasound scan should be used in any particular case is a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned. Counselling should include the provision of any information the woman may wish to have about her condition or the operation being contemplated.
  675
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women normally resident overseas visited the United Kingdom for abortions in the latest year for which figures are available; and what information she has on the total level of fees which was thus generated.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the period 1 October 1990 to 30 September 1991, 11,552 non-residents had abortions in England, Wales and Scotland. Fees paid will vary according to gestation, any complications and length of stay. The total is not known centrally.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names and addresses of all those private clinics which are licensed by her Department for the performing of abortions, indicating where appropriate those which have special arrangements for late abortions, and giving the most recent two dates upon which an unannounced visit was made by officials representing her Department to each of those clinics to inspect their facilities and the service which they provided.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Health gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on 3 February at columns 86-89. Those private sector places approved to perform abortions over 20 and up to 24 weeks with dates of the last two visits by Department of Health officials are:

  Approved place

  Date of last two visits

  Robert clinic, Birmingham

  July 1991 and January 1992

  Leigham clinic, London

  October 1991 and March 1992

  Rosslyn nursing home, East Twickenham, Middlesex

  October 1991 and February 1992

  Wistons nursing home, Brighton

  September 1991 and November 1991

  Raleigh nursing home, London

  March 1992 and May 1992

  Parkview clinic, London

  December 1991 and May 1992

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of abortions performed under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967, in NHS facilities or in private clinics but at a cost to the NHS, in the latest year for which figures are available; what was the average cost of each of those abortions to the national health service; what is the resultant total cost of abortions to the NHS in that year; and whether these estimates include the cost of treating those patients who suffer adverse physical or mental reactions as a result of the abortion.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total number of abortions in England, Wales and Scotland performed under the National Health Service in 1990, either in NHS hospitals or through arrangements between NHS authorities and the private sector, was 93,212. The cost of an abortion varies according to gestation, any complications and length of stay. The average cost of a straightforward in-patient abortion in an NHS hospital is £270 at 1990–91 prices. This figure does not include the cost of any subsequent patient care.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total number of abortions 676
  performed under the Abortion Act 1967 since its implementation; and how many and what percentage of these abortions were performed (a) in respect of babies conceived as the result of rape and (b) under the social clause, ground II.

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of 3,688,096 abortions have been performed in Great Britain under the Abortion Act 1967 since its implementation. (This covers the period from the time when the Act came into force on 27 April 1968 until 30 September 1991, the latest date for which figures are available). Of these, 3,154,637 (85.5 per cent.) were performed on the ground that"the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated."

  The remaining information requested is not available in the precise form specified. As rape is not in itself a statutory ground for performing an abortion under the 1967 Act, and is not required to be specified on the notification form by the certifying doctor, the exact number of notifications of abortions associated with rape is not known. However, in some cases the information is volunteered, and arrangements have been made to code separately and analyse all notification forms which mention rape from 1987 in Great Britain. Of the 912,546 notifications received from the period 1987 to 30 September 1991 for abortions performed in Great Britain, 191 (0.02 per cent.) mentioned rape. Earlier, but non-comparable, data relating to abortions performed in England and Wales were collected clerically and published for the years 1968–73, in table 12 of the Registrar General's "Statistical Review, Supplement on Abortion", a copy of which is in the Library. The reliability of these earlier data is uncertain.

  Dentists' Pay
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to delay the implementation of the 1992–93 dentists' remuneration from 8 July to a date later in the year to allow the fundamental review of dentists' remuneration to be finalised; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It would not be helpful to delay the implementation of a revised fee scale beyond July. In 1991–92, dentists received on average some £12,000 more than the level of pay agreed by the Government following the recommendation of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB). The evidence suggests that the existing fee scale is continuing to provide substantially more than the DDRB recommended.

  In 1992–93, even with the 7 per cent. fee reduction proposed, the average dentist is likely to receive some £5,000 more than the DDRB recommendation of £35,815. This proposal is fair to dentists, fair to their patients, the tax-payers, and fair to other national health service staff.

  Dental remuneration is a complex, sensitive and important issue. We are looking to the review to develop a system which more effectively and more fairly remunerates all dentists for the important work they do.

  Peto Institute
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with the undertaking to contribute towards the development of the International
  677
  Peto Institute in Budapest; whether other OECD countries have contributed; how much of the United Kingdom Government grant has been spent; if she will list the principal elements of the new Institute which have already been paid for, and which will be paid for in the remainder of this financial year; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The United Kingdom Government have undertaken to contribute £5 million towards the costs of establishing the International Peto Institute in Budapest, which will provide conductive education for children with physical disabilities and training in conductive education. We are not aware that other OECD countries have contributed. The United Kingdom Government have made an initial payment of £1,750,000. Our agreement with the Hungarian Government provides that subsequent payments will be dependent upon progress with construction.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the agencies established to date are run on a trading fund basis; which are subject to gross running costs control; and which are subject to net running cost control.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following agencies operate as trading funds:

  Central Office of Information

  Companies House

  Fire Service College

  HMSO

  Patent Office

  Royal Mint

  The Buying Agency

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  The following agencies operate under net running cost control:

  Accounts Services Agency

  ADAS Agency

  Building Research Establishment

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  Civil Service College

  DVOIT

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Land Registry

  Medicines Control Agency

  National Engineering Laboratory

  National Physical Laboratory

  Natural Resources Institute

  Ordnance Survey

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Registers of Scotland

  Transport Research Laboratory

  678

  Valuation Office

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  Wilton Park Conference Centre

  The following agencies operate under gross running cost control:

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  Central Science Laboratory

  Central Statistical Office

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment1

  Compensation Agency

  Defence Research Agency

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts1

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  Driving Standards Agency

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  Employment Service

  Forensic Science Service

  Historic Scotland

  Hydrographic Office1

  Insolvency Service

  Intervention Board

  Meteorological Office

  Military Survey1

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation1

  NHS Estates

  Occupational Health Service

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  Planning Inspectorate

  Public Record Office

  Queen Victoria School

  RAF Maintenance1

  Rate Collection Agency

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Service Children's School (North West Europe)1

  Social Security Agency

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  Training and Employment Agency

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  1 Defence Support Agency.

  Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue (excluding the Valuation Office) are departments operating fully on Next Steps lines with 30 executive units and 34 executive offices respectively. Gross control of running costs applies to both departments except in the case of Inland Revenue's Valuation Office which, as shown, operates as a free standing agency under net control.

  A few agencies, such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, shown as operating under gross control, have limited freedom to utilise income to meet expenditure subject to guidelines agreed with the parent Department and the Treasury.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

BBC: Future
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set up a committee of inquiry into the future of the BBC in advance of the renewal of its charter and licence.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government intend to publish a discussion document later this year to set the context for a public debate about the future of the BBC. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to have a committee of inquiry.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that with the destabilisation of commercial television in this country it is now even more important to ensure the future of the BBC as a publicly-funded, public service broadcasting system? Will he reconsider the advantages of having a committee of inquiry as a structured way of ensuring that the general public can submit evidence and can be cross-examined and so forth? Is not broadcasting a little too important to be left merely to government and the broadcasters?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we wish there to be a genuine public debate of high quality. We shall want to hear the opinions of viewers and listeners in addition to interested parties. There are many ways of encouraging wide public discussion; we are considering all the possibilities. We believe that another committee of inquiry would not be the best way forward and that it would be likely to delay the timescale of decisions. However, we have an open mind about the way in which we wish to involve all those with an interest in the future of the BBC.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, do the Government accept that in this country and throughout the world there is a widespread belief that while the BBC may require many changes it should remain based on the public service principle with the licence fee as its basic means of finance?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes a most important point. All such issues will be discussed and considered as part of the review of the BBC's charter, which is not due to expire until 1996.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, will the Minister accept that this is an important time for the BBC? The renewal of its charter has not previously arisen and there have been tremendous changes in the whole field of broadcasting as a result of the 1989 Act? Will he accept that there is a big difference between commenting on documents which have been issued by
282
other people and having a structure through which ideas can be initiated and individuals and organisations can push forward their views? The Minister said that he had an open mind about the matter. Will he explain that answer a little further?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we intend to publish a discussion paper in the autumn. It will set the context for public discussion. We wish to encourage the debate about the future of the BBC and do not wish to prevent it. That point is important.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government, in considering the debate, will have in mind the context within which the great public corporation is conducting itself and may he asked to continue to do so? Will the Government bear in mind in particular the distribution of ownership within the private sector and the concentration of many newspaper and television outlets in the hands of individuals or corporations who may not have the best interests of our society at heart?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The Broadcasting Act established the framework for an unprecedented expansion of commercial television and radio services. We need to see how the new arrangements settle in and it is too soon to consider changing them. The issue now before us is the future of the BBC.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that in view of the unfortunate consequences of many aspects of the 1989 Act a certain humility of approach on the part of the Government may be appropriate?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we intend to encourage the widest possible discussion among listeners, viewers, the BBC and all interested parties. We look forward to that.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the Minister accept that having had two inquiries inflicted upon it during the past 15 years the BBC is entitled to have a vacation from such Chinese tortures? Does he agree that it is important that there should be a public debate such as he envisages before decisions are taken? Does he also agree that it is important, in particular, to obtain from the governors of the BBC their ideas about the future of the corporation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point, which I take to heart. He will know more about the matter than most of your Lordships because he chaired the previous committee on broadcasting, which took three years, from 1974 to 1977. We believe that an inquiry held now would tie our hands and that discussion would he restricted while it took place.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I understand that the Government intend to issue, a Green Paper on the subject. Will the Minister assure the House that it will be truly green and that it will have no white characteristics? In other words, will he give an assurance that the Government will not be committing

283
themselves, as is appropriate in a Green Paper, and will not take up an initial position from which they may have difficulty withdrawing?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have no hidden agenda as regards the BBC. The document will be for discussion and will ascertain the views of everyone.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome his assurances that the Government wish to encourage the widest public debate on these matters and that when the Green Paper is published they will retain an open mind about the best way to handle the debate? Is the Minister further aware that we shall wish to return to the matter once the Green Paper is published?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, of course. Perhaps I may quote from today's Evening Standard. It states:
"The BBC has delivered a knock-out blow to ITV by clinching a £50 million contract for world athletics coverage which leaves the commercial channel's once proud sporting line-up in tatters".
The BBC is doing very well.

Energy Efficiency Office: Initiatives
3.10 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the transfer of the Energy Efficiency Office to the Department of the Environment, any new initiatives in this field have been taken or are contemplated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government have formed a partnership with British Gas and the regional electricity companies to establish an independent Energy Saving Trust. We will be consulting on the strengthening of the building regulations, and are taking forward an initiative to encourage training in energy efficiency.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that evidence of initiative by the Government in the energy efficiency sector. Does he not agree that in the present circumstances of mounting anxiety about the environment, improved energy efficiency represents the most effective way of dealing with some of the problems which were debated recently at Rio? In those circumstances, in addition to the specific initiatives which he has indicated, will the Government contemplate having a major campaign aimed at both domestic and industrial consumers to bring home to them the vital importance of saving more on energy usage, and providing some incentives for them to do so?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I certainly agree with the essence of the noble Lord's argument about the importance of energy efficiency. The noble Lord will know that we have a number of other schemes ongoing. For example, the campaign Helping the Earth Begins at Home and the Making a Corporate
284
Commitment appeal to industry. A longer-term campaign requires a great deal of planning but it is a matter which I shall certainly take up.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is not the fact that the Energy Efficiency Office has to be shunted from one department to another in this way evidence that the Government's attitude towards energy is to privatise the energy industries rather than have a positive energy policy? Would it not have been better for the Energy Efficiency Office, instead of being transferred to the Department of the Environment, to have been made an independent agency, as was proposed by the Labour Party?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Labour Party was clearly wrong in its policy. We have put the Energy Efficiency Office firmly in the Department of the Environment because we believe that that is where it can make its greatest contribution towards energy efficiency and in looking after environmental considerations, which were explained so well by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, on the question of transferring parts of the now departed Department of Energy to other places in the government machine, can my noble friend give an indication as to when the Government will reach a decision about the transfer of the Petroleum Engineering Division to Aberdeen? Is my noble friend aware that the transfer of those 80 jobs from London, where there is really little local interest in the oil industry, to Aberdeen, which is the capital of the oil industry in the United Kingdom, would be extremely welcome? It would, according to Scottish Enterprise, generate some 15,000 additional jobs in the Grampian region coming from the private sector of the oil industry.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that that is beyond the scope of the Question but I can tell my noble friend that we are still awaiting the consultants' report.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that the use of gas—a premium fuel—for the generation of electricity is the best and the most efficient use of that fuel?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords. I did not quite understand the question. Perhaps the noble Lord will repeat it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, gas is a premium fuel. It is an extremely efficient means of generating heat. However, when gas is used for generating electricity a great deal of its efficiency is lost up the chimney and in cooling towers. Therefore, it loses much of its heat value. Is that the best use of a premium fuel and does not that contribute a great deal to global warming, CO2 and so on?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. We believe that there should be a variety of sources of power available in this country so that we need not rely on any particular source. Gas is a fuel

285
which is extremely efficient in certain circumstances and environmentally friendly. That meets one of the Government's goals.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will my noble friend say something about the continuing research facility of the Energy Efficiency Office? He will recall that enormous amounts of research were successfully taken up by the pottery industry in the late 1970s and early I 980s. Perhaps he will update us on the position.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, research is fundamental to the Energy Efficiency Office. My noble friend will be delighted to know that this year we have increased expenditure on the Energy Efficiency Office by 40 per cent. to £59 million; that is, 10 times the 1979 level of expenditure in real terms.

