Sitting of 5 March 1992

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

  LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
  To be considered on Monday 9 March at Seven o'clock.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Thursday 12 March.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Monday 9 March at Seven o'clock.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 12 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent initiatives he has announced concerning animal welfare.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I intend to make animal welfare one of my priorities in the United Kingdom presidency, as I made clear when I wrote to hon. Members on 27 February.
    The Government are promoting action on animal welfare in the European Community, based on the high standards in this country.
    Mr. Burns: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on ensuring that Britain is at the forefront of those countries in Europe that are pressing for improved animal welfare. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that other EC countries emulate our far-reaching rules and regulations to ensure that there is a total ban on veal crates throughout the Community and that the transportation of live animals, particularly horses and ponies, inside the European continent is as stringently controlled as it is in this country under our domestic rules and regulations.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that, both on veal crates and pig stalls and tethers, the rest of Europe will have to come up to our standards. I am pleased that we have achieved what most people thought that we could not—we have stopped and will continue to stop the export of live horses and ponies. I congratulate all hon. Members on the support that they have given to the Government in fighting that battle. I do not believe that this is a nationalist issue. Horses and ponies in the rest of Europe must have the same sort of protection as they do in this country. I am pleased that the standards on the transport of live animals generally are approaching British standards and are no longer the low standards that once obtained.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Minister is aware that there is great concern about the quarantine restrictions being lifted on 1 April. Will he clarify the position on pets and dogs? What are the latest developments on foot and mouth in European countries?
    Mr. Gummer: We have managed to get the rest of Europe to come up to our standards, get rid of vaccination and introduce a slaughter policy in relation to foot and mouth disease. We already allow animals from countries that have the same policy as us, such as Ireland, to be imported into this country. When the rest of Europe reaches the same standards as us, the same rules will apply. Quite rightly, once we have won the battle to raise everyone's standards so that we all have the same high levels, we can have a single market. We have said clearly that we shall not accept changes in the rules on rabies unless we can have at least the same safeguards as we have today. But we are perfectly prepared to look at scientific evidence—we are not afraid of that. However, we will not make changes unless they benefit the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend accept the support and praise of all horse lovers for what the Government achieved when securing the continuation of minimum conditions for the export of live horses for slaughter? Will he, however, assure us that he will do all that he can to secure proper transport arrangements for live animals being exported, particularly horses? Will he further assure the House that the same strict safeguards and enforcement of rules on the protection and welfare or horses and other animals that apply in our country will apply in the EC area?
    Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ensured at Maastricht that the British proposals on this matter were passed: first, all countries committed themselves to improving animal welfare, which was a major step forward never agreed between those countries before; and, secondly, in future, the European Court of Justice will be in a position to fine countries that fail to keep their obligations under Community rules. During our presidency we must extend the competence of the

    427
    Community so that it can ensure that once animal welfare regulations are passed they are enforced—from Spain to Scotland and from Ireland to Greece.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Let me assure the Minister that Labour fully intends to use the opportunities presented by Britain's presidency to make sure that animal welfare is high on the agenda.
    Why is the Minister so inconsistent in his approach to animal welfare? On 11 February, he told the National Farmers Union that he had no intention of taking further steps unilaterally, but on 27 February he put out a press release saying that he did reserve the right to act unilaterally. Can he explain that contradiction, or is he just a politician running scared of the electorate and trying to be all things to all people?
    Mr. Gummer: It is always dangerous when the hon. Gentleman reads only the first half of a sentence. I told the National Farmers Union that I did not believe that unilateral action would help, because if it is taken, the British housewife tends to buy the cheaper product from the rest of Europe and, therefore, we export animal welfare problems to the rest of Europe. I believe that we should not be nationalistic about animal welfare; we should care for animals in France and Germany as well as for those in Britain.
    I said to the NFU and in my press statement that I reserved the right to take emergency action if, for instance, people in this country started to use coloured lenses for chickens, which would be outrageous—I would stop it before it started. That is a perfectly coherent position.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making slow progress today. Could we please have brief questions and briefer answers?

    Food Safety
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Food Safety Act 1990.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): The Food Safety Act is working very effectively improving the quality of our food and giving consumers confidence in the integrity of the food supply.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the full implementation of the Food Safety Act 1990 will ensure that Britain is in the forefront of Europe in terms of food safety in years to come? Will he reassure representatives of women's institutes and townswomen's guilds and other voluntary workers that the implementation of the Act is not designed to target their fund-raising activities in the preparation of food in village halls and elsewhere?
    Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks, in which he recognised the great step forward that we have taken with the Food Safety Act, but I am concerned about his latter comments. There is nothing in the Food Safety Act that could justify local authorities specially targeting those organisations. The advice of the Government and the Audit Commission is to concentrate
    428
    on the main risks, and if town halls persist in targeting women's institutes, church fetes, village halls or charity teas, the Government will take action.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the level of production of potatoes.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Estimated potato production in the United Kingdom in 1991 was 6·3 million tonnes.
    Mr. Cohen: Does not a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food report show that production of early potatoes fell considerably, and that meant an increase in price? Is not it the case that we do not have widely available anywhere near the diversity of potatoes that is available in other countries, such as the United States? Is not this subject wholly appropriate for the Minister, because his Government have had their chips?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has his facts diametrically wrong. There are 131 varieties of commercial potatoes in the United Kingdom, which is a great deal more than in any other country. I know that because I grow at least a dozen of them in my allotment.
    Mr. Moss: I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the widespread concern among arable farmers in my constituency about the EC Commission's proposals to review potato marketing. As the Potato Marketing Board has for many years worked successfully for the benefit of processors, consumers and producers, does he agree that any proposals to scrap the PMB should be strongly resisted?
    Mr. Curry: The Potato Marketing Board is doing an excellent job, and we fully support it. Changes introduced a couple of years ago are working well and the aggressive marketing that is now taking place is very much to be desired. We have to face the European proposals and we shall tackle them as we tackle all other European proposals—in the interests of British farmers and British consumers.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet his European agricultural colleagues to discuss reforming the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Gummer: At the next Agriculture Council on 30 and 31 March.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that reform of the common agricultural policy—which costs £25 billion a year, consumes 65 per cent. of the Community budget and costs the average British family £17 per week—would be assisted by the introduction of an organic farming policy? Does he recall that more than two years ago he announced that an organic scheme would be introduced in a matter of months? What on earth has happened to that scheme?
    Mr. Gummer: As I have said, the European Community has failed to produce the legislation under which we could do that. I have made it clear that the reform must include

    429
    legislation enabling us to do that. We have led the way in organic farming, both by the introduction of the United Kingdom register of organic food standards and by ensuring that European standards follow British standards. The hon. Gentleman's figures on the payment per family are not correct. One issue that is particularly damaging is the decision by the Labour party that if it were in power it would tax British farmers and give the money to the farmers of Spain, Portugal and Greece.
    Mr. Marland: It is good to give credit where credit is due. Is my hon. Friend aware that he has earned the widespread respect of British farmers by standing up for their interests? Furthermore they know that they can trust him because he will not filch money from the common agricultural policy, as Labour would do, to use it for other purposes. Will he confirm that he does not stand alone in the European Community but that other countries support his firm stand?
    Mr. Gummer: I am pleased to say that more and more European Community countries are coming to the views that we have pioneered on reform. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has announced that he would take money from British farmers and contribute it to those in southern Europe. That is the wrong way to use common agricultural policy reforms.
    Dr. David Clark: After all these years in office, does not the Minister yet understand that the British consumer simply cannot afford the exorbitant cost of the CAP, which does not exactly help the British farmer either? Has not he realised that the CAP is the only agricultural support system under which consumers pay a subsidy to farmers and end up paying more for their food than if they had not paid the subsidy in the first place? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in his swan song at the Dispatch Box, admit that not only has he been the most expensive Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, supporting an increase in CAP spending of 55 per cent., but that, by his failure to get meaningful reform of the CAP, he has been the most unsuccessful one, as well?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is in no position to make any of those comments. His party has now signed up to Mr. MacSharry and his basic philosophy. The Leader of the Opposition has said in the House that CAP reform would mean that he would take money from British farmers and spend it on farmers in southern countries. That has been contradicted by the Labour spokesman on Treasury matters, who has said that his party would take money from British farmers and divert it to regional policy. That has been contradicted by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who has said that he would take money from British farmers with one hand and give part of it back to them with the other. It is the usual example of the Labour party spending money that it does not have and will not get. It proposes to do so three times, and those from whom the money would come would not get any benefit.
    Mr. Hume: Is the Minister aware that the Commissioner for Agriculture is now the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development? A major part of the reform of the CAP is focused on rural development, and that is important for less-favoured areas where there are smaller farms. What steps has the Ministry taken to encourage farmers in those areas to consider alternative
    430
    land use and to recognise that agriculture policy is no longer about prices only but embraces rural development, rural housing and rural agriculture that is based on their products? Is there a planned approach by the Government to make maximum use of such a policy to develop employment in the poorer rural areas?
    Mr. Gummer: Yes, certainly. We oppose Mr. MacSharry's proposals because hardly any farmers will be able to gain by his support for rural development. To Mr. MacSharry, rural development means no help for the farmers of Wales and more help for the farmers of southern Ireland. It means no help for the farmers of Scotland and more help for the farmers of Portugal and Bavaria. That is a divisive policy, not a rural development policy, which would affect countries and areas of the European Community. That is why we oppose it.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British farmer is the most efficient farmer in Europe? Does he agree also that the MacSharry proposals will have an extremely damaging effect on the British farmer? Will he do everything to ensure that the recent announcement by the European Community, which reflects the attitude of the French and those who agree with them in respect of the general agreement on tariffs and trade proposals, will not be immensely damaging to British farming and world trade as a whole? Will my right hon. Friend do something about that?
    Mr. Gummer: It is most important that we have a GATT solution. Britain, together with most of our partners, made sure that the next step towards that was taken on Monday. The French and one or two other countries were outvoted on that issue.
    It is clear that, increasingly, other countries in the Community are supporting our view on CAP reform. That is why they refuse to accept the Commission type of document that was presented on Monday and Tuesday and have demanded that we look back once again at the fundamental and basic principle. The principles that we want are no discrimination, a closer approach to the market, consideration of more environmental matters at the centre of the European Community and a sensible CAP that is designed to support efficient farmers and the proper backing of the rural economy.

    MacSharry Proposals
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the implications for United Kingdom agriculture of the MacSharry proposals; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: The GATT round is regularly discussed at the Agriculture Council and I expect it to be considered again at the Council on 30 and 31 March.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Minister obviously recognises that there is continuing concern, not least in Scottish agriculture, including north of Scotland agriculture, about the likely effect of the MacSharry proposals as presently cast. Does he agree that Scottish agriculture, including north of Scotland agriculture, can hardly have been—
    Several Hon. Members: The Minister gave the wrong answer.
    Mr. Gummer: I am happy to apologise.

    431
    The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked about the MacSharry proposals. The Commission's proposals for reform of the CAP would discriminate heavily against United Kingdom agriculture. That is why I continue to seek an outcome to the negotiations which is fair for British farmers and encourages, not discourages, efficiency. I hope that the GATT solution will help that as well.
    Mr. Kennedy: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that those two issues are closely connected, but I should like the Minister to say a little more about the specific question that I raised.
    Given their less-favoured area status, Scottish and north of Scotland agriculture can hardly be said to have contributed to the problems of CAP overproduction and the related MacSharry implications. What is the Minister's guess in regard to a possible deadline for a conclusion to the MacSharry discussions—not least in the context of the GATT negotiations that must follow?
    Mr. Gummer: It is important to secure the GATT solution first, if we are to have one. That must be done within a reasonable period. Until we know what we have signed up to in GATT, it will be difficult to tell how much we must alter the CAP to meet our obligations. Many alterations will have to be made in any event, and there is no question of CAP reform depending on the GATT solution.
    The timetable will, I hope, mean a rapid solution to the CAP problem very soon after the achievement of a GATT solution. I hope that it will come about under the Portuguese presidency, and I am working towards that end; but it must be an end that does not discriminate against Scottish farmers or British farmers generally. I shall keep the process going until we achieve a fair solution.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend continue his robust and effective opposition to the MacSharry proposals? Will he bring home to Ministers on the continent the fact that the headage basis would prove devastating for hill and upland farmers in the United Kingdom and will he do everything possible to make those Ministers see our point of view?
    Mr. Gummer: The Spanish, Dutch, Danish and Belgian Ministers have now committed themselves to the view that such discrimination is unacceptable. That is a great improvement, and I hope very much that the Commission will soon understand that headage limits do not reduce overproduction but merely discriminate against some of the poorest parts of the United Kingdom. Some of the farmers concerned—especially those in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the backbone of England—suffer particularly from the low prices.
    Mr. John P. Smith: Does the Minister realise the damage that the current MacSharry proposals will do to family farms in my constituency, Vale of Glamorgan? Does he share the concern that I now feel, following my recent meeting with MacSharry, that any MacSharry proposals that include price support will penalise our farmers?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the danger of MacSharry's proposals, particularly in areas such as Wales, which are so
    432
    dependent on farmers who are not big farmers in the general sense of the term but who need the support that they now have. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will explain to the Leader of the Opposition that Welsh farmers could not afford to have their incomes cuts so that the money could be spent on Spanish, Greek and Portuguese farmers. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he would do if he were Prime Minister.

    GATT
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he expects to have talks with other European Ministers about GATT.
    Mr. Gummer: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Rathbone: In anticipation of the meeting of the Agriculture Council, will my right hon. Friend re-commit the Government to the search for an equitable basis on which to reduce farm prices within the European Community and worldwide and to reduce trade barriers as well?
    Mr. Gummer: I am wholly concerned to fight for the achievement of an equitable GATT solution as rapidly as possible. It must be a solution that reduces prices across the board, not only equitably throughout Europe but in the United States. This is a proper negotiation, in which both sides will have to give ground if we are to achieve a solution. I look to the current discussions, and also to the United States, to give the ground that is needed.
    Mr. Edwards: What reassurance can the Minister give the dairy farmers of Monmouthshire that during his discussions on GATT their interests will be protected? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those farmers have seen a decline in their incomes and an increase in their costs, and are worried about their capacity to invest in the future? What reassurance can he give them that they will be able to invest in dairy production in Monmouthshire?
    Mr. Gummer: The reassurance is that there will be a Conservative Government to fight for them, and that after the next election they will be represented by a Conservative Member for Monmouth.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Pursuant to the reply that the Minister gave earlier to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), and as there has been much speculation that there will be no GATT settlement at all this year, will the Minister confirm that, should there be no GATT settlement, he will oppose the MacSharry proposals for the rest of this year?
    Mr. Gummer: If there is no GATT settlement, during our presidency we shall seek to achieve the necessary reform of the common agricultural policy. That reform will be based not on the discriminatory attitudes of Mr. MacSharry but on a sensible policy of supporting agriculture fairly throughout the Community, bringing agriculture closer to the market and ensuring that the environment is a central concern of the CAP. It will also ensure that economic farmers are enabled to compete throughout the world. There will have to be specific help for those in the least favoured areas, and particular help for restructuring in the southern countries of Europe.
    Mr. Favell: It is reported on the front page of The Times today that the common agricultural policy—that squalid policy which is costing British families an average of £18·50 a week each—will destroy the world free trade talks, which have been going on for four or five years, and involve just about every country in the world. Is it not clear, in retrospect, that our right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was absolutely right when she went to Rome in October 1990 and warned our partners that the talks should be about world free trade, and not about cloud cuckoo land—that is, political and economic union, which was doomed to failure in any event?
    Mr. Gummer: The fact is that The Times report is not correct. The second fact is that there has been a great deal of obfuscation and obstruction from the United States in the negotiations. It is wholly wrong to suggest that it is the European Community alone which has difficulties with the agriculture dossier. We must both find a way through this, and I demand that we in this country support the Commission in its negotiations, demanding that the United States come further towards us, so that together we can find a solution for the whole world, instead of throwing batons at each other across the Atlantic.

    Dietary Supplements
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on European Community proposals to restrict the availability of dietary supplements.
    Mr. Maclean: The Government will support the continuing availability of safe and clearly labelled products in the forthcoming EC negotiations.
    Mr. Hain: The Government propose to Brussels that the same upper limits be set on dosages of dietary supplements for ordinary consumers buying off the shelves as for professional practitioners of alternative medicine, even though such practitioners may have good reasons for recommending higher doses to their patients. Surely the Government should exempt them. Otherwise, 18 million people who depend on food supplements—including healthy eaters such as yourself, Mr. Speaker—will be discriminated against.
    Mr. Maclean: I entirely reject that suggestion. To suggest, as do other countries in the European Community, and the Commission itself, that there could be maximum daily doses of individual tablets prescribed, is not incompatible with saying that the products will continue to be freely available to all those who wish to use them.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no proposals to set up some absurd bureaucratic organisation to tell farmers what bureaucrats think that people ought to eat, as is proposed by the Labour party?
    Mr. Maclean: I entirely agree. The more I read about Opposition policy the more convinced I am that if they were in government there would be no food left to eat in this country. They would adopt ridiculous food safety measures.

    Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ensure that early payments are made to farmers in respect of hill livestock compensatory allowances in response to the current economic climate.
    Mr. Curry: Payments to farmers under the 1992 hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme have already begun. That will put nearly £150 million into the rural economy.
    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he aware that there is already considerable delay in these payments? As the farming community has suffered a substantial reduction in real income in 1991—to the extent of 17 per cent. of income in the north of Ireland—and that the hill livestock farmer depends very much on such payments at this time of year, will he ensure that these payments and other headage payments are made in accordance with the rules and regulations and thus assist the distraught financial circumstances especially of the small farmer who has been paid scant regard in the House this afternoon?
    Mr. Curry: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We have been paying them in England since 21 February and virtually a third of claims have been met. It is the same in Wales. Almost a third have been met in Northern Ireland and £17.4 million has already been paid out. We cannot pay if farmers do not make the claims. In previous years about 20 per cent. have not claimed until April. If the hon. Gentleman will urge his farmers to ensure that claims are on time, we shall deal with them as soon as humanly possible.
    Mr. Amos: Does my hon. Friend accept that the good farmers of Hexham are grateful for his sincere effort to look after the interests of farmers in the less-favoured areas? However, does he also accept that they are worried about two things—first, proposals to put 50p on a gallon of petrol and, secondly, proposals for environment controls which would strangle them to death—proposals made by the Opposition parties?
    Mr. Curry: I speak to many farmers—large and small —including some in my hon. Friend's constituency. They are terrified by Labour party proposals to create a great new machine spitting out red tape all over the countryside. Labour's planning controls and proposals for access would be directly contrary to the interests of farmers in the United Kingdom.

    Citizens Charter
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his Ministry's contribution to the citizens charter.
    Mr. Maclean: We are developing citizens charter principles in various sectors of the Ministry and, as part of that, I am today announcing a comprehensive food safety and consumer protection programme.
    Dr. Howells: It is difficult to understand how the Government can claim to be concerned about looking after the welfare of citizens when there has been a fourfold

    435
    increase in the incidence of food poisoning in the past 10 years. Why do the Government continue to extol the virtues of this obnoxious Gummerburger food culture instead of instituting an independent food standards agency as the Labour Government will do in a few weeks' time?
    Mr. Maclean: It used to be that Opposition spokesmen quoted figures that were four years out of date, but the hon. Gentleman depends on statistics that go back 10 years. Let me tell him about the previous 12 months' statistics which increase in the incidence of food poisoning in the past 10 years. Why do the show a decrease in salmonella food poisoning and that the Food Safety Act 1990 is working. For the first time in many years the statistics are going down. I note that the first thing that the Labour party would do in my Department, if it came to power, would be to change the name of MAFF to FAFF.
    Mr. Lord: On food safety, my hon. Friend will be aware of the crippling effect of veterinary inspection charges on chicken-producing companies such as John Rannoch and Sovereign Chicken in my constituency, which are making it impossible for them to compete with their European counterparts. Will he please take the most urgent steps to correct that, because it is not only deeply damaging to companies in my constituency but harmful to the image of the Community?
    Mr. Maclean: We shall do our utmost to ensure that we have a level playing field throughout Europe. If my hon. Friend has any evidence that other countries might not be implementing the regulations as carefully as we are, we shall certainly take action. However, at the same time I must say that we have very high welfare and hygiene standards in this country. That guarantees that the consumer feels safe with our food supply and that is in the best interests of all our chicken producers.
    D. David Clark: If the Minister claims to be so concerned about the consumer, can he explain why his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at the National Farmers Union annual general meeting last month, produced a list of nearly 100 regulations from the Ministry and promised to discuss their relevance and implementation with the farmers? Why does he refuse to meet any groups other than farmers, as he confirmed to me in the House on 17 February? Why does he refuse to discuss the regulations on the welfare of animals in transit with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? Why does he refuse to discuss the reduction of salmonella controls with the consumer organisations? Why does he refuse to talk to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about licensing to kill birds? It is not the citizens charter that the consumers of this country want; they want a Ministry of Food and Farming which the incoming Labour Government will introduce.
    Mr. Maclean: That is absolute nonsense and it is nonsense that is years out of date. Only last week my right hon. Friend concluded yet another of his quarterly meetings with 15 consumer organisations. Those meetings are held every quarter to discuss issues of food and consumer concern. We have set up the consumer panel and I meet consumers regularly when I have discussions in the Ministry. Never before has the Ministry of Agriculture,
    436
    Fisheries and Food had so many detailed discussions with consumers and consumer organisations. They know that; it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not.
    Mrs. Gorman: Knowing my right hon. Friend's concern for birds and particularly for our very valuable poultry industry, will he keep an eye on the latest scare for our "bootiful" turkey industry and ensure that that nonsense about which we are hearing—podo dermatitus—does not turn out to be a load of gobbledegook?
    Mr. Maclean: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the first to spot gobbledegook whenever it arises. I assure her that we are having discussions in Europe on various aspects of animal health and welfare. However, there is no intention to include turkeys in the EC's zoonoses proposals and that seems to be very sensible.

    Set-aside Schemes
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account he takes of proposals for public access to the areas concerned when considering set-aside schemes and schemes relating to environmentally sensitive areas.
    Mr. Gummer: Considerations concerning public access do not feature in either of these schemes. Separate grants for providing public access to set-aside land are available in certain counties under the Countryside Commission premium scheme, a scheme which, in the reform of the common agricultural policy, we hope will have the powers to extend to the rest of the country.
    Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that the Ramblers Association has published a manifesto for access? Will the Government endorse that manifesto? Will the Government support the Common Land Forum in its proposals? If they are re-elected, is there any chance that such proposals will be carried out this time?
    Mr. Gummer: The Government are determined to ensure that the kind of access proposals that have been pioneered, particularly by the Countryside Commission, are extended. However, we recognise that the countryside is also a place for conservation, for bird lovers, for agriculture and for a whole range of people. Access is not the only requisite in the countryside. We have to keep a proper balance or we will continue to see destruction in the countryside that we have seen in some areas where there is too much access and where what used to be a path has become as wide as the M1.

    Milk Marketing
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding the Milk Marketing Board's proposals for changes in the milk marketing scheme,
    Mr. Gummer: I have received a number of representations from milk producers and processors, hon. Members and members of the public.
    Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend is putting forward and considering proposals for reform. I notice that the Milk Marketing Board has come forward with propositions. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that any changes in the milk marketing regulations are

    437
    introduced in an orderly manner? There are a very large number of cows munching in the green pastures of my constituency, but there are also a large number of people who are employed by the Milk Marketing Board.
    Mr. Gummer: The Milk Marketing Board has produced proposals for reform. When the Government are re-elected, they will enable the Milk Marketing Board to carry forward those proposals as far as possible through the Commission and through the House. They will do that because the Milk Marketing Board has put forward those proposals for reform. I note that the Labour party knows better than the Milk Marketing Board and has said that it would not help the Milk Marketing Board to get the reform that is necessary for British farmers and British consumers. Recently, British milk producers have received less for their milk than most of the other countries in Europe, and the housewife has paid more for milk on the doorstep than housewives in Europe. The Milk Marketing Board wants to improve that situation. The Labour party will make sure that it could not.

    National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss fishing matters.
    Mr. Curry: I am constantly meeting fishing organisations.
    Mr. Mitchell: When the Minister next meets them, will he tell them why he stood on his head over a decommissioning—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Mitchell: Why he stood on his head over a decommissioning scheme which is too little, too late? [Interruption.] Will the Minister tell them how he proposes to cut the days-at-sea restriction by introducing effective conservation measures, including a one-net rule, square mesh panels and a ban on industrial fishing? Will he tell them why, if there is to be a days-at-sea restriction, he cannot pay fishermen the same financial support that farmers get when their land goes awry?
    Mr. Curry: The industry demanded a proper conservation package. That is what it has. It has a combination of decommissioning; we are extending the licensing rules; we are attacking the problem of the effort directed against fishing; and we are going to control fishing boats. In other words, we have delivered precisely what we promised—a measure which would guarantee the long-term future of the fishing industry. We remain committed to that. Happily, we will have many years to carry it out.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings
    438
    with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Mitchell: As the Prime Minister savours one of his last few busy days before the deluge, will he think back to the dinner that he gave at No. 10 Downing street last November on behalf of the Tory party [Interruption.] for what The Sun—I must quote it accurately because it is from The Sun—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No quoting; paraphrase, please.
    Mr. Mitchell: In that case, I will paraphrase, Mr. Speaker. For The Sun told us of members of Britain's Asian community being brought together to win the votes of that community. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nine of his 21 guests were tax exiles in this country who cannot even vote here? Will he also confirm that he was able to tell them that the loophole in the tax law which enables them to pay virtually no tax in this country will not be closed by his Government? Finally, will he tell us whether they were asked—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a terrible long question.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken, and I will set out the position clearly for him. I give a number of dinners for industrialists at Downing street, and the dinner for business men was no different. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I should not have such occasions with business men. He also shows his usual willingness to exploit every leak that comes to him. He may care now to listen carefully.
    What I said on that occasion was to confirm a policy agreed with the hon. Gentleman's own party. He has obviously forgotten that the Government decided not to introduce a tax on world income in 1989, following consultation and representations from the Labour party.
    Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the encouragement of savings is important not simply because it gives security to the saver but because it provides funds for investment in the future of our country? Will he give an assurance that a future Conservative Government will take measures further to encourage savings? Will he condemn the narrow-minded and vindictive savings tax proposed by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I shall happily do both those things. My hon. Friend makes a good point. We shall continue to encourage personal savings by keeping income tax rates low, and through special schemes such as the tax-exempt special savings account, which has been a remarkable success. The savings tax proposed by the Labour party is one of the most poorly thought out and damaging of its proposals. It would hit widows on ordinary incomes. It would hit people taking early retirement such as miners, policemen and soldiers. Now that the Labour party has finally decided to publish its phoney budget, it should think again and drop those damaging and vindictive proposals.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning the University College hospital cancer specialist, Dr. Jeffrey Tobias, said:
    "30 per cent. of the time I have to say to my patients, 'Sorry, I had planned to give you chemotherapy today but that is not possible—
    because the beds are not available? Does not the Prime Minister think that that is a terrible indictment of the health policy of a Government who have been in power so long and could have made things so much better?
    The Prime Minister: But as the right hon. Gentleman knows, things have been made much better. Waiting lists are improving—are falling. More people are being treated and there are more resources for the national health service. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to swap quotes, perhaps he will listen to what Dr. David Colin Thorne, a Labour party member who stood for Parliament, said on fundholding. He said:
    "I'm aware that what we're saying may be used … but we do believe … it is the most energising thing that has happened in my 21 years as a GP … It has been good for care, public health and management."
    That is a Labour party former candidate, a doctor, supporting our Conservative party reforms of the health service.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why does the Prime Minister never even try to answer the question? The reality is that cancer specialists are unable to treat patients because of a shortage of beds. Why do not the Government even now get rid of the tax concessions for private health insurance and put the £60 million saved straight into fighting cancer? That is what the Labour Government will do. That is the right thing to do.
    The Prime Minister: That would have more credibility if we were not spending more on the health service than the right hon. Gentleman even promised to spend. It would have even more credibility if the Labour party was not pledged to introduce a minimum wage that would cost the health service £500 million. It would have even more credibility if the Labour party would claim and set out the funding that it would provide for the national health service, which it has expressly failed to do. We have repeatedly indicated in public expenditure round after public expenditure round that we are increasing over and above inflation substantial resources for the health service —far more even than the right hon. Gentleman dared to promise.
    Mr. Kinnock: Just in recent weeks we have had public reports of a cardiologist who has had to turn seriously ill patients away because of the budget system—[Interruption.] I am telling the truth about the health—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. to put his question. Member has a right to put his question.
    Mr. Kinnock: We have had other public reports of closed accident and emergency units. We have had public reports of a mortally ill little girl being unable to gain treatment in a paediatric intensive care unit. Now we have a physician reporting that he cannot treat 30 per cent. of his cancer patients because of a lack of beds. Why does not the Prime Minister address those issues of life and death instead of parading false claims about his Government?
    The Prime Minister: We have addressed those issues. That is why the waiting lists are falling by record amounts at this moment. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what was the test for our new health service reforms set by his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The standard test. The hon. Gentleman invented it. He asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health whether he was prepared to measure the success by the simple test of whether the trusts did more or less work for the national health service. They have done more work. During the first six months of operations English trusts treated 6·5 per cent. more patients than in the months before they became managed. They have treated 5 per cent. more out-patients. That is the Cook test, not mine. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept it? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.
    Mr. Thorne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thorne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the launching of the first Trident submarine yesterday, and the fact that three more are under construction, is the minimum insurance policy that the country can afford to accept in a dangerous and uncertain world? Does he further agree that, at this critical time of ordering, building and commissioning that submarine fleet, we should not pay attention to the recommendations of the two main Opposition parties, whose opinion appears to vary, not merely from day to day, but from hour to hour?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about defence and we have no intention of gambling with this country's defence. My hon. Friend is also right about the Opposition's position on Trident. They have said that they would order it, they have said that they would not order it, and they have even suggested that they would order it and send it to sea without any weapons. Frankly, one has no idea what they will say next on defence. This morning the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that Labour
    "have nothing whatsoever to do with CND. We have no connection with CND."
    What can he have meant? According to the chairman of CND more than 100 Members still belonged to it late last year. Have they all resigned? Have they all let their membership lapse?
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wareing: The Prime Minister has made much of the citizens charter and the need for openness in Government. Does he realise that many of our citizens would like to know whether and how much Mr. Vijau Mallya, an Indian millionaire, and Mr. Adam Polemos, a Greek shipping magnate, contributed to the funds of the Conservative party?—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very unseemly behaviour.
    Mr. Wareing: Will the Prime Minister emulate the Labour party by publishing the accounts of the Conservative party, so that citizens of this country may know the truth before the general election, about who donates to the finances of the Tory party?
    The Prime Minister: It is difficult to take that seriously from someone whose party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement. According to Labour's own figures, in 1987 the Transport and General Workers Union gave more money to the Labour party than the whole of industry gave to the Tory party, and it gets votes for it, even on the leadership of the party.
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Moss: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the reaction of the CBI to the proposal for a national minimum wage? Has he seen its estimates, which suggest that it would increase business costs by an extra £50 million and cut 150,000 jobs? Does he agree that to propose such a policy at this time is the economics of the mad house and that the Labour party should stop it at once?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I have read reports of the CBI's views. The Labour party claims that it listens to the views of business. The views of the CBI could scarcely be clearer than they have been on the subject of the minimum wage. As I said a moment ago, even in the national health service that policy would cost £400 million to £500 million a year. I wonder what the Labour party would cut elsewhere in the health service to make up for that loss of revenue.
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: The crime rate in the United Kingdom is the highest ever, the detection rate is the lowest ever and our prisons are the fullest ever. Would the Prime Minister explain why he thinks that deplorable situation exists?
    The Prime Minister: I shall take lectures from the hon. Gentleman when he and the Labour party support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
    Mr. John Browne: I offer my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend for the crucial personal role that he played in securing compensation for the three injured Grenadiers. Will he now look personally into the cases of some other very obvious cases of severe injuries to service men, in particular those of Mark Booth and Andy Konalyck of the Parachute Regiment and Martin Ketterick of the Royal Marines? In those obvious cases, they have not been compensated properly because they were not covered due to a lapse of cover in the law. Surely, it is time that some form of flexibility was introduced into the compensation legislation for armed services personnel who are severely injured in the course of their duties.
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the particular cases to which my hon. Friend draws attention. He knows that wide-ranging compensation schemes are available. I will certainly ask to see the details of the cases that he mentioned.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the Prime Minister accept that, when the people of Scotland vote for independence, Scotland will become an equal partner with England in the European Community?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Lady is unwise to assume that Scotland will react as she proposes, but in any event, were that unlikely event to occur, Scotland would have to reapply for membership of the European Community. Every member state would have a vote on that application. The United Kingdom's existing membership of the European Community would continue, but Scotland would have to apply.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Will the Leader of the House make a statement about the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 MARCH—Second Reading of the Friendly Societies Bill.
Debate on a motion to approve the report of the Accommodation and Works Committee in respect of the new parliamentary building (phase 2) (House of Commons Paper 269-I).
Motions on the Social Security (Class I Contributions—Contracted-out Percentages) Order and the State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 10 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY II MARCH and THURSDAY 12 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 13 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 16 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.
Mr. Hattersley: As the Government have already told the broadcasting authorities that they will announce the general election next Wednesday, how does the Leader of the House justify making a business statement which he knows to be wholly fictitious? The Government are ending their term of office in exactly the same shabby way that they have conducted themselves during the past 13 years.
Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman began with a fictitious comment: the Government have done no such thing.
Mr. John Greenway: Will the Leader of the House tell us what progress he expects to be made in the other place on the Asylum Bill? Is he aware that yesterday members of the Home Affairs Select Committee, who are considering the policing of European Community frontiers, visited Gatwick airport and witnessed no fewer than 30 men, women and children who had come from Casablanca, who were supposedly in transit at Gatwick airport, claiming political asylum? The immigration authorities at the airport made it clear that, if the provisions of the Asylum Bill were in place, that kind of incident would not recur. Can my right hon. Friend explain why there is such opposition from the Labour party to that essential Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on the particular cases that my hon. Friend mentions. On the generality of the issue, I believe that the vast majority of people in this country want to see the Asylum Bill in place as quickly as possible. That is why the Opposition are entirely wrong to be opposing parts of that Bill. I assure my hon. Friend that it is our intention to get the Asylum Bill, whatever the opposition from hon. Members opposite, on to the statute book as soon as we can.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the Leader of the House come clean and say that he will make another statement next week about the general election? Is he telling the House this afternoon that he will not make such a statement? In other words, will he deny that he will not be making a statement next week?
Mr. MacGregor: My job today, as always, is to announce the business for next week, and I expect to be making a business statement next week as usual.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate soon on the renegotiation of the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which is a matter of considerable importance to United Kingdom agriculture, the farming industry and all those involved in rural areas, in addition to such industries as textiles and clothing, which need support from the House as a vital part of the nation's economy?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the GATT Uruguay round. In view of some of the rumours circulating today about the death of the Uruguay round, I must say, to paraphrase Mark Twain, that those rumours have been greatly exaggerated. Only on Monday of this week, European Community Trade and Agriculture Ministers reiterated that an early, positive conclusion to the round is vital for the international community. That continues to be our view. As for when we might have a debate, I would obviously wish to have one at the appropriate time.
Mr. Peter Shore: Next week's business is rather more important than the right hon. Gentleman seems to think. May we have a guarantee that for the Budget, which is probably one of the most important Budgets to be placed before the nation because we have seldom been in such a grievous economic situation, we shall have four full days of debate? May we also have an assurance—will the right hon. Gentleman give his word—that he is not deliberately deceiving the House today?
Mr. MacGregor: I am certainly not deliberately deceiving the House today. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that next week's business is extremely important. I agree that it will be a very important, and, I am sure, a very good, Budget. But I totally disagree with his assessment of the economic situation. As a result of so much that has been done to strengthen the economy in the past 10 years, I believe that, as we move out of the world recession, the British economy will be in a more competitive state than it has been for a very long time. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, under a Government of whom he was a member, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to go cap in hand to the IMF to bale us out.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on education? During that debate we could perhaps mention the visit of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to St. George's school, Gravesend, a grant-maintained school, where he did not noticeably tell the parents that he would overrule their vote by nine to one to become a grant-maintained school and claw their funds back to the centre of bureaucracy and away from the school, where they deserve to be spent.
Mr. MacGregor: I would like to oblige my hon. Friend with a debate next week. I am glad that he raised the point, because he has re-emphasised that, not only in Gravesend but right across the country, parents are voting strongly for grant-maintained schools. There is a big demand for places in them and we are seeing an increasing number of them. As always in education, the Labour party would deprive them of that choice.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House say whether failing to announce legislation to change the requirements for registering candidatures for Parliament reflects the fact that the Government have moved away from that foolish ploy, bearing in mind the fact that we are all equal in this place and that for 20 years we have been putting our names—and our addresses—forward for election? Also, may I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to urge the Chancellor to have better news on Tuesday for the British shipping industry?
Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, I cannot comment today on what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will say on Tuesday. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked me to consider the question of electoral addresses and there has been support for them from elsewhere. I have been consulting the various parties in the House on the matter and we are now consulting more widely to assess Members views. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments in that context.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on early-day motion 785?
[That this House, noting that the Manor House Hospital is independent of the National Health Service; that the 1979 TUC Conference called for the Manor House Hospital to be absorbed into the National Health Service and Or all affiliated unions as a matter of principle to discontinue any relationship with the Manor House Hospital; that it is Nalgo policy to campaign for the assimilation of Manor House Hospital into the state service; is surprised that Mrs. Glenys Kinnock has supported a fund raising event at the hospital; and condemns the double standards which enable Labour supporters to praise Manor House Hospital whilst condemning the use of private health care by others.]
Is he aware that one of those who helped in fund-raising activities at that independent hospital is none other than the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)? Is it not hypocritical of the hon. Gentleman to object to private health care and then encourage fund-raising activities by an independent hospital?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is typical of the double standards adopted by the Labour party towards private health, which adds to the total income available to health services in this country. The Labour party should come clean on the matter and say whether it supports private health care, or whether it is only for certain trade union members. It should also say whether it would remove pay beds from the national health service. I noticed what the Leader of the Opposition said a few moments ago. The Labour party's policy would deprive the health service of £100 million in additional income. I notice that it has made no pledges to increase the overall funding of the health service.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House ensure that, if an announcement is to
446
be made in the middle of next week, the first day's debate on the Budget statement lasts until at least 10 o'clock on Tuesday so that I have a chance to ask the Chancellor whether he is aware of a chamber of commerce survey in Coventry some 15 months ago on the health of 150 local firms? When the chamber of commerce tried to repeat the survey a few weeks ago, it found that only 64 of those businesses were still in existence. With fewer than 300 vacancies in Coventry's job centre, and with 20,000 people chasing those vacancies, I would ask the Chancellor whether he still thinks that the misery of the people in Coventry is a price well worth paying.
Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I intend that the debate should run until 10 o'clock on Tuesday. Whether he will be called to speak, however, is not a matter for me. If he is, I hope that he will give the House his reflections on the Confederation of British Industry's report today, which, after a widespread trawl of its members, has concluded that any attempt to impose a statutory minimum wage would add at least 150,000 to the unemployment figure, and that, if existing differentials are maintained, the extra payroll costs could amount to £50 million. The hon. Gentleman will accept that that could have a devastating effect on jobs in Coventry and elsewhere.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Could we have a debate next week on parking and the use of roads so that I can raise the problems of my constituents, many of whom have great difficulty in Ealing, North, Northfields, Perivale, Hanwell and west Ealing, in parking their vehicles and making progress on the roads when going about their business? Something must be done about that urgent and important matter.
Mr. MacGregor: As ever, my hon. Friend is extremely assiduous in raising issues that affect his constituents. I am sure that he will pursue those matters locally and will find opportunities next week—other than in Government time, which he will recognise is fully taken up—to pursue them in the House.
Mr. Ray Powell: May I ask the Leader of the House about next week's business in the hope that, on Monday—given that the Budget will not have been presented by then—he will encourage as many hon. Members as possible, first, to see the exhibition on the new building in Westminster Hall, which you, Mr. Speaker, were kind enough to open last Monday; and, secondly, to try to participate in the debate on the new building? It is no good hon. Members talking about proposals for the new building after they have been accepted by the House unless they have participated in the debate on the new accommodation which Members will require in the future.
Next week there will be a draw for private Members' motions. Last week, I was fortunate enough to be second on the list for private Members' motions on Friday 13 March. It broke my belief in the superstition, because after seven years my name had come out of the ballot. I hope that the Leader of the House will guarantee that, after waiting seven years, on Friday 13 March the opportunity will still be afforded me to present an important proposal on unemployment, the underfunding of the training and enterprise councils, and the necessity for the Government to do something about training programmes.
Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I agree, and I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works under his chairmanship, and to all that the hon. Gentleman has done. I echo his suggestion that as many hon. Members as possible should see the exhibition. There has always been great pressure to improve office accommodation, particularly that of secretaries, in the House, so the proposal is important. If we can manage to agree the matter next Monday, it will be possible to move faster on the building programme than if we cannot. Therefore, it will be important to have a debate next Monday, and I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said.
On the hon. Gentleman's second request I shall have to be less obliging. I notice that the debate that precedes his is on taxation and public expenditure. I have a suspicion that many of my hon. Friends and others will wish to participate in that debate and to draw attention to the huge gaps between Labour's spending commitments and its tax commitments. They will also want to draw attention to the substantial public expenditure programmes that the Government have carried through as a high priority, including those relating to training, which are two and a half times bigger in real terms that they were under the Labour Government.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, £96 million of public money provided by the Government for university tuition fees has not been passed on to universities by some local education authorities? Will he find time next week to discuss that scandal and try to find some way to achieve fairness for the universities and ensure that they receive the money that the Government intend them to have?
Mr. MacGregor: I take my hon. Friend's point. I shall act immediately and do what I am sure he has already done—draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House stop ducking the question that he has been asked three times and come clean about the length of the Budget debate? The Government have one of two options next week: to stick to the traditional Government economic policy, which is manifestly a disaster and which will lose them the election, or to change the policy radically by increasing public expenditure and giving people money in their hands in an attempt to cut and run. Given the need to debate the Budget properly, are we to have a Budget debate for four days, or are the Government to prevent us from having even that opportunity to test their policies—yes or no?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and hear my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. I have already stated the business for next week.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Has my right hon. Friend seen the admirable White Paper published by the Ministry of Defence today, "The Future of Britain's Reserve Forces", in which the Ministry of Defence draws on the lessons to be learned from the Gulf war and from the deliberations on the armed forces Bill about the call-out of reserves? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the
448
House tomorrow or on Monday to make a statement on that issue, as it shows that Her Majesty's Government have a commitment to effective reserve forces, as distinct from Labour party policies?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says about the merits of our policy, and the distinction between it and that of the Labour party. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the White Paper. As to whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence can make a statement on the Floor of the House, we have had a considerable number of statements and we have important business today. I felt that it was not possible to have another oral statement today, particularly as we are to have the estimates debate and an important debate on Northern Ireland. Therefore, I fear that I may have to disappoint my hon. Friend on that.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The Opposition would welcome a debate next Friday on taxation and public expenditure, because we would welcome the chance to hear the Government's views on their bizarre philosophical twist to the economic programme of John Maynard Keynes—that taxation can be cut by increasing the public sector borrowing requirement to £31 billion. That will be a talking point in pubs and clubs up and down the country.
As some of us are superstitious about Friday the 13th, may I invite the Leader of the House, as a Cabinet Minister and a Privy Councillor, to give us a categorical assurance that we will be debating those issues on that day?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give a categorical assurance about any aspect of a business statement. I have made the position clear, and there will be plenty of opportunities next week to debate these matters.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note that, if we had a public expenditure borrowing requirement of the levels that pertained under the last Labour Government, it would have averaged £40 billion and, at its peak under that Government, £55 billion. That is a measure of the irresponsibility from which the country suffered under the Labour Government.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: May we have a debate next week on advertising standards? An advertising campaign is running in my constituency under the slogan, "Made in Britain", but it has become clear that the perpetrator of that campaign, given the opportunity to buy a car, decided to buy Italian. It is a Labour party campaign, and we need another opportunity for the Labour party to tell us what it thinks. Has not the Labour party told the British people, "Don't do what we do, do as we say"?
Mr. MacGregor: I also recall a Labour party political broadcast recently which endeavoured to show falsely that most of the items in the broadcast were made abroad and were not available from manufacturing in this country. That was another attempt to undermine the great success of much of British manufacturing industry in the past few years. Typically, Labour did not comment on the fact that we have increased our share of world manufacturing trade in each of the past three years.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if a general election is announced

449
next week, it will be the first time since the war that the Budget debate has been curtailed and the first time ever that a Finance Bill has been guillotined from its start?
Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to what I have already said about the business for next week.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend try to make time for a debate on the relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom following recent discourtesies to the British Army and Her Majesty the Queen? In passing, should not we send our congratulations to the English cricket team who, with the assistance of Guy the gorilla, thrashed the Aussies by eight wickets?
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree, and I am sure that the whole House joins in my hon. Friend's congratulations.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 701 on the Warrington Czech book appeal?
[That this House congratulates the people of Warrington, Warrington Borough Council and all the companies who have assisted in any way in donating goods and money towards the collection of eight tons of books which will be transported to Czechoslovakia at midnight on Saturday 22nd February in transport loaned, fuelled and driven by Warrington people and the business community; and expresses the hope that the twinning arrangements between Warrington and the people of Nachod prosper and goes from strength to strength in the future.]
The motion congratulates the people of Warrington on donating eight tons of books to Czechoslovakia. It also points to the partnership between Warrington borough council and the private sector in transporting the books. In view of the uncertainty surrounding the business for next week, will the right hon. Gentleman, instead of waiting until then, congratulate the people of Warrington today?
Mr. MacGregor: For once, I can take up a request by the hon. Gentleman in a positive way. I should certainly like to add my congratulations and those of the Government to the people of Warrington on the appeal. As the House knows, this is a difficult time for the people of Czechoslovakia, as it is for all who have had to endure communism for so long. One of the worst things for a people as well educated and as cultured as the Czechs has been the absence of free access to books and information. I am happy to underline what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is offering the country an adventure. I wonder whether it would be possible next week to have a debate on political adventurism, then we can decide whether it would be more appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to have a starring role in "Boyo's Own", or, alternatively, to take the leading part in Peter Pan, with its inevitable destination of Never-Never Land.
Mr. MacGregor: I think that there will be plenty of opportunities in the period ahead to make some of the serious points underlying my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Has the Leader of the House seen the report in this morning's issue of The Guardian that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern
450
Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), is making an announcement about the sale of the four generating stations in Northern Ireland for £1 billion? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the people of Northern Ireland, through the Northern Ireland Exchequer, paid for the construction of those four generating stations, it appears from the press story that the funding will not be credited to the Northern Ireland Exchequer but will be transferred to the central Exchequer in London? Why are we not to have a statement in the House on this matter? As it increasingly looks as if the Government would be well advised to delay the election until June or July, would the Leader of the House consider initiating a debate on this matter during the next three weeks, because it appears that the Conservative Government are stealing £1 billion from the people of Ulster?
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted the request for a debate within the next three weeks, and I shall bear it in mind. It might be possible briefly to refer to that matter in the wide-ranging debate on Northern Ireland that will take place later today. I shall certainly draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the debate on the National Lottery Bill, at which time Britain shared with Albania the privilege of being the only country in Europe without a national lottery, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) has just returned from Albania to report that lottery tickets are on sale in the streets of Tirana? Therefore, is not the matter of considerable urgency, and will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that a statement or commitment of some kind before the House rises would be extremely popular in the country?
Mr. MacGregor: The further work that was announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on Friday 17 January is in hand, and I, hope that we can announce our conclusions as soon as possible.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week on the shameful lack of consultation by Bradford district health authority on the proposed closure of Westwood hospital, in my constituency? No doubt the Leader of the House has noted early-day motion 761.
[That this House is appalled by the privatisation proposals of Bradford Health Authority to be implemented through the closure of Westwood Hospital and the transfer of mentally handicapped patients to Takare plc, Care Solutions Ltd. and AHP Rehabilitation Ltd. in the profit-seeking private sector; notes that Care Solutions Ltd. is a recently formed company with a director resident in Lugano, Switzerland, who has not yet made any returns to Companies House, and that AHP Rehabilitation Ltd. has one hundred pound issued shares and that the company has given an unlimited guarantee on bank borrowings; regards the use of the mentally handicapped as profit sources as immoral and places their future in jeopardy should any of these companies fail; and calls on the Bradford District Health Authority to scrap these odious proposals and retain Westwood Hospital as demanded by those who put patients before profit.]

451
The district health authority proposes to transfer patients from the excellent site on which Westwood hospital stands and which gives peace and serenity to mentally handicapped people to a home which has yet to be built by a company which is so fresh that it has not even made any returns to the Registrar of Companies. How can proper consultation have been undertaken with relatives and people with an important involvement when they have not been told about proposals for alternative accommodation, and cannot be, given the nature of the matter? The matter is urgent. Relatives and parents are concerned, and I hope that the Minister for Health will make a statement to the House before the general election.
Mr. MacGregor: I have seen the early-day motion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Bradford health authority has carefully developed plans for the patients of Westwood hospital. Those plans are in accordance with our widely accepted care in the community policy. I am told that the health authority is satisfied that all the companies mentioned meet the requirements of the Registered Homes Act 1984.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, no matter how short the Budget debate, there should be time to make it clear that, every year since 1986, the yield from income tax has risen despite cuts in the basic rate, and that makes absolute nonsense of the claptrap being peddled by the Opposition parties that there is a choice to be made between cutting income tax and the yield therefrom?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. The yield from higher rates of tax has risen over the period during which we have cut the higher rates to internationally competitive levels and taken them away from the totally punitive levels of Labour when it was in power. That is the interesting result of the extra endeavour, enterprise and economic growth achieved by our tax policies.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Although the right hon. Gentleman will not much longer be responsible for these matters, will he set in train the process of a re-examination of the taking of points of order? Is he aware that, in the old days, when I came into the House, points of order were taken the moment they arose? Is he aware that the present practice of delaying points of order is yet another result of the deleterious effects of the introduction of television cameras into the House and is designed to prevent Members from raising points of order in prime television time?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for me.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Torbay hospital now approaches its 12th month of self-governing status within the national health service? Is he aware also that during that period 60 extra doctors and nurses have been employed, along with nine extra consultants and several other additional staff? Two new wards have been opened and the largest number of patients ever treated in the hospital have been looked after with marvellous care. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on such matters so that Torbay hospital and its achievements can be presented to the House?
Mr. MacGregor: I would very much like to do so. My hon. Friend underlines what is happening in so many trust hospitals. We are getting improved health care. The accusations made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) have been proved in practice to be completely out of touch. It has been demonstrated that the Conservative party is increasing funds for the NHS and carrying through management reforms that enable the funds to be better spent at the front line on patient care.
Mr. Max Madden: Is the Leader of the House aware that many people of Indian origin who have settled in the United Kingdom are extremely concerned at the consequences for them of an extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and India and of a bilateral agreement between this country and India on the confiscation of terrorists' funds? As there is insufficient time for a treaty and the Orders in Council for the agreement to be laid in compliance with the parliamentary rules and conventions on the time that such matters have to be laid before the House, will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that neither the treaty nor the agreement will be laid before the House in the next few days so that these extremely important matters can be given fresh consideration by a new Labour Government with a new mandate?
Mr. MacGregor: There will not be a Labour Government with a new mandate, but I shall look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that there have been a number of debates about a minimum wage policy and that there have been comments about it on other occasions. Did he read in the Employment Gazette in April 1991 that the half minimum wage pledge made by the Labour party would cost employers £3·80 an hour, not £3·40, and therefore by extension today's half minimum wage would cost employers more than £4 an hour? Bearing in mind these statistics, I wonder whether we should discuss the matter more fully to give the Opposition a chance to withdraw their foolish pledge.
Mr. MacGregor: Yes. I would couple with that the results of the authoritative survey which was carried out by the CBI, which were made available today. We are all awaiting the comments of Opposition Members on the survey. It is the sort of issue that my hon. Friend might be able to raise in next week's debates.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that, before the election breaks upon us, there will be time for a debate on the tragic increase in crime throughout the United Kingdom and the reductions in detection rates in so many places? Is he aware that in Leicestershire crime increased again and again last year and that detection rates fell by more than 6 per cent.? The chief constable has warned that policing will be further hit by cuts of more than £1 million in the coming year's force budget, and has complained about them. With crime rates soaring under the Government, it is surely unacceptable that police forces should be forced by Government cuts to reduce their expenditure on protecting our constituents.
Mr. MacGregor: The substantial increase in real terms on spending on the police under this Government cannot

453
be described as a cut. High priority has been given to increasing police numbers and improving police pay so that we are not faced with the recruitment and retention problems that had to be tackled when we came to power. We have sought generally to assist the police with modern technology, for example. We have given high priority to supporting the police and to dealing with the issues that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: May we have a debate on car ownership, so that we can discuss the welcome news that British companies such as Rover are now producing cars of the highest quality and competitiveness, which are being exported with increasing success? Is it not a shame that, rather than backing the boys at Longbridge and Dagenham, the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to aspire to middle-class values and buy his daughter a car has chosen to stick two fingers up at the British car worker and back the boys in Turin by buying an Italian Fiat?
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the improvements in the quality—and every other aspect—of British cars, and I certainly support all that he has said about the improvements in Rover cars.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That was not the kind of question that should be asked in business questions.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall endeavour to call the hon. Members who are now rising, but I ask them to confine their questions to the business of the House, rather than making what are basically straight electioneering points—and not very good ones at that.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Every hon. Member knows that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) is riddled with malice. It is very tragic.
May we have a debate about company contributions to political parties? Is there not a strong moral case for the Conservative party to return the £440,000 that it received from Mr. Asil Nadir? Should not that money be given to the receiver today? Is it not his property? What will the Government—and, indeed, the Conservative party—do about that?
Mr. MacGregor: Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that those donations were received by the party entirely legally and in good faith. As for the general question of funding, as far as I can establish, business contributions are much smaller as a proportion of funds raised by the Conservative party than are union contributions as a proportion of funds raised by Labour. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already pointed out, research shows that, in the last election year, the political spending of a single union on the Labour party exceeded all company donations for all political activities.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: During the Budget debate, may we discuss the position of pensioners, particularly Mirror Group pensioners? As my right hon. Friend knows, they have lost a great deal of money which was given by Mr. Maxwell to the Labour party; perhaps we could discuss the question whether Labour will give that money back.
Mr. MacGregor: I have every sympathy for pensioners who find themselves innocent victims of the gross misuse of pension funds.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of what the Leader of the House said to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), will he arrange time for a debate on my Bill which would ensure that all political parties represented in the House of Commons published detailed reports of their finances, and that any moneys—whatever their source—whose donor had no authority to provide them would be returned? The Tory party should certainly return the money in question.
In such a debate, we could discuss placing a limit on the amount that political parties can spend during a general election campaign. If the amount that can be spent on our behalf in our constituencies is to be restricted—and I agree that that is right—why should political parties nationally spend as much as they like? In the last general election year, the Tory party spent between £15 million and £20 million on its campaign.
Mr. MacGregor: I have already pointed out that, in the last election year, a single union contributed more to Labour than companies contributed in political donations. As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, I must tell him that I see no opportunity for his Bill to be discussed in Government time next week.
Mr. Bob Dunn:: I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider the request for an urgent debate next week on car ownership and "Made in Britain" campaigns. After all, what message is being given to workers at Dagenham and in the west midlands by the prospect of the leader of the Labour party buying an Italian car for his daughter, and the leader of London café society driving round in a French car—[Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the whole House that I hope we can leave our families out of our political arguments. It is quite unnecessary to bring them into the party political arena.
Mr. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is reprehensible for us to be addressed in that way when the Labour party always attacks the family, manipulates the sick, and, in 1978, would not even allow the dead to be buried.
Mr. Speaker: I say again to the whole House that I hope that we can leave our families out of electioneering. There are plenty of other issues.
Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious point of order. The Opposition have sat through a number of entirely untrue comments and allegations made by Conservative Members. One such statement was that pension fund money belonging to Mirror Group pensioners had gone to the Labour party—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us ask questions about policy.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: And business.
Mr. Speaker: Yes—and business.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster make a statement next week about

455
the £440,000 received from Asil Nadir by the Tory party? That money was given illegally, and, bearing in mind what the Leader of the House has said, I ask why the Tory party does not publish its accounts. The Labour party does. Why does big business give money when the Labour party gets money from the trade unions only after a ballot? If students and people who get money from the social fund have to give their loans back, why cannot the Tory party give the money back to the people? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Maxwell?"] I hear the word "Maxwell". I moved a resolution, which was successful, at the Labour party national executive committee a few weeks ago which means that if the £43,000 that came to the Labour party was connected with the Mirror Group pension fund that money will go back. That is what the Labour party is doing. Now will the Tory party do the same?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already made the point that the donations were received entirely legally by the Conservative party. I have also noted that there have often been considerable delays in the publication of some union accounts. Furthermore, as I have already said, the Labour party receives a much larger proportion of its total income from the trade unions than the Conservative party receives from companies. Trade unions have considerable influence on and power over the election of the leader of the Labour party, and also made a very significant contribution to its funding. There is no such situation with the Conservative party.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Was it not clear from the exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time today that my right hon. Friend would be doing a favour to the nation if he arranged for a further debate on the national health service before the House was dissolved so that many of us could make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition that, when his party was last in government, our constituents—often people dying of cancer—were being turned away from hospitals by porters and other ancillary workers, who fund the Labour party and who have no interest in patients whatsoever?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree that it would be highly desirable to have another debate on the health service. What my hon. Friend has said is only one of the many points that could be made. Another would be, that, in order to meet the demands of health service unions, there would be a reduction in the amount of funding for patient care. As the Labour party does not propose any overall increase, that would mean a total reduction. The kind of comments and accusations that we are hearing from some Labour Members are totally off the mark—my hon. Friend is right.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is there any likelihood of time being found for the Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Bill? The Leader of the House will know that it passed its Report stage in another place on Monday. We co-operated actively with the Government to ensure its swift passage. What is to happen to it? Many of our constituents—fine, decent and honourable men—lost their jobs because they had the courage to speak out on safety matters on offshore
456
installations. Lord Cullen said that there was a need to protect those men, but what will happen to them? Is the Bill to be jettisoned?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the Bill and have already told the hon. Gentleman that the Government support its objectives. I shall have to look into the exact position.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the light of the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider initiating a debate early next week on early-day motion 402?
[That this House notes that the Daily Mirror and the Daily Record have over the years played a vitally important campaigning and news role as the only left of centre daily newspapers in the United Kingdom; further notes the need in a free society .for balance in the news media; expresses its solidarity with the journalists, editorial and production staff; and also pledges full support for their current attempt to secure the paper's future by means of a management buyout.]
There is an amendment to that motion which stands in my name and which calls on the Labour party not only to reveal for the first time the amount of cash with which Maxwell supplied it over the years but to disclose details of that which was received in kind. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been reports in quality newspapers of equipment being provided by Maxwell to the Labour party, of jobs being provided for the Leader of the Opposition's children, and of a cut-price Jaguar being supplied? If the information mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolsover is to come out, we need to know about those things. Pension funds have been pillaged by that man—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Ask a question; do not begin a debate.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend raises an important point in relation to the early-day motion. Any proposed transfer of the group will be inspected by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If questions put to the House are found by you to be out of order—[Interruption.] Clearly the previous one was because you rose to stop the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who persisted despite your previous cautions, but you allowed the Leader of the House to answer it.
Mr. Speaker: I said that the hon. Gentleman should ask a question, not begin a debate.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Before the general election is announced—whenever that might be—should not the electoral registration figures for England and Wales be published for the benefit of hon. Members? Such figures are available for Northern Ireland, constituency by constituency. Provisional figures are available for Scotland, and the number of overseas voters has now been published for England and Wales, constituency by constituency. Why cannot we know the

457
number of voters on each register in each constituency so that we know the general pattern before the election is announced?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is extremely fearful of the general election because he asks that question week after week. He is clearly highly nervous about the forthcoming election. I shall give him the same answer that I gave him before. Electoral figures for as many parliamentary constituencies as are available will be published immediately before the general election, whenever that may be.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: May I repeat the earlier request for a debate next week on education, so that we can make three points? First, good education is underpinned by competition and by variety and choice for parents. Secondly, it would be a disaster if grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and especially grammar schools were abolished. Thirdly, it is gross hypocrisy for people who had the opportunity to have a grammar school education—such as 14 members of the shadow Cabinet—now to try to deny the same opportunity to thousands of children.
Mr. MacGregor: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is 100 per cent. right on all three points, and I hope that he will have many more opportunities to make them.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the conclusion of this Parliament, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or a special debate on the situation facing old-age pensioners? A statement should enable the state old-age pension to be raised by £17 on 1 April so that it is at least calculated on the same basis as it was in 1980. That would be a start on returning the billions of pounds that have been stolen from old-age pensioners over the past 13 years so that they can at least live in some dignity in retirement instead of having to face the enormous cut in the state pension during the lifetime of this Government.
Mr. MacGregor: I would be happy to have a debate on the position in relation to pensioners, but we cannot have one next week unless hon. Members can raise the issue in our debate on the Budget statement. I would be happy to have such a debate because that would enable us to point out yet again that the average income of pensioners—
Mr. Corbyn: Income, not pension.
Mr. MacGregor: I will come to that. The average income of pensioners has risen by more than one third in real terms during our period in office. It has risen faster than for the general population, and it has risen a good deal faster than ever before. Part of the reason for that is the Conservative philosophy and concentration on encouraging pensioners to have a wide spread of occupational pensions, personal pensions, and other savings and not on clobbering them with tax like the Labour party.
We have fully observed our commitment on the state pension. Well above that, we have concentrated substantial sums of extra public expenditure on those who rely on the state pension, and who are therefore less well off, through increases in disability benefit, housing benefit, income support benefit and community charge benefit.
Mr. John Browne: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 585?
[That this House is increasingly aware of how it was misled, and indeed used, as part of a finely calculated and deliberate injustice perpetrated for party political reasons against the honourable Member for Winchester and his constituents on 7th March 1990, by senior Government Ministers and the abuse of the whipping system on that day to influence the vote of the House whilst sitting in judgment over one of its honourable Members; notes that of the Government Ministers directly involved, namely the Right honourable Members for Surrey East, Mole Valley and Mid Sussex, one was a Queen's Counsel and a past Foreign Secretary in charge of MI6 and another, as Home Secretary, is now in charge of MI5; is deeply concerned that if such Ministers, deemed fit to control the secret services of the Crown, can take such blatantly discriminatory and unjust action against a loyal colleague, then no citizen of the land is safe under the law; believes that continued delay by Her Majesty's Government in the face of this obvious case will be seen by the general public either as a cover up or as condoning the gross misconduct of the senior Ministers involved; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to act swiftly, before the election, either to bring this matter urgently before the Committee of Privileges or to allow the honourable Member fin. Winchester to present his case before Parliament in Government time before further injustice is clone in this or any future case.]
As none of the key issues were even known about when the House debated the matter on 7 March 1990, will my right hon. Friend please publicly correct his reply during business questions on 30 January 1992, as reported in Hansard at column 1083, when he said that all those matters had been "fully debated"?
Mr. MacGregor: During business questions, one can give only a short reply. My hon. Friend had a debate on that matter last Friday when he took up a great deal of the time of the House and he was therefore able to make his case fully. I gave a fuller reply to him then which covered the issues.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In view of the heart-rending delays suffered in the Scottish courts by those who have asbestosis or mesothelioma, what is the Government's reaction to the report of the Scottish Law Commission published today on the effect of death on damages? I have given notice of that question. Is there any hope of quick action? I have also given notice of my next question. With regard to Libya, do the Government understand—and they should have been told by the security services—that one of the so-called Libyans has far more to do with Beirut and terrorist gangs in Lebanon than he has with Tripoli? If there is not to be a statement on Libya next week, may we have an assurance that there will be no military action or sanctions?
Mr. MacGregor: On the second point, I do not know whether there will be a statement on Libya next week. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he would raise his first point. As he knows, the report was laid yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and it is being considered.
Mr. William O'Brien: May I remind the Leader of the House that local authorities arc now presenting their budgets to their poll tax payers? Last

459
year's fiasco, caused by the delay in sending out poll tax demands, created many problems for local authorities in collecting the poll tax. The only reason why poll tax bills are being sent out this year is that Tory Members demanded it.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement next week confirming that there will be no delay in the issue of poll tax demands and that they will be allowed to be sent out before 1 April, the beginning of the financial year for local authorities? May we be assured that the Government will not play canny and delay poll tax bills being sent out throughout the country just because an election is pending?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that there is any need for a statement, because my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities made the position very clear in the past 24 hours in response to certain wild allegations.
Mr. Tony Banks: As this is probably the right hon. Gentleman's last appearance at the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the House, may I thank him for his courteous treatment of my questions in the past? Will he look at early-day motion 796 about the proposed Canadian seal cull?
[That this House expresses concern at the news that the Canadian Government is contemplating an expansion of harp seal culling; believes there is insufficient scientific evidence to substantiate a claim that seals have significantly contributed to a fall in East Coast cod stocks; notes that Canada still has the largest annual seal hunt in the world with a current quota of 186,000 per year with over 50,000 seals killed last year; calls upon the Canadian Government to put in place improved fishing management schemes in conjunction with member states of the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation including the European Community; and warns the Canadian Government that any expansion of seal slaughter will undoubtedly result in a campaign to boycott Canadian fish stocks.]
May we have a chance in the last few days of this Parliament to discuss the matter? If the Leader of the
460
House will not allow that, will he, in the few days left to him, make representations to the Canadian Government about the proposed cull, say how much opposition to it there is in this country, and warn them of the effect that there will be in this country if the cull proceeds?
Mr. MacGregor: I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman in relation to his opening comment, which I think he will find will not be correct. [Interruption.] I can assure him that it will not be correct. I shall draw his question of substance to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but the Canadian Government are well aware of the long-standing public concern in this country and in other countries about seal culling.