Mortgage Interest Payment Assistance
3.15 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider giving help with mortgages similar to the help given with rent through housing relief.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, social security help with mortgage interest is given through the income support scheme. We have no plans to extend that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is my noble kinsman aware that the tying of help with mortgages to income support creates a number of situations in which people are better off not working? In particular, is he aware that the change in the definition of full-time work from 24 to 16 hours has already produced numerous cases of people who have given up work in order to retain help with their mortgage payments? Does he agree that that situation contradicts not only common sense but also government policy?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords. Obviously I accept that there can be relatively rare occasions when an individual receiving help with his mortgage interest may be better off receiving benefits than in work. However, we do not see any scope for altering the targeting of family credit, which is an in-work benefit, to bring in relatively high earners with relatively large mortgages. That would dramatically change the nature of family credit, which is very much a broad brush scheme, and would have considerable far-reaching cost and operational implications.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the department consider giving some help to prevent repossessions? For tens of thousands of families, that is the greatest tragedy of their lives. It affects the father, the mother and the children, who are all evicted. Repossession is a blight upon our country. Will the Government not have a good look to see what can be done to prevent repossessions, wherever possible?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we have done quite a lot since last December to assist with that problem. The Council of
286
Mortgage Lenders, which colleagues in the Government saw on 2nd June, assess that the measures taken since December will probably prevent some 55,000 repossessions this year, which is a very large number.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that unemployment is the biggest cause of difficulty in meeting mortgage payments? In view of that, what has he to say about the figures issued today, which show yet another large increase—the 24th consecutive increase in the numbers unemployed? Are the Government not going to learn anything? Are they not going to change their mind about any of their policies? Perhaps I may say to the Minister that it is not a matter to smile about; it is an extremely serious matter. We should be discussing the 2.7 million unemployed. If we have the fundamental changes of policy which have been advocated from these Benches for many months now, we shall reduce not only the problems of those trying to pay their mortgages but many other problems too.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord should have tabled his monthly question about unemployment figures. We give help to those unemployed who are in receipt of income support if they are having difficulties in paying their mortgage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is it not the case that in the past decade the Government have sharply reduced the number of council homes to rent, thus pressing many families on low incomes into buying their own homes, which, because of the recession, high interest rates and high unemployment, they can now neither afford nor sell? The mortgage rescue scheme has failed and it is clear that it cannot be made to work. Will the Government now introduce a cost-effective, targeted mortgage benefit scheme to help those 300,000 families seriously in arrears and at risk of losing their homes?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have not forced anyone to buy their own home. I do not accept that the mortgage rescue scheme failed. As I stated, some 55,000 repossessions - the estimate of the Council of Mortgage Lenders—will be prevented as a result of the measures taken. Obviously one cannot prevent every single repossession. One cannot cater for the folly of individuals in the debts that they may take on. However, we have offered a great deal of support; first, through the measures that have taken place since December and, secondly, through the income support scheme.

Police Car Sirens
3.20 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that police car sirens are used with adequate restraint in city areas.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the decision whether or not to use a police siren must rest with the driver of the police vehicle. We are satisfied that officers are aware of the need to use them with restraint.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. However, does he not agree that whereas the presence of a policeman or policewoman on the streets is reassuring to members of the public going about their lawful duties, the sight of police cars speeding around with screaming sirens often has the opposite effect? I understand that the modern car siren has four different degrees of shrill tone. Can the noble Viscount further enlighten me as to when it is appropriate to use a siren both during the day and during the night?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the sound levels of sirens currently used by police vehicles in this country vary between 98 and 119 decibels, measured five metres from the vehicle. The frequencies most commonly used—the two-tone effect—are 1.6 kHz and 3 kHz. With regard to policy on their use, the Association of Chief Police Officers Traffic Committee has advised that sirens are for use on urgent assignments where there is a need to obtain a clear passage through traffic.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the real point of police sirens that in the course of their operational duties the police have to drive on the wrong side of the road and extremely fast; therefore they are an essential feature of safety? Is that not perhaps a little more important than noise?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. It is necessary for sirens to be used when police cars or motorbikes are being driven at great speed through urban areas. The siren is a way of warning people that they are coming.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we should also consider whether the great speed is frequently desirable or necessary. Is the noble Viscount aware that the restraint to which he referred is not always apparent? The over-use of sirens runs directly contrary to what should be the central principle of policing policy; that is, to produce an atmosphere of urban calm. It produces, on the contrary, bad temper, erratic driving and febrile apprehension. There is also a widespread suspicion —I speak as someone who spent some time in indirect charge of the police—that often sirens are used not for emergencies but when people are going home to lunch.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord will know more about that than I do; after all, he was Home Secretary and presumably went home for lunch quite regularly. But I do not mean to imply that in any way he would ever use a siren for that reason. The ACPO committee stressed that the use of sirens gives the drivers of police vehicles no protection or right of way and warns that the unwarranted use of such devices will undermine the effectiveness of the equipment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the noble Viscount inform the House how many complaints in reference to the misuse of sirens were received, first, in London and, secondly, nationally? Can he further tell us how many officers were disciplined for misuse of sirens in the past 12 months?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer any of those questions. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that there is an odd bias against the police in this Question? There is no mention of the fire or ambulance services, which also make frequent use of these necessary devices.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The fire and ambulance services use them, as does the RNLI, the Forestry Commission when it has to put out a fire, mine rescue units and the RAF mountain, air and sea rescue services.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, how often does the Forestry Commission have to go to a fire in London?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as many times as there is a forest fire in London.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess on Thursday 16th July and return on Monday 19th October. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 16th July.

Business of the House
3.25 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That this House confirms the existing procedures for the nomination of the United Kingdom delegations to the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. —(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I wish to intervene for a moment to say that I understand the reasoning behind the Lord Privy Seal seeking to move the resolution and ultimately I do not object to his so doing. However, he should give some consideration to recent difficulties at the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. At its last plenary session held in Strasbourg in May the credentials of the British delegation were challenged. The British delegation then virtually stood down while the Rules and Procedure Committee of the Council of Europe considered the basis of the challenge.
The basis of the challenge was that those members who represent the British Parliament are not each of them necessarily elected by the individual constituent bodies of that Parliament. Within the Labour Party

289
those who are delegates stand for election but that is apparently not necessarily the case in the other parties concerned. Additionally, at the time of the plenary session in Strasbourg not every member of the then British delegation was a member of either House.
I put those matters to the Leader of the House. It placed the United Kingdom delegation in serious difficulty. It would be fair to say that the Rules and Procedure Committee ultimately cobbled together a typical European solution to the problem by a measure of reasonable co-operation among all concerned. I should emphasise that the issue was not party political. However, the United Kingdom delegation did not stand in good stead at that plenary session and it is a matter which the Government should consider seriously.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not quarrel with much of what the noble Lord has said. There was a difficulty at the last plenary session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. He is correct that the credentials of the UK delegation were challenged. Indeed, the purpose of my Motion is to rectify what was thought to be the deficiency in our procedures. I believe that it does that. A similar Motion was passed by another place and this Motion was discussed and agreed through the usual channels. I hope that it meets with your Lordships' approval.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord reveal to the House the origins of the challenge? Who made the challenge?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am not a great expert on the proceedings of the Council of Europe, but my understanding is that it was a member of the Labour Party in the House of Commons who made the challenge. His original grounds were that the Labour Party was under-represented. I believe that that matter has been resolved.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have resolved the matter for the present. However, the committee making the study enjoined the British Government to look at the method of selection. Will the Government study further the recommendations of the committee in the Council of Europe?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, we shall study all these matters. The resolution that I have tabled today is to confirm existing procedures, and those are the procedures which were agreed by all the parties in the House and indeed by the convener of the Cross-Benches.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, when I was a member of that delegation—until about four years ago—the position was that the British delegation always consisted of people who were Members of either House of Parliament. Will that be the position with the delegation which is to be nominated this time or will we take advantage of the procedure in the way that some other countries did, which means that when a person ceases to be a Member of either House he can continue as a member of the delegation for a period of perhaps up to six months afterwards? To put it
290
another way, is every member of the delegation to be either a Member of the other place or of this House? Also, when does a Member of this House actually become a Member? Is it when he or she receives a title in the Honours List or when a person takes their seat?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I believe that that may be entering an area which could keep lawyers and others much more experienced than I in work for a great length of time. As regards the delegation, the members are nominated and normally announced by the Prime Minister in another place. He would not think it right for me to anticipate what he may decide.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, nevertheless, can the noble Lord assure us that people who cease to be Members of this House will not continue to attend the Council of Europe as delegates for six months after that?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am tempted to say that I need notice of that question.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord the Leader of the House that even in the Council of Europe there is no provision for resurrection!
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, by leave of the House, I wish to make one point. I am attempting to be helpful. I accept the Motion as it stands. But in the longer term I do not believe that it will necessarily serve the Government's purpose. I make that point because one of the key issues which was debated at length by everyone is that there is not a universal ballot within this parliamentary system for Members to attend the council.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, in the spirit of the noble Lord's question, perhaps I may say to him that if the two Houses were to change to another system certain difficulties would arise in maintaining a proper balance between the two Houses and the parties' interests. I suspect that, long before I had anything to do with the matter, that is why the issue was discussed by what I have known for years as the usual channels in order to find something which was acceptable to everybody. I agree that it is possible to find an alternative way of doing it, but we have to think very carefully before we do so. We might end up with a system which produced a less satisfactory result.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill
3.33 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill honours the commitment made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement in another place to make important changes to the transitional arrangements for those moving to higher and lower bills under the new non-domestic rating system. The Bill was well received in another place and I hope that noble Lords will also welcome it.

291
The transitional arrangements limit the year-on-year increases in bills following the 1990 revaluation and introduction of the uniform business rate. At present the arrangements are self-financing, with limits on annual reductions for those moving to lower bills matching the cost of protecting those facing increases.
In the current economic climate we have decided to make three important changes to the transitional arrangements. First, the bills of those in transition to higher rates liabilities will be frozen in real terms this year. This breathing space will benefit nearly half a million businesses throughout the country at a cost of more than £500 million in total. This will provide substantial benefits for individual businesses. For instance, a property with a rateable value of around £50,000 could save over £6,000. Smaller properties could save up to £1,500.
Secondly, those who have yet to reach their lower liabilities under the transitional arrangements will move to their final bills more quickly. Reductions this year will be increased by 3 per cent. in England and 13 per cent. in Wales bringing total reductions for this year to 21 per cent. for large businesses and 27 per cent. for small, in real terms. This will benefit approximately 150,000 business premises this year at a cost of some £75 million; and next year, all remaining gains will flow through in full, benefiting some 75,000 businesses to the tune of an additional £290 million.
Finally, the Bill will allow property moving to higher bills to retain transitional protection even if it changes hands. This will take effect from 11th March this year. The uniform business rate provides a very good deal for businesses who have reached their full liabilities after transition. For those still moving to their final bills, the Bill provides some further welcome relief. No business will face an increase beyond 4.1 per cent. this year, and 150,000 could see their bills reduced by more than a quarter. Over the next three years businesses will benefit to the tune of some £1.25 billion. I am sure that the whole House will agree that this is excellent news for businesses. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
3.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise to those noble Lords who are in the Chamber in the hope of seeing and hearing my noble friend Lady Hollis who is not only more beautiful but a better speaker than I am. I must also declare an interest as a director of companies which pay the national non-domestic rate. However, I understand that this is such a general interest that it does not prohibit me from speaking on this Bill.
We must make it clear that we do not oppose the Bill. We agreed at the time of the Budget that this was a sensible reform. We shall not be opposing either Second Reading or continuation through the remaining stages today. At the same time we must make it clear that this is not a local government
292
finance Bill. It is a Bill about centrally-raised finance for local government purposes. The fundamental injustice of the national non-domestic rating system remains unchanged. It is our view, just as it is the view of the Institute of Directors and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, that non-domestic business rating should be set by local authorities rather than by central Government. We would have preferred the opportunity of a non-domestic rating Bill used to remedy that evident injustice.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that the benefits to the business community would be in excess of £1.25 billion. His honourable friend Mr. Robin Squire, the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, described the package as being worth £1.25 billion. I rather suspect that if a package of this kind had been put forward by the Labour Party it would have been described as "costing" rather than being "worth" £1.25 billion. We have to be clear that the cost of this Bill is to come directly from the Exchequer. I also understand that Mr. Squire gave an undertaking, which is provided for in Clause 6 of the Bill, that the national non-domestic rate pool will be fully recompensed for the cost of these changes.
The anxiety which has been expressed to the Minister and partly assuaged is the question of rebilling costs to the local authorities. Mr. Squire gave an assurance that all reasonable costs would be reimbursed. However, it cannot be denied that there are very significant administrative costs. There has been negotiation between the local authority associations and the department about some of those costs. I believe that, as of today, any disagreement about the costs of computer programming have been resolved. I should also like the Minister to tell the House whether there is agreement about the postage costs. Many local authorities will be sending out too few notices to gain the benefit of discounted postage. I should also like to know about the cash flow element. Any rebilling tends to be accompanied—and I am sure it has been so this time—by late payment by businesses knowing that the amount is going to be changed.
I must ask whether the transitional schemes are to be a permanent feature of the national non-domestic rate. Ministers in another place were somewhat equivocal on that point. When they were asked whether the 1993 revaluation would result in transitional schemes in 1995 and thereafter, and how long those schemes would last, they could not answer. That must raise the question of whether we have found the right way of tackling this matter. After all, it was because of delays in revaluation that the valuation took place on 1st April 1990 at the height of the commercial property boom. Presumably, the situation will be very different on 1st April 1993. We must ask whether the Government feel that they have got it right now and whether they have a scheme with which they will not have to tinker in supplementary legislation.
Above all, although we do not oppose the passage of the Bill, it must be a matter of regret that the opportunity has not been taken to bring back the business rate to local government finance.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we, too, welcome any amelioration in the burden of the business rate. We would not start from this position; unfortunately, however, we are here with a uniform business rate that has caused many problems. There has been something like a six-fold increase in the rates bills of some businesses, leading to insolvencies. Difficulties have been caused because the rate has not been set by local councils which represent their local communities and local businesses but by central government. Statutory consultation has therefore been less meaningful, given that the local authority meets its business ratepayers but has no discretion over the arrangements for the rates.
The problems of the uniform business rate have been exacerbated by the recession. The fact that the revaluation took place at the height of the boom has increased the problems now at a time of bust. The UBR has starkly pointed up differences in the effect of the recession on the South compared with the North, given that there was an endeavour to equalise the burden and to assist businesses in the North. The burden of the UBR has been greater for those in the South, and the effects of the recession have probably also been greater in the South.
The Bill proposes a standstill, not a reduction, in the rate. We on these Benches would have preferred to see a reduction. Although we admit that a cost would be attached, the benefit would have been to enable businesses to function more easily. Businesses would be assisted if the rateable value were to be reduced where it is higher than the present market rental value. A revaluation later in the life of this Parliament will not help businesses which are now struggling to stay alive.
We welcome assurances given by the Minister in another place. At col. 785 of Commons Hansard of 2nd June, the Minister said that the Government wanted a fair and sensible figure for the reimbursement of rebilling and cash flow costs. I look forward to the detailed assurances that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be able to give the House on both those points. As I said, we do not oppose the Bill. We welcome the measures as far as they go.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak in a Second Reading debate on a Bill that is essentially welcomed by both opposition parties. I am delighted to be in that position today. I am also delighted that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is here although I should have been equally happy to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. I note that the noble Lord declared his interests in property companies—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, —in companies paying the non-domestic rate, not at all the same as property companies.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. He said that it was a general interest which did not affect his ability to speak on the matter. I entirely agree.
As I said, I welcome the general welcome that the Bill has received. However, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have some problems with the principle of the non-domestic rate and the UBR. As we have had that discussion many times in the past, I do not propose to reopen it today.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord made some good points about the details of reimbursements for local authorities. On postage, we have not finally settled the costs, but we propose a reimbursement of 18p per property, which seems reasonable. Secondly, we shall look at the cash flow issue in the light of the first quarter data on the collection of the NNDR and will, of course, take into account any other evidence provided by the local authorities. We seek to be reasonable and fair in the distribution of costs and in the reimbursement.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked whether transitional schemes would become a permanent feature of the legislation. After the 1995 revaluation, we shall need to consider whether further transitional schemes are necessary. As the noble Lord implied, particularly large charges in hills in 1990 followed 17 years without a revaluation. Now that we have introduced a system of five-year revaluations, the swings should be much smaller and perhaps in the longer term we shall be able to do without transitional schemes.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their contributions. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 9th June), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Dog Control and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
3.47 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is a revival of that which I introduced into your Lordships' House in the last Session, which was given its Second Reading on 17th January last. For understandable reasons, that was hardly the occasion to continue with its Committee and remaining stages, especially as I had already said, when replying to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, at the conclusion of the debate, that I would consult further with some of my friends on this matter. So, I reintroduce the Bill today. In fact, it was loudly acclaimed when it became the first Private Member's Bill to be introduced into your Lordships' House in this Parliament on 6th May.
I have not changed the text of the Bill in a single particular from the previous version. I thought it better to stick to the text of the Bill that had received

295
its Second Reading in your Lordships' House—and that is this Bill. I know that certain suggestions have been made, possibly about scope of the proposed advisory committee's terms of reference and about other matters that might have received some further attention. However, I thought that it was undesirable to begin to alter the Bill at this stage when we are still proceeding, I hope, towards an accommodation on the matter of establishing for Ministers and Government some consultative and advisory machinery on dogs.
One of the great handicaps of the canine population is that responsibility for it in certain areas is divided between three government departments: the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I can tell your Lordships from long experience in discussions with representatives of those three departments on matters affecting dogs that it is a very tiresome and frustrating situation. They sometimes have different points of view about a common problem; as was the case, for example, on registration. We cannot overcome that. The fragmentation over policy on dogs was carried still further by the Government themselves when at the end of a Session they tacked on to the Environmental Protection Bill a whole slab of a discussion document that they had issued previously and asked for representations on it. They did so in order to frustrate an amendment to the Bill which would have required the Government to study the matter of universal dog registration.
We are today in the position that dangerous dog matters, and matters giving rise to criminal offences, remain with the Home Office while matters relating to the environment, local authorities, parks, public places, stray dogs and so on are with the Department of the Environment. Then there is a special section of the dog population which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We cannot get over that and we have to adjust our consultative machinery to that tripartite situation.
That is one of the reasons behind the idea of a dog control and welfare council. It is based almost exactly on the constitution, the reference and the activities of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which has been in existence for a long time and has done excellent work. There are multifarious matters arising from intensive husbandry and other factors affecting livestock that lead to the desire for a considerable cover of consultation on different aspects of farm animal welfare. It may be argued that dogs are not such a wide reference. I believe that they are.
In the debate on 17th January the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, gave his reasons why the Bill was not welcomed by his department. He said:
"The Bill appears to us to be unnecessary in that it would create a statutory body to fulfil functions already carried out effectively through existing channels of consultation".
He went on to say:
"The Home Secretary already seeks and receives advice from bodies such as the RSPCA, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the Kennel Club. All those bodies, and others, were consulted
296
during the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Bill. Both before and since then there has been frequent constructive consultation on dangerous dogs".
He added:
"Indeed, all that might actually make the process of consultation overly bureaucratic and reduce its effectiveness. It could result in the loss of some of the flexibility that characterises some of the current arrangement. That would not be desirable".—[0fficial Report, 17/1/92; cols. 515–516.] He referred also to additional administrative work and unnecessary expense.
Those considerations lie at the root of our consideration of the Bill. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading because if we proceed to the Committee stage some of those considerations may have to be examined in more detail. I want to put it to your Lordships that a stable, representative, reliable advisory council would be of great help to a Minister who has diverse responsibilities that may require his mind to be switched from one subject to another.
This can be a highly controversial and emotional area. The Home Secretary is particularly exposed to crises, as we saw during the dangerous dogs controversy. He stood absolutely exposed. He had nothing to rely on. He had no consultative body to depend upon. He was there battling with the conclusions, which were adverse and even abusive, about his custody of the Home Office at that time. That was a great pity because to begin with it led to ill-considered action on the part of the Home Secretary, which he had to retract. He had to bring his proposals within some semblance of practicality and acceptability, even in that difficult situation.
There is another side to this problem. Let us consider the mess the Government got into over the proposals for national registration. That all started in your Lordships' House. It was the amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill that gave rise to all the subsequent problems between the two Houses, ending with a miserable conclusion to a long drawn-out dispute between the two Houses and between the Government and both Houses. That amendment could have received more sober consideration. It did not really create a crisis or arise out of one. It was an opportunist attempt to get something into the Environmental Protection Bill that would bring the question of dogs before Parliament in a bigger way than was possible using other means. That is what happened.
In the past two years dogs have had a very bad time at the hands of Parliament. They have been downgraded. We have seen headlines such as "Devil Dogs", "Killer Dogs", and "Horror Dogs". They have had a very bad press indeed. Indeed, if we were all saddled with the crimes of the few we would have a bad, black record of conduct ourselves. But in the canine world everyone is tarred with the same brush. It was all very miserable.
I put this point to the House. There are almost as many dogs in the homes of Britain as there are children. There are 6 million dogs, and most of them are companion animals in the homes of people. That is of long tradition. Indeed, long before history began man and his dog came together and they have never been separated since. They are part of our society; they are part of the companionship of the home; they

297
are part of the training of children; and they are part of the fun of life. Yet, when misbehaviour or danger occurs, the upsurge of certain sections of the press and the media concentrates on delinquency and blackens the whole lot.
I want to raise the prestige of the canine population. They are as much entitled to be here as we are. No one has given man—at least, I do not believe so—primacy by reason of his genes or origins over any other species. It is all part of the natural world. We are all part of the animal kingdom. Therefore, we are now beginning to talk about the rights of animals. The dog has a very special relationship with man. Noble Lords who have dogs, or who have owned them, do not need to hear any further talk from me about what they mean to them and their families.
I think it is right that we should regard dogs as being in a very special category of animal life for special study, sympathetic understanding, protection and control. That is what the Bill proposes an advisory committee should do, with a wide-ranging reference to have regard to all the matters that affect dogs. I see no reason at all why such a committee as that proposed should not inquire into some very special sections of dogs; for example, show dogs, police dogs, foxhounds and greyhounds. There are many dogs being used in commercial life which, it seems to me, may also require some protection.
Therefore, on the principle of the matter, I am saying that I really do not think that it can be sustained that the existing flexible arrangements are adequate. They are not; they are pick and choose. When Ministers pick and choose their sources of consultation they cannot always satisfy us that they have contacted all of them or taken notice of those that should have been consulted.
There is nothing in the proposal which ties anyone's hands. It does not increase the bureaucracy. However, it is certainly true to say that it adds a little to public expenditure. I shall give your Lordships an idea of the perspective when any Minister begins to talk about expense. The most expensive advisory committee that we have is the Commission for Racial Equality. It costs over £14 million. The Equal Opportunities Commission costs nearly £5 million. We also have the Broadcasting Standards Council which costs £1.5 million.
The difference between those commissions and committees, and other bodies, depends largely on whether or not the members are paid. Some of the commissions are very well paid. In my view, we pay heavily for the purification of television and radio broadcasting. But the Animal Procedures Committee, which is there to safeguard animals from unnecessary suffering and which was established under the 1986 Act, costs only £29,000. The Farm Animal Welfare Council costs £80,000. There is no expense factor in the proposal; indeed, it is so negligible as not to be reckoned as part of the debate. None of the people involved will be paid any more than the members of the Farm Animal Welfare Council are paid. They receive travelling expenses and give their services voluntarily. The proposed council would be in no better a position.
298
As regards the main issue, I do not want to find myself stumbling over the niceties of flexibility of consultation, bureaucracy or the form of consultation. I want to secure stability, representativeness and an obligation on the part of the Minister to consult and to take opinion into account when reaching decisions on controversial matters. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 requires the Minister to consult representative bodies (which are not specified) before coming to the House with draft orders for extended action. But, there again, it is completely up to him where he goes for his consultation. He decides whether to see such bodies in conjunction with others or separately. It is for him to decide whether he places more reliance on one piece of advice than on another. That selective form of flexibility does not appeal to me. It should not be regarded as the normal relationship and form of consultation between Ministers and interests in controversial and continuing matters. Everything can be brought together, discussed and looked at in perspective.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he has any further thoughts on the matter, because I have. He may wish to know what they are, but I cannot enlarge upon them this afternoon because I am in the course of further talks with my friends in that connection. However, I have something to say—that is, if there is a Minister of the requisite rank to listen. I want to do business on the matter. I hope that the response of the Government will be a willingness to listen to what that business can be. Therefore, I await what the Minister has to say about his receptiveness to anything that may come his way, or the way of other Ministers, in the very near future.
I believe that the reinforcement of the position by giving the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon is very important. I do not want to burn my boats entirely by going into the clutches of ministerial consultation, but I am most anxious that something new should come out of this debate. I believe that I may have a new model of consultation which may well be a replacement for much of the conventional type of consultation that we have had in the past. However, I shall have to leave the matter there. I am sorry that I cannot round it off. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response and, if he encourages me, then I may advance a little further.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
4.8 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and to the House for my late arrival in the Chamber which caused me to miss the first part of his speech. However, one must admire the noble Lord for his sincerity of purpose in proposing the Bill and also for his determination—if I may say, his dogged determination—in bringing forward once again the issue of the control and welfare of dogs.
It is well acknowledged that the noble Lord has a strong attachment to many organisations that are concerned with dogs and animal welfare. Throughout the years he has put forward very powerful arguments