BILLS PRESENTED
  EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION)
  Mr. Nigel Spearing, supported by Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Austin Mitchell and Mr. Richard Shepherd, presented a Bill to require the preparation and distribution of a statement summarising the provisions and implications of the draft Treaty on European Union and its principal associated Treaties, and the consequent changes in the rights and powers of the citizens and Parliament of the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March and to be printed. [Bill 106.]
  POLITICAL PARTY FINANCING
  Mr. David Winnick presented a Bill to require political parties represented in the House of Commons to publish detailed annual reports and accounts and to specify information to be contained therein; to provide that, where a donor makes to a political party a donation to which he has no title, the donation may not be retained by the party but shall be paid to such person as a court may direct; to impose a limit on expenditure by a political party during a general election; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
ESTIMATES DAY
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
CLASS II, VOTE 2

  Yugoslavia
  [Relevant document: First Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1991–92 on Central and Eastern Europe: Problems of the Post-Communist Era (House of Commons Paper No. 21).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum not exceeding £27,939,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc. to certain international organisations, special payments and assistance, scholarships, military aid and sundry other grants and services.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the class II, vote 2 estimates, and I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the subject for today's debate is Yugoslavia and not the whole of the Select Committee report.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. David Howell: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will be grateful for this opportunity for a brief debate on Yugoslavia related to the vote on the Order Paper and also to that part of the recent report from the Select Committee which covered central Europe as a whole, but which also related to Yugoslavia and the crisis and the killing going on there. This could hardly be a better time for the House to consider developments in Yugoslavia, because, while we are debating this matter, a major United Nations force is beginning to be put together to move into the former Yugoslavia.
  It is the first United Nations force in history to be assembled on the European mainland. So far, 22 nations have said that they will take part. It will cost an estimated $633 million for the first year, although my own view is that that will only be the beginning and that it is likely to stay there for much longer than that. As I understand it—no doubt my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will clarify the matter—Britain has offered to participate through a 1,000-strong logistical battalion. This is the beginning of a mighty operation. It is not the biggest United Nations operation since the war, but it is the first ever on the European mainland, and it is very sobering that it should be so.
  The situation in Balkans is an extreme example of the splintering, fragmentation and self-determination run riot that has followed the retreat of the communist ice age and the withdrawal of the Communist party tyrannies all over eastern and central Europe, leaving behind many disputes, bitternesses and hatreds which many people mistakenly thought had been buried in history, but which turned out to have been living all the time in the mud, strife and debris under the communist tyranny veneer.
  The Select Committee, whose members visited parts of the former Yugoslavia, found again and again witnesses saying that what had been going on in Croatia—the conflict between the Serbians and the federal forces and
  462
  between the Serbian enclaves in Croatia and Krajina and the Croatian forces—was merely the prelude to further conflicts. All the people we saw were convinced that there was more terror and bloodshed and more horror to come. That was a grim prospect.
  Again, even as we debate the issue, the neighbouring state or province—it is not yet fully recognised as a state—of Bosnia-Herzegovina is in great danger. The tensions there are rising by the hour. They appear to have been triggered partly by the recognition of Croatian independence by the European Community in a rather rushed way. The United States and United Nations still hold back from that recognition. The tensions were also triggered, of course, by the referendum. It was recommended to the Bosnians by the European Community, but it has created incredible tension.
  We hear reports that Sarajevo is like a tinder box, that peace is on a knife edge and that the prospect could be about to open up of Croatians, Serbians and Muslims fighting each other again. Indeed, some have already died in the past few days. Just as it is a "first" that the United Nations is mounting a vast operation on European mainland soil, so it is a first in recent times, although certainly not in history, that Muslims could be fighting Christians. Of course, Christians of one denomination are also fighting Christians of another denomination in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
  It is also a sign of a remarkable reinvolvement of that problematical country and nation, Turkey, in areas from which it was driven many decades ago. Indeed, the issues of Turkish domination in those parts were hotly debated in the House 100 years ago and more.
  So that is the ugly and miserable scene. Many thousands of people have already died and United Nations troops are now being asked to go into this precarious situation. Several international organisations have already been involved and the Select Committee's report examined the position of all of them.
  The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe tried without much effect to calm down the processes of the independence of Slovenia and the move towards independence by Croatia. The invasion of the federal Serbian-backed forces led to the killing in recent months.
  Then the European Community sought to establish a peace process and put monitors into the area. It eventually put pressure on the Serbians in particular, but Yugoslavia in general, by introducing economic sanctions. Then came the recognition that none of that was having much effect and that the time had come for a higher level of intervention by the United Nations. That is what we are seeing unfold. Meanwhile, the EC peace efforts continue.
  If I may offer my own view, no praise is too high for the role being played by Lord Carrington, who has had the unenviable task of heading the Hague peace conference under the aegis of the EC in an attempt to bring these warring people to the peace table. So far, the conference has had some success. Indeed, with the prospect of the United Nations forces coming in, it has succeeded to the point of achieving a ceasefire, but at any moment things could go badly into reverse.
  It is an ugly and dangerous situation. No one can say with confidence that the blooddshed is over or even that an end is in sight. One has to ask, and the report of the Select Committee asked, what lessons can be learned from the events in Yugoslavia. For instance, did the interventions of

  463
  the European Community help or hinder the process? One must say that the EC monitors were brave. It was a tragedy that some of them were killed. They appeared to do a good job. The EC trade sanctions may also have brought it home to the Serbians and Mr. Milosevic that the outside world would not put up for ever with the uncontrolled assaults of the federal army and the ridiculous exercises in which the federal troops indulged in trying to destroy the pearl of the Adriatic, Dubrovnic, and in other atrocities.
  However, at the same time, it must be accepted that the EC's recognition of Croatia went against the recommendations of its own arbitration commission under Mr. Badinter. The Select Committee had the opportunity to meet the arbitration committee. We met Mr. Badinter.
  There was no doubt, once it had been established that the EC was going to recognise Croatia and did so, that it added new fears to the minds of the Serbian minority in Croatia and in Bosnia, where there has been a referendum in which the Serbians refused to take part. That, added to other tensions and worries—blame can be fairly laid on all sides and no one side can be accused of being all guilty—has brought the pattern of conflict to an extremely dangerous point.
  On 11 November last year, some members of the Select Committee met Mr. Slobodan Milosevic in his baroque palace in Belgrade. He told the Committee a number of things. He gave some absurd and transparent excuses, which did not impress us at all, for the behaviour of the federal army, which was rampaging round Dubrovnik at the time.
  However we caught hold of one of his remarks. For the first time he was prepared to consider the admission of the United Nations to the scene. His views were clear about the terms on which he wanted that to happen—the United Nations forces should come into the Serbian enclave areas of Bosnia, Krajina and other parts of the former frontier province areas between Bosnia and Croatia and they should stay there for many years. He wanted them to stay there as long as was required for tempers and memories to cool, if that were possible. Heaven knows, memories are monstrously long down there—there are plenty of monstrous things to remember—and they seem to go on for ever. He thought that if the United Nations troops stayed long enough it would be possible to freeze the political status of those enclaves, so that the unending dispute about whether they were Serbian or part of Croatia, and whether they should have autonomy, and of what kind, could at last be settled in a peaceful atmosphere.
  The view which has come out of Zagreb and from the Croatians has always been totally different. They have said that they will let the United Nations in—there was common ground there—but only for a few months while things are settled and before the lands revert to the new, independent Croatia, which is a totally different concept.
  Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend has given us the views of others, but he is reporting to the House the conclusions of a Select Committee. I hope that he will give us his unbiased view of the premature recognition by the European Community of Croatia, bearing in mind the fact that the boundaries of the various Yugoslav republics were determined by the arbitrary decision of the communist Tito. Croatia includes within its
  464
  boundaries a large Serbian minority, who have every reason to remember brutality and cruelty—which can only be compared with the worst excesses of the Nazis—committed against them in their country. Surely there can be no future in the present rulings unless the United Nations remains there permanently.
  Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend is right. That is on page 2 of my brief remarks, which I am coming to.
  I want to offer some views, but in this situation views are easy. It is solutions to the contrary and the deeply held views of the parties involved which are the difficult part. My right hon. Friend is right; those people hold violently different views on the validity of internal borders. Those difficulties will continue, even though the United Nations troops are there, which leads the Committee to the view that
  "it is likely that UN troops will find it extremely hard to withdraw for many years hence"
  although the present commitment is to stay for one year. Urged on by my right hon. Friend, I stress that it is important to consider what can be done by those outside—the international order and the United Nations. What lessons can be drawn so that a better life and higher justice will prevail over the justice of the bullet and the slaughter that have prevailed in recent months?
  As the Select Committee pointed out, the United Nations intervention raises new issues. It takes the United Nations beyond its reluctance to intervene in domestic affairs. Yugoslavia remains an international personality to this day. In theory, the United Nations is interfering in a nation state. Even if one accepts that Yugoslavia is finished—in practice it is, more or less—the United Nations is intervening in an area where there are disputes about whether it is on Croatian soil, as President Tudjman insists it is, or is in a Serbian enclave, as Mr. Babic and others claim. Alternatively, will the United Nations remain in a no man's land until somebody decides whose rules prevails and what the law should be?
  The Committee's second question was whether the European Community had succeeded in "managing" the Balkan turmoil or it was a hopeless task? I and some of the members of the Committee were uneasy when we sensed that the European Community was seen to be intervening, not necessarily in line with a particular strategy, because it felt that it had to do something. It felt that its foreign policy had to be gathered together and something should be done; the result was EC intervention.
  One could argue, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) has argued with characteristic forcefulness, that that led to extraordinary action whereby the European Community did not recognise Croatia in the summer, when that might have achieved some good, but rushed to do so in January, when it was driven on by German insistence. That happened in a way that was bound to harden attitudes all round, increase tensions and raise the temperatures in Bosnia and Sarajevo. That might lead to yet more killing. That is a real danger, which was foreseen by some, but not other policy makers in central Europe, and it has led to a worsening of the crisis.
  The Select Committee took the view that our hopes must rest on the United Nations as an effective force. It may have to remain in Yugoslavia for some time. Its forces should go to Sarajevo, where the headquarters of one of its administrative offices has already been set up. It must

  465
  demonstrate forcefully to all the parties concerned that they have nothing to gain from more fighting or killing. That is true for Mr. Milosevic and his encouragement of the remaining federal army forces in Bosnia, for the Croats who wish to bring the Croats of Bosnia into a greater Croatia and the Muslims, who, it is reported, are arming themselves and seeking help from fellow Muslims outside the Balkans and Europe. None of them will gain and that should be demonstrated. Hitherto, that has been a sad and weak demonstration. Now it must be strong.
  The longer-term task must be to decide how such little nations can settle down with their own independence or how they can work together. If four or five of them want to create a new form of Yugoslavia, they should be allowed to do so. I hope that the Committee made it clear that the fullest possible support should be given to the large UN forces to be deployed. It will be made up of 13,240 military personnel in a total contingent of 14,287. It represents the third largest UN commitment since 1945. Support for that body is our immediate task.
  In the longer term, we must find a new role for and the principles upon which the United Nations can act and define the security context of the new mini-nations. Will they be embraced by NATO or the new North Atlantic Co-operation Council? On trade and economics, Slovenia and Croatia are considering applying to join the European Community. Will we welcome that? If not, what economic relationship will they have with us?
  A lasting peace and democracy cannot be imposed or ordered from above or from outside. However much we try, that will come from the readiness of the people to elect leaders they trust, to have sound finance, good trade and democratic practices. They must realise that fighting will not pay and will only lead to more death and no gain to anyone. That is the Committee's objective view.
  Meanwhile, I pray that this is not the beginning of another bloody chapter in Europe's history.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: History is not dead: it is alive and unwell in Yugoslavia. Those who wish to find heroes or villains in that tangled conflict or to discover the aggressors or apportion blame will start their clocks at different times. Some will go back to the second world war, some will go back to the first world war and some will reach back even further into history to the great fault line between the Ottoman empire and Christendom.
  The immediate background to tragedy is the collapse of communism and the death of the charismatic Tito, which removed the evil and superficial overlay to reveal old national realities. Now that that overlay has been removed in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, there is a real danger that it will be replaced by authoritarian leaders or the military.
  The speed of the dissolution—the implosion—of Yugoslavia and the depth of the anger between the different nationalities that it has revealed has surprised some. However, with the benefit of hindsight, that dissolution seemed almost inevitable given that so few unifying factors remain in what was once Yugoslavia.
  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his Select Committee on producing, yet again, a first-rate report, which is, of course, a valedictory dispatch. That Committee has been most fortunate because, for the past five years, it has observed one of the
  466
  most fascinating periods of history. During that time, the Committee has distinguished itself, as it has with this report, by bringing its wisdom to the House.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, this particular Select Committee report appears as a timely background to the debate. It has helped us to reflect on the lessons and perhaps it will enable us to avoid some of the looming tragedies that could occur in the remaining parts of what was once Yugoslavia. We may, of course, face similar challenges in various crises with the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. Even in Yugoslavia, as the right hon. Gentleman underlined, the tragedy may yet be played out because there is a precarious peace in Bosnia, and Macedonia offers its own special complexities.
  The questions for us to analyse include what lessons we can learn from the drift to war since the summer of 1991. When could intervention by the international community have been justified and productive? For example, an arms ban could have amounted to intervention on behalf of one of the combatants, given the way in which arms were distributed between the various parties to the conflict. In the summer there were no simple, agreed frontiers and there were many pockets of fighting, which certainly would have endangered any peace-making forces that sought to intervene.
  Was it too brutish for the international community to allow the combatants, in effect, to exhaust themselves? Perhaps we are faced with a similar problem in Nagorany Karabakh, after the failure of the peace-making efforts by Iranians and Turks, at a time when the CIS—the Commonwealth of Independent States—forces are withdrawing and when there seems to be no international body with the will and resources to intervene in that sad part of the world.
  Was it right to try to keep the federal structures intact? Our presumption was that it was right to do so, certainly as a transitional mechanism, while a longer-term solution might be sought. We in the United Kingdom viewed some of the pressure that came from at least one of our EC partners with a certain wariness, because of our experience in Northern Ireland and in Cyprus. Precipitate intervention, in our view—knowing the difficulties of extricating oneself—would have considerable and long-term resource implications.
  Key questions included the definition of national sovereignty. At what point could the international community intervene in a recognised country at a time of civil war? Similarly, a key quesiton was the point at which the component parts of a state could legitimately demand self-determination for themselves. Where were the limits? Was it a question of size? Where could one stop? There was also the question, as the Select Committee pointed out pertinently, of the recognition criteria—the fact that the Badinter criteria were overlooked or ignored by the Community, which accepted the fait accompli of its own recognition.
  The Yugoslav crisis has revealed that the United Kingdom is not relevant on its own but only as part of its alliances. It has revealed that the European Community, after its dismal showing in the Gulf crisis, has played a key and largely positive role. But the problems of a common foreign and security policy, to come into effect formally post-Maastricht on 1 July of next year, are clearly revealed by an examination of the EC response to the crisis. The problems of Macedonia remain and may lead to a Greek opt-out of any EC decision.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Regarding Macedonia, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is nonsense for the Greeks to make so much fuss about a name when the people of Macedonia are Bulgar in origin and have no claims on any part of Greece?
  Mr. Anderson: It is more than a name. As the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) pointed out, names and symbols have a particular relevance in that part of the world.
  Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman is making such an excellent speech that there was no need for that type of intervention from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), bearing in mind the fact that Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great were not Bulgarians. Indeed, there is great danger of a collision coming as a result of the ill-treatment of the people of ethnic Greek origin in Macedonia, unless the matter is brought under proper control.
  Mr. Anderson: I accept the complexities of the matter, so perhaps it would be imprudent of me to go further down that road just now.
  A key card that was not played, at least not openly, was the fact that all the combatant republics in Yugoslavia would eventually, at the end of the fighting and when the dust had settled, be looking to the EC for financial assistance. That key leverage aspect was available to the Community, and had the EC, possibly earlier in the conflict, said in terms that any financial assistance would come only when the status quo ante in terms of frontiers had been established, that would have given a clear signal to the combatants and forced them to ask whether their fighting was worth while. That point may have been made forcefully in the corridors. It was not made openly.
  Whatever criticism one may make of the EC monitors, it is clear that they were necessary at the time. They were the only show in town and nobody else was available. Presumably they will now fade away and be replaced by the United Nations. Indeed, there has been a curious parallelism between the EC and the UN—an overlap between their two roles. I fully join the right hon. Member for Guildford in congratulating Lord Carrington who, true to his reputation as a conciliator and mediator-inchief, has done a remarkable job in that area.
  At times, the torch was passed to Cyrus Vance, with his own power base and legitimacy at the UN, and it was predicted that the EC would recognise the two republics, that that would provoke more bloodshed and that it could be argued that that would be an obstacle to a comprehensive peace. Happily, so far the dire predictions of that possibly precipitate recognition have not been borne out. The United States has not yet followed the EC line, but it now appears that Bosnia, after the referendum, probably satisfies the Badinter criteria. I agree with the right hon. Member for Guildford about the importance of the EC forces going in speedily to try to maintain the existing frontiers within Bosnia. That may be their key role.
  The problem of what is the appropriate institution was addressed by Edward Mortimer in The Financial Times yesterday. He quoted from the NATO Rome summit of last November and wrote of the need
  "for a framework of interlocking institutions"—
  or, as he preferred to put it, a certain "institutional overcrowding." As we look around the landscape of
  468
  Europe, we see a vast variety of institutions which came into being at certain times for specific purposes and are still there, desperately looking for a role and seeking to expand their competences into spheres that were not envisaged when they were established. One understands that to be the professional deformation of people involved in organisations, be they the Council of Europe, Western European Union or NATO.
  In June 1991, the CSCE—the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe—established what was described as "an emergency mechanism", but it is untried and the organisation is hamstrung by its consensus principle, the problems of resources, and, of course, the issue of legitimacy. It is suggested that the lack of a power base militarily on the part of the CSCE might be met by an expanded role for NATO in the form of a North Atlantic co-operation council.
  The Select Committee veered towards favouring an expanded role for NATO in this and other conflicts. That conclusion is probably, at the least, premature—the bewildering overlap of functions might have to continue for some time—and we should be wary of the search for tidiness or the creation of new institutions to manage change and conflict.
  Our aim must be to build and maintain a more stable Europe. The tragedy of Yugoslavia has provided a laboratory experiment which, unhappily, is not yet finished. There remain the problems of Krajina, Kosovo and Bosnia. We understand that Lord Carrington has given himself about six months to establish a peace settlement. Ultimately, the United Nations will play the key role, but it may, in this regional conflict as in others, choose to sub-contract the effective work to tried organisations that can be more effective on the spot. In Europe, for example, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there is a possibility of many similar challenges.
  All that we can do now is set out the broad principles on which the international community should meet the problems within Yugoslavia, which may be replicated elsewhere in what is now called the "wild east of Europe". Those principles include, first, the principle that frontiers—even those said to be artificial—should be changed only with consent and not as a result of military conflict; and, secondly, the establishment and guarantee of ethnic minority rights. If Serbia concerns itself with the fortunes of the Serbian minorities in Croatia and comes with clean hands in respect of its position in Kosovo, its case will be mightily strengthened.
  Mr. Steve Norris: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Kosovo, because I am mindful of the fact that 90 per cent. of those who live there are ethnic Albanians. Incidentally, they also form a substantial minority in Macedonia and they cannot be overlooked.
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the saddest reflections of the present conflict in Yugoslavia is that only when fighting has broken out have perfectly legitimate claims to the concept of nationhod been taken seriously? Croatia and Slovenia have now disappeared from the headlines to be replaced by Bosnia because of the actuality of the conflict there. Does he agree that it would be a tragedy if any solution were to overlook the wholly legitimate claims of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo who, so far, have resisted violence but who are being offered, in practice, no other option?
  Mr. Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that Kosovo should not be independent but that the human rights of those who live there must be guaranteed? If that is his view, I share it.
  Mr. Norris: I do not wish to make a speech now in the middle of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I would not take a view on the independence of Kosovo, but the recognition of human rights there would be a welcome first step.
  Mr. Anderson: Lessons to be learned by the international community are, first, to try to anticipate such problems and anticipate realities and, secondly, to base policy wholly on guaranteeing human rights, even if those are behind artificial frontiers.
  However it is defined, there is a Europe out there which is unstable, needs to be made more stable and which will impact on us, for good or ill. The dangers of instability in our common European home are clear—refugees, the nuclear question and poverty. The main leverage for us in Europe and the European Community will be economic but the questions, the crises and the tragedies such as Yugoslavia demand a creative and generous response, which is in our long-term interest.
  The future of Yugoslavia and further east is our future. As the old Europe—the Europe of Versailles and Yalta—unravels, we must painstakingly mould institutions in the light of experience to promote long-term stability. In that context, Yugoslavia is a test case, and we must not fail.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Julian Amery: The admirable speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) was interrupted by questions about the ethnic composition of Macedonia and whether it is Bulgarian, Greek or Albanian. We should always bear in mind the words of Saint Paul, who said in one of his epistles:
  "Come over into Macedonia and help us; for the brethren are sore oppressed."
  They are still oppressed.
  In March 1950, 42 years ago, I ventured to make my maiden speech in the House in a debate on foreign affairs largely angled on eastern Europe and Yugoslavia. It was the most painful ordeal that I have ever been through, and 1 had been through some in the war. Mr. Ernest Bevin opened the debate and Anthony Eden replied. There was a full House, not because hon. Members wanted to hear my speech, but because, in those days when Members did not have a room, there was nowhere else to sit. It was an alarming experience. I was told that I must not speak for more than 20 minutes in a maiden speech and I wonder what you, Mr. Speaker, would feel about that nowadays.
  Yugoslavia was one of the countries that became involved in the spread of the Soviet empire. I thank God that I have lived long enough to see that nightmare removed. Naturally, there are painful consequences now that daylight has returned to eastern Europe. But it is a rebirth; and birth, like death, is a gory business. We must not let our anxiety and horror at some contemporary events obscure our understanding of the fact that what is going on is better than what was happening before.
  The Yugoslavs did not have the worst of it. By playing east against west, they managed to maintain some national independence and, although they had an appalling economic socialist regime, they managed, through tourism and exporting labour, to let some air into their lungs.
  470
  When the Soviet empire collapsed and united Germany rose to the fore, the Slovenes and Croats naturally saw their chance of escape from the domination of Belgrade and for a return to the Mitteleuropa to which they had always previously belonged.
  Germany dominates the scene today and Austria is once again a part of Germany. It is not an official anschluss, but the strength of Germany is once again not very different from what it was at the beginning of 1938. German influence is spreading to all the countries that were once under the Prussian empire and under the Hapsburg empire—Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and now Croatia and Slovenia.
  I do not suggest that there is a deliberate imperialist policy directed from Bonn. It is a much more natural, spontaneous development. Germany is a dynamic economy and German business men are keen to exploit the opportunities open to them in the countries to the east, particularly the countries where they feel culturally al home, where German is widely spoken. When the German Government jumped the gun and said that they would recognise Croatia and Slovenia whether we did or not, it was largely because of pressures exercised by German business and the German Churches on the German Government. The flag follows trade. However, it was a bad day for Europe when that happened. After all, the ink was hardly dry on the Maastricht agreement. We had all been talking about the importance of a European foreign policy, and they were jumping the gun. In so doing, they pulled the rug from under Lord Carrington's efforts.
  We now have the Bosnian situation. The intervention of the United Nations is beginning to build up and the European Community committee is looking into the problem. Where does that German drive stop? I do not know the extent of the lebensraum that Germany quite naturally—I am not talking about the Bonn Government—will seek. It is interesting that Mr. Genscher, who was so keen to recognise Croatia and Slovenia, hesitates about Bosnia. Perhaps he believes that it has reached the fault line between the Hapsburg and Byzantine-Ottoman world to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred.
  I would like to say a word about the Serbs. I am all against people making hobbies of Balkan countries. This has bedevilled our studies of them both before and after the first world war. The Serbs are a remarkable nation. Their resistance to the Turks in the 19th century was extraordinary. Their conduct in world war one can only be described as heroic, when one considers the way that they stood up and defeated the Austrian empire over nearly two years. In the second world war, their people rose like one man to throw out the Government who were prepared to make them satellites of Hitler. Much as they fought each other, their resistance movements were the most remarkable in Europe. When Tito broke with the Cominform in 1948, he had the support of the great mass of his people.
  We must bear it in mind that this is a formidable country with formidable people, and the decisions that we must take could put us on the wrong side of them. We may have to make such decisions.
  Should we recognise Bosnia as an independent country? As the hon. Member for Swansea, East said, it has conformed to all the Badinter principles, so I do not see how we can avoid doing so. If we do, we may well find ourselves with a Serbian and Croatian intervention. What

  471
  should we do then? How far should we increase the United Nations force? It is salutary to remember that Hitler needed nine divisions of troops to keep the roads open during the war.
  Another factor touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) was that there are 2 million Muslims in Bosnia, 2 million Muslims in Kosovo, about 3 million Muslims in Albania, nearly 1 million in Macedonia and half a million in Bulgaria. I do not want to suggest that we are facing an Islamic crisis in the heart of Europe. There is talk about Saudi and Libyan money coming in. I do not believe that there is a crisis, but we should bear it in mind that the Islamic population is not just a relic of the Ottoman empire, but may develop a dynamo of its own.
  The link between Bosnia and the Kosovo-Albanian world is the Sahjak of Novipazar. In our somewhat historically illiterate world, we forget that the Sahjak of Novipazar occupied acres of dispatches before world war one. It is a narrow belt of country that links Bosnia to the Albanian Muslim population. I went there many years ago, and in my experience the inhabitants of the Sahjak are Albanian on Monday, Serbian on Tuesday, Christian on Wednesday, Muslim on Thursday, and at the weekend I am not sure what they are. I do not think that they have changed very much.
  We must remember that another power is rising: Turkey. Turkish diplomacy is active, not only in the Caucasus and central Asia, but in the Balkans. They recognise Macedonia and Bosnia as independent countries. That does not pose a threat to the gates of Vienna, but if the Turks succeed in doing a deal with their Kurdish minorities to give them access to the oil of Mosul—and I hope they will—they could become quite a strong economic power with the capability of joining the European Community. I was glad that the Government and the Labour party put out the red carpet for Mr. Masud Barzavi when he was here. He may prove a formidable factor.
  What is the British interest? Britain has no great economic stake in Yugoslavia, although before the war we had some important mines there. However, we have a considerable political stake. We fought on that country's side at the Salonica front in world war one and contributed to the resistance movements of Tito and Mikhailovic. I do not want to go into details about whether we were right or wrong; the matter has been explored ad nauseam on television. But we were the only people who helped that country. When it broke with the Cominform, we were the first—led by Mr. Attlee with the full support of the Conservative party—to back it up and ensure that it maintained its independence.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am listening with fascination, as I have done on many occasions for the past 30 years. From the right hon. Gentleman's experience, would he say that to commit troops, albeit with United Nations berets, into that mire, would beg the question: in what circumstances could those troops ever be withdrawn?
  Mr. Amery: I thought that I went rather further than that when I recalled that Hitler needed nine divisions to keep the roads open. I am not sure what we are embarking on, but we should bear that point in mind.
  472
  We do not have a great economic stake in the matter, and we have some political credit. But we are concerned with the balance of power within the European Community. Before the European Community existed, we were concerned with the balance of power in Europe, which was not a community. Now we have to concentrate on the balance of power within Europe. Here our first priority is to restore our relations with France.
  From de Gaulle's time onwards, the French have had the idea that Germany is the horse, and they can be the jockey and ride it. The horse has turned into an elephant, and the mahoud who sits on top has nothing like the control of a jockey. Equally, the idea that one can tie down Germany with treaties is as absurd as the Lilliputians' belief that they could tie down Gulliver.
  Between the wars, France was the patron of Eastern Europe. Those considerable men—now, alas, forgotten —Benes, Titulescu, and King Alexander all looked to France for support. When France fell, all that they stood for was shattered.
  I remember going to a small peasant holding in central Serbia just after the fall of France. I was shown round by an elderly peasant who had one pig. He told me that he called the pig Churchill. I was somewhat offended and asked him why he called it Churchill. He said, "Winter is coming and this is my last hope of eating my way through the winter."
  Together, Britain and France, with the help of Turkey, could build up a Balkan community—I shall not call it a Balkan federation—which could look towards association with the European Community to which we belong. That association would be based not only on democracy, but on giving help to the agricultural community which still predominates in all the Balkan countries.
  Hon. Members may not always have seen me as a peasant, but I have been an honorary member of the Peasant International since 1940, because, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I was in a position to found the peasant parties of Serbia. Bulgaria and Romania to participate in resistance against the Germans.
  It has often been assumed that the Bulgarians are not really part of the progressive element in the Balkans. Perhaps the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will think differently—after all, there was a great Liberal penchant for the Bulgarians—but I remember clearly that the peasant parties before the war and the communists during the war wanted Bulgaria and Serbia to come together. Dimitrov and Tito wanted that: only Stalin stopped it. Perhaps there is work to be done there.
  There is certainly a task for us—for Britain, working with France and Turkey, to try to build an association of the countries that lie east of the fault line—if not Mitteleuropa then what we have always called the Balkans. I hope that it will be our Government, but whichever Government take the chair of the European Community next July, I hope that they will make this one of their first priorities.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: I am glad to have the chance to follow the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). I am sure that the whole House listened with great care and attention to what he said. We have heard him speak often, but even when we do not

  473
  accept his wisdom it is worth listening to. I should like to disagree with parts and agree with other parts of his speech. The whole House will have been fascinated to hear the right hon. Gentleman; no one speaks with greater experience on these and allied matters—which makes it all the more extraordinary when he appears to get them wrong.
  The right hon. Gentleman portrayed developments in the Balkans as largely resulting from German policy—a new drang nach osten. German policy is not as formidable as all that, and it does not account for the origin of the difficulties in the Balkans and in Yugoslavia. It is quite possible that the German Government have been trying to determine how best to serve their own interests, but several other Governments have been known to try to do that when they can.
  The right hon. Member for Pavilion spoke of British interests, but I believe that he was wrong about the origin of these affairs. While these developments were taking shape, the German Government came along with certain proposals, some right and some wrong—but they do not explain the origins of this business either.
  I do not believe, either, that the Yugoslav problem represents a recrudescence or revival of what has happened in the area before. Most of the Balkan countries before the second and the first world wars were rebelling against foreign imperialism, against outside Governments that tried to impose their will on them. The Austrian Government was the most hated of all; Turkey was another. The people of the Balkans sometimes combined against them.
  On top of all the human tragedies taking place in the area we must number the tragedy of the fact that Croats and Serbs have begun fighting each other at all. It is not as if they have often fought before or have just been waiting for a chance to start fighting each other. At times they combined to resist Austrian and then German imperialism, not to mention Turkish imperialism. Sometimes they united successfully to that end.
  Another reason why I question the right hon. Gentleman's advice in respect of British interests lies in his recommendation that we back the Turks—they look strong, so perhaps we should support them. The Turks have a great deal to answer for in their part of the world. They have been among the worst oppressors for many years. Without wanting to offend the Tory instincts of the right hon. Member for Pavilion, I recall that, when Gladstone and the Liberal party came out against some of the Turkish horrors, they did not receive the support of the Tory party in those far-off times. I believe that it would be short-sighted to look to Turkey as an ally.
  Turkey's behaviour towards the Kurds, towards the Greeks and over Cyprus militates against our picking on Turkey as an ally that we want to fold to our bosom merely because of the power that it may be able to exercise in years to come. It would be wiser of the British Government to understand how dangerous are some of the adventurist policies of the Turkish Government. They seized half of Cyprus in an act of aggression; they have committed many other acts of aggression and some horrific crimes against the Kurds. Yet the Turkish Government have not had to face an appropriate response from western countries, which have not denounced them because of our supposed interests in not quarrelling with them too openly.
  For all these reasons, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's recipe for what we should do in these
  474
  circumstances well advised, in the interests of the world or of this country. The predominant origin of these terrible events in Yugoslavia, the event which primarily, if not solely, led to the destruction of the Yugoslav state, was the letting loose of the federal army. The right hon. Member for Pavilion mentioned the successes of the Yugoslav state and how it successfully resisted the Stalinist empire. I agree that this country gave the Yugoslavs valuable support at that time. Had we not done so, perhaps they would not have made such a successful stand. Nevertheless, it was important for the Balkans and for the rest of the world.
  I do not want to go over atrocities committed both ways before, during or after the war. No one can deny that terrible atrocities were committed on both sides, often encouraged by the fascist powers occupying the countries concerned. Still, I believe that the immediate and overpowering cause of recent wretched events was the way in which the federal army was let loose. Either it was an army out of the control of the Belgrade authorities—that would be serious enough—or, if they still controlled it, what ensued was even more shameful and shocking.
  This, at any event, is the real reason for the spread of hatred and the revival of similar feelings. It is why they have gone so far that the state cannot be put back together again. Slovenia is an illustration of that. I know that it does not contain so much ethnic variety as the other states, but when, after trying to seize it, the federal army was stopped and withdrew, the question of Slovenia was satisfactorily and decently settled.
  That did not happen in Croatia, because the federal army was behaving differently there. It was rampaging through the country, exhibiting wanton barbarism. There were no Serbian minorities who had to be rescued from along the Croatian coast, and in so far as there were pockets of Serbians dwelling there, they were better treated than anyone else during these events. The Croats there understand that, and we must ensure that they do. There are no Serbian minorities in Dubrovnik. That city attracted the spectacular attention of the world because of its beauty, but it has more important features.
  The federal army rampaged up the coast and used its might in a way that it thought would enable it to impose itself by widespread intimidation not only there but throughout the country, including Bosnia. It thought that it would be able to do what it wanted. The army is almost 95 per cent. Serbian, and the percentage is more than that when the officers are included. Their doctrines had taught them that military power was all that would count in the end, if they used it with sufficient force and venom. Some member, of the army had practised that in Kosovo. The army thought that, if it did that, it would carry the day.
  That did not happen, because many people, some armed and some unarmed, were prepared to die in Croatia and elsewhere and they resisted. That is a much clearer account of what happened and the causes than the deeper historical causes about which the right hon. Member for Pavilion spoke, or any question of the German Government thinking that they could extract advantage from the place. Perhaps the German Government like to see their own interests advanced, but the idea that that was predominant was wrong. What I have described happened, and at that stage the EC countries and the United Nations had to decide what measures to take.
  I shall later speak about the conclusion of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) with which 1 strongly agree. The question of recognition for Croatia had to be

  475
  settled. It would have been impossible to continue for much longer refusing the Croatian demand. It might have been better if recognition had been given earlier, and in that sense the German Government's recommendation to the European countries had some sense. Those who deny that or question it should look at the votes cast by people in other parts of the country.
  I hope that the Macedonians will not exploit their position and cause trouble with the Greeks. They would be foolish to do that, but they had a right to vote for what they did, and if it had not been for the conduct of the federal army and those in Belgrade who backed it, I do not think that Macedonia would necessarily have voted in that way. The Bosnian vote might not have gone the same way three, four or six months ago. However, having had an illustration of the way in which the Serbian-controlled, or uncontrolled forces, operated throughout the area, the Bosnians were bound to vote in that way, and who are we to deny them the right to do so? We cannot say, "You should have waited a hit longer and seen more of your people slaughtered under the methods employed by the federal army."
  I hope that every hon. Member knows what happened in Dubrovnik, for example. What the federal army tried to do was one of the worst acts of that nature that has occurred since the bombing of Guernica, not only because of the beauty of the place but because of the people. The federal army tried to intimidate the whole population of Dubrovnik, and thought that if it kept up the bombardment and the threats, the population would have to clear out and the army could go in. If that had happened, most of Dubrovnik and many of the surrounding areas would have been occupied by Serbians and Serbian forces. But the people resisted and said, "We would rather die in our homes than see that happen."
  The same kind of resistance was offered in Macedonia and is now developing in Bosnia. It will not be overriden. It has been decided that Yugoslavia cannot be held together and that these separate countries or states, whatever they may be called, must have the right to make the choice by the ballot box. Of course that is extremely difficult where there are such conglomerations of people—nobody can deny that.
  I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who suggested in an intervention that it was wrong for British troops as part of the United Nations force to be sent into such a dangerous situation. Even before the decision was taken, I was in favour of it, and without it the killing would have gone on. If that had happened, the possibility of its uncontrolled spread not only in the Balkans but beyond would have been incalculable.
  This action is one of the primary functions of the United Nations. I was present as a reporter in 1945 at the establishment of the United Nations in San Francisco. Conflicts similar to these led people to say that we must have an international authority with the power and the capacity to send in troops speedily and the authority to settle disputes. To some of us, that was almost the first lesson to be learned from the failures between 1918 and 1945. We wanted a real United Nations with the power to act strongly and the backing of a Security Council to carry through what it wanted to do. I know that there are
  476
  problems, but if the United Nations had refrained from acting, it would have been a disaster for Yugoslavia and for the remnants of that country, and an even greater disaster for the world at large.
  I hope that the Government will remedy some of their past actions. It was not a glorious hour in the history of the British Foreign Office, because, for most of the time when the federal army was engaging in the rampaging acts that I have described and about which the whole world now knows, when Dubrovnik was starving and Cavat was being conquered and the whole coastline was being ravaged, the British Government should have done much more to get food to Dubrovnik. They gave support to the Red Cross, which is natural, but they could have done much more.
  Some other countries, such as Italy and France, did more than Britain. It may be said that those countries acted in their own interests. Perhaps they did, but it was an intelligent thing to do. We held back at critical moments. I hope there will be no more such holding back because for the solution to this problem and for the future of the world, we must hope that this United Nations force will have the necessary backing for as long as is necessary to try to establish real peace in the area.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): May I ask for a little voluntary restraint in the length of speeches? I am anxious to call all those who wish to speak, and there is much interest in the debate.
  5.39 pm
  Sir Bernard Braine: It is always a great pleasure to be able to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). We came into politics together, and we have been on many platforms advocating the same causes. It is always stimulating to listen to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), and I did so with great interest. The entire House too is deeply in debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for a masterly survey of one of the most intractable problems of our time. He introduced us in his speech to consideration of a most worrying problem. His Committee has performed a real service.
  The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford rightly focused on the situation in Croatia. The entire region, however, is on the edge of a catastrophe. In Hungary, to the north, there has been rapid economic progress since the throwing off of the shackles of communism, but there is deep anxiety about the safety of the Hungarian community in Vojvodina. Similarly, there is great anxiety about the considerable Hungarian population next door in Transylvania. I was in Budapest last summer. One of the most touching experiences that I had was when His Holiness the Pope visited the city. Many Transylvanian Catholics tried to cross into Hungary. When some of these people were told that I was British, they came to me weeping and pleading in broken English, "Help us." They did so because their own situation is dire.
  There is concern in Greece too about the threat of Macedonian expansion. Greece is a civilised member of the European Community. There is also deep anxiety about the ill treatment of the Greek minority in northern

  477
  Epirus in southern Albania. As I have said, we are dealing with an entire region and not only with the situation in Croatia, bad enough though it is.
  There is every reason for anxiety when we come to consider the Serbian minority in Croatia. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion and I are old enough to remember the war years. Incidentally, during the two world wars, the Serbs were our gallant allies from the beginning. I have never forgotten the resistance of Yugoslavia and Greece during the second world war. I remember an occasion when, in uniform but on leave, I was at a meeting in London on the very day that Yugoslavia declared war on Nazi Germany. It was a meeting of the Conservative central council addressed by Prime Minister Churchill. I remember him beginning dramatically, "Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, this morning Yugoslavia found her soul."
  There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the resistance of the Yugoslavs and then of the Greeks, followed by the last battles on Crete, delayed the German invasion of Russia by six weeks. As we know, the Nazis never captured Moscow, and that was one of the most decisive chapters in the war; it made a major contribution to the ultimate defeat of the Nazis. We therefore cannot separate ourselves from the brave but gravely troubled nations of which we are talking.
  We cannot be unsympathetic to the Serbs. We must remember that Croats in Nazi uniform massacred vast numbers of Serbs. The memory of that is still vivid in Serbian minds. We are dealing with an explosive situation.
  Last year I took the chair here at a remarkable meeting organised by a movement called Democratic Encounters. Many Yugoslav residents here were present and many Members of both Houses. I remember calling the first speaker and introducing him as an economist who worked in Belgrade. He was a Macedonian. I called the second speaker, who was a lady teacher of modern languages in Ljubljana university. She was a Slovene. The third speaker was a Croat and the fourth was a Serb. They all spoke from the vantage of their own community and in their part of Yugoslavia, but every one of them said the same thing. They were unanimous that there was no future for their country unless there was recognition of the democratic rights of minorities wherever they lived.
  It does not matter whether Yugoslavia is a single nation or whether it is, as in reality, a group of different nations but all linked by history and by blood. The only way forward is for all to recognise that such differences exist. There can be a future for them only if the supremacy of human rights is recognised.
  For that reason, I strongly welcome the arrival of the United Nations peace-keeping force. There is no point in saying now that members of that force may have to be there for ever; I am not a pessimist when it comes to human affairs. Who would have thought, two or three years ago, that communism would collapse in the Soviet Union, of all places, and in eastern Europe? Who would have thought that Mr. Gorbachev would go to Honecker at the time of the riots in East German cities and warn, "You will not use force against the rioters, and if you do you cannot count on the support of Soviet troops"?
  That message spread like wildfire through eastern Europe. The Poles had been the leaders, and followed the events that took place in Berlin, in Czechoslovakia and then in Hungary. But no shots were fired. No blood was spilt. Why? A British journalist who was present at the
  478
  crucial events, whether in Prague, Budapest or Berlin, wrote, "No Bastilles were stormed, no guillotines were erected and lamp posts were used except for lighting the streets." Why did that happen? It was the result of Mr. Gorbachev's warning to Honecker.
  Those who despaired and thought that they would never see the end of communism and its associated brutality in eastern Europe must not despair when examining the situation in Yugoslavia. We must keep our heads. It is pretty clear that a United Nations presence will have to be maintained in Yugoslavia for some time to come. In the meantime, there are forces of diplomacy and good will in Europe. The French used to have great influence in the Balkans. Russia still has a great interest in the region. Is it beyond the wit of western leaders now to find ways and means of persuading the troubled peoples of the Balkans to live and work peacefully together? I think not.
  5.49 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: I agree very much with the remarks of the Father of the House about the problems of the Hungarians in Vojvodina and Romania. I take the opportunity to salute the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who is no longer in his place. I have often had the opportunity to take up his remarks in foreign affairs debates. We shall miss his pugnacious, assertive and informed contributions.
  We must remember that Yugoslavia was an artificial creation of the great powers after the first world war. It was sustained after the second world war by the dictatorship, effective but cunning as it was, of Marshal Tito. When the collapse of communism came, it was widely predicted that there would be trouble in Yugoslavia. It was against that background that on 22 May 1991 I asked whether
  "the British Government would be willing to argue in the European Community in favour of the EC's taking on a role of mediation and perhaps even providing a peace-keeping force."
  The Minister—who is present now—replied:
  "I do not think that the European Community should play such a role."—[Official Report, 22 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 919]
  I repeated my arguments at greater length in an Adjournment debate on 22 July.
  Things have changed, but 1 feel that it should be put on record—I know that this is not a majority view in the House—that, in my view, the Government's approach to what had happened in Yugoslavia, right up to the early part of this year, was misguided: indeed, it could be described as wrong. In the end, as has already been said, we were dragged protesting into recognising Slovenia and Croatia by the Germans—not, I think, for want of good advice, but because of bad judgment.
  Let me be fair to the Government: that was the general British view. It was held by the press, by the academic foreign affairs establishment—the Chatham house people—and by many members of the Labour party; although, clearly, it was not held by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who has made such an effective speech this evening.
  After the destruction of Vukovar—which we should never forget—I set out my arguments in a letter to The Times on 3 December. I shall not read out that letter, but I shall summarise it. I said that what took place was not a civil war, as has been suggested; it was a war between Serbia and Croatia. Part of the "civil war" argument,

  479
  advanced at the time by both the European Community and the United States, was the proposition that we all had an interest in keeping Yugoslavia together. I do not agree with that either.
  It was also said that we must be even-handed. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, the Serbs had guns, tanks, aircraft—the Croatians had no aircraft—and armed ships. It was said that recognition would inflame the Serbians and make matters worse.
  By chance, on the very day on which my letter was published in The Times, an article by the Foreign Secretary was published in the same paper. It was entitled "Averting a Balkan tragedy". The Foreign Secretary wrote:
  "The recognition of Croatia, Slovenia and perhaps other republics may not be far off. But the advantages need careful calculation … If we recognise the republics too soon, we risk detonating the fragile peace in Macedonia and Bosnia".
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned that, too. It was widely argued that recognition would lead to an all-out assault on Croatia by the Serbians, involving all the horrors that correspondents such as John Sweeney of The Observer pictured so vividly.
  When the Germans pushed us into it—hon. Members who made that suggestion were right—they were accused of flexing their muscles post-Maastricht and of pushing people around. Often, that accusation was made by the very same people who were against the integration of the Germans in the Community decision-making process in regard to foreign affairs and other political matters. In the end, what had been done did not have that effect: hon. Members should remember that. In fact, it provided the basis for a cease fire and a settlement.
  It was necessary to demonstrate to the Serbs that they could not win a war of conquest. At the time, I was constantly sending letters to the Foreign Secretary, suggesting an air blockade, a naval blockade or some similar action to prevent the attacks, made from a distance, that Split and Dubrovnik—where, as has been said, there were no Serbs—had to suffer. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) mentioned Kosovo; it was not mentioned by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
  Croatia's population is 12 per cent. Serbian, and in Kosovo the proportion is 13·8 per cent. There is not much difference between those two figures, but in Kosovo, the Albanians, who represent an absolute majority, have no rights at all. It was, I suppose, not unreasonable to fear the possibilities. I am not attacking the Serbs per se; that would not be fair. I am not saying that all the Serbs supported Milosevic, or the old nomenklatura that still dominated the army. I do say, however, that we should have been much more active.
  I disagreed with the right hon. Member for Guildford, who used an odd expression: he spoke of "self-determination run riot". He also repeated the canard—as I judge it to be—that the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia made matters worse. It did not; in any event, I consider self-determination to be an entitlement, guaranteed by the United Nations. In that context, recognition was right and necessary.
  Mr. Norris: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. In considering the desirability or otherwise of recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, does he recognise that one of the concerns expressed by Kosovans
  480
  whom I saw, in Pristina and elsewhere, in December relates to the pressure imposed on Milosevic at least to try to rescue something of the dream of a greater Serbia that he has sold to the Serbian people, and thus to increase still further the pressure on the neck of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and Hungarians in Vojvodina? That might prove very dangerous for those poor, oppressed peoples, and they see it as the disadvantage of the premature recognition of Croatia and Slovenia.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I agree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that the second part follows. I entirely agree with him about the situation in Kosovo. The desperate situation in which Albania now finds itself is the main reason why there has not been a major problem: The Albanians cannot do anything about it.
  Then there is the matter of the Ustashe, and the suggestion that the Croatians were all fundamentally fascists. That is the other argument that is trundled out quite regularly. What the Ustashe did in the last war was awful—dreadful; there is no argument about that. But it is wrong to imply that the present Croatian Government had any intentions of that kind.
  I am not defending President Tudjman, who is not of my political persuasion—my contact in Croatia was with liberal democrats—but his Administration were anxious to impress on me their wish for a fair and open system that would protect the human rights of all people. I met many of the members of that Administration in December, when I visited Zagreb—including the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Separovic—and that was the view that they expressed. I do not deny that there was fear among the Serbs, but that fear did not justify what happened in Vukovar and Dubrovnik.
  This is my argument. Given the failure of Lord Carrington's efforts-I am sure that we all salute them —to achieve peace, the European Community, acting perhaps through the United Nations, should have been prepared to do something about the carnage that was being wrought by the Serbian army. On 4 December, in the Western European Union, I quoted from The Independent—which, in its turn, had quoted from a report by EC monitors. I do not think that it was ever published, apart from the press; I have never seen a copy.
  The Independent stated:
  "EC monitors have no doubt the Serbs bear greater responsibility".
  The European Community faced four choices, said the report:
  "to continue the monitors' mission, though it is increasingly ineffective; to withdraw … to generate a new UN or European initiative; or to deter the Yugoslav Army by force. Amplifying this last point the report says: 'the warship that fires on a defenceless city from a safe distance out to sea … must be put in a situation where it knows it can do so at the cost of being promptly sent to the bottom …'".
  I said that it was
  "that kind of direct and blunt talking and the presentation of choices"
  that we needed.
  I warmly recommend to the House the first-class editorial in today's Financial Times, which sets out a positive way forward:
  "Independence for Bosnia will be meaningless unless the territorial integrity of the republic can be guaranteed. Therefore the EC, if it goes ahead with recognition, must serve notice that it will not countenance claims on Bosnian territory".

  481
  with all that that means.
  I shall sum up my position. First, we should not belittle or mock self-determination. Secondly, we should face the fact that peacekeeping will be a necessary role in which the European Community will have to be increasingly involved. Thirdly, we must recognise Bosnia and Macedonia, and concentrate on ensuring human rights there.
  We must stop talking about the British interest and the German interest. We must talk about the human rights interest, instead of those old-fashioned issues. The Muslim issue must not be over-dramatised, either. On Tuesday night in Vienna, I had dinner with the Albanian ambassador—I had never met an Albanian before. He was a most interesting, intelligent and constructive man, who had been taking part in the negotiations in Vienna for 18 months, and he stressed strongly the fact that the idea that Iranian-style fundamentalism was operating in Albania was complete and utter nonsense. The right hon. Member for Pavilion also said that.
  My last point is that territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs are dead doctrines. Democracy is about letting people decide and defending their right to do so, provided that they do not impose their decision on others. It is a sad fact that hatred lasts a long time, so the United Nations may have to stay a long time. But what is the alternative? The alternative would be to do
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Michael Mates: It is all too rare in this place that in a short debate such as this there are so many distinguished contributions from some of the giants of the House. I for one am privileged to have been able to hear them, and now to be able to take part in the debate. Without in any way wishing to be sycophantic, I can only say that the next Parliament will be greatly the poorer because the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) will not be here still to give us the huge amount of advice that we have had from them over the years.
  Almost for the first time, I can tell the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent that I agreed with almost everything he said. He and I have often debated such matters without often being in total agreement, but I am in complete agreement with what he has said today.
  I shall intervene only briefly in the debate on the narrow point of the British military contribution to the United Nations force. Over the past few weeks, especially following the Secretary-General's recommendation to the Security Council, it has been widely reported that we shall make a substantial contribution of service personnel to the proposed United Nations force to be deployed in Yugoslavia. However, nothing has been said to the House on the subject, or to the Select Committee on Defence, which has a special interest in such matters.
  The Select Committee returned a couple of weeks ago from a two-day visit to the British forces in Germany—during which time, coincidentally, we met our sister committee, the defence committee of the Bundestag. We had an interesting debate on the matter, and mentioned the rather strange fact that, although the Germans were the people forcing the pace of European action, now that action is to be taken they will tell us that they are the only ones who are unable to play any part in the consequences
  482
  of what they so strongly advocated. Germany's position on the deployment of troops outside her borders is an interesting paradox which we all hope will be resolved sooner or later.
  When we returned, we asked the Ministry of Defence for some sort of briefing, or some information about the United Kingdom component of the proposed force. We suggested either a formal or an informal appearance of a Minister or senior official at our meeting at the end of February so that we could get some idea of what was being proposed. The Committee had hoped thereby to be able to assist the House in today's debate by making available some sort of brief document.
  Alas, Ministers judged that
  "there is very little at this stage on which the Committee could usefully be briefed, either in private or open session".
  We were told that the Government were likely to want to report to the House once agreement had been reached with the United Nations, but since then there has been silence—although, according to a written answer given last Friday, 28 February, to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) the Ministry was still discussing what form the United Kingdom contribution might take.
  We understand, again from the press, that there are anxieties about the costs of the force, and who is to meet them. That is right. I am sure that such matters should be settled first. Our recent experience in the Gulf has no doubt shown us, as well as our American and French allies, and the military planners, how much time, trouble and money can be saved by sensible use of existing civilian infrastructure on such occasions, and the advantages to be gained if one can obtain host nation support.
  Yugoslavia is well endowed with much that would be useful to a force, so I have no quarrel with the idea of taking time to get things right. However, I do not find it so understandable that the House has been told so little about the assets that we have proposed to make available, and the conditions under which British troops will be expected to serve. To put the matter in context, a number of British troops are currently deployed under United Nations auspices, notably the 800-strong United Kingdom contingent with the United Nations forces in Cyprus, which the Select Committee last visited in January 1989, and which has been there for almost 30 years. There are also contingents with the multinational force and observers in Sinai, with the observer force in the western Sahara.
  Shortly, I gather, there will be a contingent in Cambodia, as part of the United Nations effort there. We have recently contributed to mine clearance training in Pakistan and to the United Nations transition assistance group in Namibia. We provide logistic support— that phrase may understate how crucial the support is—for the United Nations forces in Lebanon and on the Golan heights, and for the United Nations forces in Cyprus as a whole. That is in addition, of course, to the considerable Royal Marine contribution to the relief and protection of the Kurds in the wake of the Gulf war.
  Those peacekeeping tasks, which primarily, although not exclusively, fall on the Army, are an important contribution which the services make on our behalf, and one which all commentators agree will increase both in total and as a proportion of other tasks in the decades ahead.

  483
  In its thorough and excellent report, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs warned of the danger that the United Nations peacekeeping force would be unable to retire from the area once it was established, and that Serbian areas in Croatia could become
  "uncontrolled with a virtually permanent large force."
  It is agreed that the force will remain in Yugoslavia until a negotiated settlement is achieved. Despite the heroic efforts of my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Carrington, that could still be a very long haul.
  Those two aspects—the likelihood that the United Kingdom contribution on this occasion will be the first of several, if not the first of many, and the possibility that it will become as established a part of the United Nations peacekeeping structures as our force in Cyprus has proved to be—lead us to be especially interested both in what we are to contribute and the detailed arrangements that will be made.
  In the middle of February the press carried several broadly similar articles on the likely British contribution, stating that it would consist primarily of Royal Engineers, Royal Signallers and the Royal Corps of Transport, but that there would be no combat infantry or armour, and that the total number of personnel would be about 1,000. The press also speculated—I suppose that it was no more than that—that senior officers had hoped to field a complete self-supporting infantry battalion group, but that commitments, especially the two additional battalions in Northern Ireland, ruled that out.
  Mention was also made of the provision of several C130 Hercules aircraft, and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary escorted by HMS Arrow. Two weeks ago the Daily Express reported:
  "British sappers and RAF transport planes will fly to Yugoslavia in the next two weeks to join the UN peacekeeping force".
  Have they? Was that all pure invention, or were Ministers, senior officers or officials willing to tell journalists yet unwilling to tell the House?
  Assuming that that is the type of contribution envisaged, a number of questions arise which the Select Committee on Defence would usually ask Ministers in the next few weeks. However, we are in the dying days—or what might be the dying days—of a Parliament, so the Committee's functions can best be fulfilled if I now ask at least some of those questions in the hope that answers might be forthcoming, either later this evening or in writing at an early date.
  What are the command arrangements within the force below the level of force commander? What will be the rank and function of the senior United Kingdom commander, and to whom in the United Kingdom chain of command will he be responsible? On security, the Secretary-General's report suggests that the force will hire four fixed-wing aircraft and 26 helicopters. They will presumably be unarmed, so what protection will the force—especially the United Kingdom elements—have against air attack?
  United Nations documents say that the normal rules for the bearing and use of arms will apply. Will Ministers say whether all our personnel will be armed for self-protection? What rotation arrangements are envisaged for personnel—the usual six months? What
  484
  allowances will be paid? Will any reservists be called out? What medical services will they need to have made available?
  I have no doubt that the thorough planning which has occurred during the past few months will ensure that our contribution to the force is well planned and well thought out and will, as always, demonstrate to the world at large the outstanding qualities of our professional armed forces. I regret that information is so scarce and that our chances to do what we can to generate a better understanding of what is involved is so limited.
  In the hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions, it only remains for me, on behalf of the Select Committee on Defence, to wish any of our service men who are sent to do what will be a very difficult task the very best of good fortune.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I associate myself fully with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) about the contribution that British troops may make to the United Nations force in Croatia and Yugoslavia.
  The Father of the House reminded us of the amazing convulsive changes that have occurred in the past few years. As we end this Parliament and face a general election, I wonder what we would have thought about a parliamentary candidate in 1987 or about an hon. Member at the beginning of 1987 if he had said that in the lifetime of this Parliament we would see the reunification of Germany, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a war in Iraq, a white president in South Africa abolishing apartheid and the prospect of 1,000 British tr000ps ending up on the Bosnian-Croatian borders to attempt to create peace and harmony in those far-off lands. I think that he might have been the victim of the men in white coats who would have carried him away. He would not have been heard with the seriousness that he deserved.
  We have witnessed those very events. As a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, it has been my privilege to witness and to try to report on them during the past four dramatic years. On behalf of my hon. Friends, may I say what a pleasure and privilege it has been to serve on that Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
  This report was one of the hardest to prepare and to write, because we were facing issues that we did not believe that we would have to face in Europe again. That belief is shared outside among the young generation. The collapse of the old post-war order established by Yalta which created the division of power between east and west and suppressed the tremendous variety of feelings and national identities within Europe is bringing about a range of new problems with which we have not had to deal for the best part of 30 or 40 years. Members of the Committee, people in Europe and those on the international scene must consider whether there are any ways in which new political arrangements and a new order can be established—even in the wider Europe—to accommodate the problems, difficulties and potential conflicts that arise.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) rightly said that we must begin by realising that the sense of self-determination, national

  485
  consciousness and national identity is not a temporary phenomenon. It is basic and fundamental to the human condition and to society.
  That point was vividly and brilliantly described in a recent essay by Isaiah Berlin called "The Bent Twig". It describes the thinking of the 18th-century German philosophers who, in some ways, were the creators of the best aspects of national consciousness and identity. He writes that one such philosopher argued
  "that every human condition had its own unique shape and pattern. Its members were born in a stream of tradition which shaped their emotional and physical development…There was a central historically developing pattern that characterised the life and activity of every identifiable community"
  and that expressed itself in the nation state.
  If we do not recognise the fact that what is now emerging had been suppressed by the universalism of communism which tried to ignore separate identities and feelings, we shall not be able to decide how best to arrange our affairs and possibly create a new order in Europe and beyond.
  Talking to my children and the younger generation, I find that they are astonished that, as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, arguments are being expressed in what they thought were old-fashioned concepts. They thought that such concepts were for Africa—African nationalism is throwing off imperial domination—but they did not think that it would be part of the new European experience. Only the older generation understood what Bosnia-Herzegovina was about and what the problems were.
  The Committee had to ask whether, despite the tremendous fragmentation and the fact that there were to be different expressions of freedom through national identity and the principles of self-determination, there was a better way to handle matters than we had witnessed in Yugoslavia. Unlike the Foreign Office, I do not believe that Yugoslavia is sui generis. Although Yugoslavia may be an extreme, the issues that it raises must be considered in other contexts.
  When we put that question to witnesses, including the Foreign Secretary, we were understandably given a cautious and, indeed, minimalist view. The Committee's report quotes the Foreign Secretary as saying:
  "I do not think we should have standing machinery for resolving conflict as we have just been describing because I think they are all different. I think in practice the countries concerned have to work out the way in which they are going to live together."
  Of course, the ideal would be internal self-determination by peaceful resolution of conflicts within the communities, but it has not happened and it may not happen. What contribution can the international community and political institutions make to assist and perhaps help to avoid conflicts of the type that we have witnessed in Yugoslavia?
  I agree with hon. Members—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—who said that we have at last rediscovered the real function of the United Nations. It is now beginning to play the role that those who built and promoted it after the war meant it to play. It is a major international role, and I wholeheartedly support the commitment that we are making as part and parcel of the United Nations force. However difficult the task and whatever mire the force may go into, it could at least create some stability, but we must go further and offer other alternatives.
  486
  While drawing up our report, we discovered that although communities are now breaking up, although there is fragmentation and although people want to govern themselves and decide what type of institutions and political society they wish to create —whether Croatian, Slovenian or Serbian—they also want, paradoxically, to belong to something bigger. They want to belong to a bigger community of one kind or another. With that fragmentation and self-determination come requests to belong to NATO and the European Community. In a curious and interesting way, the new smaller self-governing communities that are emerging from the collapse of the Soviet domination of many of those territories will seek to belong to workable and successful organisations and communities that are bigger than themselves.
  We have something to offer in two areas. First, we can offer security through association and involvement in a broader and redefined NATO. The Select Committee found that the new communities want to belong to a community that is broader than NATO—to a North Atlantic Co-operation Council. Secondly, there is no doubt that the new communities of Croatia, Slovenia and others that might follow, will want to belong to a broader and wider European Community for economic and political reasons.
  The combination of the United Nations role in the peace-making context and the institutions such as the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, NATO and the European Community offers an opportunity to embrace a new order and create meaningful political relationships that may resolve some of those conflicts instead of their being resolved through the use of guns or armed conflict. That may be a cock-eyed and optimistic view, but at least the desire of those smaller communities to belong to larger communities offers an opportunity to encourage development.
  We should make it a condition that, to belong to the European Community in its broader sense, to the North Atlantic Co-operation Council or to CSCE, those communities should accept a series of values, a form of behaviour and a way of resolving conflicts different from the way in which conflicts have been resolved in Yugoslavia. We should use the desire to belong to broader communities to change behaviour. Surely that is the great political value of the European Community.
  Even in my political lifetime, Spain, Portugal and Greece have been governed by dictators. However, they will no longer accept dictatorship, because they realise that they cannot have a dictatorship and also belong to the broader European Community. If we can create the same meaningful relationship between the new smaller states and communities that will emerge as a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union in respect of the broader community of Europe and NATO, and at the same time, impose the condition that those communities should resolve their conflicts differently from what has happened in Yugoslavia, there is real hope for a new European order.
  Mr. John Gorst: I have listened with interest and sympathy to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he is right. However, will he consider one awkwardness that might arise? Is there not a danger that disputes between people on a small local level might be escalated to the larger local level to which they might

  487
  subsequently belong if they follow the line of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)?
  Mr. Rowlands: I understand that, but there is a greater danger if we return to the instability of the old order when other nation states begin to play politics in and around those conflicts. It is better to consider the issue in the greater community terms that I have described. That is why I strongly support our contribution to the United Nations and its role.
  I hope and believe that, in the context of Europe, we will be able to create a new European order. Yugoslavia came perhaps too soon with regard to such developments and institutions, but let us hope that we will be ready to handle such issues better in future.
  6.24 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): It might be for the convenience of the House if we were to conclude the debate at 7 pm. A number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak and, for that reason, I do not intend to speak for longer than 15 minutes. Therefore, I will not answer all the points that have been raised and I hope that the House will forgive me for that.
  May I begin by echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said about three very distinguished speeches by three right hon. Members who will be retiring at the end of this Parliament. Between them, they muster more than 120 years of service. We will all miss the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braille), the Father of the House, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). They have illuminated this debate and we have discovered some strange things: I did not use to believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion was a founder member of the Peasant party. I hope very much that those three right hon. Members will continue to participate in the political debate in this country—and perhaps from another place.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) on focusing on this subject and giving the House an opportunity to debate it. The issue is very grave. We are all extremely relieved that there is now a cease fire in place in what was Yugoslavia. However, we must recognise that it is very fragile and that it has been breached. Consequently, we must recognise that it could break down and that fighting could recommence in a pretty disastrous manner.
  Very broadly, the United Kingdom Government, the European Community and the United Nations have a twin-track policy, the first element of which is to encourage the parties to participate in the negotiations under the chairmanship of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington. The House believes that that conference is an important contribution to the solution of the problems in what was Yugoslavia. The second track is that we strongly support the deployment of a peace keeping force. That is essential, and I very much welcome the Security Council's decision to deploy such a force.
  I will try to respond to several questions which have properly been raised during the debate. First, I want to
  488
  refer to a very important question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and echoed for my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire. They wanted to know about the level of the United Kingdom contribution to the peacekeeping force. The answer is that we have not yet reached a conclusion.
  The United Nations has made it plain that it has no present need for infantry. We are considering how we can help to provide support troops in the form of a contribution by specialist troops in an area in which we have particular expertise. Exactly how we might respond will depend on further discussions with the United Nations secretariat and on the advance party which will arrive next week. There will be 20 British representatives in the advance party.
  Among the issues that will have to be considered are the security arrangements for any British contingent. We will reach a conclusion after the advance party has reported. It follows that I cannot respond to the detailed questions from my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire because the decision has not yet been taken.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford asked the very important question whether the involvement of the European Community assisted. I believe that it did, in a number of important ways. First, and perhaps most obviously, the monitors were deployed and they had an important role to play. They were very courageous and, as the House will know, a number of them died. Secondly —again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford picked up this point—the trade sanctions that we imposed concentrated the minds of the participants in the war.
  Thirdly, and most important of all, we made it plain on many occasions that the European Community in particular and the international community in general would not accept the forcible alteration of frontiers. That fact, which was impressed upon the minds of Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Tudjman, has had a very important impact on the thinking of the leaders of those two republics.
  I understand the argument of those who have suggested that our recognition of Croatia was premature. The House will know—I make no secret about it; nor did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—that we were very cautious about the process of recognition of Croatia, because we believed that it would remove one of the sanctions on President Tudjman. For that reason, we pressed caution upon our colleagues within the Community between August of last year and January of this year. However, by January of this year, it became plain that many states within the Community were determined to recognise Croatia. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent suggested that the position by then had become inevitable. The right hon. Gentleman was right; it was inevitable. It was right to do it at that time, and we would have gained nothing by withholding our own recognition. On that matter I am extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman supports the position of Her Majesty's Government.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) suggested that we did not make sufficient use of financial leverage that the European Community had over Croatia, Serbia and the other republics. I do not think that that is correct. We have and have had financial leverage which we have used. Perhaps I might remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we suspended the trade advantages that what was Yugoslavia had in its dealings with the European

  489
  Community. We reinstated them in so far as they related to republics which co-operated with the work of the United Nations and the European Community, and we have, of course, future relations. The House will see that we shall move more swiftly towards association agreements with regard to Slovenia than, for example, with regard to Croatia, unless it is clear that Croatia is going to respond quickly to the chapter 2 requirements in my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington's draft treaty.
  I now respond to a question that was advanced by the hon. Member for Swansea, East in respect of the monitors. I have already said that I believe that they have made an important and brave contribution. It is not our intention to withdraw them. It is our intention that they should stay for some time ahead—we cannot say quite how long—and that they should operate in those areas where the United Nations peacekeeping force is not operating.
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the Kosovo. Again, that matter was raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, East and by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). It is an extremely serious issue. As the House knows, the Albanians form a substantial majority in the Kosovo—more than 90 per cent. I agree with what right hon. and hon. Members have said to the effect that the political and human rights of Albanians in the Kosovo are of great importance and must be addressed within the context of the peace conference.
  I can assure the House that that is the formal view of Her Majesty's Government, and I know it to be the view of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington. I know, too, that it is the collective view of Ministers within the Community.
  Mr. Norris: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I would rather not give way, as I shall be very strict with myself, and I shall sit down, almost regardless, at the end of 15 minutes.
  Bosnia was referred to by hon. Members, most notably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion. He asked rhetorically whether we recognised Bosnia. That is an extraordinarily difficult question, and the argument is properly balanced. My right hon. Friend summarised the arguments with clarity and fairness. On the one hand, if we recognise Bosnia, there will be the substantial risk that the Serbs will fight. On the other hand, if we do not recognise Bosnia, we will, in a sense, neglect the fact that we encouraged them to hold a referendum to determine their view, and what would be the view of the Croats and the Muslims who clearly want independence and have so declared that wish by a substantial majority? It will be extraordinarily difficult to withhold recognition for any extended period. We must focus on questions that are addressed to keeping the peace in that part of what was Yugoslavia.
  As I have been talking about Bosnia, it might be helpful if I say something about Macedonia, which has also been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members. Again, we need to proceed cautiously, but we must bear in mind the views of the Badinter report. In effect, Mr. Badinter reported that there was no good reason why Macedonia should not be recognised. The Greeks are very concerned about that recognition. My right hon. Friend the Member
  490
  for Castle Point urged those considerations with great clarity and with his normal elegance, and he has a considerable point.
  However, it will be very difficult to withhold recognition of Macedonia for an extended period. It is important to try to reconcile the conflicting interests of Greece on the one hand and Macedonia on the other hand. That can be done, and we need to try to do it.
  Another important issue that has been raised is Serbian rights in Croatia. That point was addressed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Pavilion. It is absolutely central to the matter. The rights of the Serbs in Croatia are of critical importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point was right when he reminded the House of the history of the second world war. That matter plays an important part in the draft treaty prepared by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington. The House will know that chapter 2 of that draft treaty provides for autonomous status for the Serbian regions within Croatia.
  It is absolutely essential that we all bend our collective efforts and wills to trying to protect the rights of minorities, and for those purposes, Serbian minorities in Croatia. That is a duty for us all. We must continue to impress upon President Tudjman the fact that, unless he agrees to do that and to comply with the requirements contained in chapter 2 of that draft treaty, he will find that relations with the European Community—and, indeed, with the rest of the world—are very much less cordial than he would otherwise wish them to be.
  I have given myself a 15-minute time limit; I have nearly reached the end of it. I apologise to those right hon. and hon. Members to whom I have not been able to give a considered response. That is due not to discourtesy but to lack of time. I conclude by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford for giving us an opportunity to consider such an important issue.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) on the excellence of the report that was produced by his Committee. Although I agree with the sentiments that were expressed by the Minister, I must say that I am at odds with him in respect of his belief that we were correct in recognising Croatia. I believe that it was a very great error. The main motive that led the Government to recognise Croatia was the need to have the support of the Germans for what we required under the Maastricht treaty. That was an undesirable feature of a policy which, until that point, had been rightly even-handed.
  When I came back from Yugoslavia last August, I reported to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I allowed Ministers to see what was in the report. We were more or less in agreement. Indeed, I received a letter from the Minister saying that he agreed with most of what I said. I said:
  "recognition of the independence of Slovenia and Croatia should be withheld. One might get away with recognising Slovenia, but the Serbs in Croatia would regard this as a sell-out as far as they are concerned and full-scale civil war would be almost inevitable."
  I regret that we gave way to the Germans. I have a lot of time for Mr. Genscher. He has been forthright and wise

  491
  in his foreign policy towards the Soviet Union in the period of its break-up. But I remind the Minister that I tabled a question on 20 February
  "To ask the Secretary of State upon what principles he will base his policy towards Bosnia-Herzegovina after its proposed referendum on 28th February."
  In part of his reply, referring to the guidelines adopted by EC Ministers in December, the Under-Secretary said that the state would have to
  "guarantee the rights of minorities; respect the inviolability of frontiers except by peaceful agreement".—[Official Report, 20 February 1992; Vol. 204, c. 227.]
  None of us would disagree with that, but none of those principles appertained to Croatia.
  Indeed, the Badinter report made it clear that the arbitration commission was unhappy about the situation in Croatia. It said:
  "Regarding Croatia, the Commission has concluded that: —the constitutional law of 4 December 1991 does not cover in their entirety all of the points in the draft Convention of 4 November 1991, in particular those included in Chapter II, article 2C under the heading 'special status';
  —it is consequently incumbent on the authorities of the Republic of Croatia to add to the constitutional law…With this reservation, Croatia satisfies the required conditions."
  I maintain that on 15 January we were forced into recognition by pressure from Germany. I believe that we recognised Croatia because of Maastricht and not through the independent will of our Foreign Ministers.
  Since then, in a well-respected Croatian newspaper, Zagrebacki Vjestnik, Miroslav Krec wrote on 12 February 1992:
  "Growing dissatisfaction is becoming evident on the part of people of Moslem, Serbian, Montenegrin and other nationality (including Croatian), who are becoming increasingly vocal 'foreign citizens' as they pursue rights lost overnight in the very Republic in which many of them were born.
  How does one explain to an ever increasing number of dissatisfied people who these days queue for hours for the right of citizenship, that overnight they have become permanently resident foreigners in the Republic of Croatia, even though they were born in Croatia and spent their whole lives in Croatia?
  This is how many people in Croatia are being treated according to the Law on Croatian Citizenship and who, as a result of its provisions, are unable to preserve their basic human rights: they are unable to obtain a Croatian passport, their property rights are unresolved and they have no right to vote—even after 40 or 50 years of life and work in Croatia".
  That is the situation as seen by a Croatian writer in a respected newspaper in Croatia today.
  There are many well-justified fears that there are yet to emerge in Croatia many more extremist opinions even than that of Franjo Tudjman. In some instances, schools have been renamed. One school has been renamed in honour of Mile Budak, Foreign Minister in the Ustashe Government during the second world war—a Government, incidentally, who were on the opposite side to us in that confict.
  The Minister must see that the final remarks of his speech this evening are given full force. The Croatian Government must be told that human rights infringements —for infringements they are—must be put right and that we are not content simply to regard Milosevic as the worse of two criminals, so to speak. I believe that both Milosevic and Tudjman have a considerable amount to answer for.
  492
  Those of us who have known Yugoslavia over an extended period—in my case since the early 1960s—know full well that, despite all the difficulties of living under the communist Government, the Yugoslav regime was one of the more liberal in eastern Europe. There was some freedom of speech. I spoke to Milovan Djilas when I was in Yugoslavia in August. He was saddened by what was happening even though he was a leading dissident in the Tito years.
  The great danger in eastern Europe now is a rise of nationalist leaders. It may be a more considerable danger than what went before. Such nationalist leaders know that, by playing the old-fashioned nationalist card and harking back to before not the second but the first world war, they can harness opinion in their name.
  Kosovo has been mentioned. I agree with what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) had to say on the subject. Milosevic made his name by exploiting Serbian nationalism against the majority of the people in Kosovo province. There is a danger in giving Macedonia recognition. It is a true that the present Government in Macedonia seem a perfectly responsible, respectable Government with no territorial ambitions, but once party politics enters the scene in a free and independent Macedonia, who knows whether a Tudjman or Milosevic might not be lurking in the wings? Such a person might see a possibility of gaining power in his country by exploitation and by extending his eyes across the frontier into Greece, Albania or Bulgaria.
  It was in our interests to stand by Yugoslavia. Way back, when I visited the Minister in the Foreign Office the year before last, I said that we should promote Yugoslavia's interests as a future member of the Council of Europe and suggested that we should have a special association treaty, and so on. Such suggestions tended to be ignored in those days. Perhaps we were more concerned about what was coming up in the Gulf.
  I pay my respects to Lord Carrington for what he has done and is doing in the peace conference. I hope that the peace conference and the European Community can bring the peoples of Yugoslavia together again in some loose form of confederation. To have nationalities springing up all over the place giving encouragement to groups in other parts of eastern Europe, and even in western Europe is highly dangerous to peace in the world. It is in our interests to seek to put the pieces together.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. David Harris: Like many others, I am privileged to take part in the debate because almost certainly it will be the last occasion when my right hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will speak in a foreign affairs debate in the House. We are all conscious of that.
  I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). I have long been aware of his deep interest in and knowledge of Yugoslavia. I agree with his concluding words. If I may say so to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, the view expressed by the hon. Member for West Derby was what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr.