299
for organisations to do more than they do for dog welfare. I have in mind such organisations as the British Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, the Kennel Club and the national Canine Defence League, of which I believe he is a vice-president.
In a previous debate on this Bill I was able to give it only qualified support since I felt that the proposed council was merely an additional organisation among the many which exist and which have much common ground on the question of dogs and dog control. I am not sure that I have moved from that position, although possibly I have moved a little in the noble Lord's direction rather than in the opposite direction. If the Bill succeeds or there comes out of it something of use in terms of a council, it could well draw together a number of loose threads in the field of dog welfare and control which would benefit the dogs individually and our society in general.
The dog's role in society must be an important one since there are some 7 million of them in the country and there are 5 million households which own a dog. That is some indication of the role of this animal in our society. There is every indication that that number will increase substantially over the coming decade.
Should there be some kind of council as proposed by the noble Lord, one of its first tasks might well be the consolidation of the legislation concerned with the dog. There are somewhere in the region of 30 pieces of legislation scattered somewhat disparately over the legislative network and it is at times difficult to draw them all together. A second area could well be the fostering of research on the role of the dog in society. With such a substantial presence we need to know much more about the role that the dog plays in companionship and in the health of the community.
Much attention has been focused over the past few months and years through the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 on the dangers of dogs—for instance, the transmission of disease such as visceral larva migrans (the nematode of dogs causing eye disease in children) and hydatid disease in Wales and so on. But a vast amount of good results from the presence of the dog in our society which we are only beginning to understand. For example, recent work has shown that the ownership of a dog results in an individual having a significant reduction in minor illnesses over a period of time; and of course there is the well-known work in the United States that indicates that the possession of a companion animal will substantially and significantly increase the lifespan of an individual who has had a heart attack.
One particular area that this council could facilitate is that of research into the dog—not only of dog diseases but dog welfare too. I recognise that the noble Lord is not proposing that this be a funding agency. There are other agencies that one goes to. But there is no natural home for a research proposal on dogs in this country other than the charitable institutions. Here one must pay tribute to organisations such as the Wellcome Trust and the charitable arms of various organisations such as the British Veterinary Association which have funded research into animal disease.
300
Of particular note about this research is its comparative aspect, where much of interest to human health can derive from the study of naturally occurring entities in the dog. They are the natural components of the dog; they are natural examples of disease, shall we say. They are certainly sentinels of the environment in which we live because dogs generally share that environment, sometimes very closely indeed.
A further area which still requires urgent attention is that of breeding and what might be referred to as the mutilation of dogs for fad and fancy. Fortunately the dog show world is coming to terms with the more objectionable aspects of breeding or the alteration of normal conformation of an animal for cosmetic purposes. This House has already debated that some time ago. This is a distortion of the proper and responsible stewardship that we should show to dogs.
Finally, should the Bill go forward, or something come out of it such as a council, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, might accept a wider definition of the dog than at present and perhaps include cats as well, since so many of his intentions with the Bill affect companion animals as a whole, not only the dog. Therefore there is a wider issue than merely dogs with respect to companion animals in society.
I hope that this does not die as a concept and though my noble friend the Minister may have ideas of not letting the Bill go forward, I hope that some positive development may occur as a result of the noble Lord's Bill.
4.17 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches support the Bill in the main as it has been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I should like to say how well and how comprehensively he introduced it. I absolutely agree with him that dogs have had a rough ride in recent times. The problems have been misunderstood and misrepresented in the media. There has also been recent legislation, and most of us in the Chamber today took part in the debates during the progress of the Dangerous Dogs Bill. That Act can hardly be viewed as entirely satisfactory. Indeed, there have been several cases of injustice as a result of its implementation. It was far too limited in its scope. That could be something to be considered by the council which is suggested in the noble Lord's Bill.
The major problem, as I think most noble Lords agree, that strikes the public concerns the strays and abandoned dogs which appear in increasing numbers on our streets. This implies a lack of responsible ownership in many quarters. Again that is something which a council could look at in detail and which could, when required, advise the Government when they are considering legislation.
That dovetails in with what the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, has just said in what was an interesting and, as one would expect, well informed speech. I agree with him that one of the major roles of a council of this kind would be research into, as I think he expressed it, the role of dogs as pets in society. As

301
the proud owner of two Abyssinians, I am glad that he added cats. In a family environment pets are extremely valuable. I remain to be persuaded of whether they prevent minor illnesses or diseases, but I take the noble Lord's word for it. I know that it is a happy and enjoyable experience to have a pet in the family, whether it be a dog or a cat. The lack of responsibility and the selfishness of many pet owners may have something to do with the falling apart of the family structure. The way we treat our children and our dogs may have some relevance. That is also a point which the proposed council could address.
The council could tackle the whole business of identifying stray dogs and returning them to their owners. The case was fought long and hard in your Lordships' House and in another place for the introduction of some kind of registration scheme. Such a scheme has been steadfastly resisted by Her Majesty's Government, mainly, I fancy, on the grounds of cost. Of course cost is a factor, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, but it is a cost which will somehow have to be borne sooner or later.
The means of identifying dogs are becoming more sophisticated. The tagging of dogs by microchip technology is being perfected. I believe that we shall see on the market in the near future a cheap and effective way of implanting a minute tag into a dog so that it can be scanned by the appropriate authorities to identify it and its owner. That database might contain other information such as whether the dog has been immunised against various diseases. I would not omit rabies. In France, the law requires that a dog is vaccinated by a veterinary surgeon, and that information goes on to a computer. That in itself forms a kind of registration of dogs.
We have discussed the iniquitous area of puppy farming. There is cruelty in some cases, but not all. There are unscrupulous puppy breeders who breed dogs in deplorable conditions. They are passed on to pet shops, where the environment is unsuitable for keeping dogs humanely. That again is a subject which could be dealt with.
All in all, from these Benches we agree that there is a need for the Government to be better informed about dogs and pets generally. The proposal would be an excellent way of moving ahead. More information would be at the disposal of government to ensure that when legislation is necessary it is the right legislation which may be more effective than Acts such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, as is usual in the case of a Private Member's Bill, the Labour Party takes a neutral stance, and so I speak for myself alone. Perhaps I may again remind your Lordships of the words of the poet Juvenal when he writes in his seventh satire "crambe repetita", which for the benefit of those of your Lordships who did not pay close attention in their Latin lessons at school I may translate loosely as yesterday's cabbage warmed up and served again. The poet Juvenal did not like "crambe repetita". I find that it can be made palatable, but I mention it only to illustrate that almost
302
everything which can be said about the Bill was said on its previous Second Reading and was said extremely well. But since what we on these Benches regard as a little local difficulty intervened on 9th April, we have perforce to reconsider it before—as I hope we may—we assist it on its way.
My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has, with his customary clarity and power, laid out the principal reasons why the Bill would assist in the control and welfare of the nation's estimated 7.4 million dogs. I quote the figure received this morning from the RSPCA. There is no need to adduce evidence that such measures are increasingly necessary. The RSPCA estimates that some 1,000 dogs have to be killed every day, and I for one fully support the shock tactics that it was forced to use in its advertising to bring that horrific fact home to the public conscience. Similarly, the regular media reports of terrible acts of cruelty inflicted on dogs, and the almost routine peril of dogs abandoned on motorways after Christmas each year require us, as a civilised nation, to do all that we can for the welfare of our dogs; and the proposed dog control and welfare council will be a simple but powerfully effective and cost-effective step in the right direction.
As my noble friend Lord Houghton pointed out on 17th January, the very existence of such a council would point the way towards a calmer and more considered approach to the issue of dog control and welfare. Dogs are a very emotive issue in this country, and they always have been. Problems such as the treatment of stray dogs and the activities of dog wardens rouse high passions in the populace very quickly, and all too often precipitate action takes place which might not have taken place if there were calmer and more considered thought.
An expert, trusted, accountable, visible and, above all, disinterested council along the lines proposed would be an excellent way to deter precipitate and rash action (on the part both of individuals and of Her Majesty's Government) and to allow wiser counsels to emerge and eventually to prevail. At the very least, a council would permit the Government, when under violent attack from an outraged public on some matter of canine concern, and when the radio, television and newspapers are in a ferment about what the Government are going to do, to perform the classic rugby football manoeuvre and "kick it into touch".
Such an issue might well be the existence and regulation of puppy farms, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said. From time to time public fury erupts when some spectacularly cruel or negligent example comes to light, and the authorities, local and national, are bidden to do something about it. The trouble is that any single example can be dealt with, and almost invariably is, and then the matter slips from the pages of the newspapers and from the forefront of the public conscience. But cruel puppy farms continue to exist and to proliferate. There is no overall solution to the problem. I should be interested to know how many Home Office officials are permanently or principally involved with regulating an often dubious trade. If the Minister has an answer

303
to that question—he does not seem to have an answer to many of the questions that I have asked this afternoon—I should be pleased to hear from him.
A dog control and welfare council could, and would of necessity, keep an issue such as puppy farming under continuous and vigilant review. Nothing would deter bad rearers of puppies more certainly than the knowledge that there was the vigilant eye of a regulatory body perpetually kept upon them.
Again, should we not learn a lesson, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, wisely said, from the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991? It was a textbook example of legislation conceived as a result of a public outcry which was prepared in haste and amended on the hoof. In this case perhaps I should say "on the paw". At one time we were threatened with a great slaughter of dogs which would have made Herod's massacre of the innocents look like a chimpanzees' tea party. Then everything that was potentially dangerous had to be muzzled. One owner found himself in peril of the full majesty of the law when he took off his dog's muzzle to let the poor beast drink.
It must be admitted that there were injustices and absurdities which could have been avoided if the problem had been approached in a calmer, more informed and more rational fashion. Just such qualities would be the hallmark of the council which this Bill proposes. What is more, such a council would be able to anticipate likely causes of concern and identify problems needing legislative intervention. It would not simply follow with a knee-jerk reaction something raised by the newspapers or bawled out on television. It could be proactive in these matters and advise the Government in advance of trouble likely to occur.
To take one small example, I am informed that at the moment it is entirely unclear who, if anyone, is responsible for ensuring that a dog injured in a traffic accident receives veterinary attention. Precisely because this question falls between the responsibilities of the police, the driver and the veterinary profession, it will not be addressed or solved. A dog control and welfare council could be required to advise the Government on the best solution, after having consulted those concerned dispassionately, disinterestedly and on the Government's behalf.
When your Lordships debated the Bill on 17th January, we heard a rousing, nay, almost ferocious speech, from the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. He said, among other things:
"if there is one matter that the Government have failed to address or on which they do not have any coherent policy, it must be dog welfare and control. Certainly that must come top of the list for ineptitude".—[Official Report, 17/1/92; col. 509.]
The noble Lord has a most powerful bark and I wish he had been here this afternoon to bark again. On that occasion, he declared his hope that the Minister,
"will be able to say that the Government will give serious consideration to setting up such a council".
Though he did not go so far, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, gave then and has
304
reiterated today his qualified support for my noble friend's Bill. I take comfort from the noun, though I wish he could have done without the adjective. Nevertheless, the support is welcome, even when it is qualified. He expressed the hope then that the Government would do something to consolidate the legislation dealing with dogs in this country. He pointed to 30 pieces of legislation which already exist, a point which he made once again strongly this afternoon.
I argue that advice and guidance on such consolidation would be exactly what the proposed council would be best placed to give. However, all in all, those who spoke on 17th January had considerable sympathy with the philosophy behind my noble friend's Bill. No one spoke flatly against it and no one has today.
On 17th January, in his reply at col. 515, the noble Viscount considered the Bill to be unnecessary,
"in that it would create a statutory body to fulfil functions already carried out effectively through existing channels of consultation".
I make no apology for repeating the words already quoted by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby because they are important. If I may say so with the gravest and most profound respect, those words represent a statement which tastes blandly of the smoothest and most perfectly puréed complacency of which our superb Civil Service is capable. That the functions are not carried out effectively is proved by the perpetual dissatisfaction of so many who care about animal welfare. That the channels of consultation have become blocked by the detritus of the traffic through them, with no one available to pull the flush but my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, can equally be demonstrated.
The noble Viscount went on to say, again at col. 515:
"The Home Secretary already seeks and receives advice from bodies such as the RSPCA, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the Kennel Club".
I am sure that the noble Viscount will agree that we on these Benches always try to be helpful to the Government in their pursuit of truth and justice. I have in that same spirit tried to be helpful on this occasion. I have caused all four of those bodies to be consulted at official level very recently on the question of whether or not they support my noble friend's Bill. I hope that the noble Viscount will find the results of my inquiries helpful and definitive, though he may also find them surprising.
It did not surprise me to learn that the Kennel Club was not in favour of my noble friend's Bill since it is known that it regards it as a movement in the direction of dog registration, to which it is opposed. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons said that it had not been consulted on the Bill, but one of its administrators said that he thought that the college would not be opposed to it. The British Veterinary Association supports the Bill wholeheartedly and thinks it a good idea: and the RSPCA is in print as saying that it,
"Wholeheartedly supports Lord Houghton's Dog Control and Welfare Bill".