  493
  Howell), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, had in mind when he spoke of the dangers of states splitting up into small units.
  To those of us who are interested in the development of the European Community a multiplicity of independent small states will pose a particular problem. If they are all eager to enter the European Community, it will pose a major challenge.
  I quarrel on one point with the hon. Member for West Derby. He said that our Government's recognition of Croatia and Slovenia was somehow a deal with the Germans to ease the way at Maastricht. I am sure that that is not the case. We and the rest of the European Community were bounced by the Germans into recognising Croatia. It was premature recognition. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State rightly said that we had adopted a cautious approach to recognition. But in the last period of our caution we were stampeded and we had no alternative if we wanted to maintain a unified European Community line. The Secretary of State used almost those words to the Select Committee.
  I share the fears of many hon. Members who have spoken that, although it is right for a United Nations force to go into Yugoslavia, it will be a long time before it withdraws. Consider the Cyprus example. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, said, it is nearly 30 years since the United Nations forces went into Cyprus.
  The use of United Nations forces often takes the pressure off the need for a settlement between the two warring factions in the area. I am afraid that that will be the case in Yugoslavia. The force will probably take the political heat out of the situation, we and the world community will quickly become bored with the subject and another United Nations force—with Britain rightly participating in it—will be left there for many years, possibly for decades. I do not think that that is a good solution.
  Finally, as I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, let me say that although the debate has concentrated on Yugoslavia, the report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs went wider, and it is a pity that we have not had time to debate some of the other huge issues. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that, when we were planning and deciding to carry out the report last summer, intense fighting had not broken out in Yugoslavia, the coup had not taken place in the Soviet Union and nor had its break-up.
  As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, the great rush of events that we have witnessed in this Parliament and in the past year have been exciting, but they have also been challenging and dangerous. I do not think that anyone has mentioned the fact that, even though there has not been a large migration from certain parts of eastern Europe, that remains a danger. It could and probably will happen in time, and it will provide us with an enormous challenge, especially in the European Community.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am aware that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall keep my remarks brief by focusing on one issue which has been mentioned during the debate—the implications of the crisis and the series of events for the attempts of the
  494
  European Community to develop a common foreign and security policy. One thread of argument has run through the debate, implying a criticism of the Community in those attempts, and saying that what has happened with regard to Yugoslavia represents a failure on the part of the Community. I wish to argue strongly against that imputation.
  The most remarkable aspect of the approach of the various countries of the Community towards the events in Yugoslavia is the way in which they have bent over backwards to maintain a united and common approach to the problem. They have tried to march in step when tackling the problem. Why have the various European countries done that, despite the obvious tensions? We have all mentioned the German angle, Germany's influence and its attitude to the recognition of Croatia. Despite that, there has been an attempt to maintain unity. Why?
  First, it has been recognised that all efforts to alleviate the problem would have been fruitless without that sort of common front. The only way in which European countries may have a positive influence on the situation in Yugoslavia is by maintaining their unity and by operating through the Community. By so doing, each country has had a much greater influence than it could have had individually.
  The second main reason for an impetus for a common approach was simply to avoid the real danger that, if countries took different approaches, smaller quarrels and conflicts could have merged into greater conflicts between the countries of western Europe. Surely that has been the historical pattern in Europe, especially in the Balkans. If the great powers—as they used to be called—begin to pick and choose different sides in a conflict which is restricted or localised to the Balkans, a small conflict may be magnified into a more dangerous dispute between larger countries. We see the prospect of that happening in Yugoslavia, in the dispute over the recognition of Macedonia. The Greek Government, acting from a purely national perspective, take one view, which other countries in western Europe find difficult to accept and to acknowledge.
  A common approach by the European Community on tackling such problems is the only way in which we can have a positive influence on the resolution of those difficulties. The lesson to come out of the Yugoslav crisis is not the failure of a common foreign and security policy in the Community but the urgent need for one.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Steve Norris: In the one minute which I shall allow myself, I must welcome the observation of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State when he made it clear that the British Government regard the settlement of the plight of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo as an essential part of the settlement for the former Yugoslavia. Having visited Kosovo in December, I know that their plight is desperate and is not to be underestimated. That is the forgotten region of Yugoslavia, and the irony is that that is probably because they have so far desisted from taking violent action against the Serbians, who have dominated them so ruthlessly for so many years. My hon. and learned Friend's remarks were most welcome.

  495
  In my experience, this has been the best debate of the past two Parliaments. To date, every speech has been of superb quality and, like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have found it stimulating and enjoyable.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I shall also speak briefly. One of my constituents is trapped in Yugoslavia and her parents telephoned me today. I have raised the matter with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I hope that every conceivable effort will be made to protect her and to get her and her children out in extremely difficult circumstances.
  It seems that there is at least one ray of hope in this tragic situation. In fine speeches, my right hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) looked back to similar situations in 1940, but the position now is different. We have the advantage of the European Community and the United Nations, in its new mode.
  I do not believe in a federal Europe. Some of the problems in Yugoslavia are a result of that form of federalism, which does not work. Now, we are in a completely different situation from that in 1940. Although there may be a background of German influence, none the less there is a probability—I hope a certainty—that we can combine national fervour with real democracy, and thereby help to mitigate the consequences of human nature.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. David Howell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?
  Mr. Howell: With the leave of the House, I wish to thank right hon. and hon. Members for the way in which they have received the report.
  In the debate we have had the benefit of wise minds and long memories, and we should not be too surprised that they have disagreed with each other except in the one conclusion that has been generally agreed: we must support the UN as it goes into the terrifying situation to stop the killing. If we can wish the UN forces godspeed in that effort, our debate will have been worth while.
  The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

Northern Ireland
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
7 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I am very glad that we are having this debate today. It is taking place at the request of the leaders of three of the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and is of a somewhat different nature from our usual debates. Normally, they take place in connection with a particular piece of legislation or in response to events in the Province. On this occasion, we have a welcome opportunity for a wide-ranging and perhaps more reflective debate. I propose to keep my remarks relatively brief, but it may assist the House, if I give a general appraisal of the Government's general approach.
It is a paradox that, despite the vicious terrorist attacks which occur in Northern Ireland, numerous studies over the years have shown the Province to be among the most socially stable and law-abiding communities in the western democracies. There are strong local communities and a long tradition of good neighbourliness. Northern Ireland people are known for their work ethic and their strong Christian values. Northern Ireland has achievements in the industrial, agricultural, academic, medical and other spheres of which it can justifiably be proud.
Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State has referred to the incidents of violence that have occurred. He will be aware of the massive car bomb that exploded in my constituency this morning. He will know that that caused extensive damage to many properties in the heart of the commercial centre of the town. They will have to be demolished. However, I am pleased to tell him that the Union flag, although somewhat tattered, still flies on its flagpole in the centre of the town.
In that spirit, the traders will rebuild their businesses. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents that they will receive not just interim compensation, as I trust they will, but will be assisted to get back into business even from temporary premises as quickly as possible? Will he also instruct the appropriate authorities to cut the red tape so that my traders are able to get back into business?
Mr. Brooke: I intend to refer to that event later, but I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific questions which relate to compensation and help to get back into business. The Government have already reacted to the bombing in Lurgan. Fourteen loss adjusters and a team from the Northern Ireland Office were on site this morning to ensure that people have the advice to make claims, which will be processed as quickly as possible. In the Province, there is a tradition of rapid response to such situations. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that.
I was referring to the achievements of the Province. Northern Ireland has the lowest rate of infant mortality in the United Kingdom and one of the highest rates of success in renal transplants. We lead the world in certain neurosurgical techniques. In mathematics, Northern Ireland children at 11 and 15 out-perform their counterparts in England and Wales. They get better results more generally at A-level and contribute to the highest level of participation in higher education in the United Kingdom where, again, success at national level attends

497
them. The uptake of the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme is higher in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales, as is charity giving. Levels of indoor sport participation are the highest in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland pioneered the vertical take-off jet, the modern farm tractor, the ejection seat, the portable heart defibrillator, the four-wheel drive and the pneumatic tyre. I am told that tonic water was also invented there, to the benefit of sobriety throughout the world.
At the same time, overlying those attributes are the stresses of which we are all aware, arising from the fact that Northern Ireland is a divided society. Perhaps the most fundamental structural problem in Northern Ireland is how to create the conditions where all sections of the community can live together in harmony. If that fundamental issue can be addressed successfully, it would lay a firm foundation for lasting peace in the Province. Much has been achieved in recent years to reduce historical suspicions and to address the sources of tension between the two main parts of the community. All of us who are familiar with Northern Ireland know that, in many of their daily activities, people from different parts of the community live, work and play happily side by side. I agree with those who say that, in Northern Ireland, diversity can and should be a source of strength and not weakness.
In this context, I should like to pay a warm and unreserved tribute to the people of Northern Ireland from this Dispatch Box. They have, for the past 20 years, had to withstand the most vicious terrorist campaigns waged by extremists on both sides of the community. Throughout that time, they have remained firm and resolute in their determination that those who use violence shall not have their way; their courage is a signal to us all. It is, moreover, a direct message to the terrorists themselves: the community has rejected and stood firm against them. After more than 20 years, the terrorists are absolutely no nearer to achieving their objectives.
There can be no doubt that, for their part, the Government will continue to resist the actions of the terrorists. Those who perpetrate the sort of attacks which occured in Belfast and Lurgan last night, and in County Armagh yesterday have nothing to offer. Their aim is to get us to set aside our democratic principles and for themselves to dictate the future of the Northern Ireland people. Quite simply, that is not going to happen. It is a fundamental duty of Government to ensure that their citizens' lives are protected, and that their rights to liberty and security are safeguarded.
To this end, we pursue a security policy which is robust, flexible, and based firmly on the fundamental principles which underlie any civilised society—respect for the rule of law and for the rights of individuals. Our policy is intended to bring a permanent end to terrorism. That is our first priority: to end violence and create the conditions in which a just, peaceful and prosperous society can develop.
In keeping with that policy, the Government have not hesitated to ask Parliament to enact, and renew, legislation which is essential if the security forces are to have the powers they need to deal firmly and effectively with the threats posed by organised terrorism and to tackle the menace and the weapon of terrorist racketeering. Nor have the Government hesitated to provide material support to the security forces. Recent additions to the strength of the
498
Royal Ulster Constabulary and the deployment of many additional soldiers are tangible examples of the Government's commitment.
The security forces, in turn, work with unparalleled determination, bravery and professionalism to apprehend terrorists, to deter their attacks, and to bring criminals to justice, before the courts. I pay tribute today to the men and women of the police service and the armed forces, and to the important role played by the judiciary, courts and prison staff. The security forces have considerable successes—which are all too easily forgotten, or never even noticed.
For example, who remarks on the vigilance which led to the discovery of a bomb, similar to that which caused the tragedy at Teebane, behind a hedge near Strabane a few days later? What lives and livelihoods have been saved by the large finds of terrorist munitions in Belfast in January and by the discovery of a 300 lb bomb at Forkhill in February?
All this is evidence of the relentless pursuit of terrorists, cross the whole of Northern Ireland. That work goes on, tirelessly and unceasingly. It must and will be conducted impartially, professionally and with respect for the important safeguards which exist in the legislation for the rights of individuals. The Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding are determined to achieve the highest standards and to encourage the confidence of the entire community in their respective forces; and to stand between the community and the gunmen until terrorism has been finally ended.
I referred in my earlier remarks to the fact that Northern Ireland is a divided society. I said that the most fundamental structural issue facing any Government was how to close the community divisions. Those divisions have, to an extent, been reflected in economic and social disparities. Members from both sides of the community have felt that their political interests have been overridden in the past. The nature of the divisions raises the issues of constitutional status and personal and national identity.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, at Question Time last Thursday, a former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), said that the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic had sought to bring on to the agenda the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which goes to the heart of the status of Northern Ireland, about which the right hon. Gentleman is speaking? I do not know whether today the Secretary of State wishes to deal with the issue, perhaps fleetingly, but his remarks were considered by many in Northern Ireland of the Unionist tradition to have been almost deliberately obtuse. Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that the agenda will not be changing, that the backcloth that he painted for talks on the Northern Ireland situation still have Northern Ireland fully within the United Kingdom and that its place in the Union is not to be jeopardised?
Mr. Brooke: I made it clear in my answer to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that my statement to the House on 26 March 1991 was the basis for the talks, and the hon. Gentleman will recall the reference to the place of the United Kingdom which I made not only on that occasion but on the previous occasion on 5 July 1990. I confirm that.

499
References to the Government of Ireland Act have been made in connection with articles 2 and 3. The two measures are of a different order, in the sense that the Government of Ireland Act reflects the legal reality that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, whereas articles 2 and 3 are in the nature of a territorial claim. The present status of Northern Ireland is underpinned by article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As on previous occasions, I welcomed the Taoiseach's confirmation that articles 2 and 3 would be on the table.
As I was saying, I referred in my earlier remarks to the fact that Northern Ireland was a divided society. The nature of the divisions raises the issues of constitutional status, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred, and personal and national identity, giving the problem an international as well as a domestic character. The communal divisions on those fundamental issues have, tragically, found some expression in terrorism.
At the heart of all those issues lies the need to tackle Northern Ireland's political problems. The requirement is to address the constitutional, economic and social grievances which perpetuate divisions and allow room for terrorism. At present, locally accountable and democratic institutions of government are almost entirely absent. As the House will know, the Government's objective is to seek to transfer greater political power and responsibility to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland on a widely acceptable basis. If there is to be genuine reconciliation, different shades of constitutional political opinion must be accommodated in the political process.
Mr. Bill Walker: I do not think that any of my hon. Friends would disagree with anything that my right hon. Friend has said. Even so, does he constantly bear in mind the fact that there are constitutional issues and problems north of the border, in Scotland, which are as deep-rooted and long-lasting and which could become as nasty if the Government did not bear that in mind when contemplating changes to the constitution for any part of the United Kingdom? All parts must be taken into account.
Mr. Brooke: I am glad, in response to my hon. Friend, to say that the Government are aware of the issues he raises, and they have recently been addressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I shall draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to what my hon. Friend has said.
The Government have also taken the view that no political accommodation in relation to Northern Ireland could be stable and durable if it addressed only internal arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland. That is why, with the support of our partners in dialogue, including the Irish Government, we have sought to construct a basis for political talks which could address, as part of the same process, relationships within Northern Ireland, including the relationship between any new institutions there and the Westminster Parliament; relationships among the people of the island of Ireland; and relationships between the two Governments.
Any such process was always bound to be difficult to establish. However, it has the enormous advantage that it
500
can address all the relevant dimensions of the political problems of Northern Ireland, and I believe the various advantages of that have been widely recognised.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Is there any reason why the Government should not set up an inquiry into the structure of local government in the Province without recourse to the Anglo-Irish Agreement or to consultation with Dublin? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local government structure is at present very deficient and has been deficient for many years? Does he agree that that would be at least one political step forward that we could take in the meantime, while we are awaiting a general election or the start of the talks?
Mr. Brooke: I shall come to the possibilities of talks starting afresh in the near future. I have, in previous exchanges with my hon. Friend, said that I thought that the issue of local government was likely to come up in the context of such talks.
In short, as the party leaders acknowledged when I met them on 27 January, the talks process launched last March has considerable potential. It provides a realistic route towards a comprehensive political accommodation which could be of benefit to everyone, except the gunmen. All the constitutional political parties involved have something to gain from the talks process and the people of Northern Ireland have the most to gain.
I will not rehearse the history of the political talks. I should however, like to pay tribute to the Northern Ireland parties for their willingness to develop the political dialogue, not just over the past two years, but in the period immediately preceding my tenure of office, when my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Defence was Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has facilitated the process throughout.
When the talks ended last July, I said that, in my view, they had laid a firm foundation for the future. Since then, I have had further discussions with the party leaders and the Irish Government to see whether we could agree a return to the negotiating table. When it appeared, a few weeks ago, that that was unlikely, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister invited the party leaders to discuss the issues with him. As a result of that meeting, they agreed to see whether a way round the obstacles could be found.
I am sure that the whole House will have been heartened by their statement last Friday that, subject to receiving written confirmation of the positions of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, they could see no obstacle to the resumption of talks as soon as possible. I understand that the necessary assurances have now been given. I shall be discussing this with the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Andrews, tomorrow, in the expectation that substantive talks will begin very soon.
It is not always recognised that elected representatives of the two parts of the community in Northern Ireland work together and amicably, both in this House and in the European Parliament, on a wide range of issues affecting all the people of the Province. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence and I have recently benefited from a discussion of security issues with the four party leaders, and I have this week had a further productive meeting with them to discuss employment creation.
I believe that the formula that we have agreed between us provides a sound basis for tackling the issues. It ensures

501
that all the relevant relationships are taken into account; that any party can raise any matter which it considers relevant. including constitutional issues; that nothing can be agreed in any one strand until there is agreement on all three strands as a whole; that there can be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of its people; and that a new and more broadly based agreement or structure could emerge from the negotiations.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Many hon. Members welcomed the statement made in Scotland last week by the Prime Minister in which he said that he would defend and support the Union between Scotland and England. On the subject of the Union, may I ask the Secretary of State to say that he will defend and support the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Mr. Brooke: My position in the context of the Union is well known to the House. I think that the Prime Minister made it clear when speaking in Scotland that it was in the context of Scotland that he was making his remarks.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman should be correct. I listened to the Prime Minister and he mentioned the Union between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That needs to be emphasised tonight.
Mr. Brooke: I took the precaution of reading my right hon. Friend's speech in detail—
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Did the right hon. Gentleman agree with it?
Mr. Brooke: I always agree with my right hon. Friend. In terms of the substance of the speech and the issues he was addressing, he was essentially addressing the Scottish issue in what he said.
Sir John Farr rose⤔
Mr. Brooke: Because this is a short debate, I must make progress. I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I must be careful of the interests of other hon. Members.
Sir John Farr: As our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a forthright message the other day in Scotland about the Union and the importance of voting for Conservative Members of Parliament in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend say something to the 11 or 12 Conservative candidates who will stand in Northern Ireland at the next election?
Mr. Brooke: This debate is ranging more widely than I had expected when I described it, at the beginning of the debate, as "wide-ranging". I assure my hon. Friend that we all look forward to the first running of Conservative candidates in the Province for many years. They will give all their opponents a good run for their money. Many of us look forward to meeting hon. Members who are present in the House tonight in the context of the hustings that may be with us shortly.
Mr. Seamus Mallon rose—
Mr. Brooke: It would be churlish not to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but, after that, I must get on with my speech.
Mr. Mallon: Is there some reason why a Conservative candidate is not running in the constituency that includes South Armagh? We feel utterly deprived of such influence.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) knows that my ancestor represented Armagh and that the ancestor of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), represented Newry. During our time in the Northern Ireland Office, our interest in the seat has been for the welfare of their spiritual descendant, with whom we would not personally wish to interfere.
The past few years have seen the development of a close relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. That has centred around our joint experience of operating the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to which the Government remain fully committed. The relationship has brought benefits to both countries in terms of economic and social development, co-operation in the fight against terrorism, and commitment to political progress in Northern Ireland. I am confident that the constructive relationship can be further strengthened in the months ahead.
I shall not seek to predict the nature of any new agreement that might evolve from future talks, but I believe that the pursuit of that agreement will be substantially assisted by our close relationship with the Republic of Ireland. I commend the Irish Government's constructive interest in the talks process and regard as helpful the Taoiseach's recent confirmation that, so far as their own involvement in new talks is concerned, everything will be on the table for discussion, including articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution.
Security co-operation is a vital component in the Anglo-Irish relationship. The threat posed by terrorism is never predictable and we must continuously review and refine cross-border co-operation to keep on top of that threat. But terrorism must never be allowed to dictate the agenda. There is important work to be done in developing the social and economic structure of Northern Ireland. Here too, close relations with the Republic of Ireland are valuable. That is not something Governments can achieve alone. It is also for individual companies and private organisations to recognise the benefits that can be brought about by closer co-operation and to take the necessary steps to bring that about.
For their part, the Government are determined to continue strengthening the economy of Northern Ireland, tackling unemployment, targeting areas of social need and rooting out discrimination wherever it may occur. Such measures are doubly important. They help to redress greivances which, in the past, have helped to sustain terrorism in Northern Ireland; they also provide the basis for the prosperous and balanced society to which we all aspire.
This Conservative Government have a proud record of economic achievement in Northern Ireland. Few people who last went to the Province in 1979 would go back now and say that it has not been transformed for the better. Of course, Northern Ireland has not been immune from the worldwide recession, but it is a sign of economic confidence in Northern Ireland that—unlike the old pattern when recession always hit Northern Ireland hardest—Northern Ireland has weathered this one better than almost any other region of the United Kingdom.

503
Unemployment has risen by proportionately much less than the United Kingdom average and is still much lower than in the Republic of Ireland. Our economic development strategy is leading to the regeneration of many of Ulster's towns and cities. One only has to look at Belfast and the large amount of private investment that it has attracted to recognise that. The newly privatised Shorts, and Harland and Wolff, are being turned around from loss-making burdens on the taxpayer to thriving private enterprises trading successfully home and abroad.
They are in the process of being joined in the private sector by Northern Ireland Electricity, giving the people of Northern Ireland their first chance to have a real stake in that industry. Earlier today, I announced the sale of the four power stations. Not only does that represent the successful achievement of a major part of the Government's privatisation plans, but it is yet another significant vote of confidence in Northern Ireland and its economy.
Three leading international energy companies have made major investments in purchasing those stations. Each has wide experience in the energy industry and can be expected to introduce new technologies and make the electricity industry much more efficient and competitive.
It is particularly exciting for the people of Northern Ireland at long last to have the prospect of natural gas being brought to the Province. We have been seeking ways of diversifying our heavy dependence on oil, and the sale of Ballylumford has provided the opportunity to achieve that. In addition, it will lead to much cleaner emissions and open up the opportunity for more consumer choice. It would not have happened without privatisation.
The investment being made by employees and managers in Coolkeeragh is also an indication of the confidence being placed by local people in the local economy. I believe that they have made a good decision and I wish them well.
A major part of our industrial strategy is to invest in the Northern Ireland work force. In that context, equality of opportunity and equity of treatment are, of course, priorities for the Government. One of our major policy priorities in terms of public expenditure is our initiative for targeting social need.
I have set out the Government's approach across the whole range of challenges facing Northern Ireland—political, social and economic development, as well as security. For it is only in tackling all those issues that there is hope of bringing to that troubled part of our country lasting peace and prosperity. There are, I know, those who say that there can be no hope—that the problems are so intractable that no end to the conflict is possible. I continue to be sustained by the sure conviction that one day the violence will cease. That is, I know, the heartfelt wish of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It will remain among the highest priorities of this Government.
7.27 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: We are now moving into what appear to be the final days of this Parliament. We are all disappointed that the problems of division, campaigns of murder and destruction continue to afflict Northern Ireland and spill
504
over into the rest of the United Kingdom. We all hope that the next Parliament will see greater progress towards the peace that everyone yearns for.
This debate is therefore timely. It is an opportunity to take stock of the lessons of the past and to look towards the future.
I join the Secretary of State in saluting the people of Northern Ireland, and those concerned in the administration there, for their steadfastness in past years. All sections of the community are to be admired for their determination, so far as possible, to maintain the natural pattern of their lives. Perhaps the main lesson to be learned from the past 22 years comes from that determination—the futililty of violence.
It is clear that no paramilitary organisation will attain its objectives through violence. The IRA has only succeeded in increasing the determination of the people of Northern Ireland, this country and our neighbours in the Republic to work together for a peaceful settlement. It is isolated in a cul-de-sac of its own making. Similarly, loyalist paramilitaries have only succeeded in discrediting their own cause and revolting the communities that they claim to protect.
The lesson is clear and must be understood: no one can shoot or bomb his way to the conference table. No democratic state can allow terrorism to succeed. The only way to attain political objectives is through political means—argument and persuasion, not violence or coercion. Only when the gunmen of both communities come to understand those fundamental realities will they be in a position to offer anything constructive to the people whom they claim to defend.
The Opposition are firmly committed to an intelligent and accurately directed anti-terrorist policy. Anyone who believes otherwise, whether a Tory Prime Minister or a terrorist, is deluding himself. Whatever arguments may exist over the specific policies designed to defeat terrorism, there can be no division over the common objective. I am glad that the Prime Minister is present to hear that.
I do not intend to apologise about the existence of such policy disagreements; they are quite normal and legitimate in any democratic society. If terrorism ever caused us to lose our critical faculties, that would be a sad and bad day for democracy.
We believe in a security policy focused on the paramilitaries rather than one that treats entire communities as if they were guilty. The prime victims of the paramilitaries are the communities on which they inflict themselves. They inflict terrible cost on the people whom they claim to protect. It is not sensible to categorise such communities as hostile and drive them into the arms of their self-proclaimed defenders.
The paramilitaries must be actively pursued, charged, tried and put behind bars. The rights of the citizens must be protected, in particular, the right to freedom from the fear of death and mutilation, and the right to be protected from arbitrary encroachments by the servants of the state.
There is sometimes a tendency to set freedom and order in conflict with each other. That is a mistake; the two are inseparable. While we must take every reasonable measure to overcome terrorism, we must also keep clearly in our minds the need to preserve civil liberties. Violations of civil liberties provoke grievances and enhance the credibility of the paramilitaries, thus bringing about precisely the sort of situation that must be avoided. Nothing is more damaging to the terrorist cause than the state demonstrating itself to

505
be the real defender of human rights. Ultimately, of course, however successful the operations of the various police, Army and intelligence agencies may be, on both sides of the border and on the island of Britain, terrorism will be eliminated only when its underlying causes are addressed.
The need to put in place political arrangements that can command the consent and respect of the vast majority of citizens in Northern Ireland is urgent and pressing. Only then can Northern Ireland hope to approximate to a normal western European society.
Mr. David Winnick: I endorse all that my hon. Friend says about combating terrorism. Although the Provisional IRA—one set of terrorists who have operated for the past 20 years—claim to speak on behalf of the Irish people, when they stood in elections in the Irish Republic they received less than 2 per cent. of the vote. That is hardly a mandate and, even in Northern Ireland, their supporters remain a minority within the nationalist community.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, not only is it necessary to preserve civil liberties in combating terrorism—which we must certainly do to protect people's lives—but it is important to retain international support in Europe, the United States and the Republic of Ireland? What the terrorists want, above all else, is for us to act in such a way that they gain political ammunition and support in order to further their evil cause.
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend's comments are wise. The argument that he advances is one of the primary reasons for not, as has been suggested, introducing internment without trial.
I was talking of the need for political arrangements that command the consent and respect of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. That is the task in which successive British and Irish Governments, and the political parties in Northern Ireland, have so signally failed—although, God knows, they have tried frequently enough. However, that is not an excuse to give up trying or to adopt a policy of mere containment; it must be for us, as democratic representatives, an incentive to redouble our efforts to negotiate.
The Secretary of State has, with the support of the Opposition, been working towards that goal. I am sure that he is disappointed that he has not made more progress, but I think that he can take some comfort from the fact that the two Governments and the Northern Ireland parties appear to be closer to the conference table than at any time since the mid-1970s.
The Opposition welcome the forthcoming meeting between the party leaders and the Secretary of State. We hope very much that it will lead to further substantive talks, and that strands two and three will be opened at the earliest possible date.
It would be unforgivable if the limited agreements which have been made so far were thrown away. The people of Northern Ireland, of the Republic and of Britain expect their Governments and their political representatives to make determined efforts to negotiate a settlement acceptable to all. The present opportunity should not be lightly cast aside.
Strictly speaking, the Opposition are not a party to the talks. Nevertheless, the political situation and the latest opinion polls mean that there is a legitimate expectation
506
that the Opposition should make clear what their intentions would be in the event of their forming a Government.
For the Opposition, the Secretary of State's statement of 26 March 1991 provides the essential framework for talks in which all aspects of the relationship between the two major communities in Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic and between Britain and Ireland can be discussed.
The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that, if talks are still continuing when the election is called, a Labour Government will reconvene the talks on exactly the same basis as they had been taking place before the election. We will honour any agreements on the talks made before the election between the parties and the existing Governments, and will expect the other participants to do the same.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I think that the issue of which the hon. Gentleman is talking is important in the context of Northern Ireland discussions. To clear up any misunderstanding, can he confirm that he fully supports the leader of the Labour party, who said, as quoted in The Irish Times last week, that, if the talks were reconvened, Irish unity would not be the objective of the Labour party at those talks?
Mr. McNamara: I have said that our aim will be on precisely the same basis as the talks being undertaken at present—on precisely the same three strands. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until later in my speech, when he might receive further information on that issue.
It would be an insult to the intelligence of the participants in the talks if we were to pretend not to have our own views on the future of Northern Ireland. Those views are a matter of record, as are those of both Unionist parties, the Alliance party, the SDLP and Her Majesty's Government.
We believe that the long-term future of Northern Ireland lies in unity with the rest of the island. At the same time, we recognise that change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland would, and could, occur only with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we support the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and article 1 of it.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear last week the role that a Labour Government would play in the conduct of negotiations. A Labour Secretary of State would not be there to impose his own agenda upon the talks; he would be there to play a positive role in facilitating and promoting agreement between the participants. Since a Labour Secretary of State would be looking for agreement, by definition there would be no question of imposition of any kind, and, in the words of the Secretary of State in his statement to the House of 26 March 1991, which he repeated today:
"It is accepted by all the parties that nothing will be finally agreed in any strand until everything is agreed in the talks as a whole".—[Official Report, 26 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 766.]
The Labour party's concern is to establish effective political arrangements which place the three relationships to be dealt with in the three strands of the talks on a new, forward-looking and successful footing. We will use our best endeavours to bring the talks to a successful conclusion, for we shall not be found wanting in our determination to overcome obstacles.

507
While talks are continuing, the responsibilities of government will not go away. In particular, the economic and social deprivation of the Province must be tackled. Progress towards the single market also makes urgent the need to prepare the economy of Northern Ireland for the new environment. There is no time to spare. Northern Ireland is already on the geographical margin of the European Community; we must ensure that it is not relegated to the economic margins.
The hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) deserves some credit for his efforts to carry on a more realistic industrial strategy than that carried out by his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. I trust that he did that without their knowing what he was up to. I hope that he will not take this personally, but he has been restricted by the requirements to conduct his economic policy on a sort of need-to-know basis—for Northern Ireland eyes only. It is an industrial policy that dare not speak its name. I will say no more, as I do not want to embarrass him while he is sitting so close to the Prime Minister.
I have one outstanding objection to what the Secretary of State said this evening. He claimed certain benefits from selling off Northern Ireland Electricity to various private interests. I cannot but think that he is pillaging Northern Ireland electricity consumers to cut income tax in Britain before the election. Given how lacking in investment Northern Ireland's economy is, selling off one of its prize assets to try to bribe the Government's way back into government presents a most unhappy epitaph for what has been a rather distinguished career in Northern Ireland industry for the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North.
Mr. Brooke: I recall that the Labour party opposed the privatisations that we effected both at Shorts and at Harland and Wolff. No observer in Northern Ireland would deny that both companies are significantly stronger and that one of them has much higher employment as a result of privatisation.
Mr. McNamara: I hope that, at the end of next year, we will be able to say that all the Northern Ireland electricity companies are employing exactly the same number of people—or, indeed, that they will be employing more of them. If that happens, it will contradict experience in this country, where, under the privatised electricity companies, prices have risen enormously. Only today I had a letter from an industrialist in my constituency telling me that electricity prices for his factory are to rise by 16 per cent.—under Yorkshire Electricity. If that happens in Northern Ireland, the fruits of privatisation will prove to have gone bad.
The Labour party, on the other hand, is prepared to proclaim its policies from the roof tops. We will invest, modernise and train, and insist that goods are exported in the knowledge that there will be whole-hearted commitment on the part of the Government to furthering the interests of industry in Northern Ireland. Industry is not a dirty word to us: it is a basis for a sound economy—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wiltshire, North should not sit there chittering away. I have paid him a compliment this evening—although it may cost him his job. It would be churlish not to acknowledge how much industry the hon. Gentleman has brought to Northern
508
Ireland, but the tragedy is that so much of it is service industry. What we really need are productive industries for the service industries to service.
We are also convinced that it is now time to act on the wasted oportunities for cross-border trade and cooperation—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Jobs is jobs.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency in the south-east of England, should tell that to all the service industry employees in his constituency who are losing their jobs, which in turn will result in his losing his seat.
Mr. Mallon: Before we all become too bland in the interests of harmony, is it not a fact that, if we are to find a solution to this problem, there are hard decisions to be made which can be made only by the British and Irish Governments? There is no way around that. It is nice to know that we are good at indoor sport and that everything will improve on the socioeconomic front, but it would be a shame if we left this debate without the people listening to it here and at home hearing some response from both sides to how the Governments will deal with those fundamental problems. It is not enough to get the Northern Irish parties to participate in consultations; they can go only so far. It is only the Irish and British Governments who have the power and authority to make the fundamental decisions, and we should like to hear a little more about that.
Mr. McNamara: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend means the political sphere or the trade and industry sphere. If the former, I thought that it was covered in the agreement made in March. That is the third strand of the talks—and the second, under which the Government of the Republic will sit down with the parties from Northern Ireland. If my hon. Friend is talking about questions of trade between the two parts of Ireland, and the roles of the parties in that, he anticipates my next paragraph.
The Labour party is convinced that it is time to act on the wasted opportunities for cross-border trade and co-operation. It is increasingly recognised that levels of trade between the north and the Republic are scandalously low. It is not just a question of wasted opportunities: this failure means a real loss of jobs and prosperity throughout the island of Ireland.
If the two parts of Ireland do not take the opportunities, other EC states will. If the Republic does not exploit markets in Northern Ireland, the Germans or the Dutch will. If Northern Ireland does not exploit the market on its southern doorstep, the French and Italians will; if we have a Labour Government and more efficient industry, even Britain will. We live in a much more open and competitive world than before, and we can no longer barricade ourselves behind our prejudices and our fears.
We also believe that it is time for an end to the Euro-begrudgery that has hindered Northern Ireland's prospects in the European Community. The Government must take the lead in exploiting the potential of the Community. An active approach is necessary to ensure that Northern Ireland gets its fair share of EC expenditure.
We must encourage the public and private sectors to look outwards and to get to grips with the reality of life in the Community. The Northern Ireland centre in Brussels

509
is badly needed; it is a highly welcome initiative which deserves the full backing of all parties in Northern Ireland and in this House.
This debate takes place at crucial moment for the future of Northern Ireland. There is now a chance of escaping from the fratricidal conflict of the past quarter of a century. There have been too many disappointments for us to be entirely confident about the future or about the developments that we want. Nevertheless, whatever pessimism of our intelligence exists, all democrats must reaffirm the optimism of the will to succeed. As democratic politicians, we must be optimistic.
7.47 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the fratricidal conflict of the past 25 years. It is not new in the history of Ireland, however. That history presents a sickening catalogue of horrific atrocities. Long before Northern Ireland was created, long before the Dublin Parliament was dissolved and we had a united Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, long before the Tudors ever came to Ireland, and long before the Normans, century after century witnessed innocent blood shed and anguished tears. All this can be seen on every page of the history of Ireland: it is not new.
Sad to say, evil men can look back at history and justify their evil deeds by what their forebears did. Every country in the world has had dark deeds of which it is rightly ashamed, but there is something particularly gruesome about the furtive assassins who have stalked—usually in the dark—the towns and fields of Ireland; and they usually shoot in the back or plant a bomb and detonate it from a safe distance. Their accursed successors carry on this trade of death, mutilation and destruction. My cousin, an innocent woman and devoted wife and mother, was murdered by the Provisional IRA because she shared my name.
Like all my Unionist colleagues from Northern Ireland, I have received death threats from the IRA. The accusation against us is that we are Brits and should be put out of Ireland. My forebears tilled the land in Ireland from the mists of time, but no doubt Mr. Gerry Adams is a newcomer, a descendant of some English settler or perhaps a British soldier who came to Dublin. Republican terrorists bring shame to the cause they espouse, and they will be condemned in the years to come.
I was deeply emotionally touched when I heard a message sent by the widow of one of the Protestant workmen killed with seven of his Protestant colleagues outside Cookstown on 17 January in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). Within days, in an act of so-called retaliation, Roman Catholics were slaughtered in Belfast. The Protestant widow, in the midst of her own overwhelming grief, sent a message of sympathy to a newly widowed Catholic. The terrible atrocities catch the headlines throughout the world, to the great delight of the IRA because, of course, all terrorists live on publicity. I hold deep in my heart and mind that simple poignant message of Christian kindness from that Protestant woman to a Catholic woman. We have seen many similar acts, and they certainly stand out against the darkness of the campaign of terror.
510
It is time for the people of Ulster to realise what they are facing and to release themselves from the bondage that terrorism has created. People should not be duped into hating each other for the love of God. From the bottom of my heart, I appeal to those who are governed by prejudice and hatred to open their minds to truth and love. For 20 years, I have been arguing in the House against religious apartheid in education, because I believe that, if people in Northern Ireland communicated more, Protestants and Catholics would see that the others are not the ogres that they are made out to be by the terrorists who pretend to represent them.
The good people whom I have the honour to represent in the House—men and women, mothers and fathers, business men and workers on the factory floor—all believe, as I fervently believe, that there is richness in diversity. Therefore, let us all shun the terrorists and actively support the forces of law and order so that peace triumphs at last.
One may say, as I have said and as I have heard said at the Dispatch Box, that good will one day triumph over evil, but it needs a helping hand. The only way to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland is to ensure that the security forces have the full and unequivocal support of every law-abiding person in Northern Ireland.
I ask the Dublin Government to abandon their claim to the territory of Northern Ireland, a claim which legitimises the Provisional IRA campaign of terror. The constitutional politicians ought to work in partnership to resolve the problems that trouble the Province. For instance, there is a need for jobs for the unemployed and especially for school leavers and university students. There is a need to protect and provide for the elderly, who form the most vulnerable section of our community. We need to ensure better hospital and social services, to provide more homes, improve existing homes and protect Northern Ireland's environment. Above all, there is a need to improve the quality of life for all, regardless of religion or politics.
Ms. Clare Short: I challenge the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution legitimise terrorism. On the contrary, a republican tradition that is entirely constitutional and opposes terrorism defies terrorists. No means of arguing that the partition of Ireland is unfortunate and that a united Ireland might be better for all its people other than by espousing terrorist organisations would strengthen such organisations. The hon. Gentleman's argument is quite wrong.
Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Lady says that I am wrong and I say that I am right. I shall leave it at that. I direct the hon. Lady to what has happened in Europe, where some countries claim the territory of another and where there are religious and racial disputes. If the Dublin Government abandoned their claim, it would cut the ground from under the feet of the Provisional IRA and would help to unite the people of Northern Ireland, which is what we need.
As the Speaker of the last Northern Ireland Assembly, I sought, as did most of those who participated in its proceedings, to make it a success. I sincerely desired to make the Stormont Parliament building a symbol of a new, forward-looking, progressive Ulster, and I think that my hon. Friends who were in the Assembly will confirm that there was a good and friendly atmosphere. I pay

511
tribute to all those who worked in the Assembly. It showed that co-operation is possible and can be productive; we had some excellent reports from the scrutiny committees. If the Assembly had not been scuttled, it would have progressed to create political stability in the Province.
Mr. Mallon: This is an important debate, and people in the north of Ireland are looking crucially at it. What is the basis of the hon. Gentleman's party's policy that he would recommend to the House as a means of solving the problems that face us?
Mr. Kilfedder: I have been excluded from the talks. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hear my contribution, he should ensure that I participate in them. For years I have urged talks and I believe that if the SDLP had gone into the Assembly we would have made political progress. But it is no use looking to the past. I do not want to rake over the past, because we could spend hours, days, weeks or months arguing about it and accusing each other. We have to look to the future, and I think that the people of Northern Ireland, expect us to do that.
I pray that the talks will lead to political progress in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his initiative. He attended at the beginning of this debate and people in Northern Ireland will realise that he made a point of being here for the opening speeches. He is certainly a caring person who is acutely and extremely compassionate.
The fact that there is a Conservative candidate in North Down does not alter my views about the Prime Minister. To be frank, the Conservative candidate does not espouse Conservative policies. He attacks the talks and accuses the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of encouraging the IRA to kill people in Northern Ireland by holding the talks. I think that only one other organisation supports the Conservative candidate on that line, and that is the Provisional IRA.
I do not mind what political arrangement is arrived at as a result of the talks, whether it is devolution or executive, administrative or total integration, as long as we have political stability, which will provide a happy and prosperous future for the next generation and for generations yet unborn.
8 pm
Mr. John Hume: Like everyone else, I welcome the debate. It gives us the opportunity to discuss in depth the serious problems that we face. It is the first time in the life of this Parliament that we have had such a debate.
In this context, over 3,000 people have lost their lives in Northern Ireland, and the population is 1·5 million. Three thousand is the equivalent of 100,000 on this island. I do not think that I exaggerate if I say that, if 100,000 had lost their lives in Scotland, England and Wales in community violence, the subject would have been debated every day by a packed House. I could draw my own conclusions from the fact that the situation in Northern Ireland has not been debated in the House in that way, and the fact that, when it is, only a few are in the Chamber to talk about it. I shall not draw those conclusions, because they are extremely political and some people might not want to agree with them, even though they should think about them.
512
As I have said, 3,000 have lost their lives and about 20,000 have been maimed. One of the worst things that has happened—it is one of the greatest indictments of us all, and I include everyone who is involved in the problem—is that in Belfast, which is the most churchgoing city in western Europe—that includes those on both sides of the religious divide—it has been necessary to build not one wall but 13 to protect one section of a Christian people from another and to separate them from one another. That is where I want to begin.
The reason for indictment is simple: our attitudes, and especially our past attitudes, have built them. If we are serious about trying to solve the problem, as opposed to playing party politics, and throwing out the outdated slogans of the past—those slogans formed part of the attitudes that built our walls—we must all commit ourselves in this debate to speaking for the people of Northern Ireland when we get to the negotiating table. We must be prepared at the talks to re-examine our basic attitudes to the problems. It is those attitudes that have brought us to where we are. That is the challenge that we face in the talks.
As I have said, I welcome the talks. I welcome the fact that, for the first time during the existence of the problem, all aspects of it will be on the table for discussion, with all the relationships that are involved. We shall be talking about our relationships within Northern Ireland and relationships between North and South and Britain and Ireland.
I recognise that, in agreeing with strand 2, the Unionist political leadership is saying that it is willing to take seriously the arguments that is advanced by some of us that that it is a central factor in dealing with a solution to the problem. I do not underestimate the fact that that shows political leadership. The Unionist leadership is willing to discuss north-south relationships with the Dublin Government. That is, in a sense, in keeping with its tradition. Craigavon talked regularly to the people in Dublin in attempts to reach agreements with them. In 1938, shortly after the 1937 constitution was passed, one of Craigavon's great quotes was:
"We cannot forever live apart."
In today's world, no group of people can live apart.
It is obvious that the relationship between Unionist people and the rest of the island is central to the problem we face. I say that because, in 1912, when the House voted democratically for home rule for Ireland, the Unionist people felt that they could not live with it. That reflected their relationship with the rest of the island. When the Stormont Parliament was set up, the Unionist Government excluded the nationalist population, by and large, from any say in how the place was run. They did so for the same reason: fear of links with the rest of the island. They opposed the Sunningdale agreement for the same reason: they feared assimilation with the rest of the island. That is why they have opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I may be reading the Unionists incorrectly, but that is my perception of Unionism. I would welcome being told where I am wrong when we get round the table. I hope and believe that our dialogue will be deadly serious.
Until that relationship is sorted out, nothing will work. When I say "sorted out", I mean to the satisfaction of Unionist people as well as to the satisfaction of the rest of the people of the island. That is why we propose that, before there are talks with the Dublin Government on how we shall live together on the island, an agreement should

513
be reached that any agreement should be endorsed on the one day by means of a referendum within each part of the island.
That reassures the Unionist people that, when we say "agreement", we mean it. That undermines the extremists who use guns, because, for the first time ever, the people of Ireland as a whole will have spoken. That will be the basis for lasting peace.
The walls that I mentioned are a challenge to us to rethink past attitudes, and I shall address Unionist Members on what I regard as theirs. I shall refer also to what I regard as our past attitudes. Unionist people have always stated that their objectives in Ireland are to protect, maintain and develop their own identity and their differences, and I do not quarrel with that. I would strongly support their aim to protect differences, because every society is richer for that. I quarrel not with their political objectives but with their traditional methods of protecting their identity. As we see it from our side of the community, the Unionist people have always decided to protect their own identity by holding all power in their own hands and excluding other people. They can trust only themselves.
If we analyse areas of conflict in other parts of the world—not only in Northern Ireland but in the middle east and South Africa, for example—we find that mentality. In effect, it is we, ourselves, alone. That approach obviously excludes others. In the end such a mentality is bound to lead to conflict.
There is another way. Again, it is simple and straightforward. Our experience of history—and the Unionist people's experience—should teach Unionists that their real strength and, at the end of the day, their only strength lies in their own numbers and their own people. They must stand on their own feet, and negotiate their own relationships and agreements with those with whom they share a piece of earth.
I believe that the Unionist mentality—the belief that they can trust only themselves—reflects their fear that the rest of the island wishes to subsume them, or indeed to wipe them out: that feeling is, of course, reinforced by the IRA campaign. Let me quote what should be a Unionist slogan from John Hewitt, the well-known Northern Irish poet, which expresses the deep anxiety felt by the Unionist people. He said:
"This is our country also—nowhere else—and we shall not be outcasts in the world."
I agree with that. I think that the objective of my side of the community should be to reassure the Unionist people that, whatever approach is adopted to a solution of the problems, we have not the slightest interest in making them outcasts.
The Unionists should think about that as well, however. In many parts of the world, their image has become very negative: most people know what they are against, but not too many know what they are for. That is not in keeping with the strength of the Unionist tradition. The development of a siege mentality tends to dry up the creative roots.
Let us consider the history of the Protestant tradition in Ireland. The Protestants contributed 11 presidents to the United States of America, which surely demonstrates the creativity of their tradition. The United States constitution was drafted by Irish presbyterians who had been driven out of Ireland by intolerance.
Mr. Trimble: Ulster presbyterians.
Mr. Hume: Ulster presbyterians, yes. They had been driven out of Ireland by an intolerance that their Catholic neighbours also faced at the time: it was the establishment—the ascendancy—that was intolerant. When they went to their new land, they decided that they would not repeat the experience that they had left behind.
The American declaration of independence was printed by John Dunlop, a presbyterian from Strabane; the first Secretary of the American Congress was a presbyterian from Maghera. Those people recognised that the answer to the problem of difference was not to wipe it out: they knew that difference was not a threat, but an enriching thing, and that the essence of unity and stability for any society, anywhere in the world, was the acceptance of diversity. They knew that it was wrong to treat those with whom we differ as a threat.
On the cheapest coin in America—the cent—can be found the message of the people's wisdom, written by Ulster presbyterians—"E pluribus unum". I invite their present-day successors, and members of the same tradition, to take a good hard look at their philosophy, and to apply it to the problem that we face in today's Ireland. "E pluribus unum"—from many we are one. The essence of our unity as a people depends on acceptance of, and respect for, our diversity.
The nationalist tradition must also do some rethinking. We have had handed down to us the traditional view that Irish unity is ours of right, because the majority of people on the island want it. That position is based on a territorial view of nationalism; but I believe that a piece of earth without people, in Ireland or anywhere else, is no more than a jungle. It is people who matter. My party has said consistently that, when we talk of unity, we are talking about people. On the island of Ireland, we have a divided people. We shall not unite those people by force or by violence; we can unite them only by agreement.
The territorial view of unity is based on the notion of assimilation or coercion rather than agreement. That traditional view of unity has been reinforced by the IRA campaign. This week, I issued a challenge to the IRA in the form of a public statement. I said, "Let us leave aside the moral aspect of what you are doing—killing human beings for political purposes—because those are clear. Let us consider your campaign from a purely military point of view. Three thousand people have died. Of those 3,000, 435 were British soldiers; the rest were the people of Northern Ireland—civilians, and members of the RUC and the UDR. Seventeen hundred were innocent civilians." Of those 3,000, 239 were IRA members, and 144 were killed by the IRA—in accidents or executions.
My question to the IRA is very straightforward. Leaving morals aside, how does it justify a military campaign whose victims are its own people? Ninety per cent. of the victims of the loyalist and Provo campaigns in Northern Ireland are the people of Northern Ireland.
I do not refer only to those that have been sent to their graves—another innocent man was sent to his grave yesterday. The current campaign has put on to our streets armed troops composed mostly of working-class people from British cities who do not understand our problem. They are searching young people on a regular basis, and that causes community tensions. The troops would not be there if it were not for the IRA campaign. If the IRA wants them off our streets, the simple answer is to stop the

515
campaign. Moreover, the image that has been created is preventing inward investment, which means that we cannot employ our young people.
Surely there is no military justification—as I have said, I am leaving aside the moral aspect—for a campaign whose victims are our own people, on every front. As I did earlier this week, I invite the IRA to look at its founding fathers. In the GPO in 1916, Pearse and Connolly sent a message to their followers: "Lay down your arms, lest you bring too much suffering on your own people." In asking IRA members to lay down their arms, I am asking them to follow the lead of some respected members of the republican tradition.
As for the loyalist paramilitaries—85 of whom have died—they tell us that their reason is revenge. Revenge is not the solution; in a divided society, the doctrine of "an eye for an eye" leaves everyone blind.
As I have said, we must re-examine our past attitudes, but where do we go from there? Our problems in Northern Ireland are not unique in European or world history. Most countries have backgrounds of historic national conflict, tension with neighbouring states, or internal differences of language, religion or national identity. The lesson learned by such countries has been that difference itself need not be a problem. The issue for those seeking stability and harmony in those countries was not the elimination of difference and diversity, but their accommodation. They learned that there was no peace, no stability and no security in seeking political arrangements which reflected and respected only one tradition and one set of values. Instead, stability, and the best protection for any tradition, lay in creating political consensus, with structures which neither privileged nor prejudiced the position of any tradition. That is the message for all of us in Northern Ireland.
That message is strengthened by the fact that today the people of Northern Ireland are part of a European Community that has agreed to move towards closer union. Most of the debates about the Community—we heard some today, in parliamentary questions to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—are about money, economics and so forth. Little is said about the real reason why the united Europe was built, and the idealism that built it. However, Northern Ireland is not the only area of conflict that should study how that happened; every area of conflict in the world should study it.
Fifty years ago—or 47 years ago, to be correct—the nightmare that was intended to last a thousand years ended. The second world war ended. For the second time this century, millions of people had been slaughtered. People had been slaughtered throughout the previous centuries, too. At that time, if someone had got up and said, "In 50 years' time we shall have a united Europe—yet the Germans will still be German and the French will still be French," that person might have been locked up. But that goal was achieved. How? The answer is simple but profound. People said, "Difference is not a threat. The answer to difference is the accommodation of difference." They agreed to create institutions which respected diversity yet which allowed them to work their common ground, which was economic. In short, they agreed to spill their sweat together and not their blood.
516
By creating institutions that respected their diversity, and working their common ground, which was economic, they created circumstances in which by working together, they eroded their prejudices and differences and grew together at their own speed towards a new Europe, which will continue to evolve even after what was decided at Maastricht is put into practice.
The lesson for us in Ireland is the same. Let us build institutions in the north of Ireland which respect our differences, but which allow us to work our common ground, which is considerable. Let us, too, build institutions by agreement between both parts of our island—institutions which allow us to work our common ground and, by doing so, to break down the barriers of prejudice and distrust, the fruits of which—results, rather; I should not call them fruits—have been such tragedy in the past.
I have no doubt that, if we reach such agreements and vote for them, as I suggested earlier, by working together over the years, we shall erode our prejudices and grow together at our own speed, in two or three generations, into a new Ireland built on respect for diversity—an Ireland built by its people working together.
I do not think that it will be easy for us to reach such agreements in the current talks, but in the meantime, while we are doing so, let us get working on the common ground anyway, in order to break down the barriers of distrust between us. The common ground is obvious. We are one of the areas with the highest unemployment in the whole of the new European Community. Why do we not work together to tackle that, and, in doing so, turn our disadvantages into advantages?
All over the world, there are people who tell us that they are proud of their Irish heritage. The Irish, both of the north and of the south, are the biggest wandering people in the world—we are a bigger wandering people than the Jews. The most recent census in the United States showed that 42 million people declared themselves to be Irish. The same is true in Australia and Canada—and many of those people have made it in business, politics or whatever.
Why do we not use that card, as some of us have already done, making contacts with people in senior positions in the United States, and asking them to use their influence? We say, "Okay, so you want to help Ireland. A pint of Guinness on St. Patrick's day is all very well, but how about some real help, such as considering some investment?"
As we play the green card in such places as Boston, I believe that our Unionist friends could play the orange card in places such as Toronto. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) could use the links which his political and religious tradition has with the southern states of America. Let us get together and harness those energies in a positive rather than a negative sense, to bring development to our people. We are not asking people for charity, because we have something to offer. We are offering them a foothold in the biggest single market in the world, and we speak the same language.
While we are talking, and trying to build confidence and trust in our people, let us work the common ground together. Let us spill our sweat and not our blood. Let us at last give hope to our people. All of us who know the problem know that we will not solve it in a week or in a fortnight, but if the people see us engaged in strategies that lead in the right direction, they will stand behind us.
8.26 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: Out of courtesy to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), I shall respond to some of the points that he not unreasonably made in his speech. However, I should like first to take a few minutes at the beginning of my speech to educate those who are in some danger of destroying their credibility by parroting cliches and buzz words which are so obviously inaccurate.
We have a mission in life to rescue those in what are commonly called the chattering classes, and some people in the news industry who seem to have lost the power to do their own thinking. Due to low intelligence or bone idleness, they have somehow or other become programmed, and they absorb the superficial ideas of others as shallow as themselves, so it is hardly surprising that the same catch phrases pour out, as if from a word-processor gone mad—catch phrases such as, "find a solution", "get into dialogue", and "sit round the table."
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who was here earlier, reminded us this week that the Northern Ireland party leaders, with all the many admitted faults, are rather better at such things than the party leaders in Great Britain. We heard confirmation of that at Prime Minister's Question Time today.
The chattering classes try to mislead honest folk by deliberate distortion of facts, not realising that they are engaged in an orgy of self-contradiction. Last autumn they asserted that the Secretary of State was wasting his time, because no progress could be made this side of a general election. That was five months ago, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember the identities of those who said such things. Being a charitable sort of character, I did my best to save them from their folly. At my party conference on 28 October 1991, I said:
"I get impatient with soothsayers who predict that nothing will happen this side of the general election. I reject utterly such pessimistic chatter."
Now, five months later, those same people are blaming the three Northern Ireland parties in this House, and perhaps a fourth which, we hope, will survive the general election.
Mr. Kilfedder: Many thanks, Jim.
Mr. Molyneaux: They blame those parties for proving them wrong and, like the distinguished 19th-century figure who, on learning of the death of a rival, asked, "I wonder what he meant by that," modern opinion formers also have to grub around for motives for actions that have proved them wrong. It does not seem to occur to them that it might be possible that the three of us—or the three and a half of us—who lead the parties in this House have a degree of integrity which our critics lack. Truly, a sense of inferiority must be a terrible affliction.
Our motive is not a hidden agenda but one which, I know the Secretary of State will agree, was the encouragement given first by the Prime Minister, especially at the meeting in Downing street, and subsequently in other forms. We voluntarily undertook to engage in quiet, calm deliberations, and the result was agreement last Friday, achieved—as the hon. Members for Foyle and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will agree —in exactly 50 minutes. The second significant contribution came from the Leader of the Opposition, who, like the Prime Minister, underwrote the process and
518
readily gave an assurance that a Labour Government would honour any agreement for a framework designed before the general election.
The House will realise that our motive was simplicity and honesty itself. It was to improve co-operation and to seek and to strive, secure in the knowledge that the Prime Minister and the alternative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would be joint guarantors of any practical agreement resulting from our deliberations.
I am by no means discounting the contribution of the Secretary of State or of the Minister of State during those patient endeavours. I know that they accept—as we do—that certain endeavours can be underpinned only by those who bear the ultimate responsibility in our nation. We intend that the meetings planned for next week will be real and businesslike. Responsible elements in the news industry—fortunately, they are in the majority—have a vested interest in our success. Their contribution will mean forgoing photo calls, chat shows and phone-ins of the type which provide opportunities for trading insults which can sometimes be as lethal as the armalite.
A further incentive to make full use of the time that remains is the fact that the constitutional affairs of the United Kingdom are in a state of flux, and that subject will not go away. In the new Parliament, decentralisation of powers will be the main debating point. The Northern Ireland parties in the House have considerable experience, and we believe that it would be very useful for the rest of the United Kingdom to have the benefit of our up-to-date thinking on that subject, perhaps in the form of an agreed blueprint or at least a paper setting out the pluses and minuses of given models. For that reason, we are keen to make all possible progress before the general election is called, when, as agreed, the inter-party talks will cease. However, that should not mean a halt to drafting activities by the participating party teams, some of whom will be thankful that they are not going to be front-liners in the election campaign.
We have a duty to warn against efforts designed to mislead the general public in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom into believing that we are engaging in peace talks. I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State fully understand—and, I think, support—what I am saying. Today, inter-party tensions are lower and cross-party co-operation is better than at any time in the past 20 years, but yesterday, a lorry driver was murdered in County Armagh and today—as we have heard—the centre was torn out of the town of Lurgan in the same county which has suffered so much so often.
The brutal reality—we would be deceiving people and failing in our duty not to say this—is that, even if we prove to be 100 per cent. successful in our talks, the violence will remain undiminished. It would be equally dishonest to raise expectations too high, as I am afraid was the case last spring. The fact that we can engage in civilised dialogue does not mean that fundamental differences can be made to disappear overnight.
Sometimes talk of solutions can be divisive and usually irresponsible. I am not attributing those qualities to the contribution of the hon. Member for Foyle. He has—not unreasonably—sought confirmation of our attitudes. If I may say so, he is in some danger of thinking of Unionism in the narrow sense when he talked about our Unionist or Protestant identity which, he said, excludes all others.
The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, because his responsibility is to run his party, that when I became leader

519
of my party in 1979, I was determined to aim for the broad church concept. When he and I shared a platform almost a year ago addressing the 28 primates of the Anglican communion in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), I explained my attitude. I said that I regarded it as my duty to provide positive leadership for what I called the greater number of Ulster people—Protestant and Roman Catholic alike—who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Foyle will remember that on that occasion, when I was asked why I used the term "the greater number" I explained that it was to avoid using the word "majority", which could be interpreted as the Unionist majority or the Protestant majority. In other words, I was going for the greater number of citizens who regard themselves and want to go on regarding themselves as citizens of the United Kingdom, who include what Father Faul called the 80 per cent. of Roman Catholics who would not vote for a united Ireland.
On another occasion, the hon. Member for Foyle may have thought that Father Faul's concept was perhaps a bit narrow. I think that possibly 25 per cent. of his fraternity might support a united Ireland by vote, but I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle can take some comfort from the fact that my party has grown in strength despite making it clear that we stood for Unionism in the broadest possible sense—membership of this bigger unit of the United Kingdom—and that we were a party open to all people regardless of their religious affiliations.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is comforted—I hope he is—by the fact that, for 12 years, I have been elected annually by the 800-strong Ulster Unionist council which was fully aware of the views that I have just expressed. With all our faults, we have not turned inward as ethnic groups in eastern Europe and even in mother Russia tend to be doing at the present time—a development which all hon. Members will deeply regret.
I inserted that section in my speech because I desperately wanted to avoid the failure that would result if we attempted to fight old battles or even entered into the real discussions with any misunderstanding between us.
We may patiently work out an accommodation which will enable us to live and work together within Northern Ireland and, we hope, find another accommodation providing for peaceful co-existence with our neighbouring nation south of the frontier. Both those accommodations would fit into what Mr. Haughey perceived to be
"the totality of the relationships within these islands".
That phrase is endorsed by the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
The pity of it is that that broad noble concept was torpedoed and recklessly damaged by the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, because it focused the entire energies of the two sovereign nations on six small counties in the entire British Isles. In the not too distant future, we must choose a much wider and more generous structure.
I end with a suggestion which may startle some people. I suggest with very great respect that the British and Irish Governments should commence preparatory work as soon as possible after the election on a new British-Irish agreement to replace and transcend the one which has failed and which, worse still, continues not only to keep the
520
children's teeth on edge, but to maintain tension where tension should not exist: between the citizens of Northern Ireland.
8.41 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be brief because this is an Irish debate and I do not want to stop any hon. Members from the Province from speaking. However, as a Scot, I have a great interest at this time in the constitutional situation which affects the whole of the United Kingdom. I believe that opportunity often arises out of adversity.
We face difficulties in Northern Ireland. No one who has watched the past 20 years evolve or who has been a Member of this place over the past few years can fail to realise the enormous problems facing my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office who, over the years, have tried to find solutions to intractable problems. I would never criticise what Conservative Ministers have done over the past 13 years.
One of the problems in Scotland is that, if one tries to find solutions in isolation from United Kingdom constitutional problems, one often creates bigger problems than one set out to solve. The time has come to consider the whole of the United Kingdom and find constitutional answers suitable to all the United Kingdom.
We should not forget that 83 per cent. of the population of these islands lives in England. You will notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I did not say that they are English. Like everyone else, we recognise that many people from Scotland, Ireland and from parts of the former empire and the Commonwealth live in England. People living in England have a deep interest in the well-being and continuance of our United Kingdom. They want to see it functioning adequately and properly and to see removed from it the tensions that exist in Northern Ireland and, sadly, also in Scotland.
We can find answers to those problems only with the kind of good will demonstrated by the coming together of the Northern Ireland parties. I hope that we can find good will like that in Scotland. Anyone who imagines that we can find a solution that is acceptable to everyone has not lived with the Scottish or Northern Ireland dimensions. If he had, he would not talk such absolute rot.
There is no way in the west central belt of Scotland that the Conservative party can expect to form an administration at local government level. However, we do not suggest that there is something wrong with the structures or that we should have a say in the running of administrations there because we are a minority. Similarly, there are parts of the United Kingdom where the Labour party is not represented at local level or even at parliamentary level. We do not suggest in those circumstances that Labour should control such administrations.
We should consider this as a unique opportunity which should be grasped, after the general election, to consider the constitutional arrangements within the United Kingdom and find answers that can be made to work throughout the United Kingdom. As a Scot, I am aware of the difficulties and real demands for separation. Those demands are not imagined, and we must address them. We can address them adequately and properly only by considering the constitution of the United Kingdom and by maintaining the Union. I yield to no one in my defence

521
of the Union, because the benefits to all parts of the Union have been far greater than the sum of its different parts. It would be foolish for anyone to pretend otherwise.
The United Kingdom will be worth anything as an entity only while it is united. Divided we are nothing. Even in this great new modern Europe about which we have been talking, let us not be unrealistic: it is only because the United Kingdom speaks with the voice of the United Kingdom within Europe that we mean anything. Divided we would mean little.
That is why, within the context of Europe and in the context of the problems that we face in the constitutional parts of the United Kingdom, we should consider this to be a unique opportunity. That is why I wanted to participate in the debate. I speak as a Unionist to fellow Unionists. I speak unashamedly on behalf of the United Kingdom. As everyone knows, I regularly appear here in my native dress because I am unashamedly a Scot as well. That is why we must find the answers that suit all of us.
8.47 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I will shortly be taking part in my fifth general election. In the previous four I was regularly, and without fail, asked by the public about my view and my party's view of the affairs of Northern Ireland. One of the depressing aspects for me of those past four elections is that, frankly, I was not able to offer a solution to those questioners. At the time, no one else could offer such solutions. Even more depressingly, the public in Great Britain have tended to accept that there was no solution and that we could only carry on muddling along as best we could and as we have.
It is a shame that there are not more hon. Members in the House for such an important debate on Northern Ireland. However, no one can have failed to be impressed by the two speeches from the two party leaders in Northern Ireland who come from very different historical traditions.
Mr. Kilfedder: There were three such speeches.
Mr. Carlile: I do apologise. There were three speeches from party leaders from Northern Ireland. We heard three speeches from the leaders of parties in Northern Ireland from very different historical perspectives. We have heard comments from those different perspectives from which we can draw encouragement. I feel great respect for what was said by those leaders tonight.
It may just be that the British public will have greater expectations in the forthcoming general election when they ask questions about Northern Ireland. It will be difficult, because it is always difficult in such discussions, not to answer in platitudes and not to use cliches about conciliation. However, although it is a word that has been rejected from time to time in the House, conciliation is now possible in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I should like to add my great regard for the Secretary of State, who has played a considerable part in the effort that has been made in recent years. He cannot get everything right—he is not perfect. He was once the chairman of the Conservative party, and that is clear evidence of his imperfections. However, in Northern Ireland, he has achieved a good deal in moving towards that conciliation which the British public are now beginning to expect.
I should like to say a brief word about the position of the Churches and religious leaders from the perspective of
522
somebody who represents a seat in Great Britain but who takes an interest in Northern Ireland. Church leaders have, of course, a very important moral role, although I believe not a political role, in the affairs of all countries, whatever the religion, creed, sect, or part of a religion. The responsibility of leading the polity is the responsibility of politicians. Politicians can cross religious divisions. I particularly congratulate politicians in Northern Ireland, sometimes representing small parties in difficult circumstances, who make it their business and their determination to cross those religious divides.
Many of us feel concerned from time to time by the effect of religious fervour on objective political judgment. That is why politicians have a far greater role to play than religious leaders.
We must also recognise that terrorists are criminals. An insight into the criminal mind is not easy to gain, because criminals come in so many different guises. There is no more sinister criminal guise than that of the terrorist. We must recognise that it is a vain hope that, even if politicians manage to reach a settlement of those extremely difficult issues which nobody should underestimate, there will be no more terrorists. There will still be some terrorists. Unfortunately, we must accept that there will be madmen who will regard it their business and their mission to continue terrorist activities. That will not mean that political discussions have necessarily failed. We will simply have to continue to try to isolate the terrorists, to reduce their effectiveness, to ensure that they are the most unpopular people in the community and, above all, to ensure that they are effectively policed, hunted down and brought to justice.
The irony which the terrorists never seem to realise is that, far from driving the British Government and the British security forces out of Northern Ireland, they have actually increased with every outrage the participation of the United Kingdom Government in Northern Ireland.
There must be a next stage after the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That stage must include investment and steps dramatically to reduce unemployment. It depends upon there being an agreement which, while fully recognising the constitutional facts, builds upon opportunities not differences. Some hon. Members believe that the next stage after the Anglo-Irish Agreement necessarily involves strengthening Dublin's role. That is not necessarily so. Hon. Members who signed an early-day motion two days ago, attacking the leader of my party, show a miserable misunderstanding of what is meant by a next stage. They now bear a great responsibility to demonstrate to the House that they, too, believe in conciliation and do not intend to obstruct that process. We look forward to hearing that message from them tonight.
Other measures can be taken for Northern Ireland. The improvement of the legislative process is needed. For example, the electricity privatisation legislation, which was of considerable importance to the people of Northern Ireland, was passed with minimum debate and with no opportunity to vote or to amend it. Of course there is a need—it goes almost without saying—to give the people of Northern Ireland an opportunity for legislation affecting them to be properly debated.
I return to the point at which I started. Many hon. Members who do not represent Northern Ireland constituencies yet who are in daily contact with members of the public in the Great Britain part of the United Kingdom have great expectations—possibly unrealistic

523
expectations—of the talks which are currently starting. We wish them well. We hope that the public will begin to discuss those issues as if the outrages which have taken place occurred not in some distant part but in a part of our own country, as much a part of our own country as Wolverhampton or Welshpool. It is only when the public examine the issues on that basis that they will give the message to all politicians from all parties in Northern Ireland that they want them to succeed and that they expect them to succeed.
8.56 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: Because I represent all of Northern Ireland in another place, I stood today in the heart of Lurgan and I saw the damage that was done —an estimated £5 million—worth. The heart of Lurgan is destroyed. It came home to me particularly because the church in which my parents were married was also damaged today. As I stood in that special place for me, I wondered what the end would be. I also stood in Adelaide street today, in the city of Belfast, where £1·5 million of damage was done.
The House likes to hear things that please. I have been here for 22 years. It has never been my policy to say in the House anything different from what I say at home. I do not come here with a different face. I do not come here to say something that will please people. I come here to tell what my constituents demand that an honest representative says. I must say it tonight.
There is a perception in Northern Ireland—I know that my colleague the leader of the Ulster Unionists shares this view—that the Government, indeed, successive British Governments, have not the will to win the battle against the IRA. As a result, there is a feeling that one day the "Brits" as my constituents call them, will leave. Until that fear is laid to rest, the people of Northern Ireland cannot have confidence that the terrorists will be done with and that this Government or any Government who follow them have the will to defeat terrorism. Until that perception comes through, there will not be confidence in Northern Ireland.
I was recently reading what I said to the opening conference of the last talks, which are now dead. We are to have new talks. I said to the Secretary of State:
"It is a fact that needs to be put clearly on record that the majority of the Unionist population in this Province is not really convinced that Her Majesty's Government has the will to win the battle against terrorism. Until that will is demonstrated, not just in condemnatory and graphic descriptions of the IRA's atrocities but by definite action which will strike at the very heart of terrorism, the majority of the population will not be prepared to put faith in the Government or grant to it trust and confidence. In short, "Actions speak louder than words." Why is it, people ask, that so soon after an atrocity like Glenanne—
the blowing up of a UDR centre—
"the security forces can have a successful strike?"
That was in the village of Coagh, where IRA men on a murder mission were brought to justice and there were killings.
"When the people see an effective security policy being pursued by the Government then and only then will the Government have the response of confidence from the people."
524
We have the same thing now. We can simply change Glenanne to Teebane and Coagh to Coalisland. The same thing is repeated.
I am sorry that we do not have time to go over what we put to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, "I will not go into a hidey-hole. You can come back and I will give you a reasoned response to the proposals that you have put to me on the security front." We will welcome the opportunity to go back and talk as soon as possible about the proposals that we put to him.
The Government and the House must realise that the people who are doing the killing, bombing and murdering, those people who yesterday shot a man and killed him when he was driving a lorry, do not care about political talks. Does anyone in the House think that because John Hume, James Molyneaux, Ian Paisley and John Alderdice sit at a table, the terrorists will stop their killing? Let us disillusion ourselves. Let us come down to hard facts. Those people are not interested in politics, democracy or life. They are interested in carrying on criminal activities of the vilest sort.
Every time that it seems that something will stop the terrorists in their tracks, someone comes up with a proposal to give them oxygen. Reference has been made to clergy in the debate. Clergymen recently said that they would talk to the IRA. We will soon have a proposal: "Why not have them at the table? They are better at the table than away from it." We shall have a galaxy of people coming forward on a great rescue mission. By so doing, instead of discrediting the terrrorists, such people give them credibility. They will bring them to some conference table, if not the conference that the Secretary of State is convening.
As I said in the talks, no amount of political talking will deal with terrorism or the terrorists of Northern Ireland. Anyone who understands anything about republican terrorism knows what happened in the Irish Republic. After the treaty, the Republic faced the same situation. There was civil war. It was bloody: father fought son, and son fought brother. There came one man, called Kevin O'Higgins. He had the task of getting cosmos out of chaos. He did it, but he was butchered. He did it because he knew how republican terrorism operated. If the terrorists had thought that they could gain by the gun, they would have kept to the gun.
De Valera led the irregulars. He had one of his colleagues, Michael Collins, massacred. Close comrades, who had fought the British, fought one another. That terrorism was put down because there was a resolution, a determination and a will to do it. After that, peace came to the south of Ireland. There was a resurgence of IRA violence, but de Valera put it down in the same way.
Someone will have to grasp the problem of terrorism. Someone at the Dispatch Box—it does not matter which party they belong to—will have to show that there are enough guts, determination and resolution to deal with terrorism and to show terrorists, once and for all, that they cannot succeed. Terrorists do not believe that at present. They think that they will succeed and they are receiving encouragement from certain parts of the community.
Rev. William McCrea: In his opening speech, the Secretary of State said:
"Terrorists are no nearer achieving their aims."

525
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not because successive Governments have taken action? The Anglo-Irish Agreement helped the aims of the IRA. It is because of the fortitude of the good people of Ulster in their stand and their resolution against the IRA. That is why we are not on the Dublin road tonight.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The determination of the Ulster people is certainly the main factor in this business. The people on the streets of Lurgan and on Adelaide street today—sweeping up the glass, boarding up their windows and putting up signs saying "business as usual"—are the people who are keeping Ulster going. That is because they are fighting for the hearths, their homes, their families and their future, and I must emphasise that.
There seems to be a desire in some parts not to face up to the issues that we must face up to. When the leader of the party of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) visited Northern Ireland the other day, he castigated the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself but not in the language that the hon. and learned Member used in the House tonight, where it can be answered. The leader of the Alliance party called us all sorts of names at his conference, and included the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in his comments. If the Unionist leaders wanted to do anything else, the Unionist people would remove them. They would not be here. There have been many Unionist chiefs without indians in Northern Ireland.
I am only here because the people put me here. In a few days' time, they will have the opportunity to say, "You don't come back." I represent the genuine views of those people.
The talks took place because, immediately after the previous general election, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and I went to see the Secretary of State for Energy, who was then Chief Whip, to discuss the possibility of having talks. We went on month after month. The talks started here and went on to Stormont. We met the heads of the civil service and the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and we went on and on. We were told by our people that we were fools, and they said, "Give up and forget about the talks." The leader of the Alliance party poured cold water on those talks and told us to forget them.
The present Secretary of State started to say things. We have recorded everything that he said. The right hon. Gentleman said that we would have talks and that there would be no dilution of United Kingdom sovereignty or damage to the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. He said that to Bangor chamber of commerce, in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). The Secretary of State added:
"Northern Ireland will not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of the people who live here. That has been the position in British law for forty years and it is reinforced by Article One of the Anglo-Irish Agreement."
That is very interesting. I see that the people who support the agreement wanted to undercut even what they tried to sell. It was a bogus sale. He also said:
"Majority desire for change in the status clearly does not exist at present and seems unlikely in the foreseeable future. That is the reality which I believe all constitutional politicians in Northern Ireland in practice accept."
That is the reality that the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic will have to accept. There can be no going back on that.
526
In his pilgrim's progress through Ulster, the Secretary of State went to the Methodist college on 6 December 1989. He said:
"We have all to face the facts as they are now. The central political fact is that a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland wants to remain part of the United Kingdom. But it is also a fact that a minority would like to see Ireland united and the border removed. How do we resolve this fundamental difference? I accept that it is fundamental. The only way the matter can be decided in a democracy is to respect the wishes of the people. Their decision by a majority, to retain the Union, is entirely clear. Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK, unless and until there is a change of mind—and I see no sign or prospect of that in the foreseeable future. I believe passionately that the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland must be upheld."
The Secretary of State was spelling out what the facts meant. I believe that that is illuminating to a person who believes in the constitution of my Province and its legitimate right to exist. Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition point to the Anglo-Irish Agreement as if it were Ulster's constitution. The Ulster constitution does not rest on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which never became an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, on a number of occasions, we have had exchanges along the lines to which he has referred. They were in the context of remarks which were made by the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland. In alluding to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I was binding in the de facto recognition of the Government of the Republic of Ireland of the constitutional position in Northern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but the House should not rest our constitutional position on anything in the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The Secretary of State also said in the House:
"Although the constitutional question has often seemed: central to matters in Northern Ireland, I turn to it now in the hope of putting it to one side. We regard the position as clear. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom in national and international law. It is part of the United Kingdom because that is the clear wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. There will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland unless and until a majority of the people there want it. That seems unlikely for the foreseeable future. I believe that most in this House, and I number myself among them, would wish to see the Union continue, but the principles of democracy and self-determination mean that the people of Northern Ireland must themselves be the final arbiters. By virtue of its constitution, the Republic of Ireland has since 1937 also claimed sovereignty over Northern Ireland. We do not accept or recognise that claim, which has no basis in our law or, equally important, in international law. That claim is, I know, seen by some in Northern Ireland, and in other parts of this country, as a major stumbling block to the development of constructive relationships. I do not regard it as helpful. Nor, however, do I believe that it should be a major preoccupation—for this reason: the Republic of Ireland has accepted, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that the status of Northern Ireland could be changed only with the consent of a majority of its people. In short, through that binding international treaty it has shown that it, too, supports the right of the people of Northern Ireland to self-determination."—[Official Report, 5 July 1990; Vol. 175, c. 1140.]
That was the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Foyle has said:
"the harsh reality is that whether or not…Unionists…have the academic right to a veto on Irish unity, they have it as a matter of fact based on numbers."

527
So we can conclude tonight that the talks are not about the destruction of the Union but about getting a settlement in Northern Ireland, and, when that settlement has been achieved, about getting the relationship between new structures in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. They are now based on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and I am sure that the Secretary of State is sick and tired listening to Unionists say, "We want an alternative to, and a replacement of, the agreement." We have never said anything else and that is why we are at the talks. Let that be clear to hon. Members in all parts of the House. We are at the talks because the Government said, "We shall consider an alternative to, and a replacement of, the Anglo-Irish Agreement."
I appreciate that, when Governments sign treaties, they continually say, "We shall hold to them." But I remember a Minister stating in the House, "We shall never change the poll tax," and a short while later it was changed. The ordinary people feel that there should be a higher degree of honesty. They believe that, when somebody says that he will not change something, he will stand by that decision. Unfortunately, politicians do not do that. I have not met many politicians in my 22 years who have not made changes.
My hon. Friends and I have laboured the point, but I do not want anyone to be under any illusion about why we arc there. We must deal with the entanglement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We cannot escape from that, and I am prepared to face it head on.
How can one have a neighbourly relationship if a neighbour claims one's property? Living next door to me is a neighbour who used to be a prominent member of the Alliance party. I do not know whether he went down the Damascus or some other road, but evidently he has fallen out with that party. He used to say, "Ian, you have a very fine lawn mower. Will you lend it to me?" I said I would lend it to him with pleasure. On another occasion he remarked, "I notice that you have an electric hedge cutter. I would like to cut my hedge, if you would lend it to me," —and I was willing to lend it to him.
If he looked over my hedge and said, "I own your house. I am going to put you, your wife and family out of your home," he would not borrow my lawn mower or hedgecutter again. There is no need for hon. Members to take a pious view about that. My reaction to such a state of affairs would represent a fact of life. The fact of life is that we have a Berlin wall, and it was not built by Ulster Unionists.
Let us get the matter straight. I have heard a strange history of Northern Ireland and what the people of Northern Ireland did to the nationalists when Stormont was founded. I was never a part of a Government in Stormont so I cannot be blamed for what the Government did there. I was leader of the opposition when Stormont finished, so I was on the opposition benches.
The Unionists appointed their members to a Council of All Ireland. The south refused to appoint anyone to that Council of All Ireland. If the nationalists had come to Stormont at the beginning, they would have had just the same privileges as anyone else elected to that House, but they chose not to come to the old Assembly.
528
Hon. Members need not hold this House up as a paragon of virtue, because we took a stand on the Anglo-Irish Agreement and this House voted for us to be thrown off every Committee of the House.
Mr. Hume: Does the hon. Gentleman know which is the second city of Northern Ireland? He may call it a different name from me, but he knows where it is. Will he explain how, for 70 years, a third of the population ran that city, despite the fact that they had only a third of the vote? How could that have been done fairly?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I had nothing whatsoever to do with that, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I was not even living at the time—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about discrimination, I shall talk about it. Let us look at the facts. We have heard a lot tonight about history and hon. Members have said that nothing should be imposed. Was not the Anglo-Irish agreement imposed on us? The hon. Member for Foyle need not point his finger at the Front Bench, because he encouraged the Irish Government.
Some Northern Ireland voters have told me that there was a time when they did not need the Unionists. But now that they are in trouble, they come back and say that they want us. I was surprised that the spokesman for the Liberal Democratic party, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, said that he did not know what to say at the election, because at the last election we had that glorious Anglo-Irish Agreement that was meant to settle everything and give us peace, stability and reconciliation.
There has been a rising tide of slaughter, with 33 deaths this year alone, since the agreement came into force. What has the agreement brought? The fact that we are debating this matter tonight proves that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a failure. Many hon. Members have told me that, if they had to vote for the agreement again, they would not do, so because it did not do what was promised.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Does my hon. Friend recall that, during the visit of the leader of the Liberal Democrats to Northern Ireland, he chose to create an atmosphere that would not be conducive to talks by bad-mouthing every Unionist Member he could find? He said that he wanted to sustain the life of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, failed though it has, and—more than that—that he wanted to build on it. Does my hon. Friend agree that to build on foundations that have been proved to be unsteady would not be a wise course for anyone to take?
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is even more unwise to build on foundations that are rejected by the electorate.
The Unionists played the democratic card. They resigned their seats and fought an election. They brought 250,000 people on to the streets and kept them in order. What did the House do? Hon. Members snubbed their nose at them and said, "We do not care, we do not need you." They will find that they will need the Protestant people and every law-abiding Roman Catholic and Protestant if they are to deal with the trouble. The Secretary of State knows that the trouble could get seriously out of hand and, instead of talking to elected representatives, he might find that gunmen had replaced them. He had better make up his mind whether he wants democracy or the rule of the gun to stand in Northern

529
Ireland. It is a serious matter, as anyone from Northern Ireland knows. That is why we asked for the debate, and joined others in doing so.
We are told about the wonderful united Ireland that we are asked to consider—
Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I shall not give way as I want to make this point.
When Ireland was divided, what was the proportion of Protestants in the Irish Republic? Some 10·4 per cent. of the total population were Protestants. In 1926, the proportion fell to 7·4 per cent.; in 1936 it was 6·6 per cent.; in 1941 it was 5·7 per cent. Between 1911 and 1926, the numbers of the Protestant faith fell by 106,000. From 1926 to 1936, that figure dropped by a further 26,233. However, the number of Roman Catholics rose by 22,651. In 1961, Protestants represented 3·7 per cent. of the population. That figure has decreased and is now less than 3 per cent. What does that mean? It means that the Protestant population in the south of Ireland has decreased by more than 70 per cent. It is no wonder that Protestants in Northern Ireland are fearful when they discover that fact, which has to be faced.
The Roman Catholic population in Northern Ireland is increasing. When I entered the House, a Tory Minister said to me, "It is all right—the birth rate will take you all into a united Ireland." He said it as though Protestants did not also breed. We will not remove the problem simply by talking about the birth rate or by changing the electoral system of voting.
The electoral system of voting was changed and our councils were done away with, as was Stormont. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that it would be the end of the Irish problem when Stormont was dissolved, but it was only the beginning. On that day, I said that what we had experienced was a mere Sunday school picnic and now we would see the real release of evil.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery sent his friend over to Northern Ireland. I was interested to see what he said. The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, Lord Holme, said:
"It is very welcome that the Dublin Government seems to be prepared to contemplate amendment of Articles 2 and 32 of the Irish constitution.
The challenge to Unionist leaders is to work out what they are prepared, amongst their equally cherished beliefs, to surrender in return".
That is an immoral, criminal and illegal claim.
Mr. Alex Cathie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I shall not give way as I want to put it clearly on the record tonight that the spokesman told me that was to surrender the Union because the immoral—
Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
Rev. Ian Paisley: I will not give way.
My Unionist friends and I have to give up our cherished inheritance. Those were the sort of men that were sent over to Northern Ireland by the Liberal Democrats to tell us to surrender that.
Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to one who has not had the opportunity of
530
speaking in the debate. Instead, I have had to listen to interference from those who had the chance to speak and should have used it to speak sense.
Does my hon. Friend understand the fears of the Protestant community? In recent days, a part-time member of the UDR was the subject of an attempted murder by four IRA personnel in the county of Fermanagh. One of them was shot by the UDR man and three were arrested in the Irish Republic. I have been told that one of the three—up on an attempted murder charge —has been released by the Irish Republican authorities on £20,000 bail, yet that same person is being sought for the murder of Gillian Johnson and the attempted murder of one of my constituents. That is the kind of justice that we can expect fom Dublin.
Rev. Ian Paisley: All we have to do is look at the sad saga of extradition. I have with me a list of all the extradition cases that have been refused. We were promised great co-operation, but I can give my list of refusals to the House. We are dealing with hard realities. I have put proposals, and I will put more proposals to the conference when it meets. I believe that it should meet. We must face up to these issues, but we will get nowhere if we sweep things under the carpet.
I will not ask a foreign state in any plebiscite to decide how I live as a citizen of this United Kingdom. I say that my country has a right to say how I live. No foreign country will tell the majority of people in Northern Ireland how they should live. The Anglo-Irish Agreement which was imposed on us has failed.
If we have the will, we can get an agreement. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley has talked about a larger agreement that takes in the whole of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members must realise what we have gone through in Northern Ireland. We have already shown the former Prime Minister our list of matters to discuss: she admitted that it was a good one. We are anxious to have them discussed.
The House should remember that it was the Dublin Government who brought our deliberations to an end by holding a meeting on 16 July. That got us nowhere. Perhaps this time common sense will prevail, perhaps wisdom will prevail, and perhaps we will get a settlement.
9.32 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: I apologise to those who have been here since 7 o'clock but who have failed to get a chance to participate, especially the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who has tried vainly to catch the Chair's eye and who has sought to play both ends against the middle by wearing green and orange.
I apologise too to the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), who is an old friend of mine. He was my opponent the first time I fought a parliamentary election, in 1970. He holds one record that is to his credit: I polled more votes in 1970 than I have polled in the three elections since then, all of which I won, but he beat me in 1970 by 30,000. I wish him a happy retirement, and I am sorry that he has failed to catch the Chair's eye on what is possibly his last opportunity to speak in such a debate.
I also apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who did not manage to speak in the debate. I am sure that the House, like me, looks forward to his future contributions on Northern Ireland affairs.

531
I pay my respects to the Secretary of State, and I am sorry that he missed our debate on Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman may have read my valedictory tribute to him on Tuesday.
Mr. Brooke: I read the hon. Gentleman's account. During that summer I saw 10 hon. Members at cricket grounds around the country. He was the only Labour Member I saw, and I shall always remember him for it.
Mr. Marshall: I am pleased to hear that. I was about to say as a final valedictory that, if he wants to attend Grace road during the coming cricket season, I shall be prepared to pay his entrance fee and that of his son if his son still entertains an interest in cricket.
I thank the Secretary of State for opening the debate in the thoughtful and sincere way that has characterised his stewardship of the Northern Ireland Office. He said that the debate would be wide-ranging and reflective. That is an apt description of the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).
I am a little sad that the concluding speech by a Member from the Province showed the problems and difficulties that any British politician will face in seeking to reconcile the differences between the two communities in the Province. It also showed the great hurdles that we shall all have to jump if we are to bring lasting peace to that unhappy part of the United Kingdom. I hope that, at some time in the future, we shall hear a spokesperson for the DUP who offers hope rather than despair, who looks to the future rather than to the past and to the time when both communities will be reconciled and working together rather than living in the divisions of the past and seeking to perpetuate them into the future.
I agree with the Secretary of State about the achievements of the people of the Province. He mentioned science and education and I thought that he was about to mention rocketry and the first Irishman on the moon. The list of achievements that he brought to the attention of the House shows the great contribution that people in the Province have made not just to the United Kingdom but to the welfare of the world. I echo the Secretary of State's tributes to the security forces. On these occasions, we have always given our support and praise to the security services, and we shall continue to do so in the remaining weeks of opposition. When we form the Government after the next election, we shall be in a better and more positive position to give the security forces real assistance and help.
I also agree with the Secretary of State about the divisions in the community. He spoke about the difference of views on constitutional issues and about different national aspirations. He said that those differences introduced an international context to Northern Ireland. He was wise to make that point and, although he went over it quickly, its significance was not lost on me. Later in his speech, he linked it to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. His analysis that the differences introduce an international context is correct. When Labour forms the Government, we shall continue to see the problem in those terms and to seek to introduce a solution which takes that context into account.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) gave a pessimistic view of Irish history. I do not share his
532
general pessimism, although I fear that he may be right in one specific area—that he will not get a chair at the talks, although I am sure that he was not expressing pessimism in that narrow personal context. I reinforce the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that the hon. Member for North Down is not correct when he says that articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution legitimise the IRA. Nothing legitimises the IRA, and we have to make that clear beyond peradventure.
In a thought-provoking speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle was surely right to emphasise that diversity can be enriching rather than divisive.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley—I am feeling faint, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall suspend the sitting for five minutes.
9.40 pm
Sitting suspended.
9.45 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Marshall: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that that was the only way in which I could attract a full House!
I was about to comment on the contributions of other hon. Members, but, in view of the lateness of the hour, I fear that I cannot do so. Let me simply put on record Labour's position, which will mean reiterating many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
In opposition, we have continued to support policies that seek to achieve peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and we shall pursue the same objectives when we are in government. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, we share the anger and the anguish that arise after each terrorist outrage, and we pay tribute to all those in the Province who seek, in the face of all the difficulties, to lead normal lives.
I say to all the people of Northern Ireland that terrorism will not succeed. No terrorist group can bomb, kill or maim its way to the conference table. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has made it clear that we support the Secretary of State's three-strand approach to the talks. We look forward to reactivating those talks after the election, and to using all our best endeavours to reach a successful conclusion.
9·47 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I am grateful to the hon. Members for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for their kind remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have worked with my right hon. Friend throughout his time in his present post, and I look forward to working with him in government in the future; I found their remarks gracious and appropriate.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North began by making it clear that violence was futile. This morning, I—like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley)—stood in the middle of the high street in Lurgan. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that the heart of Lurgan was damaged. In one sense, it was appallingly damaged: 150 yards of shops on both sides of the main street will probably have to come down. Yet, in

533
another sense, the heart of Lurgan was not damaged. The people were in their shops, the fishmonger had set up a stall and the pub bore an "open for business" sign. People were going about their business.
Violence is futile. I could not help making a contrast between two events. I had been chairing discussions in Parliament buildings between representatives of the four constitutional parties about briefings that we all agreed should take place. I went from that constitutional political activity to the high street in Lurgan, and the contrast was extreme—the one giving hope, and building a better future for the Province; the other bringing despair, destruction and desperation, going nowhere. In Lurgan I said, as others said before me—both Opposition spokesmen have said it today—that no one shall bomb his way to the conference table. I repeat that in the House tonight.
The security policy that we pursue has to be a security policy within the rule of law. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that there is a perception that the security policy is not effective. I totally absolve him of the charge, but he knows that sometimes that phrase is used as a euphemism, meaning that we should let the security forces go out and kill whomever they fancy killing—anyone against whom they have suspicion. That would reduce the security forces to the level of the terrorist, and we shall not permit that to happen, because we are a Government, a Parliament and a country of the rule of law.
We shall not allow that to happen for a second reason, too. To allow it to happen would be to destroy the confidence of the community in the security forces. Confidence in the way in which the security forces do their job is not an optional extra, or a veneer that one adds to try to get through difficult situations from time to time. If the community cannot have confidence in the way in which the security forces act within the law, the community will not be prepared to offer the security forces its support, and thus the security policy itself will be undermined.
I am happy to reaffirm to the House our commitment to the security forces. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North —that some people have a perception that we are not committed, and that we do not have the will to win. I look him in the eye from this Dispatch Box and tell him that I have the will to win. We have the will to win, no matter how long it takes. This House has the will to win.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said, "I am a Brit,"—and he is. But he was saying something more profound when he used those words. We hear spokesmen for Sinn Fein saying, "We want the Brits out," and that phrase gets applied to the security forces and to British Ministers—even to me, although I was born in the Belmont road. But the phrase misses the point, which is that it is not we who constitute the British presence in Northern Ireland. It is the people who constitute that presence, and will continue to constitute it until such time as they democratically choose to change their minds—if ever that day should come.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) talked about peace walls, and pointed out that there were 13 of them in Belfast. I am now in my seventh year as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, and one of the things that has struck me over that time is how easy it is to erect peace walls and how difficult it is to get rid of them. There is no mechanism in Northern Ireland to review peace walls and to decide that their time has gone. They tell us something
534
about the insecurity of the Province. Walls exist not only in bricks and mortar but in hearts and minds. They offer security—there is no doubt about that—but eventually they imprison. They prevent new ideas, new thoughts and new relationships, and they prevent people from observing the changes taking place around them. I make no partisan point, because everyone can be imprisoned behind walls.
Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister will recall that I referred to the fact that for 20 years I have led the opposition to religious apartheid in education, and I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on the support that he has given to the cause of integration.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If we can persuade without threat our young people to grow up unburdened by some of the mythology that affected us as we were growing up, the prospects for the Province will be brighter.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) stressed two points. He said that he thought that the Secretary of State and I agreed with him, and I confirm that we do. The talks are not peace talks, and he was right to stress that. He was right to stress it because it is true and also because otherwise, they would lead to expectations in the community and in the nation which cannot be fulfilled and which may potentially be counter-productive as a consequence.
The right hon. Gentleman was also right to say that the inter-party tension among politicians in Northern Ireland is lower now than possibly at any time in the past 20 years. That is a tribute to him and his colleagues, to the hon. Member for Foyle and his colleagues, to the hon. Member for North Down and to the hon. Member for Antrim, North and his colleagues.
It is a pity that more people do not visit Northern Ireland. It is also a pity that more hon. Members do not visit Northern Ireland and do not attend these debates because if they did, they would learn the truth of what I am saying, but they would also learn to salute the courage of the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland who in their daily lives face threats and pressures which the rest of us, thank God, do not have to face.
Violence in Northern Ireland can stop tomorrow. It will stop the day the terrorists realise that they cannot win, that they will not win and that they will not be permitted to win. They cannot be permitted to win, because, if they were, the nature of our democracy would be fundamentally changed in the process.
Security policy alone will not be enough. It is the combination of security policy and political, economic and social policy, together with the resilience of the people of Northern Ireland, which will make the difference.
We look forward to more talking, to talking before a general election and to talking after a general election. I am hopeful about the talks but they must be characterised by a willingness on the part of everyone involved to explain what they mean, what they stand for and what they aspire to, and by a willingness to listen to what others mean, aspire to and want to see achieved. There should also be a willingness to accommodate the views of others, to make hard choices and to balance the short term against the long term and against the ultimate safeguard that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
I have confidence in this Government's contribution and that of the Irish Government, to that process. The

535
events of the past 12 months have massively increased and concentrated my confidence in the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland to contribute constructively to that process.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to paragraph ( 5 ) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), to put the deferred Question on supplementary estimates, 1991–92 (Class II Vote 2).
Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £27,939,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc. to certain international organisations, special payments and assistance, scholarships, military aid and sundry other grants and services.
MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) and the Order [28 February].

ESTIMATES, 1991–92 (NAVY) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1992 an additional number not exceeding 75 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.

ESTIMATES, 1992–93 (NAVY) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1993 a number not exceeding 65,400 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.

ESTIMATES, 1992–93 (ARMY) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1993 a number not exceeding 165,645 all ranks be maintained for Army
536
Service, a number not exceeding 121,000 for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 79,600 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 6,970 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.

ESTIMATES, 1992–93 (AIR) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1993 a number not exceeding 88,620 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 19,350 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 2,800 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

ESTIMATES EXCESSES, 1990–91
Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £418,563,447·96 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 1991, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 224.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1991–92
Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £3,031,401,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1992, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 226.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the three resolutions this day relating to supplementary estimates 1991–92 and estimates, excesses 1990–91 by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Francis Maude, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. John Maples.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL
Mr. Francis Maude accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1991 and 1992: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

Shipping Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
10.1 pm
Mr. David Shaw: I have spoken in a number of debates on the British shipping industry, and I am particularly pleased to be able to address the House tonight again on that issue which is of considerable importance to my constituency of Dover and to Deal.
Dover has a long history as a port and my constituents have a strong interest in our local and national shipping industry. Currently, Dover's port and ferries provide employment for about 7,000 people, of whom 70 per cent. are residents of Kent. Many live in Dover and Deal and in the adjoining area. A number of seafarers also live in my constituency and work on British ships which sail from other ports in the United Kingdom. The House will be aware that our local ferry industry in Dover has been a tremendous success story, with ever-increasing numbers of passengers and freight tonnage carried between this country and the continent.
However, the current position of our national shipping industry causes my constituents considerable concern. The importance of our shipping industry must surely not be in question. It is important for trade. Our nation has lived by its skills at trade for many centuries. Our balance of payments surplus from shipping is currently about £2·5 billion, with gross earnings of £4 billion. It has also been estimated that that balance of payments surplus could be considerably increased; many in the shipping industry believe that it could be increased to £10 billion over a period with increased investment in British ships.
Our shipping industry is also important for defence. We have seen two wars since the Government have been in office—the Falklands and the Gulf wars. The British merchant marine had important roles to play in both wars in supporting our forces.
We also expect that, in future, if our forces are required to go into action again—of course we all hope not, but from a practical point of view we must be ready for the worst—mobile forces will probably be required, and out-of-area forces in particular. In the circumstances, we must be aware that the British merchant marine will have an even more important role in supporting our forces than perhaps it had in the past. Our shipping industry is also important for the transport of passengers as well as goods. We, especially we in Dover, must recognise that not all goods can go through the channel tunnel when it eventually opens. Therefore, our shipping industry, in particular the port and ferry industry in Dover, is vital to the national interest.
Mr. Roy Beggs: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will appreciate that my constituents in Lame depend very much on ferry services between Lame and Stranraer, and they are equally concerned at the reduction in the British fleet. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that something must be done urgently so that we can introduce more young people into shipping and ensure that they have proper training right through to officer level?
Mr. Shaw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a vital industry for the nation and for his constituency as well. The industry needs to recruit a considerable number of
538
young people to make sure that we have sufficient officers and ratings in future. It is through large numbers of young people joining the industry that we will make sure that Britain is again a leading seafaring nation, with modern ships and well-trained young people crewing them. The hon. Gentleman shares my concern about the decline in the number of ships and tonnage. We should consider the reasons for that decline.
It is certainly wrong for some hon. Members to say that the Government are responsible for the decline in the British merchant marine. The decline started well before the Government came to office. The start of the 1970s saw the beginning of the decline in the British merchant marine. The reasons for that are not only that Britain's share of world trade was declining but factors beyond our control, such as decisions made in the United Nations, supported by British Governments and by many other Governments.
Those decisions affected the extent of cross-trading. In consequence, developing countries ensured that their own shipping fleets had an increased share of world trade and trade from their shores. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development code on shipping brought into being a group which resulted in many developing countries trying to obtain 40:40:20 ratios for trade, whereby 40 per cent. was reserved for the developing countries and only 20 per cent. was to be allocated to cross-traders. Of course, Britain has expanded its merchant marine over many centuries, based on cross-trading.
Also, during the 1970s the Soviet and communist nations expanded their merchant marines with considerable subsidies, and built unprofitable ships which would not succeed in any market-oriented economy. In consequence, our shipping fleet faced considerable competition.
The British merchant marine was also not helped by the United Kingdom economy in the 1970s. The economy did not go through a very good phase. There was a lack of economic growth and, therefore, a lack of growth in trade, which did not help our merchant marine.
The then Labour Government took desperate measures to build subsidised ships. We had the curious situation that several ships were built in British shipyards only to be sold under subsidy to Poland and used by the communist regime in Poland to undercut British ships in the markets in which our ships operated. All that, combined with convenience flagging and some ships built under subsidised tax regimes in overseas countries, meant that our merchant marine had a difficult 1970s. It is no wonder that the decline has continued.
It is also worth noting that the 1970s was a bad decade not only because there was a significant decline in the merchant marine but because, in the 1970s, British Governments did not address safety problems as they should have been addressed. Therefore, it is particularly pleasing that, in their Merchant Shipping Act 1988, the present Government introduced safety measures which have pleased all my constituents who work on our ferries in Dover. Indeed, in Britain our ships are now much safer than many foreign ships which call at our ports. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address that issue in his reply.
The decline in our ships in Great Britain has also led to the problem referrred to by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs). There is a reduced number of ratings and the number of people entering the industry in recent

539
years has not been at a level that will sustain a satisfactory number of officers and ratings for the decade to come. I am pleased that the recruitment of officers has recently stabilised, but I urge the Government carefully to consider employment in our shipping industry and to come up with policies that facilitate training and improve the numbers of people who enter our industry in the years ahead.
One should also draw attention to the many measures taken by the Government which have been helpful to the shipping industry. The economic growth that we have seen in the 1980s has resulted in considerably improved standards of living in Britain. In consequence, our industry has expanded in terms not only of exports but of imports. To the shipping industry, both exports and imports are of particular importance.
Economic growth has brought more trade which at least has meant that the decline in our shipping industry has been less sharp than it might have been. Of particular interest to Dover has been the shift in the Government's policies from direct to indirect taxation and lower rates of income tax. Lower rates of income tax have led to increased use of Dover ferries. After every reduction in income tax, there has been a considerable expansion in the number of passengers travelling on Dover ferries.
I am also pleased to draw attention to the fact that the present Government have helped seafarers in the taxation of their overseas earnings. Section 45 of the Finance Act 1991 is particularly welcome to seafarers because it gives them better relief in certain circumstances against taxation of their overseas earnings. The new safety measures to which I referred earlier have increased the public's confidence in our ferries and our shipping industry. By increasing public confidence, we ensure that more use is made of the ferries between Dover and the continent.
However, I should also mention one measure that has not been helpful. It is the Treasury's idea of fiscal neutrality. The Treasury has been too theoretical in its approach to capital allowances. Perhaps the computer model that it uses does not sufficiently consider the risk factors involved in investing in British industry, especially the shipping industry. If risk factors were taken into account in the Treasury model, the cash flow cost of a ship would be considered more carefully in relation to the risk that the shipowner had to bear. The cash flow cost of a ship is borne up front, yet the tax relief is spread over many years—far too many. The tax relief needs to be reconciled more closely with the cash flow cost on day one.
Our shipping industry is even facing problems from our European Community partners. Evidence is emerging that some EC countries are abusing the principle of a level playing field and giving considerable benefits to their shipowners and seafarers. Those countries are encouraging their shipping industries unfairly when compared with the British shipping industry. Some EC countries, and some European countries outside the EC, have been giving some form of subsidy, through reliefs on payroll taxes and on the equivalent of our national insurance.
The Department of Transport should carefully monitor what those countries are doing and should set up a monitoring system in close co-operation with the General
540
Council of British Shipping and employees' representatives so that we can ensure that British shipping is not unfairly prejudiced by the actions of other EC member states.
The Government should also consider other measures to support our shipping industry. We must have more investment in the industry, and we must remember that investment is determined by profitability and cash flow. A careful examination must take place to ensure that the industry is profitable and has a positive cash flow. That is how we can ensure that more jobs are created in the industry. A return to economic growth in this country is clearly crucial. We must ensure that that growth results in considerable investment in shipping.
We must take firm action against convenience flagging. We should not allow ships to be flagged under foreign registers, and we should try to bring many ships back on to the United Kingdom register. We should also prevent ships from being flagged coley for tax reasons in overseas registers. We should not hesitate to use safety regulations to prevent subsidised and unsafe foreign-flag ships from using our ports.
Also, we should encourage the Treasury to adopt the tax measures that I mentioned earlier, and to introduce a more favourable capital allowance regime. I strongly support a 25 per cent. straight line write-off, which would ensure that British ships had a tax write-off over four years. That would reconcile the need for cash flow and tax allowances to be more closely aligned.
I would also support an examination of the question whether it would be appropriate for the employer's national insurance contribution to be restricted in the same way as the employee's contribution. The employer's rate of national insurance should not continue at the same rate after the employee's contribution levels off.
Those measures are small in total cost, but they are important and should be considered. If they cannot be considered in time for the Budget next Tuesday, they should remain on the agenda for early action if the Treasury finds that the economy and Exchequer finances allow early action to be taken.
10.19 pm
The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject. Those of us who know my hon. Friend are aware that he has taken considerable interest in this subject during his time in the House and that, on many occasions, he has lobbied Ministers about it.
I shall do my best to respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend. However, he is aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement next week and it is not for us to try to anticipate what may form part of that statement. A number of my hon. Friend's suggestions relate to fiscal matters, but obviously they are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
As the Minister with responsibility for shipping, I can say that the Government fully recognise the important contribution that is made to our country by the British merchant fleet and by the men and women who serve within it. On the one hand, that fleet provides an economic

541
contribution to the country from trade and invisible earnings and, on the other, it can be called upon to play an important strategic role in our national defence.
Given the constituency of my hon. Friend, it is not surprising that he dealt at length with the role of the ferry companies. I am tremendously impressed at the way in which those companies have improved their services. Nowadays, travelling on a ferry is like going on a mini-cruise. That bodes well for the future of the ferry industry, which will face competition problems.
My hon. Friend said that we are especially reliant on shipping as an island nation, and that is well known to us. We are reliant on it not only for trade, but for the carriage of passengers, particularly to the continent. There is no doubt that the channel tunnel will offer strong competition to the ferry operators. It remains to be seen how they will adjust to that competition, but it is clear that the major operators are already planning for the future with newer, larger ships and by offering improved facilities both on board and on shore. There is no doubt that the traveller —the consumer—has already reaped the benefit of that competition.
We should be proud of the status that we hold in the maritime world. If one looks beyond the headline figures of United Kingdom registered tonnage, it is obvious that Britain is still a key player in the shipping industry. In total, British individuals and companies have an ownership or management interest in ships totalling some 41 million deadweight tonnes—or six per cent. of total world tonnage. In addition, the City is home to many international shipowners as well as an important centre of maritime insurance. I doubt that that would continue to be so under any other than a Conservative Government. It is important to remember that when considering our future as a maritime nation and the future of our maritime industry.
The headquarters of the International Maritime Organisation is located in London. It now has 136 states as members. The IMO is a highly respected international body, responsible for maritime regulation. The siting of the IMO in London demonstrates Britain's continuing high standing within the maritime world. The IMO has made great progress in creating safer and cleaner shipping lanes throughout the world to the benefit of ship owners, seafarers, manufacturers, consumers and the environment.
I am proud to say that the United Kingdom has taken a leading role in those initiatives and has been prepared, where necessary, to take a very firm stand against the less rigorous attitudes which certain IMO members are sometimes tempted to adopt. We are, for example, currently and forcefully arguing against the suggestion that some countries may wish to dilute the provisional agreement, secured last year, to phase in new stability regulations for existing roll on/roll off passenger ferries. Those new regulations arise, of course, from the investigations carried out into the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. To ignore the results of those investigations would be to show a completely unacceptable disregard for the safety of ferry passengers.
My hon. Friend should note that we cannot rule out the possibility of taking unilateral action on this front if satisfactory agreement cannot be reached at the IMO. I hope that that goes some way towards convincing my hon. Friend of the seriousness with which the Government take the whole issue of safety. We would not want to do anything that discriminated against British flagged vessels,
542
so we would be looking at all vessels operating in British ports. The Government do not underestimate the importance of the shipping industry.
We appreciate that the size of the fleet has declined in the recent past. As my hon. Friend suggests, there are many reasons for the decline. Changing trading patterns, the emergence of new shipping powers, and the development of new, more sophisticated technology have all played a part. Nor is the United Kingdom alone in having been affected by those changes. Since 1981, the European Community as a whole has seen a decline of about 50 per cent. in gross registered tonnage.
At the same time, the industry is still recovering from the worldwide slump which prevailed for most of the last decade. That was a time of falling freight rates and over-capacity, partly caused by the subsidies which were poured into shipbuilding and encouraged investment in uneconomic tonnage, as my hon. Friend ably pointed out. Conditions have now improved, but fierce competition has led to major rationalisation in the industry. A number of companies have diversified into more profitable areas and some shipowners have left the industry completely.
Competition remains fierce, but a joint Government-industry working party which reported in late 1990 concluded that the British shipping industry was "now lean and fit" and prepared to meet the challenges of the coming years.
I have spent some time putting the position of the merchant fleet in context. I do not apologise for that. When people speak about the declining British fleet, it is too often forgotten that the British shipping industry remains vigorous and forward-looking,
It is essential that that message is stressed time and again, for we shall not get people to go into the industry if we hear nothing but doom and gloom and prophecies about things going wrong. A more forward-looking attitude, with a more confident case being put across, is welcomed by the industry. We are not complacent. We recognise that the continued decline of the United Kingdom register must have wider ramifications, and we have taken a number of positive steps to try to reverse that trend.
I mentioned earlier the joint working party which met in 1990. Its task was to examine the current state of the industry and to identify ways in which the competitiveness of British shipping could be improved. It reported its findings in September 1990, making five major recommendations which we and the industry are pursuing.
Good progress has been made. We have already introduced simplified procedures for the type approval of ships equipment. We have also consulted widely on officer nationality, and I hope to come forward with regulations very shortly.
On cabotage, the House will know that we have fought long and hard in the EC to bring about the liberalisation of coastal trade. We will continue to press the case, and we hope that it can be resolved during the current Portuguese presidency. If not, I assure my hon. Friend that, when the United Kingdom assumes the presidency later this year, the subject will be very high indeed on our agenda. It has been on the agenda for far too long. It is time it was off the agenda and agreement reached.
Other recommendations need primary legislation to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts. It is our firm intention to come forward with legislation at the earliest suitable opportunity.

543
Action on training is mainly for the industry. A training task force has been created to identify future manpower needs and to ensure that those needs are met. At the same time, the Government continue to offer financial assistance with the costs of training officer cadets and providing experienced officers with higher qualifications. The scheme has been extremely successful, increasing annual cadet recruitment from a serious low of 162 in 1987—I accept the point that my hon. Friend made about that—to more than 500 at the end of the last academic year.
The joint working party looked primarily at the economic aspects of the shipping industry. I briefly alluded to the defence role of the merchant fleet. That is a vital area which we have not overlooked. We all know what a vital role was played by our merchant ships at the time of the Falklands crisis, and I cannot pay too high a tribute to the skills and courage of the British seafarers who manned those ships.
It is understandable that concern should be expressed about the size of the fleet having declined since then. Hon. Members can, however, be assured that we monitor the fleet's capability to support our armed forces in times of crisis. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced that we were undertaking a thorough review of the subject. This has been a complex task, not least because of dramatic political changes that have occurred internationally. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that the subject is being given the full and careful consideration that it deserves.
Another subject that my hon. Friend raised was the growth of the so-called "flags of convenience". Those registers can and do offer an easy way out for shipowners who are, in some cases, prepared to compromise on safety matters in order to cope with increasing costs and competition. There is little doubt that the safety records of those vessels cannot compare with those on the United Kingdom register, and the matter is of considerable concern.
We have publicly condemned the low standards which some registers are content to apply and have called for
544
action to address the problem. For example, the more rigorous use of port state control would go a long way towards improving the safety record of the international shipping industry, particularly if it were combined with effective sanctions. Port state control has already been used to good effect in the United Kingdom. We are the only nation that consistently exceeds the agreed target figure of inspecting 25 per cent. of foreign vessels visiting our ports. In 1990, we inspected 34·4 per cent., and we have set ourselves an internal target of not less than 30 per cent. a year. I look forward to that record continuing.
It has also been suggested that we should refuse access to British ports to vessels that do not meet the same standards as our own. Such an idea may seem radical and clearly needs further thought. However, although we fully support the importance of maintaining a liberal shipping policy, we consider that freedom of access to national waters must be backed by compliance with proper safety standards, and we are committed to ensuring that that principle is given practical effect.
I realise that many countries offer wide subsidies to support their national shipping industries. But it is clear that such policies have the negative effect of distorting the market and of encouraging investment in unprofitable areas. We have seen evidence of that in the 1970s and 1980s, when investment grants led to overtonnage and many of the problems from which the industry is only just emerging today.
Instead of matching subsidy with subsidy, we should prefer to see such distortions removed so that companies can compete on equal economic grounds. My hon. Friend should be assured that we are continuing to press through the appropriate bodies—the EC and OECD—for the removal of subsidies and unfair aids to shipping.
I give my hon. Friend an undertaking that we shall look carefully at monitoring the points that he asks us to monitor, and I shall write to him in the near future.
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock 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 twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has to take forward equal opportunities for women in the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  I have, today, launched a new programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity for women in the civil service. This builds on the very considerable progress achieved under the programme of action launched in 1984. Departments and agencies will use the new programme to develop action plans which will ensure that the civil service continues to be a leading equal opportunities employer.

THE ARTS

  Public Sector Grants
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much is received in public sector grants by(a) Dartington arts unit and (b) Exeter and Devon arts centre, in each of the past three years; what information he has on the proportion which public sector grants formed of the annual turnover in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: The information available is as follows:

  Darlington Arts Society

  1989 £

  1990 £

  1991 £

  South West Arts

  10,660

  10,875

  11,750

  Note: Local authority figures not available.

  Exeter and Devon Arts Centre

  1989 £

  1990 £

  1991 £

  Grants associated with educational and recreational activities

  Exeter City Council

  39,650

  28,771

  30,459

  Devon County Council

  —

  10,072

  11,464

  South West Arts

  11,300

  16,385

  14,490

  50,950

  55,288

  56,413

  Turnover (income from activities and trading)

  110,814

  194,726

  209,452

  Proportion which public sector income represents of turnover (Per cent.)

  46

  28

  27

  In addition the Exeter and Devon Arts Centre receives the following grants towards operational expenditure

  Devon County Council

  164,584

  179,238

  194,100

  Exeter City Council

  151,900

  134,107

  145,000

  226

  1989 £

  1990 £

  1991 £

  Total

  316,484

  313,345

  339,100

  All figures are expressed in real terms.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many residential properties owned by his Department are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentages of stock.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department's portfolio is constantly changing as a consequence of properties being acquired or demolished for road schemes, or being disposed of as surplus to requirements.

  (a) Currently, the Department owns 2,577 properties, of which 460—17·9 per cent. of total stock—are empty, including those recently acquired, uninhabitable, being sold or awaiting demolition. The remaining 2,117 properties—82·1 per cent. of total stock—are equally divided between direct lettings by the Department and indirect letting on its behalf by housing associations and local authorities.

  (b) Currently, 124 properties—4·8 per cent. of total stock—are for sale on the open market.

  (c) A figure cannot be provided for the number of properties intended for sale on the open market as it is not known which will be surplus to the requirements of road schemes until an advanced stage when the line of the road is fixed.

  (d) Housing associations have an opportunity to buy almost all of the department's surplus housing. A small number of properties are bought back by previous owners under the Crichel Down rules, otherwise property is offered next to the agent housing association. Associations are also free to bid on the open market for other surplus properties not under their management.

  Buses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with bus drivers concerning safety of drivers, passengers and pedestrians.

  Mr. Freeman
  The safety of bus drivers and passengers is considered regularly by the standing panel on assaults on bus staff—STAB—which includes representatives of the bus industry, the unions and Government Departments. STAB's remit includes all forms of crime on buses including vandalism and attacks on passengers.

  At a local level the traffic commissioner has powers to attach conditions to an operator's licence if a local service has been operated in a manner dangerous to the public. The traffic commissioner may also suspend or revoke a PSV driver's licence if the driver has been convicted of dangerous driving.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new measures he will introduce to improve bus road safety; and if he will make a statement.
  227
  Mr. Freeman
  Buses are the safest form of road passenger transport in this country. Regulations covering the safety of buses are kept under continuous review and can be amended as the need becomes apparent.

  Ferry Services
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will issue guidance notes on the operational responsibilities of British ferry operators for ferry services marketed and advertised by them, but operated by a foreign company.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The responsibility for safe operation of a ship is prescribed in section 31 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. No guidance notes are planned.

  Maritime Conventions
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the ratification of maritime conventions Nos.(a) 163, (b) 164, (c) 165, (d) 166, (e) 173 and (f)

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government stated their views on ILO conventions Nos. 163, 164, 165 and 166 in Command 658 dated April 1989 and indicated that they do not propose to ratify conventions 163, 165 and 166. Now that the syllabi for the necessary training courses in medical skills promulgated by the International Maritime Organisation, the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organisation have been reduced to performance criteria on which colleges and other bodies can base their instruction, the Department will shortly be going to a second round of consultation on how the United Kingdom should meet its obligations under article 9.2 of convention No. 164—health protection and medical care (seafarers)—and so proceed to ratification.

  The latest convention to be adopted by the ILO and therefore available for ratification is No. 172.

  River Thames (Cargo Handling)
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on maintaining competition in containerised cargo handling facilities on the River Thames, east of Tower bridge.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Any potential concerns about competition in the provision of such facilities would be a matter for consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Princess Maria Esmeralda
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the reply to the request for an investigation into the sailing of the Princess Maria Esmeralda on Sunday 21 July 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I will summarise that reply. This Belgian flag ship was sailing from a Belgian port under the sole jurisdiction of the Belgian authorities. The Department has now notified them of the reported incident. However, departmental marine surveyors have inspected the vessel and advise that the upper stern door can be left open without compromising the ship's safety. They also advise that the lower door is recessed into the stern and can appear from a distance to be open while actually closed and weathertight.

  Port of Tilbury
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the credit rating of Maritime Transport Services Ltd. which is bidding for the port of Tilbury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is for the Port of London authority to consider all relevant factors in assessing the bids for the port of Tilbury and in making its recommendation to my right hon. and learned Friend concerning the sale of the port.

  Bus Industry
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many employees there were in the bus industry in 1985–86 and 1990–91.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The numbers of staff employed in the bus industry in Great Britain in 1985–86 and 1990–91 were:

  1985–86

  174,200—annual average.

  1990–91

  155,500—end of year.

  The figures include all platform, maintenance and administrative staff employed by the bus industry. They also include working proprietors and the full-time equivalent of part-time public service vehicle staff.

PRIME MINISTER

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce changes to housing benefit and mortgage interest benefit to permit people paying part-rent part-mortgage to qualify for housing benefit and income support assistance.

  The Prime Minister
  The current regulations already make provision for such arrangements.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

  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.

ENVIRONMENT

  Thorne and Hatfield Moors
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received from English Nature concerning the conservation of the remaining vegetated areas of Thorne and Hatfield moors, including the effect of the continued extraction of peat from the other areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on 27 February 1992,Official Report, column 561. English Nature will be producing management plans for the vegetated areas of

  229
  these sites. High water tables will be maintained by a programme of controlled blocking of drains. Detailed monitoring of the effects will take place against recent baseline studies. English Nature will also be producing after-use plans for the areas where peat extraction is to continue.

  Sleeping Rough
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the most up-to-date figures recorded by his Department for the numbers of people sleeping rough in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Yeo
  The number of persons found sleeping rough at pre-identified sites in Greater London on census night—21 to 22 April 1991—was published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in the 1991 census preliminary report for England and Wales "Supplementary Monitor on People sleeping rough". A copy is in the Library.

  Hedgehogs and Toads
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hedgehog ladders and toad tunnels have been constructed or funded by his Department since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  No information is available on the number of hedgehog ladders constructed since 1979. Five toad tunnel systems, incorporating 11 tunnels, and financed wholly or partly by central or local government, have been constructed since 1979.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will favourably consider the application for funding for the Blackie Great Georges project, Liverpool 1, under the city challenge scheme later in the current month.

  Mr. Key
  Under the city challenge management arrangements, it will be for Liverpool's city challenge executive committee in the first instance to decide whether to include particular projects within the five-year programme. Any project with a grant requirement of £500,000 or more will additionally require detailed appraisal by my Department, and will be considered on its merits on receipt.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount has been given by his Department for city challenge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 3 March 1992.]: A sum of £82·5 million per year for up to five years from 1992–93 has been allocated from the Department's inner-city and housing programmes to fund the 11 first-round "pacemaker" city challenge action plans. Up to £150 million per year is being made available for city challenge for up to five years from 1993–94 for those successful in the second round.

  PCBs
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of his development action plan for the phasing out of PCBs by 1999;

  (2) what action he has taken to implement the decision of the third North sea conference of March 1990 to phase out and destroy all PCBs by 1999, in 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what is planned for each year to 1999;

  (3) how many full and part-time posts are contributing to the phasing out of PCBs by 1999; and if he will give the job specification and location of each post;

  (4) if he will give an estimate of the number of tonnes of PCBs in the United Kingdom still awaiting disposal and details of targets set for the disposal of PCBs in the United Kingdom;

  (5) if he will give details of all existing incinerators, and those in respect of which planning applications (a) have been approved and (b) are outstanding, licensed to accept PCBs;

  (6) what estimate he has made in respect of the presence of PCBs in United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is intended to produce a plan in accordance with the decision of the third North sea conference. A copy will be placed in the Library when available. Work is currently directed to refining the assessment of the types and quantities of PCBs known to exist and the available incineration capacity. New treatment techniques and alternative disposal options to incineration for particular PCB arisings are being appraised.

  A revision of waste management paper No. 6 containing technical guidance on the treatment and disposals of PCB wastes is in preparation for publication in March 1993.

  Planning for phase-out involves a co-operative effort between my Department and other Government Departments. I cannot therefore be precise about numbers and locations of individual posts.

  The remaining PCBs in the United Kingdom are mainly associated with electrical equipment, much of which will be disposed of with its PCB content. Accurate figures are not available, but it is estimated that about 20,000 tonnes of contaminated plant requires disposal, of which about half are PCBs.

  There are two merchant incinerators available for the disposal of special wastes including solid and liquid PCBs; the Rechem plant at Pontypool and a plant at Ellesmere Port operated by Cleanaway. Plant capacity for PCB destruction cannot be stated in absolute terms since it is dependent upon the chlorine content and the physical form of the waste. It is not known if any proposed plant at the planning application stage is to be used for PCBs.

  Levels of PCBs in United Kingdom coastal waters are normally so low as to be beyond the limits of detection. However, since PCBs are known to accumulate in living tissue, government monitoring programmes concentrate on levels of PCBs in fish. Results of these programmes are regularly published by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the acquatic environment monitoring reports. Control measures taken by the Government have been effective in reducing peak levels of PCBs to considerably below those that were

  231
  found in the 1970s. The levels are below those that would cause harm to human consumers and there is no reason to believe that they threaten fish health.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what official statistics are kept on employment in the area covered by the Leeds development corporation.