305
So, of the organisations which the Home Secretary usually consults, 2.5 support my noble friend's Bill and 1.5 either oppose it or seem neutral. Thus, 62.5 per cent. of those consulted are in favour of the Bill; and I hope that the Government, who were elected to power on 9th April by 42 per cent. of the vote, will have no difficulty in agreeing to my noble friend's Bill and giving it a fair wind, which I now invite the noble Viscount formally to do.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, perhaps I may express support for the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. It is interesting to hear statistics about how many dogs there are in the country. Between 1990 and 1995, a 20 per cent. increase in the dog population is expected. Although during the past few years we have been discussing dog legislation including what became the Dangerous Dogs Act, as well as the necessity for dog wardens, over 200 district councils do not have a single dog warden. I totally support the Bill and hope it becomes law.
4.38 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to have the opportunity again to discuss animal matters, particularly dogs, with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. As your Lordships have reminded us, he has long been an effective advocate on behalf of the animal kingdom in your Lordships' House.
The Bill before us today is identical to that introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, during the last Parliament. That Bill was debated in your Lordships' House five months ago and received its Second Reading. However, the Government felt unable to support it. In the Government's view, nothing has happened in the intervening period which suggests that they should change their attitude.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will therefore not be surprised to hear that the Government's reservations about the need for a statutory council and the amendment to Section 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act as proposed by the Bill still remain. Accordingly, much of what I can say is a re-statement of the Government's position and our reservations about the Bill.
It is the Government's view that the existing statutory-based flexible arrangements for consultation on dog related and other animal matters work well. I am not persuaded that the replacement of the non-statutory arrangements by a statutory body would be an improvement on the present arrangements. The Home Secretary already consults—this has been pointed out today—with organisations such as the RSPCA, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association, the Kennel Club and others as necessary to ensure that he has access to expert opinion on dog related matters. Indeed all the aforementioned were among those consulted during the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Bill last year.
306
Those bodies and others with an interest in dog issues have over the years offered advice to the Government. The Government value this contact. I have no doubt that the bodies will continue to approach the Government on particular issues of concern to them. The setting up of the dog control and welfare council would result in much additional administrative work and added expense. It would introduce a further layer of administration into the existing arrangements which we are not convinced would be offset by any potential benefit.
As the Government have made clear, we consider that the present arrangements operate well. We shall continue to consult as we do at present with appropriate bodies on dog related matters. All the bodies that care about these matters are quick to approach the Government when they are concerned about certain issues. I am sure that the House will be aware of the Government's continuing work on dog issues. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, when he says that dogs have been downgraded. As noble Lords will be aware, since the beginning of this year when a similar measure came before the House, the dog related provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 have come into operation. From 1st April 1992 local authorities have had a new duty to collect and detain stray dogs and to enforce the existing requirement for dogs to wear a collar and tag when in a public place.
There has for the first time been a national government initiative in England and Wales to promote responsible dog ownership and to encourage owners to clear up after their dogs. The local authorities do much already but the Government felt that this needed a national boost. Accordingly the Government, working in conjunction with the Pet Advisory Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is president, the Tidy Britain Group and the Pet Food Manufacturers Association have provided campaign material for use by local authorities and others. Those are examples of recent government initiatives in the area of dog welfare which we shall continue to pursue.
As was the case when the Bill last came before the House, noble Lords have raised a number of interesting points. My noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior made particularly interesting points. My noble friend has great expertise in animal matters, particularly animal health matters. I am sure we all welcome the valuable contribution he always makes in these debates.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, started with a quotation in Latin about the desirability of yesterday's cabbage. I always thought cabbage was used to make bubble and squeak which is a delicious dish. Today, the noble Lord has both bubbled and squeaked, as well as barked perhaps. He has made a number of points. I was interested in his comments on polls. The noble Lord mentioned the poll he had conducted of interested parties. I now understand how the pollsters were entirely wrong as regards the election result and why the party of the noble Lord was so totally misled by the findings. The noble Lord

307
asked about regulating dog breeding establishments. That is a matter for local authority inspectors rather than Home Office officials.
As I made clear, we do not claim that the present consultation arrangements on dog related matters cannot be improved; nor do we claim that we are inflexible in these matters. We are not instinctively attracted to the idea of even a non-statutory standing committee which could be expensive to run and the need for which we do not believe has yet been demonstrated. It could simply generate unnecessary work and distract attention from the other important issues in the field of animal welfare with which the Government are concerned.
But our minds are not closed. We are ready to discuss the matter further with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I repeat the undertaking I gave on the previous occasion the Bill came before your Lordships' House to consider any suggestions for improvement that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, or any other noble Lord, may wish to make to us. Indeed earlier this year in this House the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said he hoped that informal contacts could be established with the Government to see how to take the matter forward. We would be delighted for that to happen and we look forward to the noble Lord and his representatives coming to see us. Dogs are special, and so are cats. In view of what I have said today I hope that the noble Lord will consider this approach.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am almost moved to say that the Home Office is incorrigible, but there seems to be a glimmer of light in the response that the noble Viscount has made that leads me to want to pursue this matter. I have been on this long, long trail for 18 years now and I have experienced many disappointments and frustrations on the way. I have said on previous occasions that there are some things in parliamentary affairs that prove almost too much for the patience even of one who has been in this business for as long as I have. The noble Viscount has a brief that was prepared for him before he had heard a single word said today. There is something about our form of administration which requires pulling apart. When the noble Viscount talks about the Government I should like to know who in the Government has taken the decision.
I felt rather upset last night when I received a telephone message from someone who was writing an article on this Bill for a newspaper. He said he had been talking to officials of fairly high standing at the Home Office who had made it clear that they did not want this Bill. I said I was aware of that. No Minister seems to be able to get through that attitude of not wanting the Bill. I say with great respect that I am not taking an answer on behalf of the Government which may represent only what the officials do not want.
It seems to me that the Home Office, and probably other ministries too, only respond when they are pressed or frightened. The former Home Secretary appointed more committees of inquiry than any Home Secretary I remember. Almost every other day he
308
appointed an independent committee of inquiry to look into something. A phrase used in ministerial circles that is becoming almost criminal is, "It must never happen again". There is no foresight, no anticipation of events and no vision on trends of what is happening in the world or in the country. Ministers pass from crisis to crisis and in the meantime are hard pressed to keep pace with current work. I am realistic. I have been in this business for a long time and I have seen this process happen. One cannot emerge from such dealings without a fairly strong streak of cynicism about how it all works. The public sometimes must feel as impatient as I do with the kind of response that comes from the combination of governmental responsibility and political expediency.
However, this is a non-party issue. We are dealing with a problem and we are all involved in it in the same way. The difference between us now seems to boil down to the following. There has to be consultation and there is consultation, but is it adequate? Can it be improved upon, and how can that be done? Until now I have prescribed the conventional response to the desire for closer, more stable and representative consultation by means of an advisory committee. Administration is littered with them, some more important than others. However, Ministers want advice and they cannot always obtain it from within the department. Therefore, they look for advice that they can rely on, but in some cases the advice comes from so many quarters, or there are so many interests involved, that it is desirable to bring the advisers together.
For years I wondered why the anti-vivisection organisations were so frustrated and engaged in such futile activities in their opposition to experimentation on animals. It was because they did not come together. A Home Secretary, who is now in this House, told me, "I will see a representative body but I will not see one body and then have to see half a dozen others". He almost insisted that they should come together before any business could be done with him as Home Secretary. It was then that I formed a body, which has continued ever since—the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation. By bringing the individual organisations together we reached the Home Secretary, and having achieved that we began to make progress.
The bodies we have been talking about this afternoon have come together. I believe that they can remain together and become more effective in that way. It is that which I want to develop.
Of course, I shall accept what the Minister said, but I shall not enter talks with officials who are opposed to the measure. If I talk to the Government I want to do so at the right level, otherwise I do not have the time for it—nor the inclination. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount will convey to his superiors the content of this debate, which has been admirable. I am extremely grateful for the response of noble Lords this afternoon. Their speeches were all better than mine because they were better informed. It is their view, not mine, which should carry the day following the debate this afternoon. However, I am quite prepared to be the

309
spokesman or to introduce those who want the consultations initiated by the Home Secretary to be more representative.
The Home Secretary's record on dogs over the past two years has been deplorable. We should not forget that when we consider the future. The present policy has not worked satisfactorily. To begin with it did not work at all, as my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris pointed out a few moments ago.
I shall leave the matter there. I shall certainly take up the Minister's invitation—in a bigger way than the noble Viscount probably intended or thought possible. I shall push the door open wider than he has left it, and if it closes on me I shall try to kick it open. At any rate, I have a positive approach in mind and I hope to receive a positive response.
That is probably the last word that I need to say in this debate. I hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill and at least show that you mean business even if the Government do not.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Royal Assent
4.53 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Mauritius Republic Act,

Non-Domestic Rating Act,

Pittenweem Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

Mersey Docks and Harbour Act,

British Railways (No. 2) Act.

The European Fighter Project
4.54 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the future of the European Fighter project.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject changes now from dog welfare to defence welfare. I only wish that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was taking part in the debate.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for agreeing to this short debate on the European Fighter Aircraft at relatively short notice. I am also indebted to other noble Lords who have indicated that they wish to take part. I recall asking the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, a question on the F-111 project a long time ago when he was Minister for the Royal Air Force. I am delighted that he is taking part today. I am also delighted to see the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on the list of speakers: he was the Minister responsible for putting together the development partnership for EFA in 1988. I am sure that he will be characteristically robust in his comments on recent events which have called into question the future of EFA. That is the purpose of the debate.
EFA is the sixth major European aerospace project put together over the past 25 years. Concorde, the
310
Airbus, the Jaguar, the Tornado, the EH I helicopter and now EFA, demonstrate clearly that the aerospace industries of Europe can collaborate successfully. There are obviously many difficulties relating to design leadership, the sharing of know-how and co-ordination, but the results have shown that there is a European aerospace industry which works, which retains the capacity for high technology design and which competes successfully and effectively against the United States.
The House will recall that EFA, known then by different initials, was a ghost concept in the 1970s and came alive when strategic requirements were agreed among the NATO partners. France remained independent but in 1988 agreement was reached among four partners—Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain—to develop and eventually order for service an indicative figure of 750 aircraft or more.
I gather that the development stage of the project has gone extremely well with no long delays or large budget increases. Flight tests are due to start late this summer. It is always at the stage when governments have to commit production finance and when people in the Treasury are sharpening their pencils that projects are at their most vulnerable to threats of cancellation or withdrawal. EFA has proved no exception.
The German Government announced last month that they were reviewing the possibility of withdrawing from the project altogether. Germany has a 30 per cent. share in the development stage at present. More ominously, the German Defence Minister stated that he would advise his government to withdraw on two grounds: first, that Germany could not afford its share of the cost of the project in view of the heavy burden of reunification; and, secondly, that the aircraft was no longer required because the Cold War was over.
I do not know whether the German military support the second reason. I am sure that from our air staff downwards few would accept a proposition so dangerous to our own security and that of Europe. Never before have we faced such political instability within Europe as we do now following the liberalisation of Eastern Europe which has unleashed ethnic rivalries, territorial disputes and a serious threat of economic, social and political turmoil. We have a wounded elephant on our doorstep in the shape of Russia, still with the most powerful military force in the world and with a very fragile political leadership bolstered up, temporarily perhaps, by cocktail parties in Washington. Recent experience in the Gulf war proved air superiority to be of paramount importance. Finally, the Middle East shows no signs of tranquillity or peace.
All of that uncertainty reinforces the need for a credible level of security. I humbly believe that the requirement for a new aircraft remains as good today as it was in 1988. It would be much appreciated, I am sure, if my noble friend could leave us tonight in no doubt that that is the view of Her Majesty's Government.
I hope very much that Germany will reconsider the consequences of withdrawal. Politically in Europe it would be very damaging and misunderstood. It would

311
cast doubts on the credibility of the German commitment towards European unity and co-operation despite all that Germany has said in the past to the contrary. The decision could not have come at a worse time, following the Danish referendum. European member countries need to show leadership and unity in Europe at this time and not cast doubts on commitments, particularly those of a member with the strongest economy in the Community.
If the EFA should be cancelled what are the options for the Royal Air Force in replacing its ageing fleet within the next seven years? None appears very attractive. There are two Russian aircraft—the Su-27 and the MiG-29—which are both very sophisticated and no doubt available to the Middle East. However, there are obviously doubts about spare parts availability. There is the F-22, the Stealth bomber, which, with support costs, could cost, I am told, some three times the amount of the EFA. There is also the French Rafale, which I understand would not meet our requirements. Then, I suspect there is the Treasury favourite: prolonging the life of existing aircraft.
None of those options is a good one for the Royal Air Force. Therefore, what happens if Germany, followed by Spain, pulls out of EFA? What is the contingency plan of Her Majesty's Government and what prospects are there for sales of aircraft beyond the partners. I hope that my noble friend can say something about that. I ask him specifically: if Germany withdraws, does it expect to be repaid for its share of the development costs?
Finally, I mention our long-suffering aerospace industry. Despite the cancellation of projects in the past, it remains a uniquely successful industry. It has retained its capability; it is in the forefront of technology design. Above all, it achieves very important and impressive export orders. The EFA is all important to the future of our military aerospace industry. Fifty thousand jobs depend on the programme. In my view it is unthinkable to consider cancellation of the project because of German wobbling. I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity in his reply to reaffirm that view.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for raising this issue. I hope that we shall receive a forthright answer from the Government. That is what is called for.
A debate on a fighter aircraft for the RAF takes me back to times when this House debated the TSR-2 and other great issues and when things were very different. In those days there was an enemy in sight. Today there is no enemy in sight. But that does not mean that there is no threat. The European Fighter Aircraft is an essential component in the stability and safety of our civilisation.
It is a political issue, but it is not a political issue for this country. It is a political issue for Germany. I should like to put the case, as an Englishman who is very much committed to German welfare, of its importance to Germany. The considerations are well argued and well known in Germany. It looks as
312
though there is a real danger that Germany, which has been of such strength in Western defence, may fail on this occasion. It is not only the fighter that is involved; the German air force needs a fighter anyway. The whole security component of Western civilisation is at stake. That is what we are considering. We do not need to argue at length, or as long as my noble friend argued about the dogs, because the issues are clear. There is no party difference. Some of my colleagues may take a more pacifist view, and it is a legitimate point of view. But I believe that the Labour Party strongly supports the creation of the European Fighter.
The damage to Germany will be immense. If the Germans pull out, at risk are not merely the loss of the fighter aircraft, the threat to the whole of the West and the danger of leaving us in an exposed position without an adequate aircraft to meet an unknown threat from unknown aircraft which are manufactured we know not where (though some may have an idea of where they may come from); it will also threaten the solidity of Western Europe and our allies.
I hope very much that the Government will make clear that this is an international issue to which the British lend their full support, with full sympathy and understanding of the problems of the Germans. The Germans do not wish to spend the money. They have to consider the enormous expense involved in looking after Eastern Germany. Nonetheless, their part in this project is essential. Therefore, I strongly support the noble Earl's efforts and hope that your Lordships will encourage the Government to take the right action.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I join in the gratitude expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for raising the matter at this particular moment. The European Fighter Aircraft programme is a programme of the very highest importance. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that it is by far the most important defence procurement programme in prospect at the present time.
As my noble friend said, the development programme for this aircraft started as far back as 1988. Although the flying part of the programme has not yet been completed, clearly a very substantial part of the development stage of the programme is complete and very large sums of money have already been spent. Until now, at least, it has been an excellent example of European collaboration. It builds upon the excellent groundwork of the Tornado programme, although of course with the addition of our Spanish friends.
The decision in 1988 to proceed with the development programme was not easily or hastily reached. On the contrary, to be truthful even at that time our German friends were to some extent less than wholly convinced about the programme. I recall being involved in some very heated arguments about the merits of a particular radar set, about some of the decisions relating to the engine fit and other such important aspects. Just before the inauguration of the development phase our partners arrived at what were