  Mr. Key
  This is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I understand that employment statistics for development corporation areas are not compiled. Official statistics for employees in employment are made available for local authority wards and aggregations of them. The area covered by Leeds development corporation does not coincide with ward boundaries.

  British Waterways Board
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about financing for the British Waterways Board.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am pleased to announce that we have increased the external finance limit for the British Waterways Board to £51·7 million for 1991–92. This is enabling the board to spend an additional sum of up to £3 million on canal maintenance. The increase is being financed through expenditure savings identified elsewhere within the Department, and will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  EC Eco-labelling Scheme
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made towards implementing the EC eco-labelling scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom is playing a leading role in preparing for the launch of the European scheme. We are developing criteria on a wider range of products than any other country and we are making a significant contribution to putting in place the necessary European administrative arrangements for the operation of the scheme.

  Nationally, we are required by the eco-labelling regulation to designate a competent body for the scheme. We have decided that a dedicated non-departmental public body would be the most suitable organisation to take on this role in the United Kingdom. In reaching this decision, we took account of the National Advisory Group on Eco-Labelling's advice that the body should be official, independent and at arm's length from ministerial control. This should demonstrate the authority and impartiality of the body and promote the credibility of the scheme. We will introduce legislation to establish this body when parliamentary time permits. Until then, it will operate in an advisory capacity.

  I am pleased to announce that Dr. Elizabeth Nelson has agreed to chair the United Kingdom eco-labelling body. Dr Nelson is presently chairman of Addison Group Consultancy plc and the Taylor Nelson Group Ltd., but has indicated that she intends to step down later in the year. She has extensive business experience, and particular expertise in the fields of marketing and market research,
  232
  which she will be able to contribute to the development of the eco-labelling scheme in the United Kingdom and across the European Community. We will be announcing the names of the other members of the board of the eco-labelling body in due course.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Power Stations
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to complete the sale of Northern Ireland Electricity power stations.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have now reached contractual agreement for the sale of Ballylumford power station to British Gas, the sale of Kilroot and Belfast West power stations to a consortium of Applied Energy Services and Tractebel and the sale of Coolkeeragh power station to a management-employee team—MEBO.

  The contracts provide for total sale proceeds of £353 million subject to the normal audit of completion accounts; £132·4 million for Ballylumford, £214 million for Belfast West and Kilroot and £6·5 million for Coolkeeragh. In the later case, a five-year profit-sharing deal offers the possibility of up to a further £2 million. The terms of the sales and the relevant documents have been notified to the European Commission.

  The companies which are being sold will be created out of the single entity of Northern Ireland Electricity at 1 April 1992 and have no separate trading records. Because of this, provisions are being included to allow for further adjustments to the sale price, if necessary, for a 15-month period until after the first year's trading has been completed and audited. These provisions mostly relate to assurances given by Government as to station liabilities and information made available and are subject to rigorous de minimus levels and caps of £26 million for British Gas, £53·5 million for AES/Tractebel and £0·5 million for the management buy-out.

  Completion of each of the sales is subject to a number of conditions mainly in relation to satisfying terms for financing. The sales to MEBO and AES/Tractebel are project financed and will not be completed until the money is in place. While I am hopeful that this can be achieved by 31 March, I cannot guarantee that this will be so. An important provision in the contracts allows a period before completion during which the new owners can familiarise themselves with the operation of the stations.

  The sale of Ballylumford brings with it plans for the construction by British Gas of a gas pipeline to Northern Ireland and the conversion of that station to gas firing and 1 am pleased to announce that the European Commission has approved a grant of up to 90 million ecu towards these costs. Terms have been agreed, but British Gas has still to carry out a detailed undersea survey and complete negotiations with Bord Gáis Éireann in respect of the shared onshore pipeline in Scotland. The agreement allows for a reassessment of the gas pipeline proposals following completion of these. The pipeline has been sized so that it it can accommodate additional gas requirements for either future power generation or the development of a downstream market in Northern Ireland and I welcome the opportunities which these will present.

  I am convinced that the sale of power stations on the terms which I have agreed represents the best outcome for

  233
  not only the taxpayer but energy users in Northern Ireland. A privatised industry represents the best means of securing maximum efficiency and will be more responsive to the needs of consumers. The provision of gas will give us not only access to a clean and cost effective fuel for electricity generation but the promise of an additional alternative fuel for industrial, commercial and domestic consumers in Northern Ireland in the years ahead.

  National Union of Students (Grant)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been given in grants to the National Union of Students in higher education colleges in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No Government grants are paid to the National Union of Students. The students' unions of the Queen's University of Belfast, the university of Ulster and St. Mary's college of education are affiliated to the National Union of Students. Payment to the National Union of Students by the students' unions of the two universities were as follows:

  Queen's University of £

  University Ulster £

  1986–87

  24,600

  19,494

  1987–88

  27,554

  21,178

  1988–89

  28,576

  15,740

  1989–90

  36,450

  27,872

  1990–91

  42,265

  36,723

  Information on the amounts paid by the students' union of St. Mary's college is not readily available. Stranmillis college students' union is not affiliated.

  University Research
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to secure and develop research activity within Northern Ireland universities for the future.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government recognise the value of the research done at Northern Ireland's two universities, particularly its importance to the strengthening of the local economy and are already providing public funding in excess of £30 million a year to support such research.

  The Department of Education for Northern Ireland is currently considering, in consultation with the universities, what arrangements for the funding of basic research

  Number of awards

  Academic year

  Education and library board

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Belfast

  230

  109

  67

  43

  38

  North Eastern

  179

  93

  65

  31

  25

  South Eastern

  130

  82

  51

  38

  34

  Southern

  389

  303

  192

  102

  112

  Western

  575

  398

  171

  91

  144

  Total number of awards

  1,503

  985

  546

  305

  353

  234
  should succeed the present system, under which the department receives advice from the Universities Funding Council, when the latter ceases to exist in 1993.

  It is hoped that the new arrangements will continue to provide the universities with positive incentives not only to carry out research of international quality but to meet the needs of industry and society in Northern Ireland.

  Victims of Violence
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce a new scheme to provide compensation to innocent victims of violence where the level of compensation falls outside existing provision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. The existing criminal injuries compensation scheme in Northern Ireland provides fair and reasonable compensation to the innocent victims of violence.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement outlining what plans there are to implement the recommendations of the Poswillo report on the use of general anaesthesia, sedation and resuscitation in dentistry in Northern Ireland; and what funds will be allocated to support their implementation.

  Mr. Hanley
  The level of general anaesthesia in Northern Ireland is four times that in England and as a result the cost of implementing the Poswillo report in the Province will be relatively high. It has not been possible to earmark resources specifically for this purpose in 1992–93.

  The health and social services boards, however, will be asked to implement the recommendations of the report, as resources permit, giving priority to the hospital and community dental services. General dental practitioners will be invited to refer patients to the community dental service where appropriate, until resources become available for the requisite investment in the general dental service.

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many education maintenance allowances were awarded by each education and library board in Northern Ireland for each academic year since 1986–87; and what was the total value of such awards by board in each year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:
  235

  Value of awards

  Financial year

  Education and library board

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Belfast

  30,084

  23,475

  18,629

  8,582

  9,024

  North Eastern

  40,416

  32,465

  15,669

  11,278

  6,887

  South Eastern

  30,922

  28,622

  13,133

  12,880

  6,901

  Southern

  87,298

  63,518

  47,041

  29,169

  19,448

  Western

  127,681

  107,871

  45,916

  24,123

  15,160

  Total value of awards

  316,401

  255,951

  140,388

  86,032

  57,420

  Financial information is not available on an academic year basis.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of all changes to the value of education maintenance allowances and/or in the means test scales for education maintenance allowances since 1980 specifying the respective values and scales in each instance.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Academic year

  Maximum allowance (£)

  Means-test limits (£)

  Lower

  Upper

  Age 16

  1980–81

  380

  1,670

  2,980

  1981–82

  425

  1,910

  3,410

  1982–83

  445

  2,080

  3,715

  1983–84 to 1989–90

  390

  2,485

  3,925

  1990–91

  520

  2,800

  5,200

  1991–92

  551

  3,080

  5,720

  Age 17

  1980–81

  430

  1,670

  3,140

  1981–82

  480

  1,910

  3,590

  1982–83

  500

  2,080

  3,915

  1983–84 to 1989–90

  475

  2,485

  4,165

  1990–91

  520

  2,800

  5,200

  1991–92

  551

  3,080

  5,720

  Age 18

  1980–81

  510

  1,670

  3,470

  1981–82

  570

  1,910

  3,970

  1982–83

  595

  2,080

  4,325

  1983–84 to 1989–90

  494

  2,485

  4,645

  1990–91

  520

  2,800

  5,200

  1991–92

  551

  3,080

  5,720

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement detailing the progress of the review of the education maintenance allowance scheme by the Department of Education indicating the date of its initiation, consultation with education and library boards, unions or other interested bodies, the terms of the review and consultations and options identified and appraised.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department of Education for Northern Ireland initiated the review in 1988. It was

  Offices

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Budget £

  Staff

  Budget £

  Staff

  Budget £

  Staff

  Budget £

  Staff

  Headquarters

  1348,114

  19

  1390,356

  20

  1461,457

  17

  1449,475

  14

  Belfast Area 1

  60,367

  4

  77,572

  5

  70,379

  5

  92,457

  5

  Belfast Area 2

  53,802

  4

  58,853

  4

  56,914

  6

  95,250

  6

  Specialist Metrology

  91,112

  5

  81,783

  5

  91,410

  7

  115,185

  7

  236
  completed in 1990. Government departments and education and library boards were consulted in the course of the review, which also took into account representations received from other organisations and public representatives.

  The review was charged with examining the requirements for the scheme and the options available for upgrading. In consultation, the options identified and appraised, ranged from discontinuation of the scheme to consideration of various levels of increases in allowances, in income bands, or both, and the redefinition of eligibility.

  Changes resulting from the review were implemented from 1 September 1990. The changes made the scheme more straightforward—with one scale of allowances and shorter and fewer income bands. At the same time, all means-test limits were raised by 12 per cent. with an additional increase of 10 per cent. in 1991.

  Trading Standards Branch
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the performance of the trading standards branch in Northern Ireland outlining the plans he has for expanding the service, enhancing its profile or increasing its responsibility or powers.

  Mr. Needham
  The trading standards branch of the Department of Economic Development performs a valuable service in promoting and maintaining standards of fair trading in Northern Ireland to the benefit of both consumers and reputable traders. Twenty-three trading standards officers and six enforcement officers are employed in the branch and a further three trading standards officers are undergoing training.

  Increased enforcement responsibilities will result from the implementation of European Community directives and national initiatives over the next three years. The need for additional resources will be kept under review.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the budget for the trading standards branch in the current year and each of the past three years specifying its distribution among offices and their respective staffing levels.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  237

  Offices

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Budget £

  Staff

  Budget £

  Staff

  Budget £

  Staff

  Budget £

  Staff

  Specialist Fair Trading

  42,220

  3

  58,097

  3

  66,595

  4

  85,964

  4

  Armagh

  44,814

  3

  44,600

  3

  43,105

  3

  63,469

  4

  Ballymena

  44,717

  3

  45,496

  3

  44,637

  2

  54,477

  3

  Coleraine

  24,948

  2

  27,291

  2

  28,526

  2

  33,486

  2

  Enniskillen

  24,865

  2

  26,674

  2

  29,751

  2

  34,502

  2

  Londonderry

  50,626

  3

  50,589

  3

  61,940

  3

  60,866

  3

  Newry

  25,418

  2

  26,462

  2

  28,747

  2

  33,993

  2

  Total

  811,003

  50

  887,773

  52

  983,462

  52

  1,119,124

  52

  1 Includes all centrally borne branch costs.

  Inventors
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the support provided for inventors in Northern Ireland who wish to develop their invention with a view to production in Northern Ireland, and on whether he has any plans to review the effectiveness of such support.

  Mr. Needham
  The Local Enterprise Development Unit acts as the initial source of advice and assistance to inventors seeking to develop their inventions either on their own or with suitable commercial partners.

  Inventors whose projects have technology as a key element will in future, be referred to the new industrial research and technology unit—IRTU—which was formally launched on 3 March 1992. The new organisation will concentrate the Government's research and development functions into a single unit and will provide single door access for individuals and companies to financial support and professional expertise for a wide range of innovatory projects. Advice is also available from the Industrial Science Centre on patents and support is given for initial patent searches.

ENERGY

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many residential properties owned by his Department are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department does not own any residential properties.

  Offshore Licensing
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for a further round of offshore licensing for the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Following the very successful 12th and frontier rounds announced two years ago, I am today announcing the 14th round of offshore licensing. Acreage in the round will be announced in three stages.

  Acreage announced today comprises all remaining unlicensed acreage in the main mature areas of the northern, central and southern North sea which can be released. Any finds in these areas will back up existing production plans.
  238
  A second announcement, at the end of July, will cover acreage which is more speculative, either because the economic uncertainties are greater or because the areas concerned may pose greater operating problems. This category principally contains acreage on the margins of the main mature areas and acreage outside the main areas but in and around other areas which are currently licensed.

  The third announcement, at the end of November, will cover true frontier acreage, where it will take long periods to prove up any finds and establish the economics for an infrastructure.

  Taken together the three categories of acreage provide the basis of a continuing strategy for replacing United Kingdom continental shelf reserves, with the aim of ensuring that the United Kingdom continental shelf remains a major oil province for at least another 25 years.

  As in previous rounds, it will be necessary in the case of many blocks to indicate any special features which ought to be taken into account by the operator in respect of activity under the licence. These features will reflect the concerns of defence, fishing, environmental, navigational and other interests, and will be made available by my Department as they are agreed with other Government Departments. Applicants will for the first time be required to submit a statement detailing their policy towards the environment.

  I will tomorrow publish in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes a formal announcement giving the detailed financial terms for the first category of acreage offered, the format of applications, the information required and the basis on which awards will be made. Applications for the first and second categories of acreage will be returnable by midday 16 December 1992. Applications for the third category of acreage will be returnable on 9 March 1993. I shall place in the Libraries of both Houses copies of this formal announcement.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Car Tax
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many unregistered persons making or importing chargeable vehicles into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic have paid car tax in each of the last three financial years and the current year; and what, in each year, has been(a) the number of chargeable vehicles imported in each year and (b) what sums of tax were collected in each year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on importations by unregistered persons is not readily available. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  239
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many chargeable vehicles imported into Northern Ireland, in each of the last three years and the current financial year, from(a) the Irish Republic and (b) elsewhere, car tax was paid; and what in each year and case were the sums paid in total.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of chargeable vehicles imported into Northern Ireland in the last three years is as follows:

  From Irish Republic

  From elsewhere

  1988–89

  3,215

  712

  1989–90

  2,437

  970

  1990–91

  2,002

  1,195

  1991–921

  3,230

  630

  1 To end February.

  The information on revenue could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the average annual rate of growth of gross domestic product(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Scotland (i) excluding North sea oil and gas and (ii) including North sea oil and gas, over the periods 1964 to 1970, 1970 to 1980, 1974 to 1979, 1979 to 1991 or the most recent available figures, 1980 to 1990 and 1987 to 1991.

  Mr. Maples
  The latest information for the United Kingdom is as follows:

  Annual average growth rates in Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

  Total GDP

  GDP excluding oil and gas extraction

  1964–70

  2·7

  2·7

  1970–80

  1·8

  1·4

  1974–79

  2·0

  1·3

  1979–89

  2·2

  2·2

  1979–91

  1·7

  1·7

  1980–90

  2·5

  2·5

  1987–91

  1·2

  1·6

  Available estimates for Scotland are not fully comparable with those for the United Kingdom. Such data as are available are published in table 3·5 of the "Scottish Economic Bulletin", June 1991 edition, which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what growth in the number of passengers and in the number of vehicles, vessels and aircraft the board of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise estimates from(a) other European Community countries and (b) countries outside the European Community in the period up to 1993–94.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The board of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise does not produce authoritative statistics for passenger and transport movements. For its own planning purposes the Department estimates that the number of passengers from both European Community 240
  countries and from countries outside the European Community will increase by about 1·5 per cent. in 1992–93 and 4·1 per cent. in 1993–94.

  The number of transport units, including containers, is expected to increase by 1·6 per cent. in 1992–93 and 6·5 per cent. in 1993–94. The percentage increases are estimated to be broadly similar for EC and non-EC movements in each category.

  Investment and Research
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the OECD figures for Government investment per worker in France, the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maples
  In 1989 OECD figures show that general government investment per civilian employee was £868 in France, £436 in the United States of America and £342 in the United Kingdom.

  BT Share Offer
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the administrative costs of the British Telecom share offer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The costs to the Government in 1991–92 of the BT share offer are estimated to be as follows:

  United Kingdom offers

  £ million

  Selling and other commissions

  32·5

  Marketing

  17·2

  Share Information Office

  14·6

  Prospectus production and distribution

  6·6

  Receiving and Agent Bank operations

  23·8

  Advisers' fees and expenses

  6·4

  Total (United Kingdom offers)

  101·1

  Overseas offers

  3·9

  Total (United Kingdom and Overseas offers)

  105·0

  These costs represent about 1·9 per cent. of the total proceeds due from the sale of shares to the Government, which are estimated at £5,403 million. The costs exclude stamp duty and VAT on services provided to the Government, which are not net costs to the Exchequer.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many residential properties owned by the Treasury are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Treasury does not own any property.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many residential properties owned by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise does not currently own any residential properties.

  Income Tax
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of adults not in full-time education pay income tax at the rate of 40 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Latest estimates for 1991–92 are that 1.6 million individuals—some 31/4 per cent. of adults not in full-time education—are liable to income tax at the higher rate.

  I regret that no information on the educational status of these individuals is available.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate, on the same basis as the ready reckoner published in the autumn statement, what is the effect on a one-earner, two-child family of spending in 1992–93 the same sum on(a) a 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax, (b) raising income tax thresholds above their indexed levels and (c) raising child benefits, assuming (i) no change in income support and family credit rates and (ii) corresponding changes in income support and family credit rates.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: The cost in 1992–93 of (a) a 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax, is estimated to be £1,950 million, which would be worth roughly £2·50 a week to a married man on average male earnings, compared with statutory indexation.

  (b) That amount would pay for an increase in income tax personal allowances and thresholds of 7 3/4 per cent. which would be worth almost £2 a week to a basic rate taxpayer, compared with statutory indexation.

  (c) On the assumption that each child benefit rate was increased by the same cash amount, £1,950 million would pay for an increase of

  (i) £4·50 per week per child if there were no corresponding changes to income-related benefit rates; or

  (ii) £3·05 per week per child if adjustments were made to income-related benefits to ensure all families received the same increase.

  Friendly Societies Bill
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make available notes on clauses for the Friendly Societies Bill prior to Second Reading.

  Mr. Maples
  Yes. Copies of notes on clauses are today being placed in the Vote Office and in the Libraries of the House for the convenience of Members.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish a table showing for 1990–91 and his estimate for the current financial year the number of males and females under pensionable age(a) with total incomes of more than £5,000 and less than £10,000 a year, the number assessed for tax and the amount of tax paid and (b) the number who earned more than £5,000 and less than £10,000 and the amount of national insurance contributions paid;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing for 1990–91 and his estimate for the current financial year (a) the estimated number of males and females under pensionable age with total incomes of less than £5,000 a year, the number
  242
  assessed for tax, the number who paid tax and the amount of tax paid and (b) the number of males and females who earned less than £5,000 a year, the number who paid national insurance contributions and the amount of such contributions.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: Estimates of total income for income tax purposes for taxpayers are available from projections of the 1989–90 survey of personal incomes. These are the basis of the following estimates of the number of taxpayers in the specified ranges and the corresponding tax liabilities.

  1990–91 levels of income

  Total income · per year

  Number liable to income tax (million)

  Tax liability ·(million)

  Males aged under 65

  1–5,000

  0·7

  200

  5,000–10,000

  3·4

  2,900

  Females aged under 65

  1–5,000

  1·7

  400

  5,000–10,000

  3·8

  3,400

  1991–92 levels of income

  Total income · per year

  Number liable to income tax (million)

  Tax liability ·(million)

  Males aged under 65

  1–5,000

  0·6

  100

  5,000–10,000

  3·1

  2,500

  Females aged under 65

  1–5,000

  1·3

  300

  5,000–10,000

  3·8

  3,200

  The following tables are based on new earnings survey estimates of weekly earnings of employees and the corresponding employees's NIC liabilities.

  1990–91 levels of earnings

  Annual equivalent of weekly earning £

  Number of individuals (million)

  Number liable to National Insurance (million)

  National Insurance liability £ million

  Males under pensionable age

  1,–5,000

  1·2

  0·4

  100

  5,000–10,000

  2·4

  2·4

  1,300

  Females under pensionable age

  1,–5,000

  4·1

  1·9

  300

  5,000–10,000

  3·7

  3·7

  1,700

  1990–91 levels of earnings

  Annual equivalent of weekly earning £

  Number of individuals (million)

  Number liable to National Insurance (million)

  National Insurance liability £ million

  Males under pensionable age

  1–5,000

  1·1

  0·3

  100

  5,000–10,000

  1·9

  1·9

  1,000

  Females under pensionable age

  1–5,000

  3·8

  1·5

  200

  5,000–10,000

  3·4

  3·4

  1,500

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Albania
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amount of bilateral aid given by his Department to(a) the Albanian Government and (b) aid agencies and charities working in Albania since May 1991.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information is as follows:

  £

  (a) Nil

  (b) British Red Cross

  200,000

  Feed The Children

  180,000

  Oxfam

  35,000

  A further £135,000 will be allocated shortly, bringing the total to £550,000. Feed the Children has also been given a quantity of Ministry of Defence medical supplies which were surplus to requirements in Germany.

  Summary of Task Force Funding 1986–92

  Task Force

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Middlesbrough

  710,315

  1,104,937

  867,204

  711,314

  1,181,240

  1,125,379

  Moss Side

  187,690

  528,770

  873,575

  2,323,469

  2,024,551

  1,093,333

  Bristol

  772,380

  1,984,639

  581,374

  620·461

  2,017,379

  654,777

  West London

  187,300

  869,231

  959,947

  462,926

  1,296,688

  1,486,922

  North Peckham

  470,620

  981,696

  1,275,092

  883,365

  1,249,183

  1,825,618

  Coventry

  —

  253,264

  1,430,094

  1,469,219

  932,518

  1,229,062

  Nottingham

  —

  512,290

  1,494,045

  797,001

  1,012,710

  993,550

  East Birmingham

  —

  —

  330,335

  1,366,680

  1,025,743

  951,237

  Granby/Toxteth

  —

  —

  —

  576,335

  1,441,605

  1,518,053

  Bradford

  —

  —

  —

  440,419

  1,932,369

  846,798

  Deptford

  —

  —

  —

  205,708

  1,663,991

  989,005

  Derby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  218,830

  961,811

  Wirral

  —

  —

  —

  —

  549,961

  584,886

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25,950

  Hull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  115,670

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22,618

  Note: The 1991–92 figures arc up to January 1992.

  Shipbuilding
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement about the work of the shipbuilding task force within his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  The objective of the shipbuilding task force remains as described in my reply to the hon. Lady on 20 March 1991,Official Report, columns 161–62.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residential properties owned by his Department are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department does not own any properties suitable for residential accommodation.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Task Forces
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all those task forces currently in operation, giving dates for when they started, and projected dates for their wind-up and allocated funding for each year of their operation.

  Mr. Leigh
  Inner-city task forces currently in operation are: Middlesbrough, Moss Side and Hulme (Manchester), Bristol, West London, North Peckham (opened in 1986); Foleshill and Hillfields (Coventry), Nottingham (1987); East Birmingham (1988); Granby/Toxteth (Liverpool), Bradford, Deptford (1989); Derby, Wirral (1990); Hull, Hackney, South Tyneside (1991).

  The task force initiative is a rolling programme. Decisions on which task forces are to close this year, and where new ones are to open, will take place in parallel with decisions on city challenge.

  Allocated funding for each task force currently open is given in the table.

  New Houses (Warranty)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding the National House Building Council 10-year warranty for new houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  A Monopolies and Mergers Commission —MMC—report on structural warranties for new homes was published in March last year. This recommended changes to the rules of the National House Building Council—NHBC—warranty scheme, to allow builders belonging to the scheme to place some of their new homes with a comparable alternative scheme. On publication my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry invited representations from interested parties on a number of alternative remedies. In response he received more than 100 letters from builders, trade associations and professional bodies, consumer organisations and members of the public, some supporting and some opposing changes to the NHBC scheme.

  The MMC report recognised that the NHBC had over a number of years made an impressive contribution to the improvement of housing standards and provision of safeguards for purchasers of new homes. However, it also

  245
  found that competition had started to bring substantial benefits. Discussions with the NHBC and other interested parties have been continuing with a view to finding a solution which brings the benefits of increased competition without prejudicing consumer interests.

  Regional Assistance (North-east England)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much regional assistance was provided under each scheme for the north-east of England in 1979, 1987 and the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The table lists the amount of money spent on regional assistance in the north-east of England in the financial years 1979–80, 1987–88 and 1990–91, the latest year for which figures are available. Expenditure by calendar year is not readily available for some of the schemes.

  £ million

  1979–80

  1987–88

  1990–91

  Regional Selective Assistance

  10·8

  24·6

  27·7

  Regional Development Grants1

  122·4

  57·4

  34·6

  Regional Enterprise Grants2

  —

  —

  2·4

  English Estates3

  12·5

  21·5

  18·3

  1 Includes expenditure under both the original scheme which closed to new applications in November 1984 and the revised scheme which replaced it in 1984 and in turn was closed to new applications in March 1988.

  2 Started in April 1988.

  3 Expenditure on factory building in the assisted areas of the north-cast of England.

  Beer and Cider (Foam)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to introduce section 43 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 relating to beer or cider and foam; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Following my Department's consultation with interested parties, I have today made a commencement order which provides that section 43 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 will come into force on 1 April 1994.

  The lengthy implementation period will give publicans plenty of time to prepare and ensure that compliance costs are kept to a minimum. This law does not outlaw froth, but I strongly believe that consumers should get what they pay for, if a pint is ordered a pint of liquid beer is what they should get.

  I have just decided that brim-measure glasses should not be prohibited. Licensees will therefore still be able to use these glasses as long as they serve a full liquid pint of beer or cider.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many residential properties owned by his Department are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open
  246
  market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mr. Eggar
  This Department owns no residential property.

  Pupil Placements
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils in each local education authority are educated in maintained special schools outside their own local education authority area.

  Mr. Fallon
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 28 February,Official Report, columns 619 to 21.

  Council for National Academic Awards
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when he intends to close down the Council for National Academic Awards; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure that all those students registered with the Council for National Academic Awards will be transferred to other degree awarding bodies by the date of closure of the Council for National Academic Awards without any change in conditions or fees payable by the student;

  (3) how he will ensure that a national network of peer review is maintained after the abolition of the Council for National Academic Awards.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 16 December 1991,Official Report, column 31, that the dissolution of the Council for National Academic Awards was likely to be at the end of March 1993. That remains the position. He also referred to the importance of arrangements being made for students to be able to continue on the course of study for which they enrolled, in the institution at which they enrolled and with the expectation of receiving a degree or other award at the end of that course of similar standing to the CNAA degree or award for which they initially registered. We remain confident that new validation agreements will be in place by the beginning of the 1992–93 academic year. On 15 January the Department wrote to all higher education institutions making it clear that students who had already paid a validation fee to the CNAA should not be charged a further fee by a new validating institution.

  The new quality assurance organisation being established collectively by the higher education institutions will be responsible for scrutinising institutions' quality control systems and validation agreements, and will take over some other activities of the CNAA. The way in which validation is carried out will be a matter for individual institutions, taking account of views expressed by the new organisation. As my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement on 16 December indicated, the Open university is intending to offer a validation service broadly on existing CNAA lines.

  Education Statistics, Northumberland
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the per capita spending for primary and secondary school pupils in Northumberland,
  247
  and the average per capita spending for all pupils, in 1979, 1987, and the latest year for which figures arc available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The latest year for which actual spending information is available is 1989–90. Average school-based expenditure figures per nursery, primary and secondary pupil in Northumberland and for England as a whole are shown in the table.

  The real-terms increases in per pupil spending between 1979–80 and 1989–90 were 41 per cent. in Northumberland and 44 per cent. for England. Most Government support for local authorities is by way of unhypothecated revenue support grant. It is then for each local authority to determine how to allocate its spending between schools and other services.

  Net institutional expenditure1 per pupil

  Northumberland

  England average

  Year

  Cash £

  1989–90 prices2 £

  Cash £

  1989–90 prices2 £

  1979–80

  515

  1,030

  515

  1,030

  1987–88

  1,210

  1,380

  1,240

  1,420

  1989–90

  1,450

  1,450

  1,485

  1,485

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

  2 Figures for 1979–80 and 1987–88 have been repriced to 1989–90 prices using the GDP (Market Prices) Deflator index.

  Note: The figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department of Education and Science. Figures include nursery schools, information for which is not identified separately from that for primary schools.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list the number of primary and secondary teachers in Northumberland in 1979, 1987 and for the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the pupil-to-teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools in Northumberland, and the average ratio for all pupils in 1979, 1987 and for the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information on the pupil-teacher ratios and the number of full-time equivalent teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools in Northumberland local education authority for the years 1979, 1987 and 1991 are given in the table.

  Northumberland local education authority

  Year

  1 Full-time equivalent teachers

  2 "Within school" pupil-teacher ratios

  3 Overall pupil-teacher ratios

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1979

  926

  1,770

  23·4

  17·5

  18·3

  1987

  832

  1,765

  13·1

  16·3

  17·8

  1991

  830

  1,684

  23·5

  16·7

  17·4

  1 Qualified teachers in schools only.

  2 The "within schools" PTRs are calculated using full-time equivalent numbers of qualified teachers in schools and full-time equivalent pupil numbers.

  3 The overall PTRs arc calculated using full-time equivalent pupil numbers and the full-time equivalent of all teachers employed by the LEA in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools. This

  248

  includes qualified teachers (including those not in schools and teachers providing short-term cover) as well as unqualified teachers such as student teachers, instructors and licensed teachers.

  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he win list the schools in Kent whose applications for grant-maintained status(a) he has approved, (b) he has rejected and (c) he is still considering.

  Mr. Eggar
  A total of 41 schools in Kent have published proposals for grant-maintained status to date. These are set out in the categories requested:

  Grant-maintained schools in Kent

  Approved

  Wilmington Grammar School for Girls

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  The Cornwallis School

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  St. George's CE School

  Southlands School

  Dartford Grammar School

  Thamesview School

  Homewood School

  Wrotham School

  Aylesford School

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  Simon Langton Boys Grammar

  Oldborough Manor High School

  Fulston Manor School

  Senacre Technology School

  Cranbrook School

  The Sheppy School

  The Skinners School

  Angley School

  Rainham Mark Grammar School

  The Cantchury High School

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  The Robert Napier School

  Snodland Primary School

  Rejected

  Casticmount School

  Swanscombe High School

  Appledorc Primary School

  Edenbridge Middle School

  Being considered

  Cliffe Woods Middle School

  Cliffe Woods Primary School

  Hoo St. Wcrburgh Middle School Meopham School

  The Mailing School

  Sandown Court School

  Sevenoaks High School for Girls

  Archbishop's School

  Borough Green County Primary School

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  Chatham Grammar School for Girls

  Sex Education
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the information imparted in sex education in schools for teenage girls.

  Mr. Atkins
  The implementation of those aspects of sex education which are included in national curriculum science arc being monitored by Her Majesty's inspectorate and by local education authorities. The National Curriculum Council is also carrying out a detailed evaluation of how the core subjects are being delivered in the classroom. Beyond the statutory requirements of
  249
  national curriculum science, schools' governing bodies are responsible for deciding whether any further sex education should be included in their schools' curriculum and, if they decide that additional sex education should be provided, for determining policy on its content and organisation.

  School Transport
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangments are made for the provision of school transport to those children entitled to free transport in(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) city technology colleges.

  Mr. Eggar
  Local education authorities have a statutory duty to provide free transport for school pupils for whom they consider it necessary, including pupils who attend grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. Information on local education authorities school transport arrangements is not collected centrally.

  School Meals
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangments are made for the provision of school meals to those children entitled to free meals in(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) city technology colleges.

  Mr. Eggar
  Grant-maintained schools must provide a free school meal to any pupil who would be entitled to one in a local education authority-maintained school. Their annual maintenance grant makes provision for this.

  City technology colleges are independent institutions and it is for them to make arrangements to provide meals free of charge to those children entitled to free school meals. City technology colleges grant from the Department make provision for this.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General how many complaints he has received about the charging for legal aid forms by magistrates courts; and if he will ensure that the legal aid application forms continue to be provided free of charge.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply. I have received only very occasional complaints. However, the question of charging is currently being considered by an interdepartmental working group reviewing the operation of the legal aid scheme in the magistrates courts.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residential properties owned by his Department are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest available estimate of the information requested is:250

  (a)345 (12·5 per cent.) properties are empty, of which 210 (7·7 per cent.) are retained for redevelopment, security reasons, essential reallocation or demolition, and are therefore not available for disposal;

  (b) 120 (4·3 per cent.) properties are on the open market, of which 85 are the subject of an agreed sale and are awaiting completion;

  (c) 15 (0·5 per cent.) properties arc to be placed on the market for sale; and

  (d) there are no special arrangements for sales to housing associations, but any properties on the market are available for purchase by housing associations if they consider them suitable.

  Karamjit Singh Chahal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will release from prison Karamjit Singh Chahal so that he may re-join his family in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to my written answer to him of 12 December 1991,Official Report, column 510. The decision to detain Mr. Chahal is regularly reviewed, but at the present time I see no grounds for his release.

  Amnesty International (Charities Bill)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Amnesty International about the provisions of the Charities Bill.

  Mr. John Patten
  My officials have had one meeting with representatives of Amnesty International. We have also received six letters from right hon. and hon. Members forwarding letters from their constituents. These representations all concern the system of exemption orders for public charitable collections created by clause 72 of the Bill.

  Nationality Applications
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken by the immigration and nationality department to determine an application for British nationality.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average time taken for applications for British citizenship granted in February 1992 was 25 months.

  Rave Parties
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warehouse or rave parties are known by the police to have taken place in Gloucestershire in 1990 and 1991; and how many arrests were made in connection with these parties.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There were no warehouse or rave parties in Gloucestershire in 1990. In 1991 there were 16 such parties, resulting in 173 arrests.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment is made of the impact on legal aid expenditure of proposals to close magistrates courts.
  251
  Mr. John Patten
  Magistrates courts committees should take into account all relevant factors when deciding whether or not to close a courthouse including the possible impact upon legal aid expenditure. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 10 February, columns 344–45, to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).

  Emergency Warning System
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive a report on a national emergency warning system.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend expects to receive a report from officials shortly.

  Violence Against Women
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken during the current session to strengthen the powers of the courts to punish offenders who have committed violent crimes against women.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are high maximum penalties for the most serious violent crimes against women, as against any victim: life imprisonment is mandatory for murder and is the maximum penalty for manslaughter, rape and the most serious woundings. The courts' powers will be enhanced when the Criminal Justice Act 1991 comes into force in October. The Act enables courts to impose longer custodial sentences than justified by the seriousness of the offence upon violent or sexual offenders in order to protect the public from serious harm from them. The Act also gives courts power to order longer and more intensive supervision for sex offenders following their release from custody.

  Drugs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department what was the total number of registered drug addicts in each of the last 12 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of new addicts notified by doctors to the Home Office in each of the last 12 years is given in table 2 of the Home Office statistical bulletins "Statistics of the misuse of drugs: addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom" for 1989 and 1990, copies of which are in the Library. The number of addicts renotified, which is available only for 1987 onwards, is given in table 1 of the 1990 publication.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were prosecuted for offences relating to drugs in each of the last 12 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is contained in table 3.1 of the Home Office statistical bulletins "Statistics of the misuse of drugs: seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom" for 1989 and 1990, copies of which are in the Library.

  Bail Information
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a bail information project in Gloucester.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that Gloucestershire probation service is conducting a feasibility study at 252
  Cheltenham and Gloucester magistrates courts and, depending on its outcome, may submit a bid for resources in due course.

  Inquests
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a review into the inquest system.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a review.

  Wolds Remand Centre
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department estimates should be spent on a prisoner's diet per day at the Wolds remand centre.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No such estimate was made in the course of inviting tenders for the management of Wolds prison. The Department's interest will be in ensuring that the contractors comply with the dietary standards set out in the operational specifications for the prison, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 2 May 1991.

  Overturned Convictions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people each year since 1985 have had convictions overturned because forensic evidence presented at trial has subsequently been reconsidered or challenged successfully.

  Mr. John Patten
  I regret that the information requested is not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people each year since 1985 have had convictions for murder overturned.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 23 January 1992, column 317.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 821, when he expects to announce proposals for ensuring secure accommodation for juvenile offenders remanded on bail.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has established a national steering group, with representatives from central Government, the local authority associations, the police, the probation service, the Crown prosecution service and voluntary organisations to plan the provision of secure accommodation to replace prison custody for remanded juveniles. We are anxious that the work should be concluded as quickly as possible.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out
  253
  reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Forensic Science Service agency, assisted by PA Consulting Group, is carrying out a pay and grading review of scientific grades within the agency.

  Operation Spaner
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the cost of the pre-trial hearings at Lambeth and Camberwell magistrates courts in 1990 in relation to Operation Spaner, (b) the cost of the Old Bailey trial proceedings in relation to Operation
  254
  Spaner in December 1990 and (c) the cost of the Court of Appeal hearing and subsequent ruling in February 1992 in relation to Operation Spaner.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The costs of the pre-committal and committal hearing at Lambeth and Camberwell magistrates courts were approximately £64,500 including the court costs, prosecution costs and the cost to the legal aid fund.

  The cost of the trial at the central criminal court including the court costs, the prosecution costs and the legal aid costs was approximately £357,000.

  The costs of the appeal are not yet fully available as the legal aid costs and the prosecution costs have yet to be determined.

EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many residential properties owned by his Department are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mr. Jackson
  The numbers and percentages of residential properties for the Department are(a) 4, 100 per cent. (b) 4, 100 per cent. (c) nil (d) nil.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rise in unemployment in(a) London and (b) nationally over the 18 months.

  Mr. Jackson
  On the seasonally adjusted basis, unemployment rose by 189,200–92 per cent.—in London and 972,000–60 per cent.—in the United Kingdom between July 1990 and January 1992.

  Medicopharma UK (Redundancy Payments)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when former employees of Medicopharma UK can expect to receive their company redundancy payments; if he will require their former employer to compensate them for the delay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Employees who are dismissed for redundancy and who satisfy the qualifying conditions are entitled to a lump sum payment from their employer. Questions arising as to the right of employees to a payment, or as to the amount of a payment, are matters for an industrial tribunal to determine on the application of the employees concerned.

  Sheltered Workshops
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on provision for sheltered workshops and the sheltered placement scheme in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Howard
  We are committed to providing sheltered employment for peole with severe disabilities. In the current financial year we are providing funds for an average of approximately 5,000 people in sheltered workshops and around 7,000 people under the sheltered placement scheme. In this financial year, in order to help meet the costs incurred by sponsors, we have already increased the annual grant ceiling per place for voluntary bodies by £280 to £3,800 and that for local authorities by £240 to £3,000. I am now further increasing these grant ceilings for this financial year by £100 to £3,900 and £3,100 respectively. The total increase this year over last are 10·8 per cent. and 12·3 per cent respectively.

  In 1992–93 I am providing £3·15 million more than this year's provision for current expenditure for sheltered workshops and the sheltered placement scheme. These additional funds will again be used to help meet the costs of voluntary bodies and local authorities by increasing the
  256
  grant ceilings by a further £240 and £170 respectively to bring them to £4,140 for voluntary bodies and £3,270 for local authorities. This represents incrases of 6·2 per cent and 5·5 per cent respectively.

  In addition, I shall be making available just over £10 million in 1992–93 for capital expenditure which represents an increase of just over £4·1 million on this year. This money will be available to help meet the cost of essential refurbishment and development where that is clearly consistent with our long-term objectives for sheltered employment.

  In order to ensure that we make the best use of available rsources, I have had to decide that the planned number of places nationally provided by these forms of sheltered provision taken together will remain the same in 1992–93 as 1991–92. However, previous patterns of turnover on the sheltered placement scheme indicate that some 1,000 existing places are likely to become vacant to allow new entrants to join the programme.

  I will be considering future sheltered employment provision in the light of the review of the current funding arrangements for sheltered employment which is now in hand. I will also take into account the findings of research we have commissioned on aspects of the sheltered employment programme. The consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" recommended that there should be a shift in the balance from workshop provision to sheltered placements. That view was widely supported in the course of consultations and it remains our intention. Sheltered placements promote integration and offer opportunities in a wider range of occupations and locations. Specific decisions on rebalancing will take account of the outcome of the funding review and the research. The numbers in workshops and placements may be subject to change in the light of these decisions.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much regional assistance was provided under each scheme for the north-east of England in 1979, 1987 and the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The amount of regional assistance provided to the north-east of England is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  However, this Department has a wide range of employment, training and enterprise schemes which are available in the north-east, as elsewhere. These measures include Restart courses and the job interview guarantee scheme delivered by the Employment Service to help the long-term unemployed in their search for jobs and employment training and enterprise allowance scheme delivered through the training and enterprise councils, to help unemployed people learn new skills or to start up in business.

SCOTLAND

  Recreation Projects
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a list of recreation projects built in the city of Glasgow in the last five years which have had
  257
  support from governmental or European Community funds; and if he will indicate the total project costs and Government or European contribution levels.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Not all the information requested is held centrally. The available figures and a list of the projects supported by governmental or EC funds are set out in the table below. The total capital building costs for urban aid projects was £4·417 million. The Government's grant contribution was 75 per cent. of this figure.

  Recreational projects built in the city of Glasgow with governmental or European Community bouts 1985–1991

  Grant awarded £

  Total cost of project £

  Scottish Sports Council Grants

  Kelvin Hall, Conversion

  500,000

  3,600,000

  Greenfields, Sand Carpet Pitch

  40,425

  50,425

  Greenfields, Sand/Slit Pitch

  7,500

  10,000

  Scottish Amateur Wrestling Association, Equipment

  8,066

  10,000

  Kelvin Hall, Timing Equipment

  60,000

  60,000

  Springburn, Demonstration Indoor Sports Centre

  150,000

  815,052

  Springburn, Management Information Centre

  18,000

  18,000

  Scottish Karate Board of Control, Scoreboards

  2,600

  2,600

  Jordanhill, Sports Science Support Service

  5,000

  5,000

  Scottish Amateur Ballroom Dancing Association, Equipment

  3,840

  3,840

  St. Marks Badminton Club

  700

  1,400

  Rutherglen Cruising Club

  2,000

  5,000

  Kelvin Hall, Athletics Track

  103,000

  515,000

  Helenvale, Hockey

  75,000

  585,500

  Angel Lights, Skatepark

  2,000

  4,000

  Willowbank Bowling Club

  1,000

  2,000

  Kelvin Hall, Karate Mats

  3,500

  3,500

  Kelvin Hall, Promotional Video

  11,000

  15,350

  Kelvin Hall, Sports Medicine

  8,470

  8,470

  Glasgow Green, Croquet

  3,986

  9,800

  Glasgow Lions American Football Club, Equipment

  1,000

  6,000

  Clydesdale Cricket Club, Equipment

  1,000

  3,980

  Kelvin Hall, Climbing Wall

  18,034

  30,872

  EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND ASSISTED PROJECTS

  Strathclyde Integrated Development Operational Programme

  McLellan Galleries

  1,491,120

  4,560,000

  Museum of Education

  249,600

  492,000

  Glasgow Concert Hall

  8,224,050

  25,150,000

  Glasgow Film Theatre

  25,000

  100,000

  Art Lover's House

  50,000

  100,000

  Scottish Youth Theatre

  50,000

  100,000

  Glasgow Green Improvements

  200,000

  400,000

  Glasgow Cathedral Precinct, Environmental Improvements

  114,689

  229,378

  Glasgow National Programme of Community Interest

  Kelvin Hall

  3,496,350

  6,357,000

  People's Palace

  319,000

  580,000

  Pollok Park

  187,000

  340,000

  Information Centre

  137,500

  250,000

  Glasgow Cathedral Precinct

  275,000

  500,000

  Recreational projects built in the City of Glasgow for which funding information is not held centrally

  Scottish Development Agency/Scottish Enterprise/Glasgow Development Agency
  258

  Garnethill Activity Park, Environmental Works

  Barlia Pitches, General Funding Support/Environmental Works

  Garthamlock Central Park, Environmental Works

  Cambusland Football Pitches, Environmental Works

  Glasgow Cathedral Precinct, Townscape Improvements

  McLellan Galleries, Building Facelift

  Museum of Transport, Floodlighting

  Kelvingrove Art Galleries and Museum, Building Facelift

  Urban Programme Grants

  Balornock East Youth Centre

  Barlanark Theatre Workshop and Adaptations

  Barlia All-Weather Pitch

  Bridgeton Youth Club

  Burnhill Recreation Proposals

  Business and the Arts Govan

  Castlemilk Flume

  Commercial Court Play Area

  Community Arts/Culture—"Animature"

  Community Inflatables

  Drumchapel Detached Youth Project

  Drumchapel Sports Centre Improvements

  Drumchapel Youth Centre—Access to Disabled Young People

  Easthall Play and Recreation Area Easterhouse

  Enterprise Theatre—Govan

  Floodlighting—St. Riochs School Playing Fields

  Games Court Calvay Crescent

  Garthamlock Visual Statement (Resource)

  Installation of a Boom—Drumchapel Swimming Pool

  James Lindsay Memorial Park

  Lauriston Youth Centre

  Milton Creative Playpark

  Muirglen Playpark

  Oatlands Leisure Gardens—Disabled Gardening Project

  Peterson Park Tenants Hall—Youth Centre

  Play Area Lochend Easterhouse

  Pollockshields Library—Project Room

  Possilpark Youth Action Project

  Reidvale Adventure Playground (Joint with GDC)

  Royston Community Building

  Springburn Museum and Exhibition Centre

  St. Mungo's Riding Centre for the Disabled

  Upgrade Gairbraid

  Westwood South Studio

  Woodside Youth Point

  Yoker Teenage Library

  Youth Action—Govan

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff, and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Mr. Lang
  In accordance with Government policy, my Department keeps pay and grading structures under review. Internal review teams check on grading as part of annual reviews across my Department, but over the last 12 months no reviews of pay have been carried out in my Department, including in executive agencies, by either internal or external review teams.

  Market Testing Programme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.
  259
  Mr. Lang
  Following competitive tendering, Coopers and Lybrand, Deloitte has been retained to advise the Scottish Office and its executive agencies on the market testing programme.

  Building Security
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance is available to groups of owner-occupiers who, acting together, are seeking to improve security of their homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no specific assistance for this purpose. However, local authorities may at their discretion give improvement grant for some security measures, generally as part of a comprehensive rehabilitation of houses.

  Roads Report
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish the roads report; and if he will make a statement about progress on trunk road schemes during 1991–92 and those it is proposed to start in the next three years.

  Mr. Lang
  I am today publishing the report, "Roads, Traffic and Safety 1992", copies of which have been placed in the Library together with an associated summary.

  In the last fortnight, there have been three major Scottish publications dealing with road accidents, roads in the countryside, and the operational management of the road network. A consultation document will also be published tomorrow on the options for improving travel links around the Forth estuary. The report I am publishing today puts all these initiatives in the context of our overall strategic plans for the 1990s which have been developed following the completion of a major review of Scotland's key roads. The report details our medium-term strategy for the further improvement and better management of the network. It considers what further developments might be expected in the longer term. It sets out our road safety achievements and future objectives, and considers the special needs of local roads in urban areas.

  I am also listing those major schemes planned to start in the three years ahead following the increase in resources I announced at the end of last year under public expenditure plans for road construction. The range and importance of the schemes selected demonstrates our commitment to the strategic goals which are set out in the report for the improvement of the trunk road network.

  Schemes with an estimated cost of over £3 million started since 1 April 1991 or for which contracts are expected to be placed before 31 March 1992:

  M8 St James Interchange

  M74 Maryville-West Fullarton Road

  A74(M) Nether Abington-Elvanfoot

  A96 Bucksburn Diversion

  A9 Greenloaning-Blackford

  A929 Tarbrax-Forfar

  These schemes have a total value in excess of £100 million.

  Schemes with an estimated cost of over £3 million expected to start between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1995;

  1992–93

  A94 Brechin Bypass (dualling)

  A74(M) Lockerbie Bypass (Muirhouse-Water of Milk)

  A74(M) Water of Milk-Ecclefechan

  A74(M) Eaglesfield-Kirkpatrick Fleming (or alternative A74(M) scheme)

  A830 Morar Bypass (Lochan Doilead-Kinsadel)

  260

  A87 Skye Bridge Approach Roads

  M8 Newbridge to Edinburgh City Bypass

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  A77 Ayr Road Route

  A74(M) Paddy's Rickle-Greenhillstairs

  A96 Kintore Bypass

  A96 Keith Bypass

  A77 Glasgow to Ayr dualling (Fenwick—B764)

  A1 Tranent-Haddington

  A8/M8 North Lanarkshire access improvements

  These schemes have a total value in excess of £330 million. Our plans are, of course, subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and the necessary preparatory work.

  The work in progress and planned will fulfil our commitment to dual the A9 between Stirling and Perth. Our commitment to dual the Perth to Aberdeen route will also be fulfilled. The Perth-Aberdeen route will be renumbered the A90, thus creating the arterial M90/A90 route from Edinburgh to Aberdeen.

  The schemes being announced for the A74 upgrading mean that over 60 per cent. of the new motorway to replace the A74 in Scotland is already either open, under construction or firmly programmed to start.

  The Glasgow-Ayr motorway/near motorway route will be taken forward with the construction of the new trunk road section outwith Glasgow, to meet Strathclyde regional council's new M77 road, together with the first of the two new dualling schemes on the remainder of the route.

  The plans include provision of the two remaining sections of the A8 upgrading. The M8 Newbridge-Edinburgh scheme is subject to the results of the public local inquiry recently completed; the M8 north Lanarkshire scheme timetable is ambitious, but, with the continued co-operation of all concerned, I am sure it can be achieved.

  Following our announcement on the A1, financial provision has been made to commence the dualling of the route.

  In addition to the major schemes starts, funding for other schemes, road safety schemes and route action plans is being substantially increased. We will continue the very good progress which has already been made on the A96 Aberdeen-Inverness; A7 Edinburgh-M6; and Al Edinburgh-Newcastle action plans. The A90 Perth-Dundee road will be upgraded to near motorway standard. New route action plans will be developed for the A76 between Dumfries and Kilmarnock and the A830 west of Lochailort. Further improvements to the A9 north of Perth will be carried out, including the provision of improved overtaking opportunities, also as part of a route action plan.

  Secondary Schools Report
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the report of the committee established under the chairmanship of Professor John Howie to review curriculum and examinations in the fifth and sixth years of Scottish secondary schools.

  Mr. Lang
  I am glad to announce the publication today of the report of the committee which we appointed to review the curriculum and examinations in the fifth and sixth years of secondary education. As education Minister I initiated this study in 1990 and I am most grateful to Professor Howie and to his colleagues for a thorough and
  261
  comprehensive review of this important area of school education and for their thoughtful and challenging recommendations.

  There is no doubt that we must aim to have in Scotland a system of secondary education which draws the best from our traditions, and which compares well with the best that is available in Europe and beyond. We must ensure that there are appropriate qualifications in place to match the needs of the increasing number of pupils who are staying on after the fourth year—already 70 per cent.—to find a rewarding and relevant education.

  At the same time, changes of the dimension now recommended by the Howie committee need careful deliberation and wide consultation within the education system before they are introduced.

  I have decided therefore to publish this major report now and to invite all interested parties to comment on it in the period running to the end of this year. To assist this process we are arranging for the report summary to be printed separately and to be made available free of charge from the Scottish Office Education Department.

  Professor Howie and his committee have produced a report of quality and authority. It deserves to be considered with care and without undue haste. I hope no one will rush to judgment, but rather that we will all study his proposals thoroughly and reflect on the way forward.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now completed his consideration of the publication of careers service inspection reports in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The careers service has a key role to play in helping young people make the transition from school to employment and training. The Government wish to see a greater role for employers in the management of the service and have encouraged the formation of partnerships towards this end. It is also important and in accordance with the Government's citizens charter that the service should be accountable for its performance to parents, employers and the public. It is right therefore that the reports of the careers service inspectorate in Scotland should be published and, accordingly, publication will apply to reports of inspections begun on and after 1 April this year.

  Illegitimate Births
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of illegitimate births to teenage girls in each year since 1980 in each registry area giving the age in years of the teenage mothers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: Since the tabulated information will be lengthy, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Tayside Health Board
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the business plan of the central pharmaceutical unit of Tayside health board;
  262
  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the contract with Tayside health board for the provision of the manufacture of -specialties", as outlined in SOHHD/ DGM (1991) 29.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 March 1992]: I do not intend placing a copy in the Library of the contract with Tayside health board for the manufacture of "special" medicines or the business plan of the central pharmaceutical unit of Tayside health board. These documents are "commercially confidential".

  EC Drinking Water Directive
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 21 January,Official Report, columns 164–74, what is his estimate of the total population of the supply zones listed, where water quality does not fully comply with the requirements of the EC drinking water directive.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My answer of 21 January 1992 to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey listed those zones currently subject to improvement undertakings given by water authorities because one or more of the standards set in the water quality regulations has been infringed at some time. The total population of the zones listed is about 2·5 million. Well over half that population receives water which has breached only one of the 57 standards and in many cases breaches were minor or occasional. Water authorities' annual reports for July to December 1990 showed that in that period many of the zones listed had no failures of the standards concerned.

  The population of zones listed as not meeting the standard for iron is almost 0–5 million. In most of these cases the water put into supply fully meets the standard but old iron water mains may cause occasional failures at consumers' taps. Zones for which the undertaking relates only to the standard for trihalomethanes, a United Kingdom standard not set in the EC directive, account for a population of about another 0·;5 million.

WALES

  Recession
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effects of the recession upon the Welsh economy.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Wales cannot be isolated from the recession affecting the United Kingdom economy and that of many other industrialised countries. Although the business community is going through a difficult period and unemployment is rising, the effect on Wales has been less severe than elsewhere. Since unemployment began to rise in March 1990, the difference between the Welsh and United Kingdom seasonally adjusted work force rates has reduced from 0·9 percentage points to 0·3 percentage points.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he is taking to tackle(a) short-term and (b) long-term unemployment in Wales.
  263
  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government now offer a more comprehensive range of programmes than ever to help all unemployed people back to work. In July last year we announced a substantial package of measures to complement the existing programmes provided by the Employment Service and the training and enterprise councils. It includes expert advice and help in looking for a job, and for the long-term unemployed extra training provision and the new work experience programme, employment action.

  In addition my Department, the Welsh Development Agency and other Government agencies also operate a wide range of other measures aimed at stimulating economic development in Wales. The Welsh Office and all the other relevant bodies will continue to look for, and respond swiftly to, development opportunities that arise which have the potential to reduce unemployment.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to increase the number of apprenticeships in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government are already providing considerable support for employer-based apprenticeships through the youth training programme. However, it is primarily a matter for employers to determine how best to manage their training requirements in line with business needs.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the future structure of the fishing industry in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My continuing aims are to provide conditions for a viable fishing industry in Wales, including the sea fisheries sector, aquaculture and freshwater fisheries, and to promote the conservation and sound management of fish stocks. These policies will continue to be implemented through a range of statutory and administrative measures, including schemes of financial assistance.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes to make to his Department's cash limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The cash limit for Welsh Office/local authorities capital—LACAP—will be reduced by £16,323,000 from £397,362,000 to £381,039,000 and the cash limit for Welsh Office/Housing for Wales will be increased by £17,323,000 from £111,224,000 to £128,547,000.

  These changes largely reflect a transfer of resources—£17,323,000—from local authorities to Housing for Wales which will enable housing associations to provide additional housing units.

  The reduction in WO/LACAP in respect of this transfer has been partly offset by an increase of £1 million as a result of a transfer of provision from the Lord Chancellor's Department. A corresponding reduction is being made in the cash limit for class X, vote 1. This transfer will facilitate the provision of courtroom facilities at Swansea.

  Local Government
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library copies of the responses he has received to his consultation papers on the structure and internal management of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am today placing in the Library of the House copies of the responses to each consultation paper from the Welsh local authority associations, individual authorities and from representative bodies. Responses from members of the public are available for consultation in the Welsh Office library, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the range of unit price training week costs in Wales for youth training indicating what are the higher and lower cost levels.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is confidential.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the operating surplus of each TEC in Wales for the current financial year; and of each surplus, how much has been committed to date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on the operating surpluses made in the current financial year will be published in due course by each TEC in its end of year accounts. Discussions with TECs on their plans for 1992–93 are in progress, and include consideration of how TECs will use their operating surpluses.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading staff and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Select Committees
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the total annual cost of the staff of Select Committees.

  Mr. Beith
  The current annual remuneration of permanent staff of the Committee Office of the Clerk's Department amounts to £2,327,980. Some staff in other offices of the Department provide services to Select Committes in addition to their other duties, but it is not possible separately to quantify this element of their work in staff cost terms.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many residential properties owned by the Duchy are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Duchy of Lancaster owns a number of residential properties which are used solely for agricultural purposes—such as farmhouses or farm workers' cottages—or for housing staff, or which are held on long ground leases. These properties are excluded from the figures given:

  Of the balance of 240 residential properties,

  (a) nine are empty, or 3·75 per cent. of the total owned, all of which are in the course of being re-let—some after modernisation works have been completed;

  (b) one property, or 0·8 per cent. of the total, is vacant awaiting sale;

  (c) one, or 0·8 per cent. of the total, is intended for sale on the open market; and

  (d) none is for sale to housing associations.

  Authority

  Administration and Clerical

  Hospital Medical

  Nursing

  Total

  Consultants

  Others

  Northern

  8·2

  1·0

  1·7

  31·3

  42·2

  Yorkshire

  11·9

  1·0

  3·0

  46·7

  62·6

  Trent

  32·2

  4·0

  3·3

  52·8

  92·3

  East Anglian

  11·2

  0·0

  1·7

  20·6

  33·5

  North West Thames

  11·8

  1·0

  2·3

  49·3

  64·3

  North East Thames

  21·8

  4·0

  3·2

  55·6

  84·5

  South East Thames

  16·7

  4·0

  5·8

  45·9

  72·4

  South West Thames

  13·5

  2·0

  0·3

  44·4

  60·1

  Wessex

  12·0

  1·0

  2·0

  35·0

  50·0

  Oxford

  14·5

  0·0

  0·5

  29·2

  44·2

  South Western

  14·2

  1·0

  2·5

  37·0

  54·7

  West Midlands

  22·4

  0·0

  5·9

  64·6

  92·9

  Mersey

  12·3

  1·0

  2·7

  35·5

  51·5

  North Western

  15·3

  3·0

  4·5

  66·8

  89·6

  SHAs

  0·5

  0·0

  0·4

  5·5

  6·4

  England

  218·4

  23·0

  39·8

  620·1

  901·2

  Data are not available on "occupational health physicians".

  Data relating to OHNC qualifications, GPs and community health service staff in occupational health are not available centrally.

  Radiation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to evaluate the work of the Medical Research Council radiation biology unit on establishing links between low dose radiation and cell abnormality; and what additional guidance he proposes to give to hospitals engaging in radiotherapy treatment and to the National Radiological Protection Board.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The study by Kadim et al published in Nature on 20 February 1992, a copy of which is available in the Library, is one of numerous studies being conducted in this area. I am advised that whilst the reported findings of this relatively limited study pose interesting questions, relating to the response of cells to alpha particle irradiation, they should not be judged in isolation. The authors themselves have stated that this is only a "first and unexpected" step in a chain of research. The National Radiological Protection Board is aware of this study and is conducting related research. The results of the study have been drawn to the attention of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment which is

HEALTH

  Occupational Health Staff
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current number of occupational health staff in each health authority in England; and if he will publish a breakdown showing(a) the number of nurses with OHNC qualifications, (b) nurses undertaking OHNC qualifications, (c) nurses without OHNC qualifications, (d) full-time occupational health consultants, (e) full-time occupational health physicians and (f) GP sessions within occupational health departments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The numbers—whole-time equivalents—of hospital occupational health staff, including consultants, employed by regional, district and special health authorities in England at 30 September 1990, the latest date for which information is available, are given in the table:

  being kept fully informed of all research in this area. No additional guidance to radiotherapy units is currently needed.

  Hip Replacements
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has issued about the use of plastic in hip joint replacement operations; and how many operations are still carried out using metal in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has not issued any guidelines on the use of plastic in hip joint replacement operations.

  All hip joint operations carried out in the United Kingdom use one or more metal components as part of the joint replacement device. Metal components may be used in combination with other metals, plastics and ceramics, depending upon the design of the particular hip system selected by the clinician.

  The number of hip replacement operations in England for 1990–91 was 44,477. Information relating to Wales,

  267
  Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Dentists
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet the Staffordshire local dental committee to discuss their concerns about dentists henceforth offering private treatment only to patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have asked officials to discuss dental provision with the Staffordshire local dental committee.

  HIV
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of(a) men and (b) women who have been diagnosed as having the HIV virus in the Greater London area as of 18 February.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Data on residence are not available on the HIV-1 infection reports received at the Public Health Laboratory Service AIDS centre of the communicable disease surveillance centre (CDSC). The region where the test took place may not be a good indicator of the region of residence of the individual tested.

  Within the four Thames regions 10,282 reports of HIV-1 infected people have been received at CDSC—9,277 men, 949 women and 56 where the sex was not stated on the report form. These data are cumulative from when testing began in late 1984 to the end of December 1991, and is for adults only.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average age of the ambulance vehicles of the London ambulance service; and how many vehicles are(a) between three and five years old and (b) five years or more.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Jim Harris, the chairman of the London Ambulance Service, for details.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued on the expected working life of ambulance vehicles; and what information his Department has on the actual average working life of ambulance vehicles.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on vehicle life is not collected centrally.

  Current guidance relates to capital provision for routine replacement programmes, based on glass-reinforced plastic-bodied ambulances. Under normal standards of high maintenance, such provision should be based on an assumed vehicle life of seven years or 140,000 miles. The guidance is not necessarily appropriate to all coach-built vehicles or to other types of ambulance vehicle, and health authorities are free to modify the guidelines to take account of local conditions and other relevant factors, such as maintenance costs and frequency of use.

  Hospitals (Crime)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of reported crime against patients and staff have taken place in national health service hospitals in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally. General managers are responsible for arrangements for security of patients and staff at NHS hospitals.

  Mental Illness
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many crisis intervention centres for the mentally ill are available at present; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Inquests
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inquests were held into deaths at the workplace in the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not held in the form requested. The number of inquests held as a result of deaths from accidents at the workplace and registered in each of the latest five years is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of inquests

  1986

  338

  1987

  299

  1988

  280

  1989

  339

  1990

  355

  Youth Treatment Service
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a policy and management specification for the youth treatment service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Details of the new structure of the youth treatment service were given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 21 November 1991 at columns 311–12. This will come into effect on 1 April 1992.

  A copy of the policy and management specification for the youth treatment service is today being placed in the Library.

  1991 Census
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how work is progressing on analysing the 1991 census; and when results from the computer-processed data will be published.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Work on the clerical processing has progressed well and many tasks have been completed before their target dates. However, there has been some delay in the computer processing, caused by the need to amend the original system to cope with a particular form of ambiguity in the way some census forms had been completed. A routine data quality audit showed that some
  269
  400,000 people, who were apparently not students, had completed the question on term time address as though they were students. The correction of this misclassification is in hand, but it is causing some delay to the publication of census results.

  The monitors for each county and Scottish region containing key results for each local authority area are now expected to be published between April and September 1992. Part 1 of the full reports for each county and Scottish region—containing results from all the census questions for which 100 per cent. of answers are processed—are expected to be published between June and December 1992, and part 1 of the national reports for England and Wales and for Scotland by February 1993. These dates are dependent on smooth running of the processing systems. There will also be delay to part 2 of the county, regional and national reports and the topic volumes.

  A provisional revised timetable for the county and regional monitors and part 1 of the county, regional reports, and for the associated statistical products is given in issue 19 of the "Census Newsletter", a copy of which is in the Library. A revised timetable for the remaining statistics will he issued as soon as possible.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential properties owned by his Department are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A survey in 1990 indicated that about 14,000 NHS residential units—15 per cent. of the stock —were unoccupied. Of these 11,500 units were "bedsits" and about 1,000 were shared flats. The reasons for unoccupancy range from the need for accommodation to be available for new staff, to accommodation being empty whilst being refurbished or awaiting demolition or sale.

  Health authorities and NHS trusts are responsible for the management of NHS residential accommodation and the sale of property which becomes surplus. The disposal of surplus property is within guidelines issued by the Department. Details of sales are not held centrally.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to assist voluntary organisations in connection with implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We made available £250,000 in 1991–92 specifically for training in the Children Act for the voluntary sector.

  Copies of the nine volumes of the Children Act guidance and regulations and the other Children Act publications were issued free of charge to the voluntary sector.

  Children Act training materials commissioned by the Department were also supplied to voluntary organisations.

  Our centrally funded child abuse training initiative grant, almost £1 million this financial year, has helped a range of organisations to assess the impact of the Children Act and to bring some of their own material up to date in the light of it.
  270
  Voluntary organisations also have an important part to play in local authorities' review of day care services in their area. The Department is currently funding in its under-fives initiative for development officers, based in different parts of the country, who have a remit to improve relationships between the relevant local authority and the voluntary sector. These posts will help the success of the review process.

  Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities have a new duty to provide a range of services for children in need to promote their upbringing within their families. They will need to collaborate with the voluntary sector in the provision of such services. To help with this, the Department it to provide funding to voluntary organisations for three years, starting in 1992–93, under the family support initiative—total funding, £500,000 per annum.

  The Government also provide support to a wide range of voluntary organisations in the child care field under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.

  Liverpool Family Service Unit
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Liverpool family service unit concerning its possible closure; and what reply has been sent.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 20 February, at column 272.

  Northern Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the level of spending by the Northern regional health authority in 1979, 1987 and the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested, which is derived from the annual accounts of the health authorities comprising the Northern region for the financial years 1979–80, 1987–88 and 1990–91—the latest available—is shown in the table.

  The figures—when expressed at 1991–92 prices—represent real terms increases of 26·8 per cent. for revenue expenditure and 35·2 per cent. for capital expenditure between 1979–80 and 1990–91.

  Northern region—Total expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS)

  Revenue

  Capital

  £000(cash)

  £000 (at 1991–92 prices)

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (at 1991–92 prices)

  1979–80

  337,996

  785,842

  27,590

  64,146

  1987–88

  726,424

  962,367

  52,432

  69,462

  1990–91

  931,400

  996,598

  81,122

  86,800

  Source:

  Annual accounts of the Northern regional health authority (RHA) and the district (formerly area) health authorities comprising the Northern region.

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure on the HCHS covers services directly managed and/or accounted for by the health authorities (at the relevant time) including hospital, community health, patient transport (i.e. ambulance), blood transfusion and other services.

  2. The figures for 1990–91 are as yet subject to audit. All figures have been expressed at 1991–92 prices by the use of gross domestic product deflators.
  271
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors and nurses were employed by the Northern regional health authority in 1979, 1987 and the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is given in the table.

  Year at 30 September

  Medical and Dental1

  Nursing and Midwifery2

  1979

  2,530

  323,940

  1987

  2,810

  27,540

  1990

  2,990

  427,310

  Note: The slight fall in the figures of nursing and midwifery staff in post between 1987 and 1990 relates to three separate factors: the transfer of senior nurses in management jobs from the senior nurse pay structure to the senior management pay structure; the inclusion of Project 2000 nursing students in staff-in-post returns; and the cessation of enrolled nurse training.

  Source:Department of Health medical and non-medical censuses.

  1 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  2 Includes agency staff.

  3 Not adjusted for reduction in nurses working hours during 1980–81 (from 40 to 37·5 hours per week).

  4 Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of people on and the duration of waiting lists in the Northern regional health authority in 1979, 1987 and the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the table. Provisional figures show that since 1987 the number of patients waiting over two years has fallen by more than 83 per cent. and the number waiting over one year by 36 per cent. The region expects to have no patient waiting over two years by 31 March.

  Wailing lists

  11979

  1987

  21991

  In-patients

  Number waiting over one year

  9,526

  6,853

  4,213

  Number waiting over two years

  —

  2,525

  488

  Total number waiting

  47,642

  37,420

  39,749

  Day cases

  Number waiting over one year

  —

  1,290

  990

  Number waiting over two years

  —

  1,004

  100

  Total number waiting

  —

  10,059

  16,904

  Total all cases

  n.a.

  47,479

  56,653

  1 Day case waiting lists and over two years waiters were first collected in 1987.

  2 Provisional figures for December 1991.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the national health service budget has been dedicated to infertility treatment in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are waiting for infertility treatment by region, for each of the last five years.
  272
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about waiting lists for the treatment of specific conditions is not held centrally.

  Ms. Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give by region details of the regional facilities providing infertility treatment;

  (2) how many people in the west midlands region received infertility treatment in (a) the national health service and (b) privately in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Private Health Insurance
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state(a) for each year since 1978 and (b) for each region (i) the number and (ii) the percentage of the population covered by private health insurance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 28 February at columns 659–60. The information is not collected regionally.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of attendance allowance were backdated in each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 under regulation 9 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations, where a claim for income support has been treated as a claim for attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people living in the London borough of Wandsworth have received the cold weather heating payments during the last four months.

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

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many residential properties owned by his Department are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mr. Jack
  Of the 45 properties on the Department's estate, only the 20 resettlement units could be described as residential property. Of these, one—5 per cent.—is empty and is for sale on the open market. By April 1992 a further four—20 per cent.—will be released for sale; one to a housing association and three on the open market.

  Claimant Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of persons in receipt of supplementary benefit or income support in each year
  273
  since 1979, both in total and by type of claimant, including (a) the unemployed, (b) lone parents, (c) the sick and disabled, (d) pensioners, and (e) other groups, stating in each case the percentage increase each year.

  Year

  Number of supplementary benefit/income support recipients

  Percentage change

  Unemployed

  Unemployed percentage change

  Lone parents

  Lone parents percentage change

  Sick and disabled

  Sick and disabled percentage change

  Pensioners

  Pensioners percentage change

  Others

  Others percentage change

  1979

  2,855,000

  —

  566,000

  —

  306,000

  —

  207,000

  —

  1,723,000

  —

  52,000

  —

  1980

  3,118,000

  9·25

  854,000

  50·88

  316,000

  3·27

  205,000

  -1·00

  1,694,000

  -1·68

  49,000

  -5·77

  1981

  3,723,000

  19·40

  1,318,000

  54·33

  369,000

  16·77

  221,000

  7·80

  1,738,000

  2·60

  77,000

  57·14

  1982

  4,267,000

  14·61

  1,722,000

  30·65

  415,000

  12·47

  240,000

  8·60

  1,781,000

  2·47

  109,000

  41·56

  1983

  4,349,000

  1·92

  1,826,000

  6·04

  449,000

  8·19

  241,000

  0·42

  1,651,000

  -7·30

  182·000

  66·97

  1984

  4,609,000

  5·98

  1,953,000

  6·96

  492·000

  9·58

  273,000

  13·28

  1,683,000

  1·94

  208,000

  14·29

  1986

  4,938,000

  7·14

  2,121,000

  8·60

  575,000

  16·87

  301,000

  10·26

  1,717,000

  2·02

  224,000

  7·69

  1987

  4,896,000

  -0·85

  1,957,000

  -7·73

  629,000

  9·39

  352,000

  16·94

  1,727,000

  0·58

  231,000

  3·12

  1988

  4,352,000

  -11·13

  1,511,000

  -22·79

  694,000

  10·33

  247,000

  -29·83

  1,719,000

  -0·46

  180,000

  -22·08

  1989

  4,161,000

  -4·34

  1,216,000

  -19·52

  756,000

  8·93

  290,000

  17·41

  1,607,000

  -6·52

  293,000

  62·78

  1990

  4,180,000

  0·43

  1,063,000

  -12·58

  793,000

  4·89

  330,000

  13·79

  1·675,000

  4·23

  319,000

  8·87

  Sources: Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries 1979–1990.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. There was no annual statistical inquiry in 1985; the one due in December of that year was deferred until February 1986.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners there area over the age 75 years divided into males and females; and what is(a) their average income from all sources and (b) the income distribution of such pensioners, in Great Britain.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: In mid-1990 the estimated number, in thousands, of people aged 75 or over in Great Britain was men, 1,331, and women, 2,568.

  The average net weekly income in 1988 from all sources for non-married men and women aged 75 years or over and married couples where either one or both of the partners are 75 or over was:

  £

  Non-married men

  86·10

  Non-married women

  70·50

  Married couples

  132·80

  The weekly net incomes of these people are distributed in the following way:

  Figures are in thousands of individuals or couples.

  Weekly net incomes

  Non-married men

  Non-married women

  Married couples

  up to £60

  140

  800

  0

  £60 up to £80

  180

  780

  140

  £80 up to £100

  70

  130

  330

  £100 up to £120

  40

  130

  150

  £120 and over

  50

  110

  300

  Total

  480

  1,950

  920

  Notes:

  1. Population data is from the 1990 OPCS mid-year estimates.

  2. Income data is from the 1988 family expenditure survey (FES).

  3. It is not possible accurately to apportion some income sources between husband and wife—for example, income support/ supplementary benefit—from the FES. It is therefore not possible to provide sensible estimates of the separate total incomes of all men and women by sex.

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of couples with children and lone parent households, respectively, who for the period April 1992 to March 1993 will come on to
  274
  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  family credit and who, but for the change in definition of full-time work from 24 to 16 hours for income support recipients, would have been eligible for income support; if he will give an estimate of how much his Department will save as a result; and if he will estimate the number of childless households no longer eligible for such help because they will no longer be eligible for income support.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: About 45,000 families with children currently claiming income support and working between 16 and 24 hours a week up to 7 April 1992 will be eligible to claim family credit, if they so choose, because of the change in the hours rule from 24 to 16 hours a week. Of these, 30,000 families—including 25,000 lone parents—are expected to be better off on family credit, and some 15,000 families with children are likely to have their family credit topped up with income support to maintain the level of their income. In addition, about 15,000 people without children, who are working 16 to 24 hours a week at the point of change will be able to remain on income support as at present.

  It is not possible to estimate how many new potential claimants would have been entitled to income support during 1992–93 if the remunerative work rule had remained at 24 hours a week, because the effect of behavioural changes cannot be predicted. However, it is expected that the substantial majority of families with children will be better off on family credit because of the more generous rules for treating earnings and, from 7 April, the introduction of a disregard of the first £15 a week of any maintenance received in family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  We also expect that up to 35,000 families with children—30,000 of them lone parents—who are already working between 16 and 24 hours a week but earning too much to get income support will qualify for family credit. In the longer term, we expect that the lower hours threshold will encourage many others to take up work of at least 16 hours or increase their hours so as to qualify for family credit.

  As a result of these changes more benefit rather than less will be paid. Together with the increasing numbers claiming family credit, the changes will lead to an increase in family credit expenditure, from an expected outturn of £617 million in 1991–92 to an estimated £850 million in 1992–93.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give, by social security region and by standard economic planning region, for the latest year available, including executive agency staff the number of civil servants, whole-time equivalent broken down by grade levels one to four, five, six, seven, SEO, HEO, EO, AO and AA, indicating the salary bands and indicating the percentage at each grade who are women, giving the percentage at each grade who are part time and the percentage of part-timers who are women.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The information available for the Department of Social Security, including its agencies, as at 31 January 1992 is shown in the table.

  To give the breakdown by social security region and standard economic planning region could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A copy of the "Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code" which gives salary bands is available in the Library.

  Grade1

  Total full lime equivalents

  Per cent, who are women

  Per cent, who are part-time

  Per cent, part-timers who are women

  1–4

  26·5

  28

  2

  100

  5

  53

  30

  2

  0

  6

  88

  18

  3

  100

  7

  520

  17

  1

  83

  SEO

  1,458·5

  20

  0·5

  87

  HEO2

  4,983

  37

  2

  97

  EO

  21,346

  57

  7

  97

  AO

  35,436

  75

  9

  98

  AA

  11,857·5

  74

  6

  96

  1 For each grade we have included equivalent professional grades.

  2 Includes HEO(D) and administrative trainee.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Turkeys
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the health of turkeys.

  Mr. Maclean
  The national turkey flock is in robust health, like my hon. Friend.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how food prices have moved over the past year.

  Mr. Curry
  The annual rate of food price inflation fell from 5·9 per cent. in January 1991 to 4·5 per cent. in January 1992.

  Food Products
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of those food products grown in temperate climates which are consumed in the United Kingdom are produced in the United Kingdom; and what was the proportion in 1979.
  276
  Mr. Curry
  It is estimated that self-sufficiency in food products which can be produced in the United Kingdom was 74 per cent. in 1991, compared with 68 per cent. in 1979.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect a 2 per cent. increase in interest rates would have on farm incomes.

  Mr. Gummer
  No such assessment has been made, but it would inevitably have a negative effect on farm incomes. This would be extremely bad news for farmers as it would for everyone else. That is why the Government will bring down interest rates as quickly as it can.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the level of farm incomes in real terms in the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Gummer
  The index for total income from farming, which gives the returns to farmers, partners, directors and their spouses, and family members working on the farm, was 102·1 in real terms for 1990 and is forecast to be 90·8 in 1991. Both figures relate to a base of 100 in 1985.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of farm incomes in the south-west; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The results of the farm business survey for the sample of 176 farms in the region have recently been published by the agricultural economics unit of Exeter university in "Farm Incomes in South-West England 1990–91". These show that on average the level of net farm income for all types of farm in the south-west fell by about one third between 1989–90 and 1990–91. Since that time, increases in cattle prices, the higher rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances and sheep subsidies in 1991 and increases in cereal yields and prices are expected to bring improvements for most farm types.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last discussed the future of the set-aside scheme outlined in the MacSharry proposals with other EC Agriculture Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I last discussed the Commission proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy, including set-aside, with my EC colleagues on 2 and 3 March.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress being made in discussions for reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart).
  277
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and' Food what recent representations he has received regarding the reform of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received representations on this subject from a wide range of organisations covering not only all sectors of the food and agriculture industries but environmental, consumer and other interests. I and my officials regularly meet representatives of these organisations.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest efforts being made to reform the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).

  Fishery Decommissioning
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss decommissioning.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).

  Confectionery
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to make an official visit to York to discuss confectionery issues.

  Mr. Curry
  I am always open to invitations to visit this industry which makes a strong contribution to United Kingdom exports.

  Dioxin, Bolsover
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is now able to identify the cause of the dioxin in the Bolsover area; and what steps he intends to take.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available evidence does not allow for conclusions to be drawn on the cause of the dioxin contamination.

  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has already made clear, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has investigated the emissions from the chemical incinerator at the coalite works near Bolsover. The concentrations measured in the emissions form only a part of the dioxins which have been found in the milk on the affected farms.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his Ministry's contribution to the citizens charter.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).

  Farm Animals (Welfare)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to obtain equal standards of farm animal welfare throughout the EC.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from fishermen in the north-west of England in the last month about the prospects for the fishing industry.

  Mr. Curry
  Fishermen, including fishermen in the north-west of England, make representations on a wide range of subjects every month.

  Horses
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures he is taking to consider the reclassification of the horse as an agricultural animal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The horse is an agricultural animal when it is engaged in agricultural activities. The Department takes the lead role on EC legislation covering animal health questions concerning horses, zootechnics and competitions. It is for other Departments to take the lead on matters that relate to their responsibilities.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many residential properties owned by the Ministry are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market,(c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is set out:

  (a) 11 representing 7.6 per cent.

  (b) 3 representing 2.0 per cent.

  (c) 4 representing 2.7 per cent.

  (d) Nil.

  EC Surplus Foodstuffs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list EC surplus foodstuffs held in storage in the United Kingdom and the tonnage of such surplus as at 31 January.

  Mr. Curry
  Tables showing current levels of surplus produce in store within the EC and the United Kingdom are deposited in the Library of the House at monthly intervals. The latest tables were deposited on 13 February.

  Farmers (Public Relations)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take to assist farmers to improve relations with the public and to reduce problems arising from trespass and vandalism.
  279
  Mr. Gummer
  My Department have today agreed with Groundwork to provide pump priming funding for a project to be known as Farmlink. This project aims to help children to understand and respect the countryside and farming and to create beneficial links between farmers and local urban communities. The scheme will result in the creation of approximately 180 links between individual farms and schools over three years in seven Groundwork trust areas. These are expected to be St. Helens, East Durham, Rossendale, Wakefield, Erewash, West Cumbria and Kerrier. The total cost of the project will be £170,000 spread over the three-year period.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has in the food safety area.

  Mr. Maclean
  On behalf of the Agriculture and Health Ministers I have today issued for consultation to interested organisations a draft food safety and consumer protection programme setting out the Government's plans in this area in 1992. It applies the principles of information, consultation and accountability set out in the citizens charter published last year. I am sure the publication of this programme will be welcomed and I look forward to the response to it. I am placing a copy of the document in the Library of the House.

  Badgers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on mortality rates amongst badgers caused by(a) licensed killing and (b) motor vehicles in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the past three years only two badgers have been killed under licence under the Badgers Act 1973, both in order to protect poultry. Out of a population of 250,000 adult badgers, we estimate that at least 20,000 are killed each year on our roads.

  Milk
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure adequate supplies of home-produced milk for processing.

  Mr. Curry
  The changes to milk marketing in the United Kingdom must give higher priority to the production of value added dairy products.

DEFENCE

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans any changes in the role of the reserve forces in the future.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have recently received proposals arising from a major study on the future mix of regular and reserve forces in the longer term and I am publishing today a consultative open government document "The Future of Britain's Reserve Forces" which seeks views on the key proposals arising from this study. I am placing copies of this document in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his policy of purchasing any dwelling in the vicinity of a military airfield found to be subjected to noise levels greater than 125 dB (A) from military aircraft also applies to civil airfields where military jet aircraft regularly carry out practice approach and overshoot movements.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. Military jet aircraft carry out practice manoeuvres at civil airfields on very few occasions. Evidence of noise surveys carried out at 42 military airfields covering a range of manoeuvres by a variety of aircraft types indicates no likelihood of maximum noise levels of 125 dB (A) being reached in the proximity of dwellings contiguous to civil airfields.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the results of the measurements made of noise levels of F15, F16 and F111 aircraft during Exercise Luce Belle in June 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The results of the measurements of the noise levels of F15 and F16 aircraft participating in Exercise Luce Belle were published in the National Physical Laboratory report RSA (Ext.) 16, dated February 1991. The F111 aircraft did not participate in the exercise.

  Fast Jet Activity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of the fast jet activity which has been taking place between West Freugh airfield and the Carsphairn-New Galloway area since 18 November; how many and what types of aircraft are taking part; what is the minimum permitted height during these operations; and what increase there has been in the level of such activity.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Since 18 November 1991 the following groups of fast jet aircraft have operated from West Freugh and flown in the Carsphairn-New Galloway area:

  Date

  Aircraft

  Purpose of activity

  18–22 November 1991

  6 RAF Harriers

  6 RAF Tornados

  Routine training

  3–7 February 1992

  5 RN Sea Harriers

  Routine training

  10–21 February 1992

  2 RAF Tornados

  3 RAF Harriers

  I RAF Jaguar

  Trials

  All aircraft were authorised to fly to a minimum permitted height of 250 ft. The three sets of activity were not related.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the statistics obtained during the survey of low flying by RAF strike command in early 1989.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A representative sample of the statistics obtained from the survey of low flying begun by RAF strike command in 1989 will be provided to the Select Committee on Defence later this year.
  281
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will prohibit the use of fixed low-flying routes in the United Kingdom by front-line strike/attack/ reconnaissance units.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to providing continuation training at 100 ft for RAF Tornado crews while deployed to the Gulf region.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Detailed arrangements for future deployments of RAF aircraft to the Gulf for training exercises will he the subject of discussions with the host nations concerned.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Royal Air Force's Harrier GR7s commenced night low-level training; and what decisions have been taken on the location of such training.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Harrier GR7 squadrons have not yet commenced night low-level training. This training will be distributed throughout the United Kingdom night low flying system and we expect to carry out some training overseas.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being taken to monitor the selection of fixed low-level routes over the United Kingdom by front-line strike/attack/reconnaissance units.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Air crew use standard routes as little as possible. Where this is unavoidable, routes are varied as much as possible and standard routes are in any case replaced at regular intervals.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities are made available in Turkey for RAF Jaguar crews deployed to Incirlik to maintain their qualifications to fly at 100 ft above ground level.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the maximum permitted speeds between initial point and simulated target, or during mock interceptions, while flying in the United Kingdom at 100 ft above ground level, for(a) Tornado aircraft, (b) Jaguar aircraft, (c) Harrier aircraft, (d) Hawk aircraft, (e) F4 aircraft and (f) Buccaneer aircraft; on what date these speed limits were introduced; which information channels or documents are used to communicate these speed limits to Royal Air Force pilots; and what advice has been given to the low flying complaints office concerning the communication of information on the new limits to the public.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  For the aircraft listed, the maximum permitted speeds between initial point and simulated target, or during mock interceptions, while flying in the United Kingdom at not less than 100 ft above ground level are as follows:

  Kts

  (a) Tornado

  500

  (b) Jaguar

  520

  (c) Harrier GR5/7

  420

  (d) Hawk

  480

  There is no routine requirement for the F4 and Buccaneer aircraft to fly below 250 feet in the United Kingdom low-flying system.
  282
  Speed restrictions for most of those aircraft concerned were introduced in January 1991 and are stated in the United Kingdom Military Low Flying Handbook. The advice given to the low flying complaints office on the communication of information related to low flying in the United Kingdom is a matter for my Department.

  Exercise Red Flag
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which location the eight RAF Tornados which took part in Exercise Red Flag 92–2 flew following completion of that exercise; and what training tasks were allocated to the aircraft following participation in Red Flag.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  On completion of Exercise Red Flag 92–2 eight RAF Tornados were recovered to Goose Bay, Canada. Following a period of maintenance the aircraft will undertake tactical training from 2 to 7 April prior to deployment to Alaska for Exercise Distant Frontier 92.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the air miss between a military aircraft and a civilian Cessna aircraft near Lockerbie on 8 November 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No such air miss has been reported.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the air miss incident between two RAF Tornados and a Spanish airliner off Gibraltar on 29 January.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Two RAF Tornado F3 aircraft participating in a naval air defence exercise in a notified exercise area, some 45 nautical miles south of Malaga, were directed by the Royal Navy vessel controlling them to identify an unknown aircraft transiting the exercise area. The RAF aircraft carried out a standard approach to identify the aircraft and, having established that it was a civil airliner, returned to their exercise task. The approach and visual identification were conducted in accordance with normal procedures in international airspace and within the notified exercise area. No air miss report has been received from the Spanish authorities.

  Hydrazine Incident, Yeovilton
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the hydrazine incident involving a Dutch air force F16 aircraft at Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton on 2 October 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The incident on 2 October 1991 occurred after a Dutch F16 aircraft operating in the vicinity of Yeovilton suffered a generator failure and was diverted to the airfield for a precautionary landing. The aircraft's emergency power unit had been engaged and in line with standard procedure a safety check was conducted to ensure that there had been no hydrazine fuel leak. On this occasion the unit had functioned correctly and there was no leak.

  RAF Machrihanish
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of unidentified supersonic radar contacts detected in the vicinity of RAF Machrihanish since January.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There have been no unidentified supersonic radar contacts detected in the vicinity of RAF Machrihanish since January.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent hypersonic flights from RAF Machrihanish; whether consent for such flights by United States aircraft is required from his Department; and what assessment he has made of the effects that might be experienced by people on the ground as a result of flights at Mach 3.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been no such flights from RAF Machrihanish.

  Loch Trool
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature, purpose and title of the military exercise centred on Loch Trool, Galloway, in the week commencing 16 February; how many troops and aircraft took part; how many low-level sorties were carried out; and what information about the exercise was given to local Members of Parliament and the press.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Exercise Hardcore took place from 10 to 21 February and was a small-scale squadron training exercise involving attacks against targets on the ground together with intercepts by air defence aircraft. The exercise involved up to 120 men and 16 aircraft. Some 140 low-level sorties were flown during the exercise; some of these involved operational low flying which was notified to Members of Parliament in the normal way.

  Luce Bay Weapons Range
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when evening opening hours of the Luce Bay weapons range were last extended; and for what purpose.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Research Agency and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  RAF Training (Alaska)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all RAF training deployments to Alaska since 1988, stating, for each deployment,(a) the number and type of aircraft, (b) the location of the deployment, (c) the title of the exercise, (d) the types of training carried out during the deployment, (e) the number of sorties flown and (f) the additional cost of providing the training in Alaska rather than Europe or Labrador.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Four Tornado GR1 deployed to Eielson air force base For Exercise Distant Frontier in June 1990. The aircraft carried out tactical flying training and weapon practice. Forty-one sorties were flown. The information requested on additional costs is not readily indentifiable.

  Tornado Crew Training
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the requirement for RAF air defence Tornado crews to be trained at Goose Bay, Canada; and what is the additional cost of providing the training at that location.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A number of air defence crews will deploy from time to time to Goose Bay to carry out tactical training in association with RAF and other allied aircraft undertaking low-flying training at the base. The additional cost of providing air defence training for crews at Goose Bay cannot readily be identified.

  Exercise Luce Belle
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which airfield the US Air Force F-15 aircraft operated when participating in the Exercise Luce Belle noise measurement trial in June 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The F-15 aircraft which took part in Exercise Luce Belle were based with the United States Air Force 36 tactical fighter wing, Bitburg, West Germany. Available records do not indicate the use of a United Kingdom airfield for refuelling.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff; and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A review of the pay and grading of civilian staff at the atomic weapons establishment has been undertaken by the management contractor—Hunting-Brae Ltd.—as part of the current AWE management contract. In general, pay and grading structures throughout the Department, including the Department's agencies, are kept under review in accordance with Government policy.

  Defence Procurement Budget
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the defence procurement budget was spent during 1990–91 in Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I would expect the information the hon. Gentleman requests to be published in the 1992 "Statement on the Defence Estimates".

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many residential properties owned by his Department are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations, in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 December 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, 9,817 properties, representing 13·4 per cent. of the service married quarter stock, and 139 properties, representing 18·4 per cent. of the
  285
  MOD civilian housing stock, were vacant. Many of these properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly and more than 600 were being considered for disposal.

  A futher 2,774 properties, not included in the above and not all vacant, were in the process of sale. Of these, 296—11 per cent.—were for sale on the open market, 295—11 per cent.—were intended for sale on the open market, 1,002—36 per cent.—were for sale to housing associations or local authorities, 423—15 per cent.—were being sold through the services' discount scheme and 758—27 per cent.—were being offered for sale to tenants.

  United Nations (Military Staff Committee)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the actions which have resulted from the meetings of the United Nations Military Staff Committee since 1981, what changes to his policies have resulted from these meetings; and what proposals he has to change the work of the United Nations Military Staff Committee.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Nations military staff committee played a useful role in the Gulf crisis as a forum for informal exchanges on naval deployments to the region. We do not rule out the possibility of using it in other ways to reinforce the valuable and close co-operation that has evolved between the five permanent members of the Security Council. But we do not believe there is a case for the formal activation of the committee under article 47 of the United Nations charter.

  Diversification
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many seminars held in Britain on the diversification of defence industries his officials have attended in each quarter of the last two years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  One in the third quarter of 1990 on defence industry conversion in the former USSR.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice or information his officials have provided to the defence industry about diversification in the last two years.

  Mr. Carlisle
  None, because decisions affecting the future of a company, including its product lines, are best left to the commercial judgment of its management.

  Ex-RAF Pilots
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to increase the number of ex-RAF pilots joining the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the RAF Volunteer Reserve.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no proposals to increase the number of ex-RAF pilots joining the Royal Auxiliary Air Force or the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve.

  Operation Granby
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is now in a position to state the additional maintenance costs that were incurred for British military equipment used during Operation Granby.
  286
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The additional defence costs of Operation Granby, include an estimated sum of around £550 million for additional maintenance.

  Metallurgy
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records were kept by his Department of the two telephone conversations that took place between Walter Somers Ltd. and his Department's metallurgical expert on 16 and 22 June 1988.

  Mr. Carlisle
  The metallurgical expert made notes of his telephone conversations.

  Housing Task Force
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration was given to setting up a housing task force prior to August 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence referred in the White Paper "Britain's Army for the 90s" to his intention to set up a task group to bring service housing up to date with developments in the community. The housing task force was established shortly thereafter.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the terms of reference of the housing task force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The terms of reference of the task force were to review the arrangements for service housing, building on work already undertaken by the Department and to identify any other practical initiatives which should be taken, with a view to ultimately developing a comprehensive scheme for service housing. To this end, the task force was to:

  (a) assess the extra steps which should be taken to help those leaving the services over the next three to four years.

  (b) address ways of building quickly on initiatives that had already been devised to encourage home ownership by the services.

  (c) examine other options to put service men and women on the housing ladder as a normal part of their career pattern.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he informed(a) the Association of District Councils, (b) the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and (c) the Association of County Councils of the contents of his briefing on the work of the housing task force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Earl of Arran hopes shortly to meet representatives of local authority associations in England, Wales and Scotland together with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to discuss the Government announcements on housing the armed forces.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to be able to conclude his considerations of the housing task force recommendation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 24 February,Official Report, column 395.

  Budgets
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current budgets of all the higher level budget holders with the exception of GOC Northern Ireland, DG General Intelligence (Eurasia), DG Management and Support of Intelligence, DG of Strategic and Technical Intelligence and DG Intelligence (Rest of World).

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Commander· Training and Reserve Forces Royal Marines

  50·743

  Major General Royal Marines, Headquarters Commando Forces

  82·459

  Assistant Under Secretary of State (Naval Personnel)

  2·099

  Director General of Naval Personal Services

  3·758

  Naval Secretary

  3·952

  Medical Director General (Navy)

  38·816

  Director General of Naval Manpower and Training

  41·492

  Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff

  15·567

  Director General Aircraft (Navy)

  44·385

  Director General Ship Refitting

  483·695

  Director General of Supplies and Transport (Naval)

  975·083

  Director General Fleet Support Policy and Services

  346·812

  Hydrographer of the Navy

  7·976

  Assistant Under Secretary of State (Fleet Support)

  -33·828

  Flag Officer Portsmouth

  115·773

  Flag Office Scotland and Northern Ireland

  42·448

  Flag Officer Plymouth

  89·378

  Naval Base Commander Portland

  12·989

  Naval Base Commander Clyde

  65·690

  Captain, Training Naval Home Command

  137·765

  Chief Staff Officer Reserves

  29·491

  Flag Officer Naval Aviation

  204·162

  Chief of Staff, Headquarters Commander in Chief Fleet

  78·609

  Flag Officer Surface Fleet

  265·323

  Flag Officer Submarines

  133·326

  Commodore Minor War Vessels

  23·308

  Commander United Kingdom Field Army

  1,131·256

  Inspector General Doctrine and Training

  471·935

  Assistant Chief of Staff, General Staff Division 1,Headquarters British Army of the Rhine

  117·100

  Deputy Chief of Staff, Headquarters British Army of the Rhine, General Staff Division 3

  1,023·800

  Assistant Chief of Staff, General Staff Division 4, Headquarters British Army of the Rhine

  551·900

  Director General Army Manning and Recruiting

  94·788

  Director General of Personal Services (Army)

  23·579

  Director General Logistic Policy (Army)

  488·146

  Director General of Transport and Movements

  105·413

  Director General of Ordnance Services

  259·476

  Director General of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering

  81·433

  Director General Territorial Army and Organisation

  98·418

  Director General Military Survey

  40·317

  Director General Command, Control, Communication and Information Systems (Army)

  14·298

  Director General of Support Management

  1,045·495

  Director General of Support Services

  199·614

  Director General (Policy and Planning)—National Air Traffic Services

  37·535

  Air Secretary

  142·987

  Air Officer Commanding 1 Group

  532·234

  Air Officer Commanding 11 Group

  359·725

  Air Officer Commanding 18 Group

  210·097

  Air Officer Administration Headquarters Strike Command

  56·148

  Air Officer Training, Headquarters Royal Air Force Support Command

  299·624

  288

  £million

  Air Officer Maintenance, Headquarters Royal Air Force Support Command

  311·308

  Air Officer Administration, Headquarters Royal Air Force Support Command

  171·011

  Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Programmes and Personnel)

  42·385

  Deputy Under Secretary of State (Policy)

  10·568

  Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Systems)

  122·853

  Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Commitments)

  402·029

  Deputy Under Secretary of State (Civilian Management)

  547·840

  Deputy Under Secretary of State (Finance)

  321·749

  Deputy Under Secretary of State (Personnel and Logistics)

  168·834

  Deputy Under Secretary of State (Resources and Programmes)

  7·264

  Assistant Chief Scientific Adviser (Capabilities)

  4·428

  Assistant Chief Scientific Adviser (Research)

  8·810

  Assistant Chief Scientific Adviser (Projects)

  0·907

  Assistant Chief Scientific Adviser (Nuclear)

  0·560

  Director of Strategic Defence Initiative Participation Office

  0·743

  Director Operations Meteorological Office

  40·222

  Director Commercial Services Meteorological Office

  2·182

  Director Finance and Administration Meteorological Office

  18·407

  Director Research Meteorological Office

  5·189

  Controller of the Navy

  112·973

  Master General of the Ordnance

  89·006

  Controller Aircraft

  622·627

  Deputy Under Secretary of State (Defence Procurement)

  155·411

  Head of Defence Export Services

  7·317

  Managing Director Military and Aerospace Divisions Defence Research Agency

  348·647

  Managing Director Electronics Division Defence Research Agency

  123·211

  Managing Director Maritime Division Defence Research Agency

  157·633

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the planned budgets for all higher level budget holders in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95, with the exception of GOC Northern Ireland, DG General Intelligence (Eurasia), DG Management and Support of Intelligence, DG of Strategic and Technical Intelligence and DG Intelligence (Rest of World).

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is derived from the long-term costing. It is not our practice to provide such details.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters are currently vacant but not awaiting major works in each region, as at 3 December.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 December 1991, a total of 8,333 service married quarters were vacant but not awaiting major works.

  The regional breakdown is as follows:

  Region

  Total vacant excluding those awaiting major works

  Northern

  42

  Yorkshire

  680

  East Midlands

  482

  East Anglia

  511

  South East

  3,288

  South West

  1,480

  West Midlands

  300

  289

  Region

  Total vacant excluding those awaiting major works

  North West

  134

  Wales

  216

  Scotland

  811

  Northern Ireland

  389

  Total

  8,333

  Many of these properties were undergoing major works or modernisation, some were already allotted to service

  15 January 1979

  15 January 1980

  15 April 1981

  15 April 1982

  15 April 1983

  15 April 1984

  15 January 1985

  31 March 1986

  31 March 1987

  31 March 1988

  31 March 1989

  31 March 1990

  31 March 1991

  Northern

  202

  193

  164

  153

  160

  154

  186

  122

  133

  146

  136

  79

  68

  Yorkshire

  1,681

  1,792

  1,520

  1,599

  1,366

  1,091

  1,414

  1,298

  1,329

  948

  1,164

  755

  673

  North West

  411

  401

  374

  149

  141

  148

  116

  163

  149

  153

  160

  136

  112

  South East

  7,280

  6,991

  4,438

  4,731

  5,195

  4,632

  5,365

  4,814

  5,856

  5,322

  4,905

  4,172

  3,532

  South West

  4,863

  4,863

  3,162

  2,027

  2,297

  1,970

  2,395

  2,777

  3,195

  3,251

  2,627

  1,601

  1,622

  East Anglia

  1,819

  1,864

  1,400

  1,226

  1,126

  1,042

  907

  675

  902

  1,015

  905

  636

  885

  East Midlands

  2,092

  1,705

  1,291

  1,405

  1,745

  1,777

  1,565

  1,422

  1,172

  1,423

  1,455

  859

  698

  West Midlands

  1,090

  1,013

  419

  474

  547

  444

  599

  556

  790

  745

  665

  361

  303

  Wales

  506

  538

  291

  260

  350

  335

  277

  337

  383

  390

  514

  423

  391

  Scotland

  1,405

  1,569

  1,364

  1,064

  996

  976

  1,133

  1,440

  1,492

  1,452

  1,666

  1,427

  1,295

  Northern Ireland

  297

  500

  206

  138

  136

  100

  212

  272

  326

  383

  538

  621

  534

  Total

  21,646

  21,429

  14,629

  13,226

  14,059

  12,669

  14,169

  13,876

  15,727

  15,228

  14,735

  11,070

  10,113

  SSN 20
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what details of information from the long-term costings regarding the SSN20 order he has supplied to the management of VSEL.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None.

  Private Housing
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 1991,Official Report, column 356, if he will change his policy relating to the holding of information on the private housing arrangements or plans of those Army personnel who have applied for redundancy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As the Army redundancy programme has developed, information has been assembled on the current housing position, and future intentions, of some 5,200 Army personnel who indicated that they would be willing to be considered for selection. Eighty per cent. completed and returned a questionnaire. Of these 49 per cent. already owned their homes and another 33 per cent. indicated that it was their intention to purchase one.

  Emergency Tours
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 November 1991,Official Report, column 86, how many units have deployed on an emergency tour after an interval of less than two years, in each year between 1980 and 1990.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following number of infantry battalions have undertaken emergency tours, either in whole or in part, at an interval of less than 24 months:290
  families who were due to move in shortly, and others were being considered for disposal. In addition, 1,560 properties were in the process of being sold.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his letter of 5 February, if he will provide the regional breakdown of the numbers of vacant married quarters in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The regional breakdown of the number of vacant married quarters in each year since 1979 is as follows. The reporting dates over the years vary due to changes in the accounting procedures.

  Number

  1980

  Nil

  1981

  Nil

  1982

  One

  1983

  Two

  1984

  Two

  1985

  One

  1986

  Seven

  1987

  Four

  1988

  One

  1989

  Two

  1990

  Two

  Redundancies
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of redundancies amongst his Department's civilian personnel that will result from "Options for Change".

  Mr. Hamilton
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made clear, the number of MOD civilians is expected to fall in line with the 20 per cent. reduction in the size of the armed forces. It is too early to say exactly how many redundancies will be required.

  Procurement Costs
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 November,Official Report, column 648–49, how much of the procurement costs of (a) GWS26 vertical launch Sea Wolf missile system, (b) Spearfish torpedo, (c) TRIGAT medium-range missile, (d) Rapier field standard C and (e) EH101 ASW helicopter will be incurred in each year up to 1994–95.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not our practice to make such details public.

  Modernisation Programmes
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 385 what is the cost of the extensive modernisation programme planned for Tidworth garrison; and what other extensive modernisation programmes are currently planned for property belonging to his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  About £250 million is also planned for Aldershot. There are no other programmes currently planned of equivalent scale. Details of other current schemes can be found in the long-term project table section of the supply estimates.

  Royal William Yard
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to dispose of Royal William yard at Devonport dockyards; what is the current state of repair of the buildings at Royal William yard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  On current plans, Royal William yard will be surplus to Ministry of Defence requirements by the end of next year. We are currently examining options for disposal and hope to make a decision very soon. In the meantime, the buildings are being maintained.

  Special Saving Scheme
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of the special saving scheme he is planning to help service personnel buy their own homes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cost of the special savings scheme will depend upon how many service men take advantage of the scheme, and the period for which they save. When fully operational, it might cost up to £50 million a year. This will represent a new commitment for which additional provision will be made.

  WE177 Replacement
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number of procurement options for the possible replacement of the W E177 free-fall bomb that are currently being considered.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on 19 December 1991,Official Report, column 284.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will change his policy relating to ethnic monitoring of promotion within the services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Our policy relating to ethnic monitoring within the armed forces, including the monitoring of promotion, is currently under review and we shall be announcing the outcome of this review shortly.

  Resettlement Provision
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete his review of resettlement provision; and if he will make a statement.
  292
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the note mentioned in the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 24 February 1992 Official Report, column 395.

  Nuclear-powered Submarines
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the feasibility studies into SSN20 class nuclear-powered submarines were completed.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The studies into the then proposed SSN20 class were completed in 1989.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the first of class of a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines is currently expected to enter service by the end of the century; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The studies, which I announced in the debate on the Royal Navy on 27 June 1991,Official Report, column] 1181, into a second batch of Trafalgar class nuclear-powered submarines to replace the Swiftsure class are now under way. Subject to the outcome of these studies, the submarines could begin entering service around the turn of the century.

  Rapid Reaction Corps
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance from NATO he has taken into account in determining the proposed levels of spares holdings for the British units which will be deployed with the rapid reaction corps.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO guidance on stock levels is currently under review by member nations and NATO's military authorities and w ill be taken into account when it is approved.

  Logistic planning for the United Kingdom element of a rapid reaction corps is still in its early stages.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British units stationed in Germany as part of the proposed rapid reaction corps will be capable of more rapid deployment than those British units currently assigned to NATO as part of NORTHAG.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Precise readiness requirements for units assigned to the ACE rapid reaction corps have not yet been decided, but in general we would expect them to be less demanding than those that applied when we faced the possibility of surprise attack by Soviet forces stationed in eastern Europe.

  Steel Tubes, Iraq
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 383, what action was taken by his Department as a result of establishing that the steel tubes which Walter Somers Ltd. proposed to export to Iraq were almost certainly pressure vessels of some kind.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The discussions with Walter Somers Ltd. were undertaken following a request from the Department of Trade and Industry for advice on the
  293
  defence implications of the steel tubes which the company proposed to export to Iraq. Following these discussions the Department of Trade and Industry were informed that no military application could be established.

  Ceremonial Uniforms
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 December,Official Report, column 87, what records are kept of contributions towards the cost of purchasing ceremonial uniforms.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Parachute Regiments
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 December,Official Report, column 285, whether he is now in a position to write to the hon. Member for Clackmannan regarding recruiting levels in the parachute regiments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 3 March 1992.

  Northern Ireland Tours
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 November,Official Report, column 86, what impact on the ability of units to react rapidly will result from units based in Germany undertaking a greater share of short, unaccompanied operational tours in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are confident that the Army will be able to maintain appropriate levels of readiness for NATO and national tasks.

  NATO Review
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the review of readiness and availability requirements for NATO forces has been completed; and what effect Operation Granby has had on that review.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Good progress is being made on NATO's continuing review of readiness and availability requirements and has already resulted in some relaxation in the readiness of NATO forces. Details are classified. Work is underway to complete the review and all relevant factors, including the lessons to be learnt from the Gulf conflict, are being taken into account.

  Information
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 1992,Official Report, column 329, what are the factors which determine whether it is appropriate to make available information on plans for and progress of individual projects.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Plans for significant new projects are normally announced when decisions to place contracts or invite tenders are made. Progress on major projects is reported regularly in the major projects statement and the defence equipment programme review.

  Homelessness
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1991,Official Report, column 386, what consideration has been given to his policy relating to the production of separate certification of impending discharge.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to my answer of 20 December 1991,Official Report, column 386.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

HIV and AIDS: Education in Schools
The Earl of Liverpool The Earl of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that 11 year-old children are ready for compulsory and explicit education on HIV and AIDS, as required by the Science in the National Curriculum document 1991.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the requirement in the revised National Curriculum Science Order is that pupils at key stage three—that is, those children aged between 11 and 14—should study the ways in which the healthy functioning of the human body may be affected by diet, lifestyle, bacteria and viruses (including HIV). Given that HIV constitutes probably the most serious threat to public health this century, it is our view that children should learn about it at an age when the majority are sufficiently mature to understand its implications.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I would be the first to agree with her that this is a subject which, in view of its seriousness, should be taught at schools. However, is she aware that the pamphlet issued by the DES entitled HIV & AIDS: A Guide for the Education Service contains deviant sexual practices of an explicit nature and asks teachers to explain these to children from 11 years of age upwards? I believe that that could have long-term psychologically damaging consequences if taught indiscriminately. Bearing that in mind, will my noble friend consider employing the services of specialist organisations such as AIDS Care Education and Training (ACET) who I believe would be much more sympathetic in teaching this subject? Would it also be possible for the Government to consider raising the age for such education from 11 years to 13 years?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I stress that the booklet to which my noble friend referred is for guidance only and, as such, would have to cover all aspects of the subject which teachers would need to know. In this instance we must trust the teachers to decide whether the children at the beginning of the period or later on in their years are mature enough.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, are the Government seriously wanting to defend a pamphlet, whoever has it, which explicitly describes oral sex? Does the Minister agree that that cannot be of any assistance to the subject being dealt with and that it can be totally misunderstood? I suggest that the Government are very unwise to publish this document.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as I said earlier, this is a virus which can kill. I suggest that it is probably so important that the Government believe that sensible, factual information can do a great deal to protect young people.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that many 11 year-olds have already received AIDS education in an informal way through television, newspapers, family and from their peers which has often amounted to misinformation—that is to say, partial information which can lead to misapprehension? Therefore, does the Minister agree that in those circumstances it is better that the children should be taught properly and sensitively by professionals, as the Government propose?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord puts the point with great common sense. I believe that it would help lead to the protection of children.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that one of the principal reasons why many of us find this document disturbing is that the whole of the information in it is put forward in an entirely amoral context with no element of value-judgment at all? Does she accept that we would be reassured were the subject to be transferred from the science curriculum to the sex education curriculum where the method of instruction and the moral context is quite different?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I stress that this booklet contains nothing new. It simply brings together and updates the information and advice contained in two earlier booklets which the department published in 1986 and 1987. There is the same opportunity for parents to be involved with teachers and discuss the moral implications of their teaching whether the matter is in the science area or the sex education area.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while sex education should always be conducted in a sensitive way, we have a major problem in that not enough explicit sex education is carried out? Does she further agree that such education is often too late for young people who become sexually active very early? Does the Minister also accept that the position which she has taken is warmly supported by the Family Planning Association, the National AIDS Trust, health education authorities and by all those bodies specifically involved in this problem?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government recognise that schools cannot avoid tackling controversial issues if they are to maintain their responsibility.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that everybody is conscious of the fact that there are many things that we learn throughout life, but do we have to learn all these things at 11 years of age? I draw the attention of my noble friend to an article which was published in the Sunday Times last Sunday. We all know the dangerous effects of AIDS

979
and the suffering that goes with it. Is my noble friend aware that in a recent study of 130 men and women who have contracted HIV there was only one high-risk partner? Does she agree that the danger of HIV has been greatly exaggerated by the DHSS?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I saw the piece to which my noble friend refers. I state again that young people have to be convinced that the risk of contracting HIV and AIDS is real and that running that risk could all too easily prove fatal.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I agree with her original reply to the Question? Does she recall the official press release made on 20th December 1991 in which the Secretary of State said,
"Outside the statutory consultation process, we received a large number of letters, mainly from minority religious groups, concerned about the inclusion of a reference to HIV in the science curriculum"?
The Minister continued:
"I am confident, however, that the overwhelming body of opinion is in favour of including education about HIV within the National Curriculum and I have retained this reference".
I belong to what the Minister would call "a minority religion" which is called Christian. Is the Minister aware that there are millions of us throughout the country who are very concerned about the approach which the Government have taken to this issue? I believe that those minorities and Christians—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I, in common with all those people to whom I have referred, are asking for a debate on this question so that their views can be openly expressed? We should begin that debate as soon as possible. Will the Minister use her good offices to persuade her noble friend the Leader of the House to initiate a debate on a Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper seeking such a debate?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that a debate is a matter for the usual channels. I stress that the department does not believe—although totally respecting the views which have been expressed—that these views are shared by the majority of parents.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the document that has been referred to applies to children aged between 11 and 14 and that it is therefore up to the schools to decide at what age, within that age range, this material is introduced? It can be as late as 13 if that is considered appropriate. In the light of the increasing evidence that large numbers of young people are becoming HIV positive, does the Minister also agree that it is vital to protect them at the right age? That may be younger than many of us might feel appropriate. Nevertheless, it is needed and that means this age group of 11 to 14.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that comment which contains all the facts very accurately.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that under Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 the welfare of the child is paramount? However, parents also have a responsibility. Are the parents to be consulted as to whether their children should, or should not, receive this education in schools? Should not this be a combined effort?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I doubt whether many people would disagree that the best way is for parents to educate their children in these matters. However, that does not always happen. Recent legislation provides several ways for parents to become involved and informed about this important aspect of their children's education. In fact, the Government have involved parents considerably in our education policy.

British Rail: White Paper
3.13 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to publish the oft-promised White Paper on British Rail.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, We will publish our proposals as soon as we are ready.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that that reply has been going around since last July? When the Government announced their intentions they said:
"We expect to set up our detailed plans in a White Paper this year".
The Minister has just repeated that, and so has every other Government spokesman who has ever spoken on the matter. Can the Minister confirm that that White Paper will not be produced before the general election and that therefore a debate on the wider issues affecting British Rail will not now take place in this Parliament? We shall have a much narrower debate. That is now being initiated by the Government on a botched-up inadequate compensation scheme which will do nothing to cure the problems of under-investment and shortage of staff which are at the core of BR's problems.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of course privatisation raises complex and important issues and we must get these right. That is why we shall not be rushed in this matter or risk getting things wrong simply in order to meet particular dates. As I said in my original Answer, we shall publish the White Paper as soon as we are ready. That may be before or after the election.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that railway nationalisation has proved most unfortunate and has produced a service quite inadequate to the needs of the country? Therefore, radical changes are urgently required, which many of us hope will soon be forthcoming.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as we have said, we are firmly committed to privatising British Rail. We believe that privatisation will bring better services for rail users.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that his Answer was virtually the most garbled railway announcement that one could ever imagine? If I may borrow that elegant word from Mr. Christopher Patten, it is a real "whammy". Is it not clear, as nearly all sections of the press have agreed—Conservative, Liberal and Labour—that this much-heralded White Paper has not appeared and has become derailed because of the deep divisions within the Government as to the directions in which they want to go on privatisation? Would it not be infinitely preferable if the Government were to concentrate on two essential issues? First, providing investment funding for British Rail as an integral part of economic and environmental policy and, secondly, eliminating the growth distortions of competition between road and rail.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not know how the noble Lord can describe my announcement today as garbled considering that I did not even make an announcement. As I said, we believe that privatisation is the way forward for the railways. In the meantime, the noble Lord refers to investment in the railway system. That is at its highest level now than for 30 years. It is considerably higher than it was in the period of the last Labour Government.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that anything that opens up the railways to competition will greatly improve services to consumers compared with what consumers have come to expect from British Rail over many years? Does he further agree that anybody who has any doubts about the benefits of competition should look at what happened in the air services when the British Airways monopoly on internal routes in this country was broken and British Midland and other airlines had an opportunity to compete and improve services to customers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to draw the parallel with the opening up of the internal air services, particularly on the Scottish routes. Competition is the answer. It invariably produces a better service. That is one aspect on which we shall need to concentrate in these proposals.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, given the importance of the White Paper to the infrastructure of industry in this country and to the future of railways, can the Minister say what consultation is taking place before the White Paper is published? For example, are the local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland being consulted? Are the various trade unions which are affected being consulted? Is the CBI being consulted? Is the Minister aware that we believe that consultation is essential before the White Paper comes into the public domain?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, consultation can take place on the proposals which are put forward in the White Paper, after it comes into the public domain. Legislation will be required to carry most of those proposals forward. That is when consultation should take place.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that there are sound commercial reasons, which should have nothing to do with party politics, for privatising British Rail, the chief of which is probably to give British Rail access to the capital markets? Without that access I, for one, cannot see them getting the investment that is needed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. One of the advantages of privatisation is that the future company, or companies, would have the ability to raise capital from whatever source they chose.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as I understand that the noble Lord cannot give full details of the White Paper, can he at least give the House an assurance that the track, the signalling and the policing of the railways will remain under a single authority?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord will just have to wait and see.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the significance of the point made by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition? In the circumstances, would it not be far better if we were to have a Green Paper rather than a White Paper so that these issues may be properly discussed with all-important interests?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss all these matters in due course.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is not the Government's principal problem in answering the original Question on the Order Paper that they have not yet decided whether or not to privatise all White Papers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a different Question from that on the Order Paper.

Noise Levels and Damage to Hearing
3.18 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent the noise levels of discotheques and personal radios are likely to cause permanent damage to the hearing of the young and not so young; and whether this will result in any additional costs for the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, repeated exposure to loud noise can cause damage which may manifest itself in later life. That could result in additional costs to the National Health

983
Service, although it is difficult to assess what they might be. For that reason we consider it important to educate people, especially young people, about the possible dangers.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that some nose and ear specialists consider that the noises at discos are nothing less than disastrous in that they can affect people's future hearing ability? Does the Minister agree that it is right that the Government should issue recommended maximum decibel ratings in order to avoid the situation where employees are returning to previous employers claiming damages for deafness when it was partly self-inflicted at discos?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I recognise that there is anecdotal evidence in this respect. The Health and Safety Executive is currently consulting on a draft guide to safety at pop concerts which includes recommendations on limiting sound levels for audiences. That is likely to be taken into account when, for example, discotheques are being licensed. The difficult aim is to balance people's right to enjoy leisure activities, which have some risk, with the need to make them aware of the risks and safety standards.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is estimated that up to 100 young people a year have their hearing impaired as a result of attending pop concerts? An article in the British Medical Journal pointed out that continual exposure to noise during these leisure activities is said to be equivalent to an 80 decibel noise level over a working life time. The noble Baroness referred to proposals in a guide. Is it not possible to deal with this problem by using the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 or those of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which controls the licensing of public entertainment?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on the latter point, there is no doubt that, as a result of the work being carried out by the Health and Safety Executive, these factors will be taken into account in terms of licensing and it will therefore be possible to tie them in with the existing legislative restrictions.
In terms of the estimation of the damage being caused, we are fully aware that the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and the National Deaf Children's Society have produced studies on this subject and have issued information and leaflets about it. The National Deaf Children's Society produced a report in 1990 identifying potential risks. We have been active in co-operating with them, particularly with the RNID, and they are publicising the possible dangers. We are currently promoting with them a pilot project in Nottingham targeted specifically at school children.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, is the Minister aware that loud music at discos encourages the taking of the so-called disco drug, ecstasy, which is now on the increase and is very dangerous? What are the Government doing about this?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is a separate question which I should be very happy to answer if the noble Baroness cared to put down a question on the subject.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that in the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital we have an outstanding audiological centre in this country? Can she say what information is being given to people about Walkman radios? If they listen through only one ear, that will at least protect the other half of their hearing.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must say that I was not aware of that. I understand that some manufacturers, including Sony, already issue printed warnings with personal stereos and are voluntarily looking more closely at the hearing safety aspects. This is clearly something that the Government are pursuing in connection with consumer protection measures.

Future of the BBC
3.22 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements are being made for a full and open public inquiry into the future of the BBC before any policy options are prepared by government as a basis for consultation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary intends to publish a discussion document this year about the future of the BBC. We hope that there will be full, public discussion on the subject. We intend to consult as widely as possible.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the BBC is not just another public service but one of the nation's finest assets? Would he therefore agree that its quality, rugged independence and integrity must at all costs be preserved? If that is to happen, does he agree that there must a full public debate before the parameters concerning its future shape and status are decided? Is the noble Earl aware that there is growing anxiety about the plethora of working parties—some indeed in the Home Office—on the future structure, shape and content of the BBC? Can he reassure the House about exactly what is happening?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, gave, the Government will produce a discussion document and will invite as much opinion as possible before any decisions are taken. I understand that 15 task force reports are the result of the first phase of the BBC's task force. In the next few months the BBC will be drawing up its own ideas about its future. It aims to publish its proposals later in the year and its document will be an important contribution to the public debate. But I understand that the director general has made it clear that there is a lot of work still to be done.
Lord Morris: My Lords, in considering the future of the BBC, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind the considerable distress that has been caused by the BBC's apparent inability to so arrange its affairs that only a very small minority can witness the stirring events that now unfold in the Antipodes? Furthermore, can my noble friend at least persuade the BBC to express to the Government of Australia and to its Prime Minister in particular our deepest sympathy in their suffering?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is just about as far away from the Question as one can possibly get. I can only tell my noble friend that the programming arrangements are a matter for the BBC.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, considering the document which the Government intend to publish, are they proposing to take any action that would enable the BBC to avoid having to broadcast such quite dreadful stuff as it had to broadcast on Radio 4 immediately after the news this afternoon? I refer to a Conservative political broadcast which plumbed new depths.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, heard that. I am sure that he was better informed as a result of it. What is put on by the BBC is a matter for the BBC and it is not the Government's intention, either by this document or any other—if the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, can contain himself for half a minute—to tell the BBC what to do.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that when people from the Commonwealth and other countries, particularly the United States, stay here for a few weeks they are very impressed by the way in which the BBC is managed and by the way it which its programmes are shown to the general public? We should be proud when Americans, Australians, New Zealanders and people from Germany and France are remarkably impressed by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The only thing that spoils the whole show is that they cannot understand why we have such a biased press.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the BBC has a high standing both in this and other countries. We hope that that will continue.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that in future the BBC licence fee will not automatically rise without public consultation on the excess amount being sought over value for money?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is at the moment the intention that the fee should increase only in accordance with the Retail Prices Index. We shall review the BBC's progress in improving efficiency and developing other sources of income before setting the 1994 increase.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, can we still be confident that the Government will continue to support the BBC as the cornerstone of public service broadcasting as they set
986
out in the White Paper preceding the 1990 Act? I ask this question particularly in view of the recent statement of the Home Secretary, with its implied threat, that,
"The BBC has got to be very careful indeed over the next eight to 10 weeks".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that there is any implied threat there. With regard to the substance of the first part of the noble Baroness's question, she need have no fear provided the present Government continue in Government. If she decides to help in that case she will be satisfied.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble Earl give an assurance that the financial contribution from the Foreign Office towards the World Service will continue, since this service is very highly prized and one of the jewels in the BBC's crown?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I fully accept the importance of the BBC World Service but the whole of the future of the BBC will come up for consideration when its licence and charter agreement come to an end in 1996. I cannot go beyond that.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that his answer is difficult to reconcile with a situation in which the BBC has already indicated that it is cutting 3,000 jobs and is proposing changes covering 40 per cent. of studio facilities and outside broadcast capacity encompassing six studios, three film stages, nine outside broadcast units, eight single camera units and 71 edit suites? With all the rest that is going on, does this not suggest that a great deal is to be decided before the public debate has begun? Is that not totally unacceptable?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords. I do not think so. The BBC is bound to have to take decisions during the course of its period of licence. There are another four years yet to go. One cannot expect an organisation to be fossilised for that period of time. The BBC is quite right to take such action as it thinks is necessary, which is quite separate from viewing the future of the BBC and the way it will go after 1996.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill will be adjourned at about 7.00 p.m. for about one hour and that during the adjournment the Committee stage of the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill will be taken.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Coal Industry Bill
3.31 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I hope that your Lordships will not agree to the passing of the Bill. This Bill, and indeed the totality of the Government's policies on coal, do not recognise a matter of fundamental importance; namely, the security of supply. The latest figure that I have seen on reserves in this country shows that there are 4.2 billion tonnes of marketable coal, and yet we continue to increase imports of coal. Some of those imports come from South Africa and Colombia, which dump coal—that is, dump in the economic sense—to gain foreign exchange, but an increasing amount comes from Germany, which, against all EC regulations, subsidised its coal industry to the tune of £3.5 billion last year.
Are the Government saying that those sources of supply will last forever and that, if they do not, we can always reopen our closed pits? Surely they know that that cannot be done. Are they also saying that the new buying spree on gas fired power stations will meet any problems which arise? They know that the same arguments I have just used will arise again on such a proposition. There are many countries which envy our coal reserves and which would not think twice about ensuring a continuous supply from indigenous sources.
In their economic thinking on the coal industry, the Government have not looked at the wider implications in relation to manpower. Thousands of miners have lost their jobs and the social implications of that are enormous—as I know only too well, having represented a mining constituency in another place. But let us consider also the economics of the situation. Every unemployed worker who does not find another job costs the taxpayer £8,000 a year in social benefits and lost tax revenues. I remind your Lordships that in the coal industry the figure will be higher because of the special redundancy scheme that operates in the industry.
It is certain that at some time in the future people will look with incredulity at the burning of coal in its present form. The chemical content of coal and the liquefaction of coal, will be the basis of future action with coal. We could be in the position of sitting on millions of tonnes of raw material and not be able to do anything about it.
There are other matters concerning coal which ought to be exercising the Government's mind rather than the largely irrelevant issues contained in the Bill. However, I have to admit that this is not an
988
appropriate time to deal with them. Fortunately, this Government are in their death throes. A Labour government will ensure that the important issues—that is, not simply the ones that I have mentioned, but others too—will be dealt with properly and successfully.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it comes as a tiny bit of a surprise to me that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, should speak on the Bill. One must ask oneself where the noble Lord was when we had the Second Reading debate.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I can reply specifically. I was on a parliamentary delegation to Moscow and Kiev. I thought that that was a good reason for not being able to be here to speak in the debate.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not sure that the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, are relevant. However, I shall read carefully in Hansard what he said and reply. It is a shame—and, indeed, it is not the way that the House should work—that such issues should be brought forward. The Bill is relevant. It is extremely important, as many of his noble friends agreed when we discussed the Bill in the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I would not have risen to speak but for the remarks just made by the Minister. He seemed to imply that my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington had no right to raise such matters at this stage of the Bill's proceedings. I should like some assurance—that is, if it can be given by anyone—that any Member of this House has the right to raise any matter on any Bill or topic at any stage during its passage through the House. That is what I have understood to be the case until now. If the noble Lord has anything different to tell me, I am quite sure that I, and other Members of the House, will be interested to hear it.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is perfectly right. His noble friend was absolutely within his rights to raise such matters. I merely said that I was surprised. As I have to speak, I should like to take the opportunity to thank those noble Lords who consistently took part in the debates on this important Bill throughout all its stages. I have in mind my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Cockfield, and my noble friend Lord Haslam, with his great experience. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also contributed considerably to the Bill. Other contributors were the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick, Lord Jay, Lord Rochester and Lord Desai. I am grateful to all of them for taking part during the various stages of the Bill.

989
I should also like to say that the Bill was concisely worded and well drafted. I should like to thank the Department of Energy and also the officials who supported me during the progress of the Bill.
Noble Lords: Lord Donoughue!
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am sorry; of course, I had the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on my list. Although he was not present consistently throughout the Bill's stages, he played a very important part. I should also like to congratulate him on his contribution because I believe that it was the first time that he has taken a Bill through the House. I also thank him for his consistent courtesy throughout the proceedings. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed.

Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Read a third time.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Brigstocke.)
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness on this excellent Bill. I wish it well. I could not be present for the Second Reading debate, because it took place rather late at night. But this is a splendid effort. I know that the noble Baroness cares very much about such matters.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
As I said when moving the Second Reading debate on 14th February, the Bill is supported across party lines and is of considerable importance to the licensed trade and licensing boards in Scotland; and also to the members of the solicitor branch of the legal profession engaged in working with the boards. The Bill remedies significant difficulties recently encountered and effectively reintroduces the single stage transfer of a licence while retaining the temporary transfer provision of Section 51 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. The Bill is universally welcomed in Scotland. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Wales) Bill
3.40 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Thomas of Gwydir.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.41 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments he now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
AND MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill 49 as first printed by the Commons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 1, page 2, line 7, at end insert:
`(2A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument vary the period for the time being specified in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above so as to fix the latest time for the publication of information in accordance with that paragraph at any such time, within the period of nine months after the end of the financial year in question, as may be specified in the order; and a statutory instrument containing an order under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This amendment is in response to a proposal made in another place that the Government should look at providing a means of varying the period given to authorities for the publication of information on standards of performance under Clause 1.
As a large part of this information will necessarily be based on accounting information, we believe that it makes sense to give the same period of time for bodies to publish this information as is given for publishing their accounts.