313
called the Turin parameters. Those were a number of important criteria which, it was agreed, had to be met if the programme were to proceed successfully. Those parameters related to the weight, size and performance of the aeroplane. I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply he will tell us that those parameters have been met and the anxieties that were then expressed about them have been overcome.
As I said, the important part of the development programme is now complete. Most of the money, or a large part of it, has been expended. So what would be the outcome if our German friends decided that they could not proceed beyond the present position? It is widely assumed that the programme at that point would collapse. But I wonder whether that is the case. Would it be possible for the programme to proceed without German participation? Presumably they would not be entitled to have their contribution repaid, though no doubt they would seek to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, it would perhaps do more damage to the Germans than it would to the other partners in the programme. It would undermine Germany's credibility as a reliable collaborative partner and would not do much for collaboration generally.
Having said that, I have always taken the view that collaboration is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end. There have been some appallingly unsuccessful collaborative programmes. I am thinking, for example, of the infamous and ill-fated NFR-90 programme, which was designed to produce a new frigate for the 1990s. No fewer than nine nations were involved in that programme and, believe it or not, nine different frigates were to emerge from it.
Much of the development cost has now been met. Therefore, it follows that if the Germans were to withdraw we should he moving to the production phase fairly soon; or at least having to make commitments towards the production phase fairly soon. Of course, there would have to be some redistribution of design responsibility as we moved into the production phase and no doubt a resharing of production responsibilities. I recall that it was intended that there should be two assembly lines for the aircraft as and when production began. If the Germans withdraw, clearly that will not be necessary; we shall have a single assembly line here in the United Kingdom. Doubtless the other partners will wish to have an additional share in the production if they are to take an additional share in the programme.
One of the important aspects of the programme that has not yet been finalised is the question of how many aircraft are to be manufactured. I know that the United Kingdom's decision on the matter had not been made when I was in the Ministry of Defence. I dare say that matters are clearer now. However, it must be recognised that the production costs are inevitably controlled by the number of aircraft which are eventually ordered.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull referred in his opening remarks to the industrial implications of the programme. Indeed, they are enormous. The programme is far and away the biggest presently in prospect for British Aerospace. I imagine that it is the
314
largest programme in prospect for Rolls-Royce, which is the lead partner as regards the engine. I dare say that other major British manufacturers also regard the programme as important. Therefore, it is essential to consider the number of jobs that are involved not only as regards the United Kingdom but also as regards the other partners.
Finally, I wish to touch on the question of the requirement, a matter referred to by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. By that I mean the operational requirement of the aeroplane. It is manifestly obvious that the threat which was faced as recently as 1988 has since changed out of all recognition. I hope that my noble friend Lord Cranborne will give the House an indication of the work that has been done to reassess the nature of the threat which the aircraft will face. In addition, I hope that he will convince us, as I am sure he can, that the capability of the aircraft will meet the threat as we perceive it to be when the aircraft comes into service.
The programme is crucially important for both the Royal Air Force and the industrial concerns behind it. Therefore, I hope that the Government will persist with it wholeheartedly and will not necessarily be wholly discouraged if, in the event, our German friends withdraw.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, when the project was first conceived in the late 1970s there was considerable justification for it. I hope to show your Lordships that that justification has disappeared and that today the entire project has become extremely undesirable and a total waste of money. I hope that the Government will take that view on board and will reach the conclusion that on this occasion the Germans have made the right decision. I further hope that, instead of trying to persuade the Germans to the contrary, the Government will join them in stopping the waste of money which the Germans see as being involved in the venture.
Perhaps I may go back to the beginning. The RAF had been flying Jaguars for some time during the 1970s and 1980s. They were used mainly in a ground attack role for at least a decade. That was an Anglo/French collaborative project and it was designed in the mid- to late 1960s. It was given a long gestation period because all such collaborative projects take longer than anyone expects. At that early stage it was decided—and now one thinks, wisely—to plan a successor for the 1990s.
At first it was thought that the Jaguar replacement would be a very different type of aircraft. Later other possibilities were included; for instance, purchase from the United States was considered, and so forth. No firm decision was taken but towards the end of the 1970s the situation began to firm up. The decision to go ahead with the project which we are now discussing was taken in 1981 against a background of heightened East/West tension. There had been the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and developments of Soviet military capability which were then seen as threatening NATO security.

315
In the 1981 RAF debate, the then Minister of State, Mr. Blaker, stated:
"The Soviet tactical air forces have also been greatly enhanced and now number about 5,000 aircraft".
He went on to describe them. In speaking about one of those aircraft, called a Fencer, he said that it:
"is a light bomber with the ability to carry a heavy weapon load over long distances and in certain flight profiles could reach South-East England. By the middle of this decade we expect 1,000 of these aircraft to be available".
Of course, that did not happen. Mr. Blaker continued by saying:
"When one takes into account the greatly improved avionics and increasing accuracy of their [Soviet] weapons and delivery systems, the threat from the air to the United Kingdom and NATO can be seen to be great and continually increasing".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/81; col. 149.]
How does that compare with the situation today? What is great and continually increasing? What actual threat do we face? The truth of the matter is that we are into a situation and the reason why we do not want to get out of it is not in itself totally invalid; it is simply because we are in it! That poses problems all round. A great deal of money has been invested in the project. We do not need the project any more; we have no purpose for it whatever.
In addition, employment is involved. We have witnessed the rather sad spectacle of Labour Members of Parliament who have a constituency interest going to the German Embassy and threatening the Germans with a breakdown in international relations between the two countries if they dare to pull out of the project. In other words, they were saying, "If you are sensible, if you are not as silly as we are and continue with something for which we have no use at all, you will disrupt the relationship between our two countries". I hope that the Germans take no notice whatever of such silly threats coming from Back Bench Members of Parliament of whatever party.
Why do I say that this project is undesirable? Let us ask one or two questions about why it is desirable. What purpose does it serve? No possible enemy has planes as good as our Tornados. Why are we investing in new planes? I hope that we are not going to try to sell the new aircraft. Are we going to increase armament exports and, if so, where to? Perhaps we shall sell them in the Gulf. Are we contemplating Saudi investment to replace the German investment, if the Germans pull out? If the Germans pull out, the cost per aircraft will have doubled. It is already an extremely expensive operation when the Germans are paying one-third of the costs of the 450 aircraft which have been ordered. The project becomes an absolute impossibility if we reduce the project to 250 aircraft and carry the cost ourselves. Therefore, if we are to continue the project, we shall be forced to sell the armament all over the world.
It is extremely undesirable that modern aircraft should become available in any part of the world, and particularly undesirable in the Gulf. I have a letter from five American Congressmen, including two Republicans, addressed to the Prime Minister, begging him not to develop a modern aircraft and, above all, not to sell that aircraft in the Gulf. I have not seen the Prime Minister's reply but I have tabled
316
a Question asking whether it is possible to place a copy of the reply in the Library so that we can see what he says to American congressmen who have seen, as clearly as the Germans have seen, that this project is of absolutely no value to us whatever and, indeed, has become an embarrassment.
Would it not be more productive to prevent threats by controlling the arms race? That would be better than continuing with this outdated project, which is outdated before it begins. Will the Government respond to the call from Democrats and Republicans in the United States to halt the sale of F-15s and Tornados in the Gulf, let alone developing a new and even more alarming aircraft which we may have to sell once the project is completed?
I understand that the Germans are going to abandon the project and that the German Air Force does not want it. I do not know whether or not that is the case. The Minister is shaking his head. He may have more up-to-date information and it may be that the Germans have changed their minds. However, there is no political support for this anywhere in Germany, and certainly there is no support for it among the German people.
Therefore, at present the position seems to be rather unsatisfactory. I have a document here which was prepared by the House of Commons Research Department. Therefore, it may be considered to be a reasonably objective document. It reaches this conclusion:
"the debate now beginning about the future size and shape of the UK defence budget could place this in doubt by 1992".
This document was written in 1989 and published in February 1990. It goes on:
"The problem is not that the requirement has disappeared, but that the scale of the requirement may have fallen since the project was begun and that a reduced order for EFA could undermine the economic viability of the whole enterprise".
Since that was written, the requirement has disappeared. We do not need it. Therefore, we are continuing with the project because we cannot conveniently get out of it.
I suggest to the Government that they should think again about this matter. Are we really going ahead with the project simply because we got into it at a time when it was sensible and are we now continuing with it when there is no requirement whatever? I suggest that the time has come to abandon the project and replace it with something much more sensible.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have been most interested to listen to the debate on the Question posed by my noble friend Lo rd Kinnoull. I look forward to hearing the response by my noble friend Lord Cranborne. My intervention is prompted by the fact that I have recently been appointed a member of the parliamentary delegation to the WEU—the Western European Union. I attended my first plenary session some two weeks ago in Paris. It was addressed by Volker Ruhe, the new German Defence Minister, Pierre Joxe, the French Defence Minister, and the new Swedish Defence Minister. In passing perhaps I may say that I hope that my right honourable friend the

317
Secretary of State will attend a future plenary session of the WEU to state our case and to answer questions in the same way.
As I was aware of the importance we attach to the development and production of the European Fighter Aircraft, I took the opportunity to ask Volker Ruhe if he would comment on Germany's continued participation in the project. Naturally enough, he did not care to comment in any great detail, emphasising his budget difficulties and not in any way attempting to make the case which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has just attempted to make. I suppose that that was hardly surprising only two days before my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was due to meet Chancellor Kohl and this issue, I understand, was on their agenda.
However, I found it to be of considerable interest. I wish to draw attention not so much to the response I received from the German Minister but to the fact that other colleagues in that assembly—one from Italy and one from Spain—returned to the question. They supported the fact that I had raised it as an issue and left the German Minister in absolutely no doubt that it was not only of UK interest but that Spanish and Italian jobs were also on the line. Indeed, their political priorities were very much involved.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, and possibly because I do not have the same depth of background knowledge of defence matters, I am inclined to believe that the European partnership or collaboration that has developed on this project is almost as important as the development of the aircraft itself. It seems to me that it is exactly the sort of commitment which we sought when we negotiated the security provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. It is certainly one of the reasons why the UK should, in my view, continue the process of ratification of that treaty.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to give some reassurance that the United Kingdom Government at the meeting of WEU foreign and defence Ministers, which I believe is due to take place tomorrow, will continue to emphasise the importance of this issue, not just from the UK's point of view but as an excellent example of a viable Euro-project.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hollick: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for initiating this debate on the EFA project at such an opportune time. I am sorry that my late arrival deprived me of hearing his opening remarks. I look forward to reading them in Hansard tomorrow. I should like to preface my remarks by informing the House that I am a director of British Aerospace, the prime British contractor in the EFA project.
As it approaches the end of the £6 billion development phase, the EFA project has, following political changes in Germany, reached a critical juncture. The new defence minister has cast doubt on the need for Germany to continue with the EFA project, citing two main issues; first, operational necessity and, secondly, cost. It is unsurprising that a new broom in the defence ministry in Bonn should
318
raise those issues, particularly in the light of the costs of unification in Germany and also the approaching general elections in that country.
With regard to the operational necessity, it is widely agreed that the Tornado will not be a match for the USF22, the French Rafale or the new MiG-29, which are to be deployed at the turn of the century. The dramatic improvement in European security following the collapse of the Soviet Union, to which my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney referred, can, and will, lead to a progressive reduction in defence expenditure. But it is vital that the leading western European nations maintain the minimum necessary effective force to be deployed in the event of trouble, not only in Western Europe but further afield. The Gulf war was a case in point. The rapid deployment of advanced aircraft ensured air superiority and led to the swift expulsion of the Iraqis from Kuwait and, most importantly, helped to keep casualties at a remarkably low level. In a world which remains uncertain and unpredictable the need for advanced aircraft which can match the operational capabilities of those being developed by the US and Russia, and which can also be sold to other countries, has persuaded politicians of all major parties in the four participating countries to support the project since its inception in 1985.
The high cost of advanced military projects is always an anxiety, and rightly so. At constant prices the cost of EFA is some 20 per cent. below the cost of the air defence variant of the Tornado. Since the beginning of this year, and with a little encouragement from the politicians, the project costs have been further reduced by more than 5 per cent. The cost will continue to be scrutinised in the year or so before production begins. Because of the importance of the project to the long-term wellbeing of the businesses involved, all the participating companies have a strong incentive to deliver a cost effective aircraft which can meet the high level of operational criteria required.
The EFA project is the single most important collaborative defence project in Europe. It exemplifies the economic and industrial co-operation that lies at the heart of the EC. On the one hand, European nations are co-operating to promote continuing security and stability; on the other, they are working together to consolidate Europe's position as a major developer and manufacturer of advanced aerospace technology. The continuance of the EFA project is an important test of the resolve of European nations to work together and to stick to negotiated agreements despite short-term political difficulties or expediences. The collapse of EFA at this time would undermine the confidence in the whole notion of European co-operation, which, following the result of the Danish referendum, has begun to appear a little shaky. If Europe cannot see the EFA project through, then the four countries will probably have to turn to the United States for their future advanced combat aircraft needs. That would seriously undermine the defence and the civil aerospace industry in Europe and hand a dominant position in this market to the US. I am not surprised that US politicians are lobbying our Prime Minister to close down the project.