991
At present it is a requirement of the current accounts regulations that accounts are published within nine months of the end of the financial year. The Bill provides that, similarly, bodies have nine months to publish the performance information required by directions. As amended, it would also allow for this period subsequently to be altered by means of statutory instrument, as is done with the regulations on accounts. I believe that this change will provide a sensible degree of future flexibility, consistent with existing provisions, together with appropriate parliamentary control. I hope that the House will agree the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 8, page 8, line 12, leave out from 'make' to end of line 14 and insert 'such provision in relation to proposals for the carrying out of work to which this section applies as he considers appropriate for facilitating or requiring separate procedures to be followed for'.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. Your Lordships will recall that when we considered the Bill in Committee an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was made to Clause 8. That amendment was, as I argued at the time, misconceived. It had the effect of removing the power to amend the existing competitive tendering arrangements to allow for the special nature of professional and technical activities and in its place created what was in effect an unusable power to make blanket provision applying in a like manner to all compulsory competitive tendering activities. I made it clear to your Lordships' House that the Government would seek to restore a measure of flexibility at a later stage of the Bill's progress.
Flexibility has been restored by these amendments. But we have listened carefully to the arguments made against the scope of the original Clause 8 and, as amended, it now has a much more limited application. As introduced in this House, Clause 8 contained a wide-ranging power to amend the 1988 Act as the Secretary of State saw fit in connection with an order under Section 2 (3) of that Act adding a professional, financial or technical activity to the list of CCT activities. It did not limit the scope of that power to any particular purpose.
These amendments, however, create a power to make provision only for separate evaluation by local authorities of cost and quality. In other words, when compared with the original Clause 8, they narrow down the scope of an order under this clause to one purpose: ensuring that we will be able to address the particular concerns relating to the evaluation of quality in professional services. Subsection (5) provides that incidental, consequential, transitional and supplementary provision may be made, and that power includes the power to amend the 1988 Act. But such amendments to the 1988 Act may only be made
992
in connection with setting up the separate procedures for evaluation of cost and quality to which I have referred. The power is therefore much more limited in scope than the power in the Bill as originally introduced.
The issue of quality does need to be dealt with differently when we consider the professional services. In the case of the existing manual and direct services which have been exposed to competitive tendering, it is possible for local authorities to set out the level of quality they require—for example in terms of frequency of collection of refuse, or the standard to which cleaning work has to be carried out—in the specifications they draw up for tenderers. Provided a contractor can meet those specifications, the award of the contract can then be on price alone. If a local authority decides that a contractor would not be able to meet the specifications it may rule its bid out, although it would of course need to be able to defend that decision and prove if necessary that it was not anti-competitive. But the question of proof here is much clearer than in the case of professional services and therefore less capable of obfuscation by recalcitrant local authorities.
In the case of professional services, it might be possible for a firm to demonstrate that it could meet specifications—for example, to provide a legal advice service to given deadlines—but for that firm nevertheless not to come up to the standards of professional service a local authority quite legitimately required. For example, the staff used to provide the service might not be sufficiently qualified, or might not have sufficient experience in particular areas, or in the case of architectural services the firm might not be able to demonstrate any experience of designing a particular type of building. It is right that in these sensitive areas local authorities should be able to reject bids which for one reason or another fail to reach the required standard in terms of professional capability.
However, in allowing local authorities these safeguards, we need to ensure that those who would seek to avoid the discipline of competition are not enabled to reject bids on the grounds of spurious—but subjective, and hence largely unchallengeable—grounds of quality. The issue of quality needs to be dealt with openly, clearly and fairly if private sector contractors are to have sufficient confidence in the integrity of the tendering process. Our consultation paper, Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services, suggested that separate evaluation of cost and quality might be achieved through a "double envelope" tendering system. The consultation period on our proposals closed at the end of January. We have now received, and indeed are still receiving, many responses and we are in the process of reading and noting the comments made. We will consider carefully all the representations made on professional services, in particular the suggestion for a double envelope tendering system, before deciding how to proceed.
Some of the proposals in the consultation paper—for example, the extension of CCT to new activities—can be introduced under the existing legislation. Some, such as double envelope tendering, or other

993
methods of separating the evaluation of cost and quality which have been suggested by respondents, would depend on powers under this Bill. But I should make clear that this clause, with the amendments now before us, contains no great advances in principle on the existing legislation. The 1988 Act itself, as noble Lords will recall, contains provision for the Secretary of State to amend by order, subject to affirmative resolution, the list of CCT activities in Section 2(2). That power extends, by virtue of Section 15(8) (a) of that Act, to making certain amendments to the Act in connection with an extension of CCT.
So the principle of extending the statutory list of CCT activities by order has already been accepted, and the principle of making necessary minor adjustments to the legislation has also already been granted. What this clause does is to provide the flexibility which may be necessary to make use of the existing powers in a prudent way in the case of professional activities. The nature of any use of the powers in Clause 8 is clear; it would be to provide for separate and unambiguous treatment of the difficult question of quality in professional services. As I have pointed out before, Parliament would have the opportunity, through the affirmative resolution procedure, to exercise proper scrutiny over any use of the powers.
If your Lordships accept our arguments on the need for separate consideration of quality, and accept that the procedure for such consideration should be capable of being tailored for each new professional service made subject to CCT, then it follows that the House accepts the substantive purpose of Clause 8, which is to allow for those concerns of quality to be appropriately addressed, service by service, in the tender evaluation procedure.
Clearly, there is a strong possibility that the separate evaluation procedures to be established under Clause 8(1), service by service, may not be compatible in all respects with the detailed requirements of the CCT regime set out in Part I of the Local Government Act 1988. Such a conflict between two legislative provisions would not be acceptable. Those detailed requirements were set out on the face of the 1988 Act (although I think the Donoughmore committee would have had no trouble with them had they been left to secondary legislation). Given that potential for legislative conflict, and given the need for separate procedures which are sensitive to the requirements of each new professional service to which CCT is extended, it is therefore not merely convenient to government, but essential to the purpose of Clause 8 that the Secretary of State should have a power to make such incidental and conseqential changes to the 1988 Act as are necessary to remove any conflict. I should stress that any such changes would be purely for the purposes of extending CCT in an appropriate way to the service or activities to which an order under Clause 8 referred; it would therefore not allow the executive arm the power to amend the provisions of the 1988 Act as they apply to the existing activities to which CCT applies or to any new non-professional services.
994
In view of the narrower scope of this clause, and the need for special treatment of the issue of quality in these services, I have no hesitation in commending the Commons amendments to your Lordships' House, and hope that it will agree with them.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in speaking to the Motion, That the House agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, the Minister appeared—unless I misunderstood her—to be speaking also to Commons Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. She referred consistently to "these amendments". Will she make it clear whether she was speaking to all the amendments to Clause 8 or merely to Amendment No. 2?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise most profusely to the noble Lord. I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. I apologise for not saying so to the House. I also understand that the noble Lord knew that that was how the amendments would be taken. That was my understanding before I came into the Chamber.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is the classic phrase, "I think I could have been told". I had no idea that such an arrangement had been made.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, then I have been misled, and I shall sort that out, but I apologise most profusely to the House. If the noble Lord wishes to deal with Amendment No. 2 only, when we reach the other amendments I shall take it as read that I have addressed them all.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all I wanted to know was whether I needed to deal now with my Amendment No. 6A, and it seems that I do. The Minister seems to have spoken to the whole group of amendments, and so it is appropriate that I give notice that it is my intention to move Amendment No. 6A when Amendment No. 6 is reached, and I shall speak to it now.
It was not my intention to challenge at length amendments made by another place to our amendments relating to CCT. It has always been my view that, when such decisions are made by another place on a majority vote, we should not, unless there are issues of constitutional importance, seek to challenge the decisions of the elected Chamber. I must say that I was sorely tempted when I heard the Minister's defence of the quality provisions now being made in Clause 8, in particular, when she referred to architectural services. When she said that, I thought to myself that the decision as between one architectural practice and another was likely to be made on the qualifications of the staff rather than on the quality of the design. That struck me as an extraordinary state of affairs. But that is what the Government have always intended to do under the double envelope procedure. They have stuck to their guns on the matter, through thick and thin, against the united opposition not just of the architectural profession—it might be thought

995
that architects had a professional interest in protecting themselves—but of all those who use the architectural profession. After all, we all use the architectural profession, because we live in and see the buildings that its members put up.
I should have thought that it was the merest common sense to make it possible for the choice of one architectural firm, approach or design as against another, to be made on the basis of the quality of the design rather than on the qualifications of those involved in producing it. That leads me to ask the Minister whether Clause 8, as amended by the Commons, will permit competition, for example, on a fixed-price basis. It does not appear that she has made any provision for that possibility in the amendments that she is now commending to the House.
As I say, the substance of the Commons amendments are not so much our concern; what is our concern, and the reason why I propose to move in due course that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 is that Amendment No. 6 revives, in another form, the Henry VIII clause with which your Lordships rightly disagreed in December of last year. It is not exactly in the same form, as I shall explain.
The original Clause 8(1) enabled the Secretary of State to
"make such modifications of Part I of the 1988 Act (Competition) as he thinks fit for the purposes of. or in connection with, any order under section 2(3) of that Act".
That is the section which extends the list of services subject to compulsory tendering, where it was applied to professional services. Clause 8(2), as originally drafted, extended the range of such an order under the Bill to cover procedures concerning the quality and cost of services. The Bill's practical effect would have been that Henry VIII powers—in another words, power to amend primary legislation by regulation made by the Secretary of State—could be applied, first, to the extension of CCT to new professional services; and, secondly, to the procedures under which those services were put out to tender which were to be separate as to the assessment of quality and the cost of bids. Commons Amendment No. 6 brings back, although in a different form, the second of those Henry VIII powers. It expands the scope of the power under the present Clause 8(4), which is to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions.
It is common to have such tidying-up provisions, and I would not object to such tidying up provisions; but specifically and deliberately the Commons have chosen to add to the tidying-up provisions the power,"to modify any of the provisions of Part I of the 1988 Act",as it says,
"for the purposes of, or in connection with",
the new tendering procedures. That amounts to the creation of a new power. It is a new power for the Secretary of State to alter the import of Part I of the 1988 Act. The wording is less provocative than that used in the original provision, but its practical effect is to restore the most important part of the Henry VIII power to which your Lordships took objection in December of last year. If that were not so, surely the
996
Government would have been satisfied with the tidying-up provisions which already exist in Clause 8(4).
It must be asked why the Government have seen fit to return to that contentious constitutional matter—not constitutional as between the two Houses, but constitutional as to the framing of legislation—and under what conceivable circumstances the Government believe that it may be necessary to use such a power. I use the word "necessary" advisedly, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rightly reminded the House on the previous occasion when we dealt with the Bill that the distinction that the Donoughmore Committee drew was as between when a Henry VIII power was necessary and when it was merely convenient to government. I suggest to your Lordships that this is an occasion on which the Henry VIII power is merely convenient and ought not to be agreed to.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is fully justified in asking us to consider whether the introduction or extension of a Henry VIII power should be approved by your Lordships' House. I am one of those who lean against the use of Henry VIII powers, but we have to face it that the alternative in some circumstances to using such a power is for the government of the day to come back to Parliament to ask for primary legislation. If the matter is of great importance, it is right that the government of the day should do just that or if the Henry VIII power which it is intended to use covers a wide scope of legislation.
However, it follows not only from the speech of my noble friend Lady Blatch but also from that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that the use of the power is intended to be on a narrow point and a technical matter; namely, the procedure for competitive tendering. I am no expert on building contracts, but it is a matter of common knowledge that with them practice varies from business to business and from time to time. It is surely in the public interest that, if it is found that a relatively minor modification of the law is required in order to enable public works to be completed expeditiously, the Secretary of State should have that power to amend the statute in the narrow way.
It is a narrow way because Amendment No. 6 states:
"the power conferred by virtue of paragraph (a) above"—
and I assume that that means paragraph (a) of Clause 8(5) rather than paragraph (a) of Clause 8(1)—
"shall include power for the purposes of, or in connection with, any separate procedures for which an order under this section provides, to modify any of the provisions of Part I of the 1988 Act".
If it were a power to amend any of the provisions of Part I of the 1988 Act—which is an important piece of legislation—in a broad sense, I should be fully in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and support his amendment. However, frankly, when we find that it is only for the purpose of a power to make an order under the section dealing with competitive tendering,

997
"to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision",
surely it would be right to say that this power should be granted to the Secretary of State. For that reason, despite my normal prejudice against the use of Henry VIII clauses, I feel that on this occasion the other place was fully justified in supporting the Government in asking for the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has explained clearly how the provision fits into the Bill. On the last occasion, with his encouragement, I endeavoured to set what was attempted in the original form of the Bill in its constitutional and historical setting. On this occasion I shall not attempt at all to go over the ground that has been covered so well by the noble Lord but deal with the matter in its current constitutional setting.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, are quite right and justified in saying that the provision now brought back to your Lordships' House is much narrower than the one originally framed. There are two points to be made on that. First, that fact abundantly justifies the action your Lordships took, carrying by a majority against the Government the exclusion of the wide Henry VIII provisions. Your Lordships are once again vindicated as the watchdogs of the constitution in a real sense today. Your Lordships are nobody's poodle these days. Unless you perform that role it will not be performed at all.
Secondly, the pattern that we see here is recurrent: namely, an attempt to take the widest powers that can be thought of in favour of executive action. Only when an objection is raised, only when there is parliamentary difficulty, does the department consider whether it needs the wide powers or whether it could frame narrower powers. That is the main constitutional background.
There is also this point. Not for the first time your Lordships have heard the word "flexibility". It comes up every time a Henry VIII provision is discussed before your Lordships. Of course it is more flexible for a civil servant by a stroke of the pen to change the law than to go through the age-old traditional and proved parliamentary processes. Of course it is. It was more flexible when Henry VIII did it; it was more flexible under the Stuarts. No doubt during the great period of parliamentary supremacy in the 18th and 19th centuries some flexibility was sacrificed in the good cause of constitutional propriety. That constitutional propriety was designed for the safeguarding of the individual liberties of the citizen. Thus of course it is more flexible, but that is absolutely no answer.
I want to ask your Lordships to consider the matter not as though it stood alone but in the context today. It is part of a pattern, a resurgence of bureaucracy, an attempt at executive aggrandisement such as we saw 40 or 50 years ago in the surge that broke at Crichel Down with disastrous consequences for the Government at the time. There was the resignation of a popular and able Minister who took responsibility for the high-handed and misconceived actions of his officials. They were doing no more than many of their colleagues had been doing for about a decade.
998
We now face a new Crichel Down situation. The Henry VIII clauses do not stand alone. There is the persistent downgrading of parliamentary control of regulations. Sometimes there is no parliamentary control, as in this Bill in Clause 26. Sometimes there is a feeble negative resolution procedure where all the constitutional indications are for the more effective affirmative regulation procedure.
Then one also gets, as one has in this Bill, the exclusion of the valuable hybrid instrument procedure. That is a procedure that is peculiar to your Lordships' House and is designed to protect the individual citizen, or body of citizens, when their rights are invaded by a Public Bill. That procedure can be excluded by statute and, sure enough, it has been excluded in this Bill, as it was in a previous local government Bill.
One has seen in recent statutes the replacement by decisions of officials of the decisions of courts of law. That was a marked feature of the so-called Child Support Act of last Session. There, too, one had appeal not to courts of law but to specially set up administrative tribunals. In that Act there were also exceptional powers of entry given to officials. The officials could go into places of employment without a by-your-leave or a thank-you, and interrogate employers and fellow employees on pain of a penalty of refusal of entry or refusal to answer.
That Act also jettisoned the valuable confidentiality of the Inland Revenue in favour of officials pursuing their aims under an Act of Parliament. All this really amounted to putting officials in a special position different from the position of others under the law. That has always been considered as the very negation of the rule of law. However, the matter did not end there. There were swept away, in the interests of officials the safeguards that the law has erected against the harsh self-help remedy of distress. Those safeguards were swept away solely in the case of officials exercising distress.
One must look at all those matters together. One cannot just isolate the Henry VIII clause and say it is now operating under a narrow band. What is being done is a general aggrandisement of bureaucracy and of Executive powers. Unless a stand is made that process will go on and shows every sign of going on.
The right body, in fact the only body, that can make a stand is Parliament. The part of Parliament which is best suited to make that stand is your Lordships' House. Your Lordships' House made such a stand on the previous occasion that this matter arose. I direct my following remarks particularly to those who are on the Bishops' side of the House, on the Government Benches. In condoning and abetting this surge of bureaucracy, and in furthering it, they are manufacturing a harsh rod for their own backs. If another government come to power they will not hesitate to use the powers I have ventured to lay before your Lordships. They will seek to undo many of the measures that have been passed in the past decade—I think they are valuable measures—by means of a skeleton Act with regulatory powers. Such an Act may have 80 regulation-making powers.

999
The noble Baroness, or someone in her position, may protest if that were to occur. She will be told that in the Child Support Act there were not 80 but over 100 regulation-making powers. When she claims that only perhaps 10 of the powers are subject to the affirmative resolution, she will be met with the reply that not many more were made subject to the affirmative resolution in the Child Support Act. There were about a dozen out of 100. When she claims that some powers are not subject to any parliamentary control, she will be told that in Clause 26 of this very measure that is before your Lordships she framed important regulations which were subject to no parliamentary control at all. I suggest that in supporting the Government's condonation of the serious surge in bureaucracy, any supporter of the Government is manufacturing a severe rod for his own back.
On only one matter did I find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and that is on what should be the correct relationship between the two Houses. That matter is governed both by statute and by convention. The statute is clear; it is the two Parliament Acts. Your Lordships are entitled to hold up any measure for a year. That is the law and your Lordships can exercise it in this case. If the Government wish to have this clause, they can get it by retabling this measure in the next Session after 12 months. However, the Government will not do so, because they want this Bill. I too wish to see this Bill get through. What the Government will do, if your Lordships stand firm, is to give way.
I mentioned the legal position but there is also the conventional one. I venture on that to differ with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I do not believe your Lordships are bound to give way merely because the elected Chamber has taken a different view. The way it is generally put is that your Lordships are entitled by convention to limit your powers under the Parliament Act and to "ask the other place to think again". But this is the first time that the House of Commons has had a chance to think about this matter. If your Lordships reject this Commons amendment, the Commons will have a chance of thinking again. As I have said, I wish the Bill well and I particularly wish the noble Baroness well. But if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, divides the House on his Motion not to accept the Commons amendment, I for one shall follow him into the Lobby.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I hope he will be so good as to mention an important factor in this matter which he has mentioned on other occasions but did not mention today as far as I could understand. It is this. He knows from experience, and his experience is tremendous, that there are occasions when, for a narrow purpose, a Henry VIII clause should be allowed. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord himself has on several occasions in the past year or two agreed that there should be a narrow power to amend primary legislation in order to avoid the need for the
1000
Government to come back to Parliament on a narrow and perhaps technical matter in order to put a point right. Is not this just such an occasion when it would be unreasonable to expect the Government to come forward with primary legislation in the form of an amending Bill?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly enter the debate on this matter of prime constitutional importance. A recent example occurred in the Further and Higher Education Bill, in which there was an unprecedented attempt to extend executive powers in the area of academic freedom. If your Lordships' House is the watchdog of the constitution, so be it. As the noble and learned Lord truly said, who else? However, in fairness, it has to be said that another place appears now and then, and certainly in this instance, to heed our bite as well as our bark. That is not a good reason for not continuing to bark or, on appropriate occasions, for not continuing to bite. It is quite wrong that there should be the development to which the noble and learned Lord referred —of which there have been many examples recently—and that administrative powers should be extended in the way in which the noble and learned Lord mentioned.
In that context I do not know whether any of your Lordships have had a chance to read the report of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe on the procedures of the House. There it is suggested that an all-party committee should be set up. I think that it was the evidence of my noble friend Lord Renton in particular which adverted to the practice of increasing the grant of executive power. Perhaps something should be done along those lines.
I venture to disagree with the noble and learned Lord and to agree with one of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Of course the law is as the noble and learned erstwhile Law Lord said, but it is not just a question of law. There is a question of convention and a question of comity between the Houses. Need I say more? For my part I totally support the attitude which was adopted by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and repetition is very boring.
In this particular case, what are we considering? My noble friend Lord Renton went straight to the heart of the matter, which is not a Henry VIII clause at all. The heart of the matter is that provision is being made in order to secure some degree of uniformity for competitive tendering for work and labour materials contracts for local government work. Any of us who has had anything to do with such contracts knows that they are not uniform. Any of us who has had anything to do with such contracts knows that some of them contain objectionable clauses—for example, to take only one, the union labour only clause. There are often other discriminatory clauses. It is entirely sensible, constructive and right, your Lordships may think, that in this narrow and specific context, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, there is no objection to the clause as it stands.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am tempted to intervene because I have always been impressed by the fact that

1001
the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has a well-deserved reputation for advocating simplicity and clarity of language in legislation. Therefore, I wonder why he is so certain that the Commons amendment is confined to a narrow base. Paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 5 refers to work "within a defined activity" and Amendment No. 6 refers to "separate procedures". What is it in the use of those two terms which makes the noble Lord, Lord Renton, so certain that separate procedures will still be within the defined activity? If I understood my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, he was afraid that that change would be used for the purpose of widening those defined procedures, perhaps to other professions. What makes the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, so certain that that power does not widen the defined activities in the quoted paragraph?
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is not a Committee stage and I need the leave of the Leader of the House to reply. If I may have that permission, I simply say this. The noble Lord is quite justified in drawing our attention to the expression "separate procedures", which introduces something fresh into Clause 8 of the Bill. However, in doing so, the amendment limits that to the context of paragraph (a) of subsection (4), which in itself is limited in its terms.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I cannot begin to emulate the expertise on constitutional matters which has been demonstrated in the past few minutes. Even to say that I agree with much of what has been said is something of an impertinence. However, the Minister put the amendments in a context which extended beyond the constitutional position and I should like to say a word about that.
We are struggling with this provision for reasons on which we spent some time at earlier stages of the Bill. We were asked to consider legislation while consultation with local authorities and providers of services were still taking place. Had we had the benefit of that consultation, there might have been less concern about what might be needed by way of legislation in order to reflect the new arrangements to be brought into place. I am, of course, glad to hear the Minister say that full account will be taken of the responses to that consultation and I should not have expected otherwise.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. I am grateful to her for doing so. Does she not agree that the provision which has been inserted into Clause 8 applies only to extension of CCT, which itself is subject to secondary legislation which has to come before the House for parliamentary approval? Therefore there is no question of the use of the power until Parliament has expressed its view as to whether CCT may be extended.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, yes, and to some extent, no. The provisions in Amendment No. 6 refer back to Amendment No. 2, which makes reference to separate procedures. I believe that it is due to the new arrangements for separate procedures that we are now struggling with Amendment No. 6.
1002
I also have to say that the word "modify" in this context seems to me to be something of a weasel word. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that it means straightforwardly "to amend or change". If it is something less than that, it would be interesting to know that, but I believe that to modify the provisions of legislation means to change the provisions of legislation.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to that question. It means "modify" because the provisions remain the same for other CCT. However, it would be a modification of those provisions which stand in the Bill, which stand in legislation, but a modification for a specific service which would have to come before Parliament for approval.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are not at Committee stage. The Minister will have a chance to respond. I have bitten my tongue on a number of occasions. We ought to exercise some discipline.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord addressed the House in general when stating that we should exercise more discipline. I hope that my contribution will be consistent with the rules of order.
When the Bill received its Second Reading and passed through the Committee stage in this House, I was not able to contribute to the debate but I followed it from afar in my capacity as director general of the RIBA. It is in that capacity that I should like to comment on the amendments before the House today with reference to Clause 8. I am aware of the contribution made in earlier debates by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and, among others, by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. I am grateful to them for what they said. I do not seek to detain your Lordships by covering that ground again.
I find it difficult to judge the full significance of the noble Baroness's statement this afternoon from the Government Front Bench. Leaving aside the argument about Henry VIII provisions, I am not clear whether she made a significant statement of policy or was putting in a different way what had been stated at Second Reading and in Committee. I believe that it was probably the latter. Had there been a change of policy it would have been more plainly declared.
I wish to make one comment on the substance of Clause 8 and its implications, to ask a question of the noble Baroness, and to make one request to her. It is germane to the amendments made to the Bill in another place. On the substance of Clause 8, it is less a comment of my own than repeating a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord St.John of Fawsley. I would hesitate to raise the matter now except that his statement was made on 30th January as chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission some time after the Bill had left the House. Although the noble Lord's remarks are addressed to the Government's consultation paper, they apply equally to the Bill. As my noble friend said, the Bill has been unfortunately brought

1003
before the House parallel with the process of consultation. In a statement the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, said:
"The Commission believes that the Government's consultation paper Competing for Quality is a threat to the quality of public architecture and, after studying it fully, rejects the section on Architectural Services".
The statement continues:
"The Commission believes that the status of architecture as a public art is at great risk if competitive tendering … becomes compulsory for all [local authorities]".
The rather lengthy statement concludes:
"Lord St. John said that the Commission believes that CCT would be a false economy and only save small amounts of money".
I am aware that that was the substance of the case against Clause 8 of the Bill. Perhaps it was naive of me—it is a reflection of nine years' absence from the process of Parliament—to expect that the Government might have changed their mind. However, that was the nub of the argument at that time. I had hoped that the amendment might have allowed for second thoughts. It has not done so and I greatly regret it.
On consultation, I am not sufficiently clear in my mind whether the noble Baroness's statement today changes the previous position. However, I think not from her remarks in response to my noble friend Lady Hamwee who referred to secondary legislation. The argument from the Government Front Bench was this. Apart from the continuing consultation process, which is not yet complete and of which full accountability will be taken in particular regarding questions of quality, there will be further opportunity for discussion when secondary legislation comes before the House. It is right, proper and inescapable that the Parliament of both Houses will make the final decisions. I appreciate that the Government, even if in parallel, will be consulted widely on competing for quality.
However, when the orders come forward, as I understand it they will be specific to certain services. It was clear from the debate in Committee that those services are very different. It is not for me to argue that other services deserve to be treated differently from the way in which I wish architectural services to be treated. But there is a difference and I should have thought that, for that reason alone, there should be full consultation—not only in this House—before this House decides to agree on any secondary legislation. Will there be further consultation with the specific professions involved before secondary legislation is brought to the House? I hope so. I hope that there will be no attempt to plead that the time needed for such a consultation process cannot be found. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not seek to so plead. Governments can always find time for what they want; and there will be time for such consultation if the Government judge that to be right.
The noble Baroness made a plain statement at Committee stage of the Bill on 17th December. Perhaps I may quote from Hansard at col. 1243. It was a helpful statement because it clarified a misunderstanding. The noble Baroness stated:
1004
"When an authority intends to put work out to a private supplier, as would be the case in much architectural work, for example, the detailed requirements of CCT legislation do not bite".
In other words, she made a distinction between those occasions when a local authority might wish to follow its established procedures for tendering and others when the local authority itself intends to do the work.
I am anxious that we do not have what I call creeping CCT. I hope that there will not be any attempt by local authorities, with overt or covert encouragement from Government, to adopt CCT procedures in advance of any decision by either House on the basis of secondary legislation. Local authorities and others have listened to the proceedings of the House. If the Bill passes its final stages, it might be thought that CCT is already the order of the day, and, despite the remarks by the noble Baroness on 17th December, that it applies to those services which hitherto have not gone out to tender. I do not ask for a specific reply today. However, perhaps the noble Baroness will be kind enough to consider whether it could be made clear to all authorities that creeping CCT would not be appropriate and that they are not required at once to adopt the procedures set out in the Bill, least of all for their existing tendering procedures.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the profession of architecture. Referring to the profession, he stated that it had an objection to the provisions in Clause 8. I simply want to make clear—it is apparent from all the debate that has taken place outside this House and within it, and indeed from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley—that this is not a question about professional interests. It is about the quality of the built environment. My deepest regret is that if secondary legislation is made under the Bill in respect of architectural services, it will not be this House or the profession that will suffer but the built environment and all those who ought to be able to enjoy it.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it will perhaps come as no surprise to noble Lords when I say that Henry VIII was never a king of mine. With regard to the constitutional issue, I am perfectly sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is right and that this House should help the other place to do the right thing. But in fact we are not involved in the constitutional issue. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, rightly said that this was not a question of law but of the underlying issues of this debate. I paraphrase somewhat crudely what he said and I hope that he will not rise to correct me.
This issue is not about Henry VIII or any such Welsh people. It is about competitive tendering and the Government's obsession with ideology. I support most strongly the speech made by my old personal and professional though not noble friend, Lord Rodgers. Civil engineers have a curious relationship with architects, but as a civil engineer I like them a good deal of the time. This issue is about competitive tendering. I want to ask—perhaps to the annoyance of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—two questions which I have raised at every stage of the Bill and to which I have had no answer whatever.

1005
I have said on many occasions that compulsory competitive tendering can have ill effects, although it need not always do so. I have given the Minister two examples of such ill effects and no doubt she is tired of hearing them, but she must listen just once more. One was that of the construction in Canada—I think it was in Vancouver—of a car park which fell down because it was underdesigned owing to competitive tendering. That is one of the dangers which the construction industry faces. Whether we are architects or construction engineers, we believe that that is crucial to the central issue. The desire to win a contract by putting in a low bid can easily lead to underdesign. In the case that I have just mentioned, it led to disaster.
It is interesting that when the case in Vancouver was investigated by the government, the blame was laid directly on underdesign because of competitive tendering. That is one example, which I have raised several times during our debates.
With regard to the other example, the noble Baroness may remember that I read out a letter from a consulting engineer. He was not an acquaintance of mine in any way; the letter came entirely out of the blue following a column that I had written in the New Civil Engineer, a magazine which is widely read among a very small number of people. That engineer said that he had lost a tender but the tender which had been accepted was too low to finance the operation which was required. I admit that it was a fairly small scale operation.
I found it interesting that in the exchange across the Floor of the House the noble Baroness gave me no answer at all except to say that she did not like No. 2 Marsham Street. No doubt many noble Lords would agree with her. But that was not an answer. I thought that it seemed rather disloyal to her own department, but let us leave that aside. That answer is no longer valid because her superior has decided to demolish No. 2 Marsham Street. So that obstacle has now been removed and she may tell us whether it is a good idea that competitive tendering should be pursued when it might lead, as in the Canadian example, to disaster, if not fatal disaster on account of underdesign.
The Government have not made their case in any way other than ideologically. The ideological case does not appeal to me in any case. They have got the ideological bit between their teeth and have gone dancing off madly in the wrong direction. The underlying matter of competitive tendering is much more important than whatever the Tudors may or may not have done while they had their day. I believe that we should dispose of the other place's amendments by rejecting them.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, let me say first to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that he was absolutely right. Your Lordships have had an effect on this debate and have caused the other place to think seriously again about this power. That is why we are considering this amendment today. To that extent I believe that he is right. He is also right to say that because a question is put to this House, this House has a right to respond negatively or positively.
1006
That is precisely why it is here. In fact, I invite all noble Lords to think very seriously about what we are being asked to do today.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who quoted the words in Amendment No. 6, that I believe he ignored the fact that the power is expressed as being nothing more than one aspect of the power in subsection (4)(a) to make,
"incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision".
It cannot therefore be used, as he suggested, to modify any of the procedures.
My noble friend Lord Renton put the matter in a nutshell. He said that of course this House—I agree with both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Renton—must presume against the prolific use of Henry VIII clauses. Indeed, I attended a Commonwealth conference at which I sat on the scrutinising committee and that point was made very well.
However, in the case of this legislation, the Government have the power to put before Parliament a measure to extend competitive tendering. Once that power has been ascertained from Parliament it is a matter of implementation. This power is simply used to make sense of the implementation of that power, and so it is not as wide as noble Lords would suggest.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, suggested that these provisions amounted to a wide-ranging power of officials—I understand that that is what he meant—over the lives of private citizens. I do not like to disagree with the noble and learned Lord because I have far too much respect for him, but on this occasion I take issue with his comment. The power that we are discussing, as I have just said, is a limited one which can only be exercised by the Secretary of State—not by officials—of an elected government of the day and must be subjected to the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, posed a straight question: did it allow for fixed price competition? I have to say that yes, it does; nothing here invalidates the provision to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, addressed himself to three points. The first related to substance. He prayed in aid the Royal Fine Art Commission and my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley. He made the point that I wish to make; that wide consultation has taken place. Although that consultation period is at an end and the responses have been received we are allowing late responses to be considered. However, I must repeat that there will be no extension of any service—and the matter will be dealt with service by service—without parliamentary approval. All the comments made by my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley, the Royal Fine Art Commission and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, will be appropriate as and when a service comes before Parliament for extension. This power relates to the fact that if and when Parliament agrees the extension of a service for CCT, we should have a system that allows a more sophisticated judgment to be made about quality.

1007
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked whether there would be further consultation after the general consultation. I can give him an absolute assurance that when separate orders are made to come before Parliament there is a requirement to consult and that that consultation will extend to interested professional associations.
The noble Lord's third point related to remarks that I had made and he went on to talk disparagingly about creeping procedures. They are not creeping; they are put before Parliament. They will come before Parliament and Parliament will agree them. There is nothing furtive about the procedure. Parliament will have a specific opportunity to agree the extension of a service—
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I believe that the Minister has misunderstood me. I did not use the word "creeping" in any pejorative sense in respect of the Government. I said only that the local authorities, having watched the passage of this legislation through the House, would begin to use CCT as a result of the example of the Bill and in anticipation of late orders. I was asking her, without further comment, whether she would be kind enough to discourage such use.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I considered that the word was pejorative. If the noble Lord reads Hansard he will see that he referred to the procedure as creeping. It is not creeping because Parliament will give approval service by service, in particular the professional services.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, prayed in aid the Canada case and referred to the tender that was too low. I am not daunted by having to use yet again the example of Marsham Street. Competition in itself is not a bad thing. I would rather have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Rodgers, that there is a great deal of excitement in competition. A great deal of our architecture needs competition. Marsham Street might not have been built if there had been competition. Some monstrosities have been built without any form of competition. Competition is not bad in itself.
In addressing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, I must say that in the Canada case competition or competitive tendering was not at fault. In that case either the specification was not specific and clear, and therefore the specification was at fault because the contractor was allowed to get away with a poorly built building, or if the specification was right and written up properly, the contractors were at fault. Mechanisms should exist for doing something about that. That leads me to the noble Lord's second point—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I take the point which I dare say the Minister will deal with—
Noble Lords: Order! By leave of the House!
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I do not need leave to interrupt—
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, do I? I have been a Member of this House for 17 years and I had not realised that I needed the leave of the House to interrupt. I had thought that one needed the leave of the House in order to make a second speech. I dare say that I am wrong—I am often wrong. Now, where were we? I was interrupting the noble Baroness and noble Lords were interrupting me.
The point is that the inquiry into the Canada case stated that all the errors which the Minister has laid out were due to competitive tendering. The Minister has ignored that point constantly and I dare say that she will continue to do so. I must say that I do not blame her.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord was entirely lucid in making his point and I heard it. I simply disagreed with it. I disagreed with the findings of the inquiry. I said that if the specification for that work was right, the people at fault were the contractors and there ought to be ways and means of dealing with that. If the specification was not clear and the builder built a poor building that fell apart it would have been for the client to draft a specification.
The noble Lord gave an example of a company responding with a price that was too low and being unable to deliver what it had tendered for. There are a number of ways of dealing with that situation. For instance, a bond could be put aside for default of contract, penalty clauses could be included and so forth. There are many ways of dealing with that situation but they are not the subject of the use of the powers which the Government seek today. Today the Government seek to ensure that implementation is done properly.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, an absolute assurance that CCT will not apply to any new service until orders are brought forward. However, I hope he will appreciate that we cannot prevent an authority from taking action voluntarily to put services out to tender. Indeed, many are already doing so. Nor would we wish to stop them. However, the terms on which they do so will be entirely for the authorities themselves until the legislation comes into effect. Even if competitive tendering is introduced for architecture, I can confirm that its provisions will apply only where local authorities wish their own workforce to compete for work.
Primary legislation sets down matters of principle but it has been viewed as quite proper for secondary legislation to deal with matters of implementation. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Renton. That is what orders under Clause 8 and any incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary amendments to the 1988 Act made in any such orders would do. I must stress again that an order under this section which included such amendments could be made only in connection with an order adding one of the professional services to the list of competitive tendering activities. The power to amend legislation could, therefore, not affect the application of that Act to any of the existing CCT activities or to any activities which did not consist in or involve the provision of professional advice or of other professional services, or the application of financial or

1009
technical expertise. In effect, such an order would provide for a modified form of the CCT regime under the 1988 Act to apply to individual new services. The clause lays down clearly what those modifications will he concerned with; provision for the separate evaluation of cost and quality.
Not to include in this Bill the power to make incidental changes to the CCT regime under the 1988 Act would mean that the Government brought forward secondary legislation to bring CCT to new professional activity. They might need to introduce separate primary legislation to make any necessary minor change in tender evaluation. That is the point at issue. It does not appear to me to be a sensible use of the time of this House and of another place. I hope that your Lordships, and in particular the noble and learned Lord, will accept the minor use of this Henry VIII clause. I also hope that that the House will feel able to agree that the requirement of affirmative resolution provides adequate safeguards given the technical and incidental nature of any changes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 8, page 8, line 15, after 'evaluation', insert 'for the purposes of Part I of the 1988 Act'.
Page 8, line 18, after 'evaluation', insert 'for those purposes'.
Page 8, line 19, at end insert:
'(1A) This section applies to any work which—

(a) by virtue of an order under section 2(3) of the 1988 Act, falls within a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act; and

(b) consists in, or involves, the provision of professional advice or of other professional services or the application of any financial or technical expertise.'.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the house do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 en bloc.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 8, Page 8, line 34, at end insert—
'and the power conferred by virtue of paragraph (a) above shall include power for the purposes of, or in connection with, any separate procedures for which an order under this section provides, to modify any of the provisions of Part I of the 1988 Act.'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Baroness Blotch.)
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 6
6A Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
I am assured by the Minister that my office was consulted about the groupings of amendments. Of course, I accept that assurance and would not cast
1010
doubt on it. However, I am bound to say that had I been consulted we could have saved an enormous amount of time by dealing, in a crisp debate, with the quality issues first in Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 and then with the constitutional issue on Amendments Nos. 6 and 6A. Instead, we had a rambling debate which attempted to cover both subjects. However, we are stuck with it.
I shall concentrate only on the constitutional issue and I refer specifically to the claim of the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the amendment is only a narrow and technical extension use of the Henry VIII power. I remind noble Lords that Clause 8(4) already contains the power to make an order, including the power,
"to make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient".
I was not proposing—I have no way of doing so—that that provision should be taken out of the Bill. In moving that we disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6, we object to,
"the power conferred by virtue of paragraph (a) above shall include power for the purposes of, or in connection with, any separate procedures for which an order under this section provides, to modify any of the provisions of Part 1 of the 1988 Act".
It is common ground that the 1988 Act already conferred the power on the Secretary of State to extend the range of services subject to compulsory competitive tendering. That is water under the bridge. We are not raising that issue again. We are raising the issue concerning the power of the Secretary of State to alter by regulation the provisions on the face of Part I of the 1988 Act; that is, to change the conditions under which such compulsory competitive tendering shall apply.
It is as simple as that. It is still a Henry VIII provision. If it were simply technical or minor then the tidying-up provisions under subsection (4) (a) would be adequate. They are only required because of the Government's intention to go further.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I invite the House to disagree with the noble Lord's Motion.
5.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion (No. 6A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

David, B.

Annan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Diamond, L.

Bancroft, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ennals, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ezra, L.

Bottomley, L.

Falkland, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Fitt, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Galpern, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

1011

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

[Teller.]

Rea, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Richard, L.

Grey, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hacking, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Hanworth, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Serota, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Judd, L.

Underhill, L.

Kagan, L.

Varley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Listowel, E.

White, B.

Longford, E.

Wilberforce, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Acton, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Aldington, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Geddes, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gisborough, L.

Arran, E.

Goschen, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Grantchester, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Balfour, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Belstead, L.

L.

Bessborough, E.

Harrowby, E.

Birdwood, L.

Haslam, L.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L.

Blyth, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Hives, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hood, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe, E.

Butterworth, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnock, L.

Joseph, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Killearn, L.

Cockfield, L.

Knollys, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Long, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cross, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Mancroft, L.

Davidson, V.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.

Mersey, V.

Denman, L.

Mills, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Derwent, L.

Morris, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elibank, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Munster, E.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Nelson, E.

Faithfull, B.

Norfolk, D.

Ferrers, E.

Norrie, L.

Forbes, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

1012

Orkney, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stockton, E.

Palmer, L.

Strange, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Pender, L.

[Teller.]

Prior, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rennell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Romney, E.

Vivian, L.

St. Davids, V.

Waddington, L.

Sandford, L.

Westbury, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wharton, B.

Selborne, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Shannon, E.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
5.13 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move the original Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 30, page 26, line 4, leave out subsection (6).
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. This privilege amendment was moved at Third Reading in the House of Lords and inserted as Clause 30(6) of the Bill. It is a standard amendment which is always moved at that stage when Bills involving a charge on public funds begin in the House of Lords. The privilege amendment was removed at Commons Committee stage. As it is purely a procedural matter when the Minister has moved that the House do agree with the Commons amendment, there should be no discussion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill
5.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Standards of performance]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, at beginning insert ("Subject to, and only in accordance with the provisions of this Act referred to in, section 27BB below,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I intend also to address the Committee on Amendments Nos. 3, 15, 18 and 26. Amendment No. 16, which appears in the Marshalled List under my name, is not my amendment but that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Before I address the Committee on the content of these amendments I have a practical question which I wish to raise with the Minister. As the Committee knows, we have set aside today, Thursday 5th March, for the Committee stage of the Bill and Monday, 9th March, has also been set aside for the second day of Committee.
My practical question is this. Can the Government tell us that they will leave sufficient time in this Parliament for the Bill to reach the statute book? I ask this question as a simple Cross-Bencher. I am not privy to the political talk of the great parties. I have heard some mention of the proposed dissolution of Parliament and that rests at the behest of Government. Judging by the long list of amendments,I believe about 128, which we have to consider, will all our labours of Thursday come to naught? Before we go further I shall be very grateful if the Minister can give us some assurance.
Lord Reay: I can assure the noble Lord that we have every intention of seeing this Bill on to the statute book.
Lord Hacking: I shall leave the Minister's answer as he puts it. On the second day of Committee I may come back to this matter because it is of some concern. For example, I note that the Report stage has been laid down in the provisional timetable for Tuesday, 24th March. If we are to follow the normal period between each stage of the Bill, there is some worry whether it will reach the statute book or whether the House will have proper time to consider its complicated provisions.
My amendments are addressed to the standards of performance—very much part of the Citizen's Charter—which are proposed in this Bill and which are new to the telecommunications industry. I have no quarrel in the public interest that these standards of performance should be introduced, although their need should diminish as the industry becomes more truly competitive. The question is how the standards of performance—individual or overall—should be implemented.
In this Bill the Government have proposed a separate regulatory regime which could have an enormous impact on those providing, for example, telecommunication services. Thus far the telecommunications industry has been largely regulated under the Telecommunications Act 1984 by a system of granting licences by the Secretary of State or the Director General of Telecommunications. Thereafter, as contained in Sections 12 to 15 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, there is a carefully balanced regime for the modification of licences by the Director General of Telecommunications in which, first, the licence holder negotiates with the director general on any proposed changes to the licence and, secondly, in cases of dispute reference is to be made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
1014
While few references have been made to the MMC, it is a sensible system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, these new standards of performance are not being brought into the licensing regime which I have described to the Committee but under a separate regulatory scheme which is set out in the Bill. I urge on the Committee that that is a mistake for several reasons.
First, it places too much power in the hands of the regulator who is to be just about judge and jury in the proposed new Section 27A(6)—that is, unless the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, commend themselves to the Committee. Secondly, it deprives both industry and the public of the benefit of MMC references. Thirdly, it sets up a regime which does not have a system of checks and balances as does the regulation by the licensing scheme.
There are other ways of regulating the regulators —which is what these amendments are about. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who does not appear to be present at the moment, has tabled a rather novel amendment proposing parliamentary scrutiny by a joint committee of both Houses. There is also the instrument of the judicial review, which I anticipate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, will explain to the Committee. As drafted, that will place the court in a very difficult position.
In summary, these amendments—and the crucial one is Amendment No. 26—will bring the new standard of performance into the existing licensing regime so that there will be one regulatory scheme instead of two. For the reasons I have advanced, I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Perhaps I may say one word about the drafting of my amendments. I am sure that deficiencies will be shown in the drafting. However, it is the principle that I am seeking and not the exact wording of my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has quite rightly drawn the attention of the Committee to an important point in his series of amendments; that a different system of regulation is proposed in the Bill from the system which exists in the Telecommunications Act. He has made a valiant effort to try not only to point this out but to offer a possible course to rectify the problem. He also put his finger on what seems to us to be the really important considerations that we mentioned at Second Reading. First, the whole question of the regulator being regulated and of who is in charge of the regulator; and, secondly, the question of how does anyone know whether the judgments of the regulator are properly fair and properly balanced. Unless the regulator gives some sort of reason for what he is doing it is very difficult for anyone to make that judgment.
I shall be interested to hear the Government's response to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. It seems to me that in his first amendment he has struck something of a blow at the philosophy of the Bill.
Lord Reay: Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 15, 18 and 26, taken together, would have the effect of ensuring that the power we are giving the Director General of

1015
Telecommunications in this Bill to make regulations setting guaranteed standards of service for individuals and to determine overall standards of performance to be achieved by designated telecommunications operators, could only be exercised as if the making of such regulations and the determination of such standards were equivalent to the making of modifications to the conditions of the licence granted to the designated operator under Section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.
These amendments would therefore have the effect of making Sections 12 to 15 of the Telecommunications Act apply to the making of regulations prescribing guaranteed service standards and the determination of overall performance standards. These sections ensure that the director general may only make modifications to the conditions of the licence with the consent of the licence holder. If the licence holder does not consent to any modifications proposed by the director general, the director may make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If the MMC then concludes that there are factors operating against the public interest which could be remedied by modifications to the licence, the director general is required to make such modifications to the licence as appear to him to be requisite. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord would therefore ensure that the director general could only make regulations prescribing guaranteed standards or determine overall performance standards with the consent of the designated operator or, in the absence of such consent, following a reference to the MMC and an adverse MMC finding.
I do not believe that the setting of guaranteed or overall standards should be dependent upon the agreement of the designated operator. This is effectively the position under existing legislation, where standards for designated telecommunications operators may be set voluntarily or as a condition of the licence.
The purpose of giving the director general statutory powers to set guaranteed and overall standards, as we are doing in this Bill, is to ensure that the consumer receives a better quality of service. The director general has a general duty to promote the interests of consumers. He should therefore be able to set whatever standards he believes, following his consultations, are necessary and appropriate in the light of this and his other general duties. These should, of course, be realistic and take into account the views of the designated operator. For this reason the Bill requires the director general to consult the designated operator on standards.
Designated operators may, however, only be prepared to consent to guaranteed and overall standards which could easily be achieved. It is likely therefore that standards which required the operator's agreement would often be lower than those which the director general may set under Clause 1 of this Bill. Moreover, under the amendments proposed, if the designated operator refused to agree to some or any of the regulations or overall standards proposed by the director general the only course of action open to the
1016
director would be a reference to the MMC. This would, I believe, be a highly unwieldy and bureaucratic approach to the setting of standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked about the accountability of regulators. It is our view that the regulators are already accountable. They operate within a statutory framework and they are required to make an annual report to the Secretary of State. That report must be presented to Parliament. They are also subject to the scrutiny of the appropriate Select Committee and their decisions can be subject to judicial review. The National Audit Office, which reports to the Public Accounts Committee, has oversight of financial and value for money aspects of the regulators and the decisions of the regulators are frequently the subject of press and public debate, which helps keep them on their toes.
For the reasons I have given I ask the noble Lord, not to press his amendment.
Lord Hacking: I am a little puzzled by the Minister's reply. We find common ground in that he agrees—though he did not expressly say so in his speech to the Committee—that a new regulatory scheme is being set up in the Bill which runs alongside the existing regulatory scheme under the licensing procedure set out in Sections 12 to 15.
I thought I heard the Minister state—but I did not have my pencil ready when he mentioned this—that the procedure through the MMC was an unwieldy and undemocratic process. If I did hear correctly I am further puzzled. The matter can be tested quite simply. The licensing regulatory scheme has been in existence for some six years now. Can the Minister point to any occasion when the system has not worked; when the Director General of Telecommunications has been unnecessarily restrained? At the end of the day the granting of a licence is in his power and the power of the Secretary of State.
If the Minister could identify instances where the regulatory scheme under the 1984 Act has not worked and has presented significant difficulties to the director general, I should find it much easier to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Reay: I did not say that the 1984 Act had not worked. I said that in cases where it is a question of setting standards, if the designated operator refuses to agree to some or any of the regulations which the director general proposes and the only course of action open to the director is a reference to the MMC, then we consider that to be an unwieldy method of setting standards.
Lord Hacking: I am in a further difficulty in deciding whether or not to withdraw my amendment because I do not know whether the House is to have an opportunity to consider the matter at Report stage and at Third Reading when I can have another attempt to table an amendment to deal with the problem. If the Minister could help me on that, I would feel more comfortable about withdrawing the amendment. If I am faced, as all noble Lords may be

1017
faced, with no opportunity to discuss these matters at the next appropriate stages of the Bill—Report and Third Reading—I am in some difficulty.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Reay: As in the case of the passage of any other Bill, if the noble Lord wishes to put down an amendment on Report he will have the opportunity to do so.
Lord Hacking: The question is whether there will be a Report stage. I have pressed the Minister as far as I can at this stage. I withdraw the amendment very much on the basis that there will be another opportunity at Report stage to consider the matter. On that basis, and on that basis alone, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Desai. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9, 17 and 39. All these amendments are designed to give more strength to the Bill. I said at Second Reading that it would be our purpose in Committee to try to make the Bill rather tougher than it is at the moment. As I go through the amendments, noble Lords will recognise many similarities between them. In fact in certain cases the words are exactly the same.
Amendment No. 2 relates to the director making regulations prescribing standards of performance in individual cases. As presently drafted there is in the Bill an enabling power for the director to make regulations. We would like to see the director being required to make regulations. We are often faced with what is essentially enabling legislation. I do not think it will be enough for the Minister to say, as I am sure he will, that the director will use this power. It is up to Parliament to instruct the director to use the power that Parliament is giving. That is the thrust of Amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 6 is designed to make sure that the director does what Parliament wishes him to do. Amendment No. 8 deals with the director's ability to prescribe circumstances on exemptions. We are unhappy about the whole process of the director being allowed to give exemptions without any apparent reference back to the Secretary of State or indeed to Parliament.
Amendment No. 9 varies that slightly in the sense that he can prescribe circumstances,
"which may vary from time to time".
I recognise that Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 lack a certain consistency one between another, but I wanted to treat them together for the purpose of grouping. We do not want to take too long over the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope that the Committee will bear with me on that.
I shall not go through the remaining amendments because they all have the same purpose. They seek to replace "may" with "shall". The amendments seek to ensure that the Director General of
1018
Telecommunications does do what Parliament wants him to do and that he does it in a way that cannot grant exemptions without referring to higher authority. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The effect of Amendments Nos. 2, 6 and 17 would be to place the following duties on the Director General of Telecommunications instead of giving him enabling powers as the Bill currently proposes: first, a requirement to make regulations prescribing guaranteed service standards to be achieved in individual cases; secondly, a requirement to prescribe certain matters in those regulations including the circumstances in which the designated operator is to inform persons of their rights, the standards of performance to be achieved in all cases and the circumstances in which the designated operator is to be exempted from requirements under the regulations; and, thirdly, a requirement to set overall performance standards and to arrange for publication of those standards.
There are two important reasons why we believe it would not be appropriate to place such requirements on the Director General of Telecommunications or the other regulators. The first is that it may not he necessary in all cases to make regulations prescribing guaranteed standards of service or to determine overall standards of performance. For example, a designated operator may agree to voluntary individual standards or may agree guaranteed service standards as a condition of the licence. Alternatively, the director could decide, in the light of his consultation with designated operators and representative bodies, that existing standards of performance were adequate. The Bill should not prejudge the outcome of the director's consultations by placing an absolute requirement on him to set standards.
The evidence to date suggests that a failure on the part of the Director General of Telecommunications or the other regulators to set guaranteed or overall standards is unlikely to be a problem. The regulators clearly attach importance to individual standards. Offer and Ofwat, which already have statutory powers, have set individual standards. Under pressure from Oftel, BT has voluntarily agreed to individual standards and Ofgas has agreed individual standards with British Gas as a condition of the licence. The regulators also attach importance to good overall performance and will set standards if these are required. Offer has already set overall performance standards.
Secondly, we believe it is important to protect the regulators' independence. The Government should not tell them how to do their job. The regulators all have a general duty to promote the interests of consumers and it should be for them to decide what regulations are required to satisfy this and their other general duties. This is why Clause 1 of the Bill gives them enabling powers to make regulations setting guaranteed standards and to determine overall standards instead of setting out detailed requirements.
Perhaps I may turn now to Amendment No. 8. Clause 1 allows the director to exempt a designated operator from provisions relating to guaranteed standards and compensation. The amendment would

1019
remove that power. We must leave the director flexibility to tailor the regulations appropriately to the circumstances and the particular standards that he may set and to amend the details where it proves necessary. The Director General of Electricity Supply, for example, has included in the exceptions which he has made to the circumstances in which standards must be met, such things as extreme weather and action by third parties which might make meeting the standards impracticable.
This amendment would unduly restrict the director's freedom of action. If he was required, as could be the consequence of this amendment, to impose stricter liability for failure to meet a standard than he thought appropriate for a particular case, he could be inhibited from setting that standard, to the detriment of customers.
Amendment No. 9 would have no practical effect. It reiterates that which is inherent within this clause; that the director general, having made these regulations, will review them, and the service standards arising from them, as appropriate. Given his general statutory duty to promote consumer interests, he is unlikely to leave the regulations untouched when it becomes clear to him that they no longer meet current needs.
Because it is superfluous in effect, the amendment would cast doubt on other areas of the Bill which had the same effect but did not include the relevant phrase. Therefore it would produce a worse drafted Bill.
I turn now to Amendment No. 39. It seeks to compel the Secretary of State to make regulations making provision for billing disputes to be referred to the director general, instead of enabling him to do so as the Bill currently proposes. The Bill will give the Secretary of State powers, for all the utility services, to make regulations allowing billing disputes to be referred to the director general for determination.
Disputes over bills are a particular cause of concern in telecommunications, where customers do not have meters in their homes and may have difficulty knowing how much they have spent using the telephone. Where there is a dispute, past consumption is a less reliable guide to the likely accuracy of a bill than in the case of, for example, gas and electricity. Because of the particular difficulties which exist for telecommunications, we intend to make regulations allowing Oftel to determine billing disputes after the Bill is enacted. There is no need, therefore, to compel the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing billing disputes to be referred to the Director General of Telecommunications because we intend in any case to make such regulations.
However, we have no plans at present to trigger those powers for gas, electricity or water, where disputes over bills do not raise the same problems, although I should add that we will keep the situation under review. For that reason, we believe that it would be wrong to include in the Bill a requirement on, rather than an enabling power for, the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of billing disputes for telecommunications. We have chosen instead to adopt a consistent approach throughout the Bill
1020
across all four utilities in respect of billing disputes. That will ensure that the flexibility exists for the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing the director general to resolve billing disputes where there is a clear need for such powers for that utility, but will not compel him to do so where these powers are not necessary. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment.
Lord Airedale: I think that I can see a difference between the first of these linked amendments and the subsequent amendments. At the beginning, there seems to be a choice between the director making regulations and achieving his purpose in some other way. But, then, we reach a point where it has been decided to proceed by making regulations. Parliament does not have to leave it to the Minister to make regulations; indeed, Parliament may have decided to deal with the matter by primary legislation. If Parliament leaves it to the Minister to make regulations, it is perfectly entitled to direct by the word "shall" what the regulations are to contain, just as if Parliament itself had legislated without leaving it to the Minister to make regulations.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My noble friend the Minister has made some extremely interesting statements about proposed future regulations with regard to billing disputes. There are further amendments to deal with the matter. It is an area of great anxiety because consumers do not have meters. However, I am not quite sure as to how such regulations could work or how such disputes could he resolved, unless consumers are to be given access to metering information. I wonder whether my noble friend can make it clear whether that is likely to happen. His response might alter one's view on later amendments.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Reay: Perhaps I may reiterate what I said with regard to the amendment on billing disputes. We do not wish in the case of telecommunications to compel the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing billing disputes to be referred to the director general because we intend to make such regulations. Therefore, we believe that it would be wrong to include in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of billing disputes. On the contrary, we believe that there should be an enabling power such as we now have in the Bill. That is why we have chosen to adopt throughout the Bill a consistent approach which will apply to all four utilities. With regard to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, I can tell her that the director general can demand information from the operator in order to satisfy himself that the meter has accurately recorded the usage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for a number of interesting remarks—that is, not just about billing disputes but also about the nature of agreements that might be made. It was my understanding that the point about the legislation was that the director, especially in the case of

1021
telecommunications, would make regulations. Where there are agreed voluntary standards, can the Minister explain the status of such standards? After all, we know the status of a regulation. If someone offends against a regulation, that is a clear offence. But, if someone offends against a voluntary standard, I do not see how that standard can be enforceable in any respect. I am open to persuasion from the Minister. Perhaps when further information is available to him he can let me know the position as regards the status.
In the meantime, I should like to emphasise the fact that we do not wish to tell the director how to do his job. That is not the point of the amendments. However, I should like to take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that once Parliament has said that the director "may" do something, it is perfectly entitled to say that, if he does do so, then he "shall" do it in a certain form. That is the point of the exemption amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to help me as regards the status of voluntary standards which he described in his reply.
Lord Reay: My understanding is that there is a great usefulness in being able to reach voluntary agreements but that, in fact, they do not have any legal status.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I thought that the whole point of the legislation was to ensure that standards of performance did have legal status. If they do not have legal status, what is the point? In other words, if there is a voluntary agreement, what is the point of legislation?
Lord Reay: The point is that the director can take the power.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Therefore, what we are saying is that there will be a voluntary standard until it is broken, but that when it is broken the director will make regulations. Is that what the Minister is saying?
Lord Reay: There is no reason to assume that it will ever be broken.
Lord Williams of Elvel: But it is not enforceable. We have now discovered that a voluntary standard is not enforceable. Therefore, if it is broken there is no remedy; in other words, there is no remedy under the legislation which we hope will be enacted. It is only after the director has made regulations to seal off that particular loophole, so that the standard becomes statutory rather than voluntary, that there is a remedy.
Lord Reay: If the operator does not comply with standards voluntarily agreed, then it will be open to the director to set standards in regulations with which the operator will have to comply.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister and I understand each other perfectly well. In my view, there is clearly a problem about a voluntary standard. Of course, I agree that it may never be broken; but, if it is broken only once, then clearly the director has the right to make his own regulations. However, at the point at which it is broken—that is, at that one time
1022
—there is no redress. That is the point that I am making. That is why I should prefer to see all standards being enforced by law.
Nevertheless, we have had an interesting exchange. The Minister has been kind enough to give the Committee a certain amount of information which think will prove to be quite useful as we progress through the Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): I should remind the Committee that, if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out lines 7 to 14.
The noble Lord said: I have already addressed Members of the Committee on the amendment. However, I still have an anxiety and it is one that I have expressed to the Minister. On the provisional list for the future Business of the House —or, perhaps, it may be described euphemistically as a "very provisional list"—is a date for the Report stage of the Bill of Tuesday 24th March. Can the Minister say whether the Bill will be considered on Report in this place on that date? If that is not the position, can he tell us what is?
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. He will always have an opportunity to table amendments for Report stage.
Lord Hacking: That does not answer the question. Will the House be able to consider the Bill on Report on Tuesday 24th March, as is set out in the provisional business of the House?
Viscount Astor: That is a matter for the usual channels. At the moment Report stage has a day.
Lord Hacking: But I am not part of the usual channels. At this stage I shall not press my amendment, but I shall certainly press my concern.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("appearing to the Director to be").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, which has been tabled also by my noble friend Lord Desai, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 19, 31, 42, 43, 82, 105 and 110.
All those amendments have the same purpose. It is to ensure that the bodies or persons who are consulted are consulted in their own right, not simply because someone such as a director or a Secretary of State deems them to be people who should be consulted. To be able to decide who will be consulted on any particular regulations that one is going to make oneself seems not dissimilar to choosing one's own umpire.
There are perfectly good, satisfactory, objective means for deciding who are persons or bodies

1023
representative of persons likely to be affected by the regulations and I see no reason why the director should not have a role in deciding who those persons or bodies should be. But the expression,
"appearing to the director to be",
specifically gives a director the right to reject bodies or persons that he considers on his own authority—on his own say-so, without reference to anybody—are not representative. I find that a somewhat difficult concept because, as I have said, those bodies are generally well established and well recognised.
I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the Government's thinking behind that expression. All of the other amendments in this series to which I am speaking have, I think, the same point that either the director or the Secretary of State seems to be the person who decides whom he shall consult. I shall be grateful if the Minister can explain the Government's thinking on this. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Perhaps I may speak first to Amendments Nos. 4, 19 and 82. These amendments would prevent the director general from judging whom he considers to be representative of customers likely to be affected by the standards of performance he sets.
The clauses as they stand place a duty on the director general to consult with the utility and those persons or bodies whom he feels are likely to be representative of those affected by the regulations he will set. If the director general is left without any discretion in this matter, he would be required to consult every single body or organisation which might conceivably be representative of those likely to be affected. In practice, the director general could never be certain of achieving such comprehensive consultation—not least because such bodies and organisations do not remain constant. The director general would therefore be at risk of judicial review.
Amendment No. 7 would prevent the director general from coming to his own view as to the manner and frequency with which customers should be informed of the standards of service they can expect to receive. The expression "in the Director's opinion" merely reflects the expression "in his opinion" earlier in the clause; that is in line 5 on page 2. Both expressions are merely intended to ensure that the director has a discretion when making any regulations under new Section 27A to set what standards he considers appropriate. We believe that the director should be free to come to his own judgement as to the level of service standards which is suitable.
Amendment No. 31 would take away from the director general the choice of how he publishes the information he has collected. Instead, that choice would be dictated to him by the Secretary of State. It is not clear what benefit there would be from involving the Secretary of State in decisions about the form and manner of publication of the information. These are relatively minor matters which the director general is fully competent to decide. If the Secretary of State expressed views on the form of publication, no doubt the director general would have regard to them. The amendment therefore would reduce the independence
1024
of the director general. Given their general support for the concept of an independent telecommunications regulator, I hope that the noble Lord and his noble friends will not press the amendment.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 105 and 110 would be greatly to increase the scale of consultation which the Secretary of State would be obliged to undertake before making regulations about billing disputes. Instead of being obliged to consult representatives of those likely to be affected by the regulations, the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult all those likely to be affected. In practice, for telecommunications that would probably mean all of BT's customers; that is to say, 26 million people. Although Amendment No. 42 allows the Secretary of State to consult,
"in a manner that appears … to be reasonable and appropriate",
this would not significantly alleviate the burden of the statutory obligation as he would still be under a duty to consult the same number of people. This consultation requirement, enshrined in statute, would be extremely onerous to comply with. Compared with consulting representatives, the quality of the resulting regulations would not justify the vast extra cost and effort required in consulting 26 million people.
If a representative body when consulted under these requirements felt that further research was desirable, then the Secretary of State would consider its recommendation and doubtless act upon it if it was in the interests of consumers to do so. In any case, the Bill as drafted does not prevent the Secretary of State from consulting individual customers directly. For the reasons that I have described, it would be unnecessarily burdensome to oblige him to do so.
I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but perhaps he can give me guidance on two matters. First, will the director in each case across the utilities be publishing from time to time a list of persons or bodies that appear to him to be representative of persons likely to be affected by the regulations so that we all know who is on his list and who is not on his list? Secondly, on the form of the report, if the report is to be submitted to Parliament, would it not be sensible for the Secretary of State to be able to say in what form he would like that report? After all, it would be the Secretary of State who would be responding to parliamentary questions on the matter, as I understand it. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
Lord Reay: The question of whether a list of the representative bodies would be published would be for the director to decide. I believe that I have deployed my arguments already on the issue of the involvement of the Secretary of State in the publication of information.
Lord Airedale: At least the merit in leaving in the words,
"appearing to the Director to be",
is that there may be a case where an organisation that should have been consulted might, by mere

1025
inadvertence, not apply to be consulted yet it still will be consulted because it is the duty of the director to consult that body because it appears to him to be a worthy body to consult.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I think that we have gone far enough on this group. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 14, after ("regulations") insert:
("; and
(c) after undertaking such empirical research into the views of customers likely to be affected by the regulations as the Director-General thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, which is tabled also by my noble friend Lord Desai, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 83, 89 and 108.
In general, as I think the Committee knows, we welcome the Bill's provision for consultation with interested parties when setting performance standards. We join forces with the Government on that.
However, as I said on Second Reading, we seek some reassurance that that consultation will be interpreted by the regulators as consultation with individual consumers—perhaps through survey work —in addition to consultation with the various representative bodies. In our view such research is crucial if performance standards are to suit the service users rather than the service providers.
I happen to believe that Amendment No. 5, and other amendments with similar wording which go right through the Bill, are in line with the principle underlying the Citizen's Charter, and so the Government should find it acceptable. So far as I remember, the White Paper said that people affected by services should be consulted. The amendment would achieve that aim. How that is done is up to the individual regulators in the individual utility. There are different methods. For instance, I understand that Ofwat already does some survey work on various aspects of the service provided by water and sewerage operators. We believe that that is a good example that should be followed by other operators.
This series of amendments was foreshadowed by me on Second Reading. I hope that the Government will feel that they are in the spirit not just of the Bill but of their own Citizen's Charter and will feel able at least to look at them sympathetically. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Reay: The amendments would require the directors general to conduct research into the views of individual customers when setting standards of performance in addition to the requirement that customer representative bodies be consulted. The new provisions of Clauses 1 and 11 bring the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Gas Act 1986 into line with the Electricity Act 1989 by placing a requirement on the directors general to consult widely before setting performance standards. They clearly state that consultation should be undertaken with persons or bodies of persons likely to be affected by
1026
the performance standards to be set for each utility. That must presumably include taking account of customer concerns.
If a customer representative body when consulted under those requirements felt that wider research was desirable, that recommendation would be considered by the directors general and I am sure be acted upon if it was in the interests of customers as a whole to do so. The directors general can also consult directly with individual customers as well as representative bodies if they see the need to do so but it would be burdensome to require them to do so in all cases. On the face of it, if such a requirement was in statute, the directors general would need to discharge it fully to ensure that the standards set would not be ultra Tires.
It is important that the views of customers are fully known. We have tried to ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance by requiring a certain level of consultation while leaving the directors general with the discretion to decide what is appropriate in particular circumstances. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has made some good points. I accept the principle of what he said about the need for research into customers' views to be conducted. If he will withdraw the amendment, I shall take it back and consider it with a view to coming up with some proposals of our own at the next stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the Minister. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5, and I shall not be moving the other amendments in the group.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert:
("(d) prescribe standards having particular relevance to customers who are elderly or disabled or have low incomes.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 84, 114 and 116. The purpose of this group of amendments is to enable each of the regulators to require that standards of performance to be met by the suppliers in individual cases are relevant to the needs of the most vulnerable consumers and particularly those who may experience difficulty in paying for supplies. Such standards could include, for example, procedures to be followed prior to disconnection, information to be supplied to customers in debt offering a choice of payment methods to low income consumers and access to token supply points for coinless prepayment meters.
The nature of the performance standards currently envisaged under the Bill largely concern matters such as the keeping of appointments and the restoration of supply after the reporting of a fault. Important as those are to customers who might otherwise suffer the costs and inconvenience of broken appointments and unreasonable delays, those standards do nothing to address the problems which are repeatedly raised by clients of the CAB. Overwhelmingly, those problems are associated with low income and relate to difficulty in paying for the utilities or dealing with the threat or actuality of disconnection.
The aim of this group of amendments is to enable and encourage regulators to ensure that performance standards which they set for the utility companies address the needs of all consumers, including in particular those who are vulnerable to debt and disconnection because of their difficulties in paying for supply and those who are disabled or elderly. Without the protection of performance standards which are specifically targeted at their needs, that group of consumers is at risk of being treated by the utility companies as an expensive nuisance rather than as valued customers who deserve the better standards of service envisaged by the Citizen's Charter.
There is, in theory, a range of payment methods available to customers who have difficulty in coping with quarterly credit or get into debt through paying for fuel. They include, for example, arrangements to pay off arrears in cash instalments, fuel-direct arrangements with the DSS, involving weekly reductions from income support, coin-operated prepayment meters, and, increasingly nowadays, coinless prepayment meters operated by tokens, cards or keys which can be calibrated to collect arrears as well as paying for current consumption. Different methods will suit different customers. Some, for example, find coinless prepayment meters to be of considerable assistance with budgeting, while others, especially those with restricted mobility or living some distance from token supply points, will find them extremely inconvenient, if not impossible, to operate.
There is, however, evidence that customers at risk of debt and disconnection are under pressure from some fuel companies to adopt a particular method of payment preferred by the supplier rather than being given a choice of all available methods. Sometimes it is only after intervention by someone in support of the consumer that the customer's choice is taken into account. A CAB in Cumbria has advised that Norweb has stopped accepting direct payments from the DSS for customers who are in receipt of income support. It will now install only card meters and expects the arrears to be cleared within 12 months. I understand that a similar policy is operated by Seeboard in the South-East of England.
Another aspect of the lack of choice for low income consumers arises where customers who do not have bank accounts have no means of making payments in cash without incurring an extra charge. According to research done by the Policy Studies Institute in 1990 one person in five in Britain and 25 per cent. of pensioners do not have bank or building society accounts. The problem arises especially with water companies. While some make suitable provision for customers who wish to pay in cash, others are failing to do so.
I learned from a citizens advice bureau in Wiltshire of the case of a pensioner who used to pay her water bills in monthly cash instalments at a local bank. She was able to do this free of charge because her water company banked there. When the bank closed, the client had nowhere to pay her water bill without incurring an extra charge. Paying the bill at the local
1028
post office would cost 70p for each instalment and travelling to the appropriate bank in the nearest town would cost her £2.75 in bus fares.
A further major problem with payment methods for some consumers, especially elderly and disabled people, concerns the availability of tokens, cards and keys for coinless pre-payment meters. These serve as a payment method for a growing number of consumers. Currently, over 1.25 million households use them for their electricity supplies, while approximately 200,000 gas customers pay by this method. That is expected within the next five years to rise to over 1 million, with the development of new metering technology. These meters are popular with the fuel companies because they ensure that the supply is paid for in advance, while any arrears are collected at the same time through calibration of the meter.
While those methods are also popular with many consumers, others will have been under pressure to accept them as the only alternative to disconnection. They will then be faced with the inconvenience, and possibly additional costs, of having to travel to obtain keys or tokens in order to ensure a continuing fuel supply. I could continue for some time with such examples but do not wish to weary your Lordships. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I was glad to put my name to this amendment and I should like to say a few words in its support. I can be brief as the case has been well made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. As he explained, it is the first of a series of amendments covering the various utilities and aimed at protecting some of the more vulnerable members of society. It seems to me that the amendments are entirely consistent with the Government's community care policy which aims at ensuring that these people lead as normal lives as possible. In particular, wherever it can be managed, the policy is that they should continue to live in the community rather than go into institutions. It is also to be remembered that many of the disabled are not only poor but incur extra expense with which the rest of us are not involved.
Amendment No. 10 is concerned with telephones, possession of which gives access to friends and support services and can make all the difference to an individual's life. I realise that there are specific problems, in particular over deposits, which are dealt with in later amendments. I am also conscious of the powers of local authorities to help under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, although these powers are being increasingly narrowly interpreted.
It seems to me that there ought to be a general requirement on the lines of the amendment, and in a sense it is an entirely logical development of the provision which already exists in Section 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 which puts a duty on the Secretary of State and the director to exercise their functions so as:
"to promote the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users … (including, in particular, those who are disabled or of pensionable age)".
Without the protection of performance standards specifically directed at their needs, as the noble Lord