319
Europe, with the exception of France, which is developing its own smaller and less sophisticated Rafale combat aircraft, will be quitting a major industrial sector which it will be virtually impossible to re-enter. The adverse effect on jobs, on the technological and industrial base and on the economy in each of the four countries will be far reaching. While I am sure that German politicians pay close attention to proceedings in your Lordships' House, I think it is for the Germans themselves to calculate the consequences for their own economy of a decision to pull out. However, I should like to focus on the likely consequences for the British economy of a German withdrawal and a subsequent collapse of the whole project.
I turn first to jobs. Over the past three years the aerospace industry has had to shed 25 per cent. of its workforce in response to defence cutbacks and the recession in civil aviation. The industry estimates that the cancellation of the EFA project would lead to further job losses of more than 30,000 within the aerospace industry and a further 30,000 in supporting companies. That is only part of the story; it is estimated that the project will, overall, create up to 100,000 new jobs in the UK economy. With export packages such as training, infrastructure and maintenance included, that number could rise two-or threefold. The 60,000 or so jobs that will be lost in the event of cancellation will be lost immediately and there will be little prospect of those highly trained staff of engineers, draughtsmen and production workers being redeployed. The loss of those valuable human skills will be compounded by the loss of the advanced technology products which are being developed as part of the EFA project.
Our technological base in this country is effectively a large pool of expertise in research, development and production which is available to both the military and civil businesses. EFA technologies will be rapidly applied to the civil aerospace sector under the so-called "trickledown", and will strengthen our position in that sector. Almost all the major defence technology products which are under development are incorporated into EFA and the abandonment of the project would mean that those key defence technologies would be lost to the defence and the civil aircraft businesses alike.
The financial consequences of cancellation are extremely serious. The anticipated production value to the UK of the whole project is just short of £10 billion, and the latest estimate for the value of export orders is around £20 billion. In the event of cancellation the Treasury would be expected to lose some £300 million annually as a result of lost tax from former aerospace workers. That is before the further cost to the Government in the form of unemployment benefits and support for the badly affected economies in the South-West, South-East, and so forth. In addition, the Exchequer would forfeit its substantial share in the overall project through VAT and corporation tax. Replacements for the Tornado air defence variant, the Jaguar and eventually the Harrier would have to be purchased abroad, and it is unlikely
320
that there would be any offsetting production arrangements in the UK. As a result, the full cost of re-equipment will fall on the taxpayer with no offsetting economic activity in this country. That will in turn leave a large hole in our balance of payments.
The effect on the 30 or so main suppliers and the 60 sub-contractors would be devastating. EFA represents about one-quarter of the UK's anticipated military engine output and some 40 per cent. of expected new business. Without EFA the military engine and defence aerospace business would be undermined and we should be reduced to a minor player in the world league.
In 1991 defence aerospace contributed some £2 billion to our balance of trade. The prospects for export sales based on EFA technologies will allow the industry to continue to make a contribution of that order over the next decade.
If Germany does pull out, can Britain, Italy and Spain go it alone? I believe that they can and, for the employment, industrial and economic reasons which I and other noble Lords have outlined, I believe also that they should. The key question in such an eventuality is whether the programme could be managed without a significant increase in cost. Germany is of course committed to its full share of the development budget and its contribution will represent a windfall to the other partners. The production work planned to be completed in Germany will be moved to the other countries, with the consequent employment and economic benefits. The removal of production from the high cost German economy will help to offset some of the increase which will follow their departure. Industry estimates suggest that EFA can continue without the Germans at no significant increase in costs. The continuation of the project will bestow even greater technological and economic benefits on the three remaining partners, serving to improve the competitiveness of their respective aerospace industries.
We must hope that the Germans decide to remain in the project. However, if they do decide to pull out, it is important that the other partners keep their nerve and accept the challenge of proceeding with EFA to the great benefit of both national security and industry, and of the economy.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I too would like to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for raising this Question. From the list of speakers it seems that myself and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, are the only two who do not fly, produce or have great knowledge of the production, procurement or other operations of this aircraft. I shall therefore approach the subject in a spirit of humility and learning. However, I hope that the future for the European fighter aircraft is promising and indeed fruitful.
I have read reports in the media of the continued expenditure on this aircraft. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, has just made a very forthright speech in support of the aircraft. The continued expenditure on the part of our German colleagues may not be entirely popular throughout that country. In their latest

321
opinion poll, such as one can take them, 84 per cent. of those questioned believed that continued expenditure on this operation was not in the interests of German defence and did not make economic sense. That may be hardly surprising. Perhaps other noises are being heard from Mr. Theo Waigel, a Minister representing the Bavarian Christian Social Union. I understand that most of the enterprises engaged in the production and development of this aircraft, and hence the employment, are situated in Bavaria and Baden-WŨurttemberg. We might obtain a great deal of support from that area. We may find that some of our German colleagues are perhaps singing a happy duet.
It is never safe to assume what might be a cliché —that is to say, that the cold war is over. All noble Lords who have discussed defence in your Lordships' House over the years will know that we have three watch words in any defence debate—"You never know". Many of us remember speaking in a powerful defence debate in July 1990 and within a fortnight there had been major and long-lasting developments in the Gulf.
We heard from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that the decision had already been taken. I believe he mentioned the year 1988 as being relevant for a decision on one part of the aircraft, be it the development, procurement or something else. The message from your Lordships' House this evening should be that as far as possible we should ask our German colleagues to stick to this decision. Strong support for that was given by my noble friend Lady Hooper.
We have heard of alternatives to this aircraft such as the Su-27, the MiG-29, the F-22 from the United States and the French Rafale. To myself, but perhaps not to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, with his notable aeronautical experience, all these might appear to be interesting toys. They will all do different things. They have different power-to-weight ratios and so forth. With all these alternatives we must look at the cost and the effectiveness. Above all we must consider availability of spares. A notable comment was made by one of the honourable Members down the corridor about another alternative which on the face of it seemed to be cost-effective. He made one point: where will we get the spares? Will they be there when we need them? The answer was no.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne also mentioned the Turin parameters. We must see that these are met. He and other noble Lords have focused on the essential aspect of this aircraft; namely, that the operational requirements of the Royal Air Force for the next 20 and perhaps 25 years must be met. It is in that spirit that my support will be added to that of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and, I hope, that of my noble friend the Minister when he comes to wind up. I hope that we can send a message to our German colleagues, "Please stick to it", or in European terms, "Bitte, geben sie nicht auf". I support everything that my noble friend has said.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Prior: My Lords, perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the House to make one point only. Having listened to the debate, and declaring my interest as chairman of GEC, I draw your Lordships' attention to a book written by Correlli Barnett, whom I consider to be one of the great historians. It is called Engage the Enemy More Closely. It is an account of the Royal Navy from the Battle of Jutland to about the end of the Second World War. The point that he makes and its relevance to this debate is that, if only we had carried on with the technologies of the First World War through the period of peace between the two wars, we should not have been in the terrible state that we were. We should not have had to rely on the bravery of British troops and sailors. We would have had a technology which matched that of other nations.
What we need to do is to keep that technology going, as noble Lords have pointed out this afternoon. There will be an enormous tendency over the next few years, when the Treasury is trying to cut the defence budget, to go on saying that we need not go into these new technologies because they will not be needed or used. But we never know whether they will be. It is a very unwise policy not to keep the technologies going. That is the crucial point and why the European Fighter Aircraft has to succeed. All the talk about co-operation and keeping technologies going is very important.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me too for rising. I do so as a recently retired chairman of an industrial company which is not the prime manufacturer of the EFA and the EAP but which has a very significant part in it. I am told that it is the tradition to make just one point if you are an intervener, and that I will do.
The wind has been taken out of my sails by my noble friend Lord Prior, who has made much the same point as I wanted to make—that is to say, that the Government have to find a way. This issue will come up in future. I hope that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, are manifested and come to fruition. However, sooner or later there will be an issue which arises where a project will not go forward. The Government have to find some way of making it possible to maintain the advance of technology even if a project is not going forward. My noble friend Lord Prior said that in much better language. I want to emphasise the importance to your Lordships of finding a system which will not grind technological advance to a halt.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we on these Benches agree with a large number of the comments that have been made by the noble Earl in introducing this debate; not least the tribute he paid to the British aerospace industry. There was evidence of surprise and delight shown when it was announced that the development of this project was on schedule and within budget. That is an almost unprecedented

323
achievement by the Ministry of Defence since the Polaris project for which I was partly responsible many years ago. We also agree very much with the noble Lords, Lord Hollick and Lord Trefgarne, about the appalling impact on the aerospace industry and employment if this project does not go ahead. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the Germans would be doing themselves no service by backing out.
I am a little puzzled by the contribution made by the previous two speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, said that we should have kept on the technology of the First World War to the Second World War. He did not mean it. Nevertheless, it struck a slight note of alarm with me. At the back of my mind I have a horrible feeling that in putting all our cards on the manned aircraft rather than on the surface-to-air missile we might be making the mistake, made by so many defence planners through so many periods of British history, of fighting the next war with the weapons of the last.
I was interested that the admirable Commons Select Committee on Defence went into this matter with its usual skill and penetration. But it never asked the question: What about the development of surface-to-air missiles by the end of the century? That is a question which one is surely entitled to ask. I know that it was asked 30 years ago. I believe the question appeared in a defence White Paper. However, to ask that question then was premature. Quite rightly, we continued to produce manned aircraft. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who said that Iraq still shows the enormous power of the manned aircraft. However, Iraq has also shown us something else—the stupendous increase in the power of surface-to-air missiles. Therefore, I believe that it is legitimate to ask the question again: What is the future of manned aircraft?
At the end of the century when the European Fighter Aircraft becomes fully operational, what new advances will have been made in the Patriot-type missile? We know now that land-based missiles can shoot down not only aircraft but missiles in flight. Where would we rather he at the end of the century —in the cockpit of the EFA or with the hand-held Patriot on the battlefield? I am not saying that that should in any way deter us from going ahead, but I have been stimulated by the previous two speeches. The advance of technology does not necessarily mean an advance in the field of manned aircraft. It might be a terrible trap.
I return more directly to the question under dispute. Everybody agrees that the development of the European Fighter Aircraft has been successful so far and should go ahead. I do not question that at all. However, I should like to ask the Government a question. Granted that we go ahead with the development, what reasons can we give the Germans and ourselves for saying that we must now commit ourselves to production? That is the question. I have read in the newspapers that, according to the public opinion polls, 84 per cent. of the German people are against the EFA. If this question is put to the German
324
Government now, might it not be counter-productive? How can we be sure about the outcome? Instead of demanding that they commit themselves to production, suppose that we put to them the demand that they continue with development, which is about 5 per cent. of the cost, for a year or two. What do the Government feel about that? I do not know why we have to commit ourselves to production now rather than in one or even two years' time, which would give us time to sort out some of the other problems.
In the meantime, could the Defence Operational Analysis Establishment make a new study of the anticipated development of surface-to-air missiles? It must have done so previously. Strangely, again, I see no sign that it has done so or that the Government have taken that factor into account. The admirable Select Committee on Defence in another place never asked that question—although that was before Iraq and before Patriot. Nevertheless, although it is an elementary question, it is a profound question, so I should like to ask the Government whether the proper analyses have been made, and if so, with what result? If they are not hurrying up with the commitment to production, that would give them an opportunity to make such an analysis.
In addition, if we do not now take the decision on production, we can assess the threat a little better. I do not think that we should rule out altogether the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. The noble Earl has described Russia today as a "wounded elephant", as a cause of fear and apprehension to us all. However, I do not think that that is a realistic assessment. It would be going too far in the opposite direction to describe Russia as a "one-legged beggar" but the truth is somewhere between the two.
Let us consider the changes that have occurred since the specifications for this aircraft were drawn up in 1985. Perhaps it is worth reflecting for a moment on the atmosphere in the Ministry of Defence at the time that the specifications were laid down. This is the Ministry's assessment of the threat for which the EFA specifications were designed:
"The Soviet Union inherited the product of many centuries of Russian expansion; … These traditions … have been combined with an ideology dedicated to the ultimate victory of communism. The evidence suggests that these ideological goals will be pursued with caution and discretion, but that opportunities will be grasped if the price is limited and acceptable"
And so on. That is a past world. Even in 1991 when the revised assessment of the threat was made and described in the report from which I have just quoted, the Russian threat was greatly exaggerated.
We are now living in a world where MiG-29s, formerly the arms of Eastern Germany, are part of NATO's order of battle. I hope that this is not typical, but I note that the war games of the German Ministry of Defence cast Britain and France—in heavy disguise —as the enemies instead of Russia. We are living in a different world, but there is no sign that there has been any change in the specifications for the EFA or in the number that we require.
Therefore, I should like an assurance from the Government not only that they will continue the

325
development but that, especially in view of the German situation, they will not demand now—either from the Germans or from themselves—a commitment to production. Let it be delayed for a year or two so that the other questions can be answered. If the Minister gives a good reply today, we shall support him. If he gives a good reply at some later date, we shall support him. But if the Government want the widest support for this project they must answer some of the serious questions that have been asked about it.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for tabling the Question, especially at this time because it is fraught with controversy. I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been raised. I shall also put certain questions which I hope the Minister will respond to.
Two issues seem to be involved. The first is the United Kingdom's defence requirement; the second relates to the jobs involved and the financial consequences of cancellation. I have nothing to add to what my noble friend Lord Hollick said about jobs and the financial consequences of cancellation, which seemed a persuasive argument for the project going ahead.
I endorse what my noble friend Lord Shackleton said about the Labour Party's support for the EFA programme. That was made clear in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Martin O'Neill on 2nd May last year. We are quite clear that we support the programme and we look forward to making continued progress with it.
However, there is no blank cheque. As my noble friend Lord Hollick rightly said, we must be absolutely certain that we are getting value for money. It is when we come to the point about value for money that we hope very much that the Government will exercise the very highest degree of scrutiny of the costs, especially if the Germans, as is feared, pull out of the project.
Perhaps I may first address the defence requirement and then put four questions to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, which I hope he will be able to answer. Indeed, the questions have already been raised in this short debate. I am afraid that I must differ from my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney and, in certain respects, from the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on the point about the defence requirement. I agree that the European Fighter Aircraft was originally required to fulfil an air defence role due to the possible threat from new Soviet aircraft. That was the original specification. There was a secondary ground support application. Clearly, the Soviet Union has disappeared, but there must be considerable concern about the possible export from the former Soviet Union of MiG-29s and Su-27s to countries outside Europe. It is that threat that we have to face. It would be desirable to have an all-embracing embargo on arms sales from one country to another. If that could be negotiated, I would join in the cheers which I am sure would go up from all sides of the House. I have a feeling, however, that it is rather difficult to persuade people to deny
326
themselves that possibility, particularly given the economic conditions in which the successor states to the Soviet Union now find themselves.
If the United Kingdom becomes involved in conflicts outside Europe, the ability of the Royal Air Force to acquire and maintain air superiority may well be crucial to the particular operation. The Gulf conflict showed us that the Tornado F-3 was not especially good and especially agile in air-to-air combat with Iraqi planes. Indeed, I believe—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—that it was primarily United States aircraft that established air supremacy, thereby allowing the Tornado to carry out the functions that it performed extremely well in the Gulf. Therefore a replacement for the Phantom and the Jaguar, which is what EFA is about, to maintain air superiority in that kind of localised conflict is essential to the United Kingdom defence requirement.
Having said that, I have four questions for the noble Viscount. The first was put quite properly by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Have the Government made a definitive decision about the number of aircraft to which they are committed? We are told that the original plan was for 250 aircraft. Is there any advance on that thinking?
Secondly, can the noble Viscount confirm whether or not the Government have made any assessment of the industrial consequences, to which my noble friend Lord Hollick and the noble Lord, Lord Prior, referred, of Germany's decision to withdraw from the EFA project? What would be the consequences? Who would pay what? And how would we then proceed? Thirdly, what is the Government's latest information with respect to the commitment of the Italian and Spanish governments to this project? If recent newspaper reports that the Spanish Government want to reduce jet production by 30 per cent. are true, will that affect the Spanish Government's commitment to the EFA project?
My fourth question is the crunch question and is the one raised by the noble Earl. If the Germans—against, in my view and in the view of other noble Lords, their own interests—drop out of the project, are the Government still committed to going ahead with it?
From what I have said your Lordships will recognise that many of us are saying the same thing. I join the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in saying that we need a clear statement from the Government on where they stand. We believe that EFA is necessary for our future defence requirements. We believe that the employment and financial consequences of cancellation, if that should occur, are extremely severe and should be borne in mind. All these matters point to the need for a clear statement from the Government now about whether we are going ahead with the project and under what circumstances. I hope very much that the noble Viscount will be able to give us that clear statement.
6.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, my first duty is to thank my noble friend Lord

327
Kinnoull for the clear and forceful way in which he has raised what is clearly one of the most important defence, industrial and technological questions facing this country at the moment. I seem to remember during a short career in another place a Back-Bench axiom which went something like this: "Beware when both Front Benches are in agreement. There is something wrong there". I have to say that there are exceptions to every good rule and it seems to me that this is one of them.
One of the most gratifying features of this debate was the extraordinary degree of unanimity, with perhaps one distinguished exception. That unanimity is extremely useful to the Government in being able to argue the case for the continuance of the EFA project. It is a unanimity which will be noted in areas where it must be noted during the present rising uncertainty. Although perhaps one does not want to rub in the advantages of sitting in your Lordships' House, it is clear from the extraordinary range of knowledge and skill displayed in the debate today that the conclusions which the overwhelming majority of your Lordships have reached in regard to the European Fighter Aircraft are conclusions informed by long experience and by an extraordinary depth of knowledge. I need only refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who delivered his case with very great clarity, and to my noble friend Lord Prior. I should also mention my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, whose seat I am perhaps merely keeping warm for him.
Much has been said about the nature of the threat. In all defence matters the nature of the threat is what we should start with. There can be no doubt that the Government see a clear and continuing need for an aircraft with the capabilities of the European Fighter Aircraft for the defence of the United Kingdom but also to support our armed forces wherever they may be required to operate. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and other noble Lords quite rightly referred to the unexpected nature of what can happen and to the importance of developing air superiority in any conflict, whether in defending the United Kingdom or in an out-of-area conflict such as the Gulf itself.
It is vital that this aircraft should be developed, because it is a key part of NATO's future flexible force structure. We know that there is considerable, and some would say increasing, instability in areas adjacent to those covered by the NATO pact. We also know that the former Soviet Union developed a series of extraordinarily sophisticated and effective combat aircraft. Those aircraft, even now, are operated by a surprising number of nations; for example, so far as I know, MiG-29 is already in service with over 30 countries worldwide.
We should bear in mind that, when the European fighter aircraft is developed, it should be in service for over 20 years. Therefore, those of its what one might call "half-hearted supporters" who argue that perhaps its capability should be downgraded must remember that that kind of penny pinching will not necessarily counter the threat from other forms of aircraft that are already in service, subject to new development or any
328
new forms of aircraft which may come along. In other words, much can change during the anticipated life of this extraordinarily versatile aircraft. If it is to work, it must be able to match the potential threat.
That potential threat is one which is spreading. The present financial situation of the former Soviet Union —that is, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has already said, the countries that used to make up the Soviet Union—makes, perhaps, proliferation of sophisticated weapons systems rather easier than any of us would like. We know that the systems of control of sales of weapons, however well intentioned, for example, the Russian Government may be, are by definition in their present situation leaky at the least. Therefore, the prospect of an Su-27, in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein, confronting an F3 Tornado and trying to deny it air superiority in some future conflict really would be to send our own people out on the most unfair mission. That is where I have to agree with my noble friend Lord Prior. He drew attention to the remarkable book by the great historian, Correlli Barnett. His point was well made and, if I may say so, extraordinarily well taken.
As regards the question of how we counter the threat, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked whether in fact we were in danger of countering the threat of a future war with the weapons of the last war, however much they may have been updated. Of course, someone with the noble Lord's knowledge and experience is well aware of many historical instances where such a thing has happened. I must say that anyone who tries to satisfy a defence requirement to counter a perceived threat can only do his best. The best assessment that the Government and the Ministry of Defence can make is that there is indeed a very strong requirement for an aircraft with the versatility and of the nature of the EFA.
So far as concerns surface-to-air missiles, it is probably worth telling the noble Lord that studies have been made and continue to be made into that important question. It would perhaps horrify some of the more economically minded of your Lordships to know that some of those studies may come to the conclusion that both are theoretically needed. However, I should not like noble Lords to take me too far down that path. All I shall say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is that his point is one of whose importance the experts in the Ministry of Defence are well seized. Nevertheless, despite his advice, and the other voices raising the same question, there is no doubt in our minds that the European Fighter Aircraft is a requirement that we must satisfy. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, wishes to intervene. I gladly give way.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am much obliged. As I am perhaps a lone voice in the matter, does the Minister recognise that, in addition to the quotations made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, the House of Commons Defence Committee, as recently as last April, said:
"It remains open to question how far the RAF still requires an aircraft with the full level of performance offered by EFA".

329
The noble Viscount will realise that there are Conservative members on that committee—indeed, they are in the majority—as well as Labour members.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, there may be questions about the full level of capacity necessary to build into EFA. However, like the noble Lord, I had the advantage of reading the report of the House of Commons Defence Committee. I believe that he will agree with me that the committee fully supported the principle of the development of the EFA and that any criticisms made were put down as suggestions in the margin.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has intervened at this point, it may be a suitable opportunity, during the course of what I hope will be my reasonably brief remarks, for me to try to answer the question that he posed. He suggested that the cost of cancellation would be very high. I must tell him that the Germans have already made clear, as other noble Lords have said, that they regard themselves as liable to pay the full development costs of the development phase. In answer to the noble Lord's question, I understand that, in the event of cancellation, those costs are not returnable. That would no doubt seriously undermine the financial assessments that he made.
I believe it is clear—and something that is common ground very nearly throughout your Lordships' House—that the threat and the need are there. As regards the project itself, I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that progress in the development phase continues satisfactorily. The first prototype is nearing completion in Germany; indeed, it should make its maiden flight in the autumn. Moreover, the costs so far are within the original funding approval given in, I think, 1988 by my noble friend.
Once the design of the EFA has been proven, I hope that the full partners will be able to proceed to the production investment and production phases of the programme. I can confirm to noble Lords who raised the question that, so far as concerns Her Majesty's Government—and this point has lately been reconfirmed—Italy and Spain remain committed to the project. With the United Kingdom, those countries are doing all that they can at all levels to convince Germany that EFA is the most cost-effective solution to their requirements. I could enter into some detail on that argument. However, I do not want to waste your Lordships' time because most noble Lords already know the arguments. The only point that I make is that one of the European alternatives being suggested to the Germans as a possible alternative buy would be the French Rafale. It is worth pointing out, as other noble Lords have done, that this is an aircraft without the capability of EFA and that, according to Her Majesty's Government's assessments, even if customers were to buy the Rafale, they would, per aircraft, be more expensive than the EFA. It cannot be a good buy.
Many noble Lords have already pointed out that EFA is probably the largest collaborative programme in Europe at present. It is very important militarily, politically and industrially. Above all, it would be a great blow to the United Kingdom aerospace
330
industry. I can do no better than echo every word that the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, with his great knowledge and experience of such matters, said in his, if I may say so, remarkable analysis. I certainly would not dream of trying to improve upon it. However, if she will allow me, I should like to say that my noble friend Lady Hooper gave a most helpful contribution. I say that because it is worth pointing out to our European partners that it is not only British jobs that are at stake, but also jobs in Spain, Italy and Germany. Indeed, there are very good grounds for supposing that German public opinion, notably Bavarian opinion, is not united on the subject of cancellation—very far from it. I suggest to your Lordships that it would be unwise to assume that the Germans have cancelled. They have not done so yet. There are many reasons why they should not, and Her Majesty's Government, supported by a very large number of Members of Parliament, industrialists and Members of your Lordships' House, are engaged in trying to show our German friends why it would be a good idea for them to continue. That is not something for me to comment on; it is not for me to tell the German Government what their job should be inside Germany.
However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that one of the arguments that we are deploying—and one which he made with great effectiveness—is that the financial control of the project is in very good order. We are constantly reviewing the value for money aspects of contracts and we are continually making sure that Governments are getting best value for money. I can quite honestly reassure the noble Lord on that front.
I should like to finish by pointing out to your Lordships—and this is a point which has been made already in the debate—that the collaborative aspects of this project are as important as the industrial aspects. Many of your Lordships have pointed out that this is not merely a defence project, it is not merely an industrial project, it is a project in which the credibility of Europe is at stake.
We are all aware of the status that Germany has given for itself of being one of the principal advocates of a united and collaborative Europe. We greatly welcome the practical evidence of the German assertion that that is so which the European Fighter Aircraft project represents. We continue to welcome the fact that the Germans have not decided yet to withdraw. At the same time I have to say that, if the Republic of Germany is to continue with the rhetoric that it has employed hitherto about the future of Europe, its credibility would certainly be at stake if it were to withdraw from the European Fighter Aircraft project. It would be very difficult for any of Germany's European partners to be able to look Chancellor Kohl, or any of his successors or ministers, in the eye and to say, "We believe you when you tell us that you are good Europeans, that you believe in collaboration and that you believe in the future of European technology".
The debate this afternoon would, I submit, be very useful in making those points clear to our partners and

331
making sure that the Government do not have to decide how they are to proceed if the Germans indeed withdraw.

Llanelli Borough Council (River Lliedi) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with an amendment.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past six o'clock.

  MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR GREEN ISSUES
  MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR GREEN ISSUES
  CHARITY TRUSTEES: POWER OF SALE
  CHARITY TRUSTEES: POWER OF SALE
  PRISON INSPECTION REPORTS: PUBLICATION DELAYS
  PRISON INSPECTION REPORTS: PUBLICATION DELAYS
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES: PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES: PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
  MAXIMUM WORKPLACE TEMPERATURE
  MAXIMUM WORKPLACE TEMPERATURE
  EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL: SUCCESSFUL APPEALS
  EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL: SUCCESSFUL APPEALS