1029
said, covering such matters as the availability of payment options, I fear that these people are likely to look on the brave new world of the Citizen's Charter as something beyond their reach.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I too am pleased to support the amendment. Since I put my name to it together with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the other two noble Lords who have spoken, it is clear that it has cross-party support.
The position of the elderly, the disabled and those on low incomes is difficult. Indebtedness is unfortunately widespread. I have had personal experience of how difficult it is because some months ago I chaired a working party concerned with debt advisory services. Many people in debt unfortunately owe not just to one quarter but have multiple debts. If they are pressed by utility companies supplying them with essential services to settle their debts, they could well be placed in a prejudicial position in the settlement of their other debts.
It is therefore important that the position of these people should be safeguarded by standards laid down by the regulator in each of these cases. I very much hope, therefore, that the amendments, or something similar, will be accepted by the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, in the case of the Telecommunications Act, this provision runs parallel to and develops what is already in the legislation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I too wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. There are multiple examples from citizens advice bureaux of people getting into difficulties through debt, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, or simply because they are disconnected without understanding what is going on, or because they are disadvantaged in some way. They may be old, disabled or simply poor.
I believe that the standards which are set should take account of the disadvantaged in our society. As the noble Lord said, this is a cross-party amendment and I hope very much that the Government will feel able to support and accept it.
Lord Reay: The effect of these amendments would be to make the guaranteed service standards legislation for all four utilities specify that standards may be set which have particular relevance to the elderly, disabled and those on low incomes.
Under the privatisation Acts, all four directors general and the relevant Secretaries of State are already under a general duty to consider the needs of the disabled and those of pensionable age. These general duties apply when particular statutory functions are being exercised. In exercising their statutory functions the Secretary of State and the director general must therefore take into account, in particular, the interests of those who are disabled or of pensionable age.
In compliance with those general duties, the electricity supply licence, the gas authorisation and BT's licence have all been drawn up to include specific provisions which take account of the needs of the
1030
disabled and those of pensionable age. So, for example, under the electricity supply licence, the supplier is required to provide special modifications for appliances and meters for the disabled, to give advice to the elderly and disabled on the use of electricity and to draw up and publish a code of practice on special services which will be made available. The Director General is able to order a review of the code of practice if he thinks fit. Given that these general duties exist and have been complied with in the licences I mentioned, there is nothing in this amendment which would add to the position of the elderly and the disabled.
The amendment also seeks to include those on low incomes. Depending on how this group is defined, it could be large. The amendment does not indicate how those people should be defined. This could involve means testing or applying some criterion relating to the national average wage, or perhaps inviting people to register in some way. However, I do not really think that it is a practicable proposal.
In any case, as I said at the beginning, the amendments would not require the directors general to set standards for the elderly, the disabled and those on low incomes. Their effect is simply that the directors general may do so. But under this Bill the directors general can already set standards for any groups they choose, so that in effect the amendments would give the directors general no greater powers than they will already receive under the Bill. I sympathise with my noble friend's desire to draw attention to the needs of special interest groups but I do not think these amendments are the right way to go about it.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord has implied that existing legislation already satisfies a large part of the requirements implied in this amendment. However, a large number of cases can be cited—information received by the citizens advice bureaux shows that this is the case—which show that there is a great deal of hardship among customers in the category we are discussing. That applies to the four utilities that are involved in this matter.
There is another matter that puzzles me. There is little in this Bill which is not already implied in the basic legislation. I understood that the purpose of the Bill was to extend the basic legislation and to spell out more clearly and more effectively the rights of the various categories of customer. If that were not the purpose of the Bill, why are we spending our time on it? If that is the purpose of the Bill, surely one category we should be concerned with is disadvantaged people.
Lord Reay: What I was trying to make clear was that under existing legislation the directors general are already under a duty to consider the needs of the disabled and the elderly. That was stated when the licences were drawn up. At the same time in this Bill there is a general requirement which enables the directors general to set standards for any groups which they choose. This group of amendments would not add to any of the powers of the directors general which they may require to provide for the groups which the noble Lord has in mind.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Is it not a problem that British Telecom does not have a code of practice whereas all the other utilities do? I understand that the regulator already has a power in this respect that he does not choose to use. At a later stage we shall move an amendment to regulate the regulators. Surely this matter could be tackled in that way. My noble friend the Minister was quite right to say the amendment could not cover low income groups. I have served on an electricity board and I realise that we are not dealing with a social service. A code of practice should not determine whether people can or cannot pay their bills. However, the unreasonable disconnection of any service is a different matter entirely. It is terribly important for an elderly or disabled person to have a telephone. Gas and electricity are of course important to everyone. But as regards a telephone, a low income person at least has the option of using a public telephone. That may not be possible for an elderly or disabled person and for the latter two categories the telephone may be a lifeline. However, I believe a better way to tackle this matter is by means of regulating the regulators.
Lord Reay: My noble friend raises some questions which go wider than this amendment. However, I agree with her comments about the difficulties of including low income groups within these amendments. As I have said, British Telecom's licence has been drawn up to include specific provisions to take account of the needs of the disabled and those of pensionable age. British Telecom has a code of practice and there is a whole list of services and special provisions which it makes available for the elderly and the disabled. There is, for example, a support line scheme which offers half price rental and a certain number of free calls. There is a talking braille service, large print bills for the visually handicapped and other measures. A considerable amount is done by British Telecom to help certain categories of people.
Lord Swinfen: I start by thanking all Members of the Committee from all around the Chamber who have supported me on this amendment. The Minister said that the directors general had a general duty already in this regard, as did the Secretary of State. That may be so but at the present time that duty is not satisfactorily exercised, particularly with regard to people who have difficulty in paying their bills. That is an extremely important matter for both elderly and disabled people. Members of both those groups often have considerable difficulty in earning an income. They may be on fixed incomes. Sometimes they are on reducing incomes as a result of inflation.
I agree with some of the comments made about the difficulties of making provision for people on low incomes. However, we might be able to refine this amendment at a later stage to make it apply to people who are on income support and limit the number of people to whom it applies in that way. I wish to read what my noble friend has said. I may well return at a later stage of the Bill with similar amendments. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) The Director or other person making an order under subsection (6) above shall state the reasons for his determination.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 12 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 35, 44 and 56. The purpose of these amendments is to require arbitrators—I shall call them that—to give reasons for their decisions when they determine a dispute. There are four areas of dispute which may be referred to arbitrators under the terms of Part I of the Bill. These are disputes with regard to standards of performance, disputes with regard to alleged discrimination, disputes with regard to telephone bills and disputes with regard to pre-telephone connection deposits.
In the case of performance standards, disputes may be referred to and determined by the director general, or what the Bill refers to as a prescribed person. I believe that that means in effect a nominee of the director. In the other three cases of discrimination, bills and deposits, the dispute may be referred to the director or an arbitrator appointed by him. That seems to me to be very much the same thing. But in none of those cases does the Bill place on the director, nominee or arbitrator any express duty to give reasons for his decision.
It must be absolutely infuriating to a person lodging a complaint to have his complaint rejected without any reasons being given. That point was raised on Second Reading. The Government said in response that regulators:
"must give reasons for their decisions, otherwise they run the risk of being judicially reviewed".—[Official Report 14/2/92; col. 959.]
With great respect, I do not think that that is an adequate response. Judicial review is an expensive process in the High Court, the cost of which will run well into five figures according to information that I have been given. What customer who is involved, for example, in a billing dispute that involves an amount of £ 1,000 will be mad enough to bring proceedings for judicial review at a possible cost of £5,000? Surely the right answer is to spell out in the Bill, in two lines, an obligation to give reasons. It is not satisfactory merely to surmise that the arbitrator is likely to give reasons.
I now turn briefly to the amendments themselves. The first amendment relates to performance standards. If noble Lords glance at line 35 of page 2 of the Bill they will see that it reads:
"Any dispute arising under this section or regulations made under this section … may be referred to the Director … and on such a reference, shall be determined by order made … by the Director; or … by such other person as may be prescribed".
Amendment No. 12 proposes that that wording should be followed by a subsection reading:
"The Director or other person making an order under subsection (6) above shall state the reasons for his determination".
I can deal with the other amendments very briefly. Discrimination disputes are dealt with on page 6 of the Bill in very much the same way. Amendment No. 35 adds the words:

1033
"The Director, arbitrator or arbiter making an order under subsection (3) above shall state the reasons for his determination".
In the case of billing disputes Amendment No. 44 adds to page 7 of the Bill the words:
"The Director, arbitrator or arbiter making a determination under subsection (4) shall state the reasons for his determination".
Lastly, in the case of deposit disputes, the same scenario applies. Amendment No. 56 adds the words:
"The Director, arbitrator or arbiter giving a direction under subsection (3) above shall state the reasons for his determination".
Amendment No. 47 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and others seeks to introduce the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. I support that amendment. If it were accepted by the Government it would render the amendments which I have suggested to your Lordships unnecessary.
According to the groupings list I ought to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, 36 and 37, 45 and 46 and 57 and 58. All of those pairs of amendments are the same. They raise the question of whether there should be a right of appeal against the decision of the director or arbitrator on a question of law. The amendments propose a right of appeal only on a question of law and not on a question of fact. If the director or arbitrator gets the law wrong, there is a strong case for saying that the complainant should have some opportunity to correct the error. I have not sought to specify the court or tribunal to which the appeal might be made. I suggest that that might be left to regulations to be made by the Secretary of State.
I can deal with the terms of the amendments briefly. Amendment No. 13 reads:
"The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for an appeal on a question of law against an order under subsection (6) above".
The change proposed is exactly the same in the case of discrimination disputes (Amendment No. 36), billing disputes (Amendment No. 46) and deposit disputes (Amendment No. 57). A consequential amendment in each case deletes the word "final" from the relevant clause of the Bill. I shall give one example in relation to performance standards. Subsection (8) on page 3 reads:
"An order under subsection (6) above shall be final and shall be enforcible".
If your Lordships accepted that there should be an appeal on a question of law then it would be inappropriate to leave the word "final" in the Bill. Therefore, with Amendments Nos. 37, 45 and 58 I seek to delete the word "final".
Again, if your Lordships accept Amendment No. 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, introducing in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971, that will also take on board the question of appeal. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to support the noble and learned Lord in his amendments and thank him for his comments about Amendment No. 47. I shall of course speak to the same grouping as the noble and learned Lord.
The problems which the noble and learned Lord addressed—whether reasons should be given and whether appeals should be allowed—are fundamental
1034
to the Bill. We agree with the noble and learned Lord that to have a regulator or director making a final decision and giving no reason for his final decision is not an acceptable procedure.
The noble and learned Lord seeks to remedy that problem with Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14, which are reflected in other parts of the Bill dealing with other utilities. As he quite rightly pointed out, we have put forward Amendment No. 47 which would introduce the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, under which a tribunal listed as a statutory tribunal is required to give reasons unless it comes within one of the exceptions in the Act. We propose that the Director General of Telecommunications should be incorporated under that procedure. I should add that there is an appeal mechanism for tribunals under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act to the High Court on a point of law, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out.
I understand that the DTI has been approached by the Council on Tribunals and discussions may be in course. At least that was the case when the Bill was in another place. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to tell us where those discussions have reached and, if they have come to a dead end, whether the Government will in turn accept the amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord because, as I said, the position as set out in the Bill is hardly tolerable.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should like to add just one or two points to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, about giving reasons for a decision. If the complaint is against British Telecom and the director does not give reasons for the decision, it is very difficult for British Telecom to do anything about putting right the complaint in other cases. The right of appeal cuts both ways. It may be to the advantage of British Telecom to be able to appeal against a decision in favour of a very unsatisfactory customer just as much as it is in the interests of an aggrieved customer to be able to appeal against a decision in favour of arrogant and intolerable behaviour by British Telecom.
Lord Hacking: These are very important amendments. I had hoped that, having heard the speeches in Committee, the Minister would at least have been willing to give this matter fresh consideration. The truth is that so far the Government's response has been very disappointing. At Second Reading I and other noble Lords raised the issue of giving reasons. The crucial matter is that the Bill moves the directors general of the utility companies from the role of regulators into the role of acting as adjudicators, to decide on the basis of evidence presented by the parties before them whether compensation should be paid and if so how much—that is apropos the point to which the noble and learned Lord's first amendment is directed—or to decide whether bills are proper to be paid, whether individual service standards have been met, and so on.

1035
Following my intervention at Second Reading the Minister was kind enough to write to me. Perhaps I may read an extract from his letter which deals with the matter of reasons. He writes:
"We would expect the regulators to give reasons and there are no indications that they do not intend to do so".
Certainly the Minister goes in the right direction in expecting the regulators to give reasons. With regard to provisions which so far have not been tested at all—for the simple reason that they have not been enacted—I am a little puzzled as to how the Minister or anybody else has any indication of how the adjudicators will respond to the question of giving reasons. The Minister's letter goes on:
"The decisions of the regulators are of course also subject to judicial review. A failure to give reasons is likely therefore to be grounds for judicial review".
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said, the failure to give reasons, particularly in the frame of the role of the adjudicator, gives an uncertain basis for judicial review.
The other point to which the noble and learned Lord directed our attention was judicial review, which is a review that can take place only in the High Court. During the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill, we invited the Government to consider judicial review taken, for example, in the county courts. That suggestion was rejected. If judicial review takes place in the High Court, there will be all the costs of proceedings there and, as the noble and learned Lord said, it is hardly the appropriate tribunal for disputes over fairly small matters. That is why we should be grateful to him for introducing in his other amendments an appeal procedure under which disputes—the matter is left entirely open to the regulations—could be adjudicated and reviewed in circumstances in which there would be much less cost and delay than under the process of judicial review.
The position of the Government is also puzzling when one reflects on other Bills that have passed through this Chamber when this issue has arisen. I remember the passage of the Arbitration Bill in 1979. I cannot resist commenting that that was the last Bill in which I was involved which took a rather accelerated journey through this Chamber close upon the dissolution of Parliament. In that Bill a requirement was laid down for reasons to be given for arbitrators' decisions. An appeal process also was structured in the Bill to replace judicial review. One can think of many other Bills—for example, the Financial Services Bill and the Courts and Legal Services Bill—in which is put in statute a clear obligation to state reasons. If the Minister says:
"We would expect the regulators to give reasons",
why do we not put that quite plainly on the face of the statute?
For the reasons advanced by the noble and learned Lord, other noble Lords and myself, I hope that at least in the circumstances in which this Bill goes through this Chamber the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box now and say, "Yes, I shall give consideration to these amendments".
Lord Swinfen: I should like briefly to support this group of amendments. In coming to this decision the
1036
director must have gone through the stage of having reasons. I can see absolutely no reason why those reasons should not be made public and given to the complainant. Decisions that are made in secret lead people to think that they are totally arbitrary. The whole process eventually gets out of hand, with a number of people feeling extremely aggrieved.
I feel that if my noble friend cannot accept the amendments this evening, at any rate he should say that he will bring forward his own amendments at a later stage of the Bill to achieve the same end.
Lord Ezra: As one who referred to this matter at Second Reading, I fully support the amendments. Everything is to be gained and nothing lost by increased transparency in this matter. As many noble Lords said, it is important that the reasons for decisions reached in these disputes should be made very clear so that the parties concerned can take them into account and adjust their views accordingly.
It is also necessary to have the possibility of appeal. That is all in line with what underlies the concept of the Citizen's Charter; namely, that such matters should be transparent and there should be the opportunity of an appeal when one or other party feels that the decisions reached are unfair. In the light of all that has been said and what I believe are the principles underlying the Citizen's Charter, I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendments.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Reay: Amendments Nos. 12, 35, 44 and 56 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, would require the Director General of Telecommunications to state the reasons for his determinations on the following matters: a dispute arising under regulations setting guaranteed service standards and compensations; a dispute about undue discrimination in respect of charges; a dispute arising under regulations making provision for billing disputes to be referred to the director; and a dispute about the decision of a designated operator to require a customer to pay a deposit or about the amount the customer is required to pay.
My understanding is that current legal practice varies in respect of requiring bodies exercising a quasi-judicial role to state reasons for their determinations. I agree, however, that it is generally desirable that they should do so. I certainly believe that it is important that the Director General of Telecommunications and the other regulators should give reasons for determinations of this character, even though there is no existing statutory obligation on them to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was good enough to remind me of what I wrote to him on the subject when I stated that we should expect the regulators to give reasons. For example, Offer usually sets out its reasons and Oftel has said that it would normally expect to give reasons in resolving disputes under this Bill.
I have heard noble Lords from all round the Committee express the view that an amendment to this effect should be adopted. I should like to give

1037
further consideration to the matter without any kind of guarantee that I shall be able to do anything about it. However I should like to take the matter away and have another look at it.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendments Nos. 13, 36, 46 and 57. They compel the Secretary of State to make regulations to include provision for one of the parties to the dispute to appeal against the decision. The director general's decisions will in any case be subject to challenge by judicial review. The noble and learned Lord said that it would be an expensive procedure. Indeed, going to law, alas, is expensive, as many people have discovered and lamented—although usually they have not been lawyers. The noble and learned Lord is right that it would cost in the order of £5,000 to bring to judicial review. All I can say is that if the case were successful costs would be awarded against the director.
Judicial review has now developed to a point where its coverage of possible grievances is at least as wide as grounds for appeal on a question of law. I am advised that the established grounds for judicial review are illegality, which means failing to apply the law correctly; irrationality, which means coming to an unreasonable decision; and impropriety, which can include a breach of natural justice such as a failure to give reasons for the decision. The noble and learned Lord's amendments would not add to the scope of the available remedies if one of the parties objected to the director general's determination of the dispute.
Perhaps I may turn to the noble and learned Lord's third set of amendments. They remove the words "final and" where those apply to a determination by the Director General of Telecommunications. They also seek to extend the right of parties to a dispute to appeal against that determination.
We are not sure what practical effect the amendments would have. If it is the intention of the amendments to allow parties to a dispute the right to appeal to the county court against a determination made by the director general, or indeed back to the director general himself, they would not work. The removal of the stipulation that the judgement of the director general shall be final would not alter the route of appeal for either British Gas or its customers. The only appeal process available would still be judicial review in the High Court. Again, therefore, the amendments would not give customers any more right of appeal than they have under the current wording of the Bill.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 47, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel and to which he spoke. The effect of the amendment would be to require the directors general to consult the Council on Tribunals when setting up dispute settlement procedures which might involve oral hearings of a tribunal-like nature.
The noble Lord referred to discussions that he hoped were continuing. I can assure him that my department is currently discussing the question of council supervision over certain adjudicative functions of the Director General of Telecommunications with Oftel and the Lord Chancellor's Department. Other departments are also considering that in respect
1038
of regulators for which they have policy responsibility. I can assure the House that the matter is being actively pursued.
There is clearly a need for the parties using a dispute settlement procedure to have confidence in it. I certainly agree with that. However, the views of the regulators and experience to date of regulatory regimes need to be carefully considered. While the Bill may seem a convenient vehicle for bringing the regulators under council supervision, I point out that the same goal can be achieved by an order made under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 by the Lord Chancellor's Department. I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.
Lord Brightman: I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke in favour of the amendments. Perhaps I may add one comment about the reason for the deletion of the word "final". If there is a right of appeal on a question of law, then the determination appealed against cannot be final. Therefore, in order to give sense to the provision that the Secretary of State shall make regulations allowing an appeal to some court or tribunal it is necessary to take out the word "final." That does not leave it open to a party to a dispute to apply to the county court, as was suggested by the noble Lord. The jurisdiction of the county court is purely statutory. Unless the statute states that you can appeal to a county court, you cannot. My amendment does not provide for appeal to the county court.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will consider introducing into the Bill a provision that an arbitrator shall give reasons for his decision. I hope that he will also look at the provision which I included in my amendment for appeals to the tribunal or court considered appropriate by the Government on a question of law. I believe that both branches of the amendments deserve consideration.
In the circumstances the right course for me to adopt is to ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 12.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 22 not moved.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 17, after ("operator") insert ("including the requirement that all telephones are capable of being coupled to hearing aids by internal means").
The noble Lord said: For millions of hearing aid wearers, the problems of access to the telephone system can be solved by the inclusion of a small device built into the telephone called an inductive coupler. In the United States now all telephones manufactured in, or imported into, the country must be fitted with such an inductive coupler. In this country we have not gone that far. The present position, as I understand it, is that all public pay phones in the UK have to have inductive couplers. They are also featured in emergency motorway telephones and telephones in lifts. However, other telephones—in hotels, restaurants, railway stations and offices—are not required to have such couplers. They are not available to the hard of hearing customer. It is the case that telephones are frequently not so equipped.
I referred to the matter briefly on Second Reading. In reply, the Minister stated that the provision about telephones in lifts and public pay phones followed a condition in BT's licence requiring it to meet reasonable requests for such telephones. That depends on what one means by "reasonable." The Minister did not state the position with regard to Mercury.
What has been done so far gives the hard of hearing only limited access, and the problems met are still widespread. The extra cost is not very great. I am told that it amounts to rather less than 50p a telephone. That is not very significant when one considers the cost nowadays of having a new telephone installed. It seems a small price to pay to give millions of hearing aid wearers equal access to the telephone system.
It must be borne in mind that if we in this country now manufacture equipment for export to the USA it will have to include an inductive coupler. Factories in Korea, Taiwan and the other far distant places from which our equipment comes—the last two telephones that I bought came from China and Hong Kong—are now having to include an inductive coupler in the products that they supply to the large American market.
As long ago as 1982 the then Minister responsible for telecommunications expressed the necessity for urgently examining the need for a mandatory requirement. Now, 10 years later, perhaps the time has come. It would be of great benefit to a large number of the hard of hearing at what I believe would be a trivial expense. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment. However, I must first declare an interest. I am a hearing aid user and therefore not only would telephones fitted with an inductive coupler be of personal benefit to me but to many other Members of the Committee who also make use of a similar system in this Chamber. It is the induction loop system which can be picked up by our hearing aids. Good National Health Service hearing aids have a proper switch which turns on the system.
As regards telephones, an inductive coupler is not an expensive piece of equipment. Indeed, if all public telephones had them fitted the cost would probably be reduced because of the benefits of mass production. When considering the amendment we must bear in mind the demographic changes which are occurring in this country. During the next 20 years a large proportion of people will be over the age of retirement and therefore more likely to need hearing aids and telephones of this kind. Therefore, there is a growing market. If my noble friend the Minister is inclined to turn down the amendment he may find that in the years to come he has done himself a disservice, in addition to many thousands of other people. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Ezra: I too support the amendment. The case put by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, in introducing it and the support given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, are unanswerable. Undoubtedly there is now a case for taking this relatively small step. We know
1040
what has happened in the American market. We know that unfortunately most of the telephones that are available to be bought in this country originate from the Far East. The manufacturers have to include the couplers otherwise they cannot be sold on the American market. Therefore, why do we not make it an obligation that henceforth all telephones should be fitted with such couplers? That would provide a great deal of benefit to a large number of people whose numbers we ourselves may be joining sooner or later.
Lord Reay: The effect of the amendment would be that all telephones either sold or rented (whether from BT or not) would have to incorporate inductive couplers and would place the responsibility for doing so upon the designated operators. Thus, the designated operators would have to ensure that telephones sold in shops contained inductive couplers.
There are a number of conditions in BT's licence which relate to equipment for the hearing impaired. BT is required to meet all reasonable demands to make available telephones which are capable of being inductively coupled to suitable hearing aids, and telephones which incorporate sound amplification facilities. BT also has to take all reasonable steps to ensure that telephones in its call boxes have inductive couplers, and they are now all equipped in this way. I understand from British Telecom that 100 per cent. are so fitted. Similar conditions are included in Mercury's licence.
The conditions in BT's licence mean that hearing-impaired customers are guaranteed that suitable telephones are on the market and that they can make a call from any BT call box. I also understand that portable couplers are available for use with telephones that do not have integral couplers.
Plainly it is the noble Lord's intention that all telephones should be fitted with integral inductive couplers. Apart from any additional costs to the manufacturers, as there would be, this is not the right Bill to introduce such a requirement. It would not be appropriate to a Bill which deals with the setting of specific standards relating to designated operators only; that is to say, BT and Kingston upon Hull. I do not believe that it would be right to make designated operators responsible for ensuring that thousands of pieces of equipment which are on the market and which come from many sources should be equipped with inductive couplers. Indeed, I do not believe that the designated operators have any powers to do so.
Although the objective of Members of the Committee may be thoroughly worthy—and the more I listened the more I tended to agree with them—I must insist that this is not the right Bill in which to pursue it.
Lord Ezra: Is the Minister aware that if one went into a shop to buy a telephone one really would be out of one's mind if one did not buy a telephone which was authorised and approved by British Telecom? Indeed, I went into my local store and saw that virtually all the telephones on sale were authorised by British Telecom. It follows, therefore, that the operators can have an enormous influence on the kind of telephones that are put up for sale.
Lord Swinfen: Can my noble friend tell me the cost and size of a portable coupler?
Lord Reay: No, I cannot.
Lord Swinfen: I believe that my noble friend will find that they are considerably more than the cost of putting them into the telephones. The last one I heard of cost some £70 and was, in fact, much larger than the telephone.
Lord Airedale: I too have a hearing aid but I do not have to use it when using the telephone. Therefore, I do not believe that I need to declare an interest. I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Allen, say that railway stations are among the places where the special telephones do not have to be provided. In my experience railway stations are places where one most frequently needs to use the telephone. I am sorry to hear that special telephones do not have to be available there for the benefit of the deaf.
Lord Swinfen: Railway stations are most important. With all the background noise, including the almost unintelligible announcements over the loud-speaker system, anyone with a hearing aid would not be able to listen on the telephone without an induction coupler.
Lord Reay: The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that the approval of BT is a common feature of telephone equipment available for sale in the shops. I understand that its approval applies only for connection to the BT network. It is not the case that British Telecom would have the responsibility for ensuring that all equipment on the market is fitted with induction couplers, as would be the case if the amendment were passed. That would be restoring a situation in which British Telecom would effectively have a monopoly over the supply of equipment. There is a mass of equipment on the market that comes from many different sources. It is neither necessary nor desirable for that equipment to have British Telecom approval.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I am a little puzzled by the Government's reply. I should have thought that it was perfectly possible to introduce a requirement that equipment should be approved by the various operators. In my innocence I believed that the telephones that I used were approved by BT. The Government appear to be saying that the provision is a good idea and that they are well aware that legislation exists in America making the requirement mandatory. They must be well aware that if there was mass production in this country—if anything is still made in this country—the cost, which is small anyway, would come down.
Therefore the Government are saying that it is a good idea but for some reason, which at the moment I cannot follow, this is not the Bill by which to introduce it. Whether that means that one ought to introduce a separate Bill I do not know. I should like to think about the matter before the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage on this Bill be resumed at 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill
7.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Payment out of benefit of sums in respect of mortgage interest etc.]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Baroness said: Approximately 310,000 families—these are 1990 statistics and we believe that the figures are now probably higher—receive income support assistance for their mortgage. Of that number 40,000 receive only half for the first 16 weeks and around 270,000 the full amount. As we understand it, around 12,000 families are on direct payment as a result of negotiation.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders alleges that up to half those families receiving income support for mortgages are not passing the money over. We do not know whether that is true. We have no information to support it. Can the Minister say how many of the 310,000 families are in arrears and what percentage of the total arrears experienced by the Council of Mortgage Lenders is represented by families on income support?
If the amendment is not accepted, the Bill will mean that everyone, whether or not in arrears, whether or not they have always paid on time, and despite their best wishes, will have their income support top sliced to be paid directly to mortgage lenders. We believe that that has some undesirable consequences. First, not all borrowers from building societies or banks wish the lenders to know that they are in receipt of income support. Unfortunately, occasionally, income support carries a certain stigma and often leads to a hardening of attitudes on the part of the lenders and building societies. There is also evidence to suggest that it produces a speedier path to repossession.
Secondly, if there is to be direct deduction, it depends on the competence and speed of the benefits agency as to whether it pays income support on time. That is a point to which I shall return. It gives us little cause for confidence in the benefit agency's behaviour. Further, it cannot be reasonable directly to deduct the

1043
income support element for mortgage payments when there is no history of arrears. After all, it was the Prime Minister in a previous incarnation who said that he believed that it was important to retain the skills of money management within families on income support and that they should be determining the spending patterns of their budgets.
In other words, we are seeing a Bill introduced not so much to help borrowers but to help the Council of Mortgage Lenders. It is not a Bill to help those who are in debt on income support, but to help the cash flow of the building societies which would otherwise amalgamate rather more speedily than they would wish. The amendment would remove the mandatory element and provide for top slicing by negotiation. That is a much more healthy and satisfactory way to proceed. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I support the amendment in somewhat of an exploratory spirit until I hear the reply of my noble kinsman. I should like to hear the Government's justification for the use of compulsion. It may be that it is part of an agreement reached with the lenders, which may be regarded as binding. If so, the Committee is entitled to ask exactly what agreement and for what specific reason it is thought essential that compulsion should be used. We will need an answer to be able to weigh up the matter.
The two key points upon which the amendment is based were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The point about a person not wishing the lender to know of his financial position may be of considerable importance. At Second Reading I drew to the attention of my noble kinsman a case reported by a citizens advice bureau in Wales where the lender discovered that the borrower was on income support and immediately began proceedings for repossession. That is not precisely the effect at which we are aiming.
When considering social security, one often tends to think of the point of view as seen from London or indeed from any other big town. But a fair amount of England and an even greater amount of Scotland and Wales is still made up of small towns. In a small town it may be undesirable to have one's neighbours and the people with whom one does business knowing the precise details of one's financial support. It may give rise to conversation which can cause embarrassment. Therefore, if possible, it is worth taking this matter seriously.
As regards late payment by the Department of Social Security, we will be able to pursue that point more fully in the debate on Amendment No. 3. I shall therefore merely note that it is there and not pursue it.
The problem is that some people do not want the lenders to know that they are in receipt of income support. I admit that there is a difficulty about how we can invoke the Department of Social Security into making direct payment when the lenders do not know that such payments are needed. I would like to think that it is possible to reach a resolution of the problem. I must admit that I have not immediately come up with one. I understand however that a verification survey conducted by the Department of Social Security is investigating the extent of the problem of
1044
non-payment of income support to the lender. I should like to know whether it is possible to defer the final decision on compulsion until more of the evidence is to hand.
Lord Henley: I understand the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I understand what she meant in repeating the point made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister; that it is important for people to retain their money skills. However, I hope to demonstrate that it is a question of balance and that it is necessary for that reason to go down the path of compulsion.
It is important to see the new scheme in context. As my noble kinsman said, it is part of a package of measures which have been agreed with the lenders with the object of preventing people losing their homes. That is what the Bill is all about; it is part of a package. For its part the Council of Mortgage Lenders has given an assurance that the lenders will not seek repossession when interest payments are covered by direct payments of income support. As part of that, they will certainly not repossess if they discover that the borrower is on income support. That would negate the whole point of the exercise. Further measures have been agreed, including various rescue schemes which have been announced, which will help those not on income support. The amendment could put that entire package of measures at risk.
I understand the point, made by the noble Baroness and repeated by my noble kinsman, that there are many people on income support receiving help for their mortgage payments who keep up with those payments to the lender. I understand the fears they have about not wishing that fact to be known. My noble kinsman specifically gave the example of people in small towns who prefer that those matters do not become the subject of gossip, and I understand that they feel that they should not be covered by the new direct payment arrangements.
However, as my noble kinsman accepted, there is no guarantee that any other arrangements could satisfactorily identify those at risk of repossession and for whom direct payment would be the only way of helping them to keep their homes. By definition, a voluntary scheme cannot ensure that all those for whom the arrangements are made will benefit from the payment scheme. The mere making of the scheme voluntary would allow anyone, by definition, to exclude themselves from the scheme. As regards the particular case mentioned by my noble kinsman as having occurred in Cardiff, I shall, if he will give me details of it, look into it.
I return to some of the other points made by the noble Baroness. She asked whether the Government knew how many people were not handing over the money. We do not have figures here. Obviously, there is a major problem and that is why the Council of Mortgage Lenders has agreed the package with us. I hope that, because of the fact that we have reached an agreement with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and because making the scheme voluntary will put the package at risk, the noble Baroness will be persuaded that her amendment would not be a wise course to pursue. To some extent it would drive a coach and

1045
horses through the whole Bill. The noble Baroness appears to nod at that. I believe that she said at Second Reading that her party did support the general principles of the Bill.
I hope that my explanation of this being part of the package and a necessary balance, and accepting that some claimants might prefer not to have the details revealed, and it not being possible to manage the matter in any other way, will mean that the noble Baroness will be sufficiently satisfied to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps I may make a correction. It was not that I supported the Bill at Second Reading, but that I supported the principle that people who received an allocation in their income support for mortgage payments should pay it towards their mortgages. I do not believe that there was any dispute between us, but I do not think that this is the right way to go. I was somewhat worried by the Minister's reply. It seems to be the price which the Government are willing to pay to the Council of Mortgage Lenders in order to get its support for other parts of the rescue package—for example, buying up repossessed properties and leasing them to housing associations and the like.
So far as I can see, the Minister has not a single piece of information to justify the provision. That suggests that he is fingering the income support recipients in order to improve the cash flow of the building societies so as to help other families which are not necessarily on income support perhaps to enjoy the advantage of leasehold. I am not challenging other parts of the package. I have never before come across a government measure in local government or anywhere else in which we are going to change the rules for social security and go for direct deduction. There may be a problem. We do not know the size, the number, how long, how much or how many people the problem will affect. I have to say that in 25 years of public life I have never seen social policy being made in such total ignorance of whether there is a problem or not. The fact that the Council of Mortgage Lenders believes that there is leads to the comment: it would say that, wouldn't it?
Lord Henley: If the noble Baroness cares to check her facts, although I am open to be corrected on the matter, the noble Baroness' own party has always supported direct payments in the past and opposed this Government in making voluntary payments by individuals to the lenders.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I confess that I do not know whether that is the case or not, but I shall certainly check it. Nonetheless, I take the point which the Prime Minister made earlier that one wants to give as much flexibility as possible to families to manage and juggle their finances. Nonetheless, I would have thought that the Minister would have wanted more information on which to base this measure. As far as we can tell we are talking about 310,000 families. It may be that 5,000, 7,000 or 8,000 out of 310,000 or 340.000 people are failing to pay over the money. Can
1046
the Minister give us any indication of the number? Is he talking about 5 per cent., 50 per cent. or 85 per cent? Are we really putting such a law through Parliament, with all the administrative problems and workload for the benefit agencies that will be incurred? Possibly there will be a loss of privacy for the borrowers —namely, the people on mortgage support. Are we really undertaking this measure without knowing whether we are talking about 5,000 or 150,000 people? I invite the noble Lord to give us some indication of the kind of numbers we are talking about.
Lord Henley: Various figures have been bandied about by others. All I can say is that from the department's own point of view we cannot give any figures. It is clear that certain sums are not getting through. That is why we have brought in this measure and why we have reached a deal with the Council of Mortgage Lenders. I can go no further than that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Clearly, we can go no further. In that case, perhaps the noble Lord will accept the logic of the second amendment, which I shall move in a moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 6, after ("shall") insert ("where arrears of a home loan exceed two months").
The noble Baroness said: Given everything that the Minister has said, and with the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I hope that the Minister can now support the second amendment, which is not so strong in its implications. This amendment says that, where there is a clear problem of financial competence or the money has not been paid over, then there should be a direct deduction from benefit and direct payment to the Council of Mortgage Lenders.
That would be triggered where, for example, a family was two months or more in arrears with its payments. It is two months because I understand that benefit is normally paid a month in arrears and that there is supposed to be up to 14 days' grace for handling it through the benefit agency thereafter. The payment may run a few days later than that. In other words, a family which has not paid for two months might be regarded as presenting a financial risk to the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Two months is the kind of figure which, as regards a family which has failed to pay its rent, local government would take as a warning sign and start investigations to try to ensure that the family did not lock itself into irrecoverable debt.
Even here perhaps I may add that, if the Government really wanted to help families who were beginning to fall into arrears, probably the most useful way of doing so would be to pay the full entitlement of mortgage interest; namely, 100 per cent. from the beginning, and not merely after 16 weeks. It is clear that debt starts fairly early on in a period of income support. However, given everything that the Minister has said and that, out of 320,000, we may very well be talking about only 2,000, 5,000 or 8,000 families who are failing to pay, then I should have thought that this

1047
amendment would have met and bridged the concern of the Minister about where the money goes and our concern that families who have always paid on time should not, so to speak, forcibly have their income top-sliced against their own judgment and wishes. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I appreciate why the Government have brought in this Bill in a hurry. The mortgage repossession situation, as some of us have said, was becoming rather urgent. Also the parliamentary timetable does not allow time for lengthy consideration. When this Bill is put into effect, we hope —not necessarily with great confidence—that the depth of the present emergency about mortgages and repossessions may not last all that long. It is possible that difficulties will emerge in the administration of this Bill which are not foreseen at present. Will my noble kinsman keep the use of compulsion under review, monitor it and undertake to report back to this House to see whether it is really necessary?
We have also had mention of the payment of income support in arrears. My noble kinsman and I have debated this matter before. With the introduction of this Bill we have another reason against the payment of income support in arrears. It keeps the mortgage lender, as well as the person on income support, waiting for money and therefore can have the effect, through the building-up of interest, of exacerbating mortgage arrears and possibly making repossession more likely. I should also like to ask my noble kinsman whether, in monitoring this Bill, he will think again about whether it has created a further argument against the payment of income support in arrears.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I can give a partial undertaking to my noble kinsman. Of course we shall keep the operation of this scheme under review and we shall keep the operation of all other matters in the department under review, as we always do. I cannot necessarily give an undertaking to come before the Committee at regular intervals to report on the operation of the Bill, but I am sure that my noble kinsman will find ways and means through the usual parliamentary processes to question me on these matters.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness is trying, as she put it, to bridge the gap between us. I understand that a selective approach, as suggested by the proposed amendment, seems to have some attraction. I must resist it on two grounds. First—a point I argued on the earlier amendment —is its effect on the package of measures that we have agreed with the lenders. Secondly, and more important, is the question of the practicality of the amendment.
The identification of all suitable arrears cases could present the benefits agency and lenders with intractable problems. Checking all cases every eight weeks to establish whether they had crossed that arrears threshold would be a very time-consuming and bureaucratic task. It would simply not be possible to rely on lenders being able to identify all suitable cases
1048
as some people do not respond to letters from lenders. That could certainly affect some very vulnerable groups of people, including families where the borrower might not always act in the best interests of dependants. It is important to remember that the new arrangements will ensure that the amount of money provided in income support for mortgage interest, which was always intended to be paid to the lender, does in fact reach them. We are convinced that the comprehensive direct payment scheme is the appropriate part of the package of measures aimed at reducing repossessions. I hope, therefore, that in that light the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I must say that I found that response conciliatory but singularly unpersuasive. I am not sure that the Minister was himself persuaded by his own brief. I could see the logic of his reply on the first amendment, but on the second the argument seems to be, first, that the Council of Mortgage Lenders would not like it—well, of course, it wouldn't, would it?—and, secondly, the question of practicability.
With regard to the effect of the package on the Council of Mortgage Lenders I have to say that I am very uneasy. What seems to be happening is this. In order to help families who are not on income support, who may be receiving family credit or who may be above that level, to have a more supportive relationship with their lenders—that is, their banks or building societies—families on income support who may have no financial management problems whatever, are going to find, whether they wish it or not, their income support top-sliced to improve the cash flow of the building societies and banks. Many of the problems experienced by the banks and building societies have not been the fault of families on income support but caused by the financial mismanagement of the banks and building societies themselves and their misjudgment in making mortgage loans of 100 per cent. too easily available to people on incomes that are too slender or with repayments that form too high a ratio of the total household income. We know that to be the case, even before property prices began to fall. The building societies and the banks were lending at too high a price and they are now paying the bill for that. To bail them out the Government intend to penalise people who have a perfectly good, honourable and decent track record of managing their money. The Government are going to withdraw from those people the right to manage their money as they see fit in order to bail out those banks and building societies from the mistakes that they have made in the past towards families who are not themselves on income support.
I have to say that that is an unfortunate piece of cynicism. That families on income support, who have regularly paid—and there is no dispute between us about families who get into arrears—should have their income support top-sliced in order to help those banks and building societies who have made lending misjudgments in the past is simply unfair. I expect the Minister to recognise it as unfair.

1049
The second point that the Minister made concerns the practicability of the amendment. We all sat through long sittings on the Local Government Finance Bill in which we were told by the Minister, when it suited, that onto a property tax it was possible to graft a discount scheme, a rebate scheme, and to do that on a daily liability basis with people moving in and out virtually on a daily basis. We were told that it could be done with ease, style and elegance by virtue of the computer wizardry that existed in town halls. If that computer wizardry which exists can manage the extraordinarily complex daily liability accounting of the council tax, then I can assure the Minister that it can certainly deal with the infinitely simple operation of ascertaining when people who owe money to building societies and banks are two months in arrears. That can then be cross-checked with benefits agencies to see whether that is indeed the case. I have to say that I cannot imagine a simpler arrangement.
Lord Henley: Will the noble Baroness give way? She is turning her previous arguments on their heads. She and my noble kinsman were arguing for the confidentiality of those who are paying either their income support payments on time or, for that matter, anyone else. She is now asking for the building societies to notify us about everyone who is in arrears, whether or not they are on income support. It is not possible to have it both ways. The banks and building societies do not know who is on income support so they could only notify us about everyone who is in arrears. The noble Baroness cannot have it both ways.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If a building society found that someone was two months in arrears it can seek to find out from the person concerned, through letters and so on whether he or she is on income support and what arrangements that person intends to make. If there is no response I find it not unreasonable to check with benefit agencies as to the situation because at that stage a person is in arrears and owes money to the lender. That seems to me that one is targeting the problem of invading privacy at those who, to a degree, have forfeited it by reason of being in arrears. The Minister is saying that whether or not there is a problem everyone on income support will have their privacy invaded in case there may be a problem of a small percentage.
I should have thought that the Minister could accept that the route proposed—and there may be other and better routes; we are perfectly willing to discuss that with him or take the advice of his officials on the matter—at least ensures that only those who are already in arrears will to some extent sacrifice the right to full privacy. They have to be pursued and they have to pay. That seems to me a much less injurious piece of public policy than pursuing everybody whether or not they are paying and putting them on to what is effectively a direct debit system, which certainly exposes their affairs.
Why is it that someone on income support, whether or not he pays, is not entitled to privacy, but for someone not on income support, but who is two months in arrears, the Minister claims the right to privacy? I find that very odd and a species of
1050
stigmatising of those on income support which they are not entitled to have, from the Minister's point of view.
However, as I said, I am surprised that the Minister is unable to accept this amendment. It seems to me to be entirely reasonable and would have met the difference between us. However, given the Minister's response I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert:
("(h) for payment of the sum to the lender within a prescribed period, which shall not be more than 14 days;").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment picks up the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. One of the problems is that by handing the question of direct payment of mortgage interest to the benefits agency—given that it normally runs four weeks in arrears—we fear that there will be a very real risk that people may find themselves in arrears when they were not when paying the money themselves.
All the experience is that the benefits agency, despite its best intention, does not have an entirely satisfactory record in delivering benefit payments on time any more than, I have to say, the local authorities. To some extent we are touching on some of the arguments we had during our debates on the Local Government Finance Bill.
In some of its research on the council tax Bill the CAB found, for example, that of the 180,000 or so inquiries in the area of community charge with which it was dealing between February and May 1990, 109,000 were associated with delay in payment of benefit. About two-thirds of all inquiries and problems brought before the CAB when handling questions about benefits and the community charge were about the delays by the benefits agency in paying benefit. Therefore, what the Minister is doing is moving away from a system where people themselves pay—as many as 80 per cent. may pay on time—to having a top slicing and payment by the benefits agency which has notoriously failed to perform on time. There may well be a risk not only of the privacy of the person on income support being invaded but of the Council of Mortgage Lenders not getting its money on time.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, in theory payment should be made four weeks in arrears. But in some areas it is known that payments are made 13 weeks in arrears, which itself causes the very arrears that the Bill seeks to avoid. It would be helpful to have an undertaking that direct payment should be made no later than four weeks in arrears. The CAB quotes numerous cases. There have been delays of six weeks, delays of five months, problems in calculation of mortgage interest, problems of calculation of 16 weeks on half pay, and so on.
I hope that the Minister can tell us whether he will give strong guidance to the benefits agency so that the Bill actually works. It depends and hinges crucially on whether the benefits agency is competent and efficient

1051
enough to make those payments in kind. Otherwise we shall move away from a small problem to a very much larger problem and worsen the situation for all concerned. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: If the Committee will forgive me for saying a brief word about a previous matter, I listened fascinated to the exchanges between the noble Baroness and my noble kinsman about notification of the department when people are in arrears. It made me think that the system which we are setting up in the Bill is not necessarily a final system. I could not help wondering whether a good many of the difficulties being discussed would vanish if instead what we were looking at was not something tied to income support but a specific mortgage benefit. We have exchanged ideas about that before but I wonder whether that exchange illustrated precisely why that might be a helpful suggestion.
In the matter of this amendment I have no criticism to make of the benefits office but it is a very sound rule that one cannot make everything top priority. The benefits office has targets which it is required to meet. Those targets include in particular a target for payment of income support. While the targets are as they are at present it is obvious that the benefits office must meet that target. If, under pressure, offices are struggling to meet the target, inevitably something must fall behind in the process. I think there is scope here, among other things, for looking at the way the targets are drafted and making sure that we are not putting incompatible obligations on people.
There is also scope for amending form MI12 which actually has a space in it where the claimant is asked to tick the form to say yes or no to the question "Do you wish the lender to be notified?" Since now there is to be no choice about it, that is of course out of date. I should have thought that an obvious amendment is in prospect there. We have a considerable increase in the flow of the MI12 forms with the worsening situation and now, I should have thought also, an increase as a result of the Bill. A citizens advice bureau has been told by a lender in one case:
"We have a thousand of these and we don't know when we will be able to complete them". Meanwhile, of course, the forms do not even reach the benefits agency so it cannot process what has not yet reached it. So a situation arises where a part of the income support which is designed for the mortgage repayment may be withdrawn or withheld, and then arrears get worse.
Cases of this kind have been notified to us. A citizens advice bureau in London found a case of nine months' delay because the benefit office was awaiting details from the lender. At the end of that only three months' arrears were paid. There are a good many of these cases. In one the payment after six months covered only the sum eligible for M IRAS and not the whole sum.
The pressure of work on the benefits agency will necessarily go up as we have more claimants. We have had a period of rapidly rising unemployment. That means more people claiming benefit, longer queues and more work. That inevitably creates a pressure for
1052
more time and more staff. Perhaps one of the constructive ways forward is to think about the Bill in that context. In the Independent on 26th June last the chief executive of the benefits agency was quoted as saying that performance levels of social security benefit offices are being affected by rising levels of unemployment. That is a very reasonable thing to say. It is in the nature of the case that it would be likely to be so. It occurred to me whether it was worth asking whether we could move things on a little better and get better service by raising staffing levels and, to an extent, raising funding.
My noble kinsman may recall that I put down a Question for Written Answer on this subject. My noble kinsman replied that chief executives are principally responsible for managing their agencies by deploying available resources to ensure that they achieve their targets. I would not disagree with that, but it does not advance us very far. I wonder whether my noble kinsman can give tonight a rather more helpful answer to that Question for Written Answer and whether that might do something to ease some of the arrears to which the amendment is directed.
Lord Henley: Delays in making direct payments have been mentioned. I accept that delays can happen, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, accepted that they happen with benefits administered by local authorities. Obviously I am prepared to look at any specific cases which the noble Earl would like to put before me. However, I cannot comment on them at the moment. There may be some instances of delay. We do not have any evidence that this is widespread. The benefits agency advised its local offices last year that payments to lenders should be made no less than four weekly and this will apply to the new scheme. The agency is very much committed to improving the quality of its service. Perhaps I may say in passing that I understand that the agency is doing extremely well and, largely speaking, is well on course to deliver its income support targets on both accuracy and time.
One of its declared objectives is the core value of customer care. The operation of the new direct payment scheme falls squarely within that objective. The introduction of main frame computer support for what has been until now a wholly clerical operation we hope will further increase the efficiency of the direct payment arrangements.
My noble kinsman also asked whether there would be increased staffing and whether we had taken into account the administrative costs of the new scheme. I can tell him that we have so far taken into account an additional staffing provision of what I understand is referred to as 800 man years allocated to deal with this new task. All the claims will be subject to targets on clearance times and accuracy and processed on the income support computer system.
In this context it is important to note that the benefits agency has work in progress at the moment to enhance the computer system yet further to enable payments to be made to lenders. We hope that this will provide reliable and prompt payment facilities and will greatly assist the local services. It will also help to

1053
eliminate what I hope were in the main isolated difficulties that have arisen under the present arrangements.
With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to withdraw—I am sorry, I meant to say that I hope the noble Baroness will find that it is possible for her to withdraw the amendment. I gained the impression that it was more by way of a probing amendment in order to seek assurances from us that we would do our best to ensure that payments were made within the four-week period. Certainly the advice from the agency to its local offices will be, "Yes, do try to keep to the four-week period".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I hope that the Hansard report of the proceedings will show his correction in full. As Freud said, "You never make a mistake". We were seeking an assurance about the four-week payment. If the scheme is to be introduced we all want to see that it actually happens with the maximum efficiency and effectiveness. Therefore, should the general election results not go the way that we expect, we shall ourselves be asking the Minister for a report on the effectiveness of the four-week payment in six months' time. With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Report received.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.52 to 8.10 p.m.]

Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) having determined the standards of overall performance under paragraph (a) above, give due regard to the price regime which he or she approves to assess whether that price regime is appropriate in relation to the provision of the standards of overall performance; and that he or she will have power to require the operator to change that price regime to one which is commensurate with the standards of overall performance which are met and the cost structure of the operator in meeting those standards,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, which was tabled also by my noble friend Lord Desai, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 25.
Amendment No. 24 seeks to establish a relationship between the standards of overall performance which are to he set by the director and the price regime. It is our belief that, as I said on Second Reading, the only way in which one can successfully ensure that a standard of performance is observed is by affecting the profit and loss account of the operator. It seems to us
1054
that that is a perfectly proper way of going about things. It should not be considered so much in the nature of a fine, and it certainly should not be considered a subsidy. But if there is a failure to meet the standards of overall performance, it seems to us that the designated operator should suffer where it hurts most—in his profits. That is the point of Amendment No. 24.
Amendment No. 25 is somewhat different although it relates to the price regime. There is a sometimes rather worrying tendency for operators to avoid what is known as "cross-subsidisation". In general, cross-subsidisation is not necessarily a desirable phenomenon, but there are occasions when it is so difficult to allocate the overheads between different services and to decide the result of certain services that are perhaps given for free that cross-subsidisation is desirable and, indeed, justified.
Perhaps I may cite directory inquiries as an example to the Committee. At the moment, the directory inquiries service that is managed by BT costs an inordinate sum of money. I believe that it costs 43.5p per inquiry. In the United States, directory inquiries cost nothing provided that a call is put through immediately afterwards. That is the important point about directory inquiries—they generate calls. It seems to me that the United States system, which is a form of cross-subsidisation, is one that we should permit and, indeed, encourage here. However, it is not only the United States that practises that system. Directory inquiries are free in Canada. In the United States, directory inquiries without a subsequent trunk call are charged at about 15p. In France, Australia and Spain directory inquiries are free. In Germany, directory inquiries cost 7·6p and in Belgium 8·5p. All those figures show that there is some measure of cross-subsidisation in all the countries that I have cited. That seems desirable when the point is to try to encourage business for the designated operator.
I have accepted the grouping of the two amendments because both relate to the price regime. The point is that the director should not only have responsibility for operating the price regime as set out in the Telecommunications Act and in subsidiary legislation but should also link the standard of performance to the price regime. Within the standards of performance, an efficient directory inquiries system should take account of the prices charged to the end user. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Amendment No. 24 would require the director to ensure that the price regime was appropriate to the overall standard of service provided by the designated operator and the operator's cost structure.
The regulator will clearly set standards against the background of the currently agreed price regime. The Bill provides effective measures for preventing a reduction in standards of services so as to achieve a hidden price rise by providing for compensation for failure to meet individual standards and for enforcement of compliance with overall standards.
In addition, the Director General of Telecommunications has general duties under Section 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 which are

1055
relevant. The Act already requires him to secure that those providing telecommunication services are able to finance the provision of those services. He must also promote efficiency and economy on the part of service providers. He must exercise his functions in the manner best calculated to promote the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users in the United Kingdom in respect of the prices charged for, and the quality and variety of, telecommunication services provided and telecommunication apparatus supplied. There are similar provisions relating to the other regulators.
There can therefore be no question but that the regulators will take due account of all relevant factors, including the achievement of overall standards and the cost structure of the operators, in exercising their functions, including when they review the price caps.
One thing I would like to mention while we are on the subject of standards and prices is that Sir Bryan Carsberg has recently issued a consultation paper on this subject which can be obtained from the Office of Telecommunications. Customers, including any noble Lords, have the opportunity to respond to this and to express their views on BT's standards of service and their relation to prices. Any comments on the consultation paper should be submitted to Oftel by 27th March.
For the reasons I have given, I consider that the issues raised by the amendment are already adequately covered by the Bill.
Amendment No. 25 would allow the director to require a designated operator to provide free information and advice services, paid for by the users of other services. BT is required by its licence to provide a free directory inquiry service to the blind and others who have a disability which makes them unable to use the normal phone book.
Any information and advice services which BT provides must be funded from somewhere. If a service is provided free of charge or at a price below what it costs to provide, the cost will inevitably have to be recovered through higher call charges for all customers. We believe strongly that it is only right and fair that those who use a service should in general pay for it rather than the cost being borne by every customer whether they use the service or not.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The point I was trying to make was that by having a cheap directory inquiry service, BT, or any designated operator, would generate a higher volume of business rather than merely spread the cost over the same volume of business.
Lord Reay: I see the noble Lord's point, but when BT started to charge for directory inquiries at the same time it cut the price of national calls by 7.3 per cent. If BT were required to provide a free directory inquiry service, that would be unfair competition for those other companies, including some which are not telecommunication operators, which provide similar services; so I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: Surely, my noble friend will agree that this is a business judgment for BT to make. If it were to think that it would generate a greater volume of calls as a result of having a free directory inquiry service, that would be a judgment it could make and act upon. I hope that it would not be prevented from doing that because it represented unfair competition. As a telephone user, I should hope not to be subsidising free directory inquiry calls. I saw tremendous abuse of the service when it was free. I have seen secretaries and other people sitting at desks with a pile of telephone directories in front of them. It was easier for them to pick up the telephone and call directory inquiries than to look up the number in the directory.
There are two conflicting arguments. I am sorry to make the matter more complicated. The first is that I hope my noble friend will confirm that BT could make that business judgment, if it wanted to. Secondly, I should like it on the record that I do not believe that the service should be free and subsidised by other telephone users.
Lord Reay: I am sure that my noble friend is right in saying that there can be abuse of the service. She is right when she draws attention to the fact that the noble Lord is raising commercial matters which, in the first instance, must be for BT.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the Minister also respond to the noble Baroness's other point? Is BT at the moment at liberty to offer a free directory inquiry service?
Lord Reay: The agreement reached was that BT should introduce charges, which it did in April 1991. At the same time, the price of national calls decreased by 7.3 per cent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That is the true answer: under its licence, BT does not have the power to agree a free directory inquiry service. I believe that the director general has laid down that there should be no cross-subsidisation within BT, and I believe that he sticks to that ruling.
I apologise for interfering in what is perhaps a private dispute on the other side, but it is something at which the Government should look. Perhaps it is more properly looked at in respect of the licence for designated operators than it is in the Bill. I accept that. As we are dealing with what is essentially a privatised monopoly—BT is still a privatised monopoly—it is a matter for regulation rather than pure competitive factors. If there were five operators in the market, which could knock out BT's monopoly once and for all, I would accept the noble Baroness's argument about commercial competition.
I am grateful to the Minister for telling me that Amendment No. 24 is unnecessary. I am glad about that because it is important to get that point on the record. We have a difference of opinion about Amendment No. 25. I suspect that it is a difference of opinion that will continue and one that cannot be resolved across the Floor of this place. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Information with respect to levels of performance]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("levels") and insert ("standards").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 92 and 107. This is not really an amendment. I am merely trying to find out whether the language is right. On reading the Bill, I did not quite appreciate and understand the difference between "levels of overall performance" and "standards of overall performance." It seemed to me that different words were used at different times in the Bill. For instance, on page 3 we have,
"the levels of overall performance",
but if we turn to Amendment No. 92, which takes us to page 13, we see that it relates at line 25 to
"determine such standards of overall performance",
as opposed to "levels of overall performance". I then turn to Amendment No. 107, which takes us to Clause 20, and the wording is,
"that supplier's level of performance as respects each of those standards".
I merely ask the Minister to comment upon the language to see whether, in the Government's view, it means the same in all parts of the Bill. There may be some draftsman's error here. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: I was not certain what the amendments were intended to achieve. The noble Lord explained that they are in the nature of probing amendments to discover the meaning of the words that we have adopted in the Bill. The Bill refers to performance in two ways. When it refers to the director general setting targets for performance it uses the term "standards of performance"; when it refers to how well a company has measured up to those targets, it talks about "levels of performance" that the company has achieved against the standards that have been set for it. In other words, for every target there is one standard to be achieved, but there may be many levels of performance against that target. That use of the words is consistent throughout the Bill. As the clause refers to collecting information about performance against targets that have been set, the word "level" is appropriate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the Minister who has reassured me. Will he now tell me what "overall performance" means? What is the definition of "overall"?
Lord Swinfen: While my noble friend is thinking, I should have equated the meaning of "levels" with quantity and that of "standards" with quality. Somehow, to my way of thinking, my noble friend's explanation does not add up. We attended the same school many, many years ago. We were both taught by the same English teachers. I doubt somehow that we can both be right in this matter. One of us—probably me—must have failed the examinations.
Lord Reay: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked me what "overall" means. He appeared to be satisfied with my explanation of the use of the words "level" and "standards." Overall performance is the performance which the company must achieve; for example, 95 per cent. of telephone boxes have to be working. That would be an overall standard. I cannot improve upon the explanation I have given. The best I can propose is that the noble Lord read the explanation in Hansard tomorrow.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Advisory body for premium rate services
—(1) The Director General of Telecommunications shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, establish a further advisory body under section 54 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (power to establish advisory bodies) for matters relating to premium rate services, and that section shall he amended in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) In subsection (4), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"and
(c) an advisory body for premium rate services."
(3) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
"(6A) In the case of the advisory body for premium rate services, the body shall, in addition to its duties under subsection (6) above, have the duty of advising the Director whether any premium rate service should, in the opinion of the advisory body, be discontinued."
(4) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
"(9) For the purposes of this section a premium rate service is a telecommunications service made available by a public telecommunications operator on the basis that a payment will be made to the person providing the service which represents the whole or part of any sum charged to a consumer using the service".").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I beg to move Amendment No. 32 and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne.
We are dealing here with premium rate services. The purpose of my amendment, which requires the setting up of an advisory body for premium rate services, is to explore with the Government exactly where we are in relation to premium rate services; that is, after the announcement by the director general that chat lines would in some way be prohibited or that the code of practice would be removed and therefore they could not operate.
There are many problems with premium rate services. Some messages have been offensive and there are problems of advertising and costs and of their impact on families. We believe that there has been progress in controlling the services, but it is important in our view, that there should be some statutory arrangement that would replace the non-statutory body which supervises these matters at the moment. The Independent Committee for the Supervision of

1059
Standards of Telephone Information Services is, I believe, the full name. That would imply that there would be a power to ban services completely.
The lesser alternative is the one in my Amendment No. 32 which is to have an advisory body for the services. It would have the duty of advising the director general whether any given premium rate service should be discontinued. The director general would obviously have the power to require the operator to discontinue the service.
The problem is complicated. One does not wish to restrict proper initiative but, on the other hand, we do not wish to see the telephone network used for what might be regarded as improper purposes. I beg to move.
Lord Ashbourne: At Second Reading I said that I favoured the replacement of ICSTIS, the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services, by a statutory body to give it teeth. That is what Amendment No. 32, cogently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, does. As both Amendment No. 32 and Amendment No. 62 are concerned with the regulation of telecommunications, with the leave of the Committee I shall take it that any decision on Amendment No. 32 will be binding on Amendment No. 62, which will not then be moved separately.
Amendment No. 62 is an enabling amendment to help deal with the problems and suffering caused by premium rate services. The amendment would give the Director General of Telecommunications a new power to provide that a category of premium rate services or 0898 numbers should be available only at the explicit request of the telephone subscriber. He can reach his decision having taken the advice of a statutory committee such as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in his amendment, or he can do so at the request of a telecommunications operator like British Telecom.
I have the highest regard for the way in which the present Director General of Telecommunications, Sir Bryan Carsberg, has conducted his responsibilities. I know that he has been profoundly worried about the problems of premium rate services from their inception. I am sure that if this new power were available to him, he would not hesitate to use it if he believed that certain services were causing such problems that they should be available only on request.
Before I tell the Committee why I believe that opting in is a good idea, I wish to respond to the Minister's comments on my speech at Second Reading when I briefly mentioned the need for opting in. In essence, the Minister said that this idea had been considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and had been rejected. But that seems a poor reason for rejecting the concept of opting in.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission became involved in the issue because it has a role under the Telecommunications Act 1984 to consider matters referred to it by Oftel where it appears that some aspect of the monopoly in the provision of telephone services is acting against the public interest. In my
1060
view, the MMC's expertise lies in economic regulation. It was not well placed to consider this kind of social problem. Its report now looks like a dated, historical document. The worsening problems on premium rate services and the huge growth in the market have occurred since it reported.
Some of the MMC's recommendations caused real difficulties. For example, on chat lines which showed serious problems at the time it argued that the adverse effects did not justify the virtual cessation of the services. Since that time British Telecom stopped chat lines for a period, then they came back and now the Director General of Telecommunications announced only last Monday that they should stop. All that stop-go could have been avoided if the director general's advice had been taken in the first place.
The same is true of opting in, where the Director General of Telecommunications went on public record to the MMC as strongly arguing that this should be introduced for certain categories of service. The MMC perversely rejected his view. The director general has not changed it and I have seen a letter from Oftel as recently as last December confirming that he would prefer to see what I describe as opting in. I therefore believe that we should not be over-persuaded by what the MMC said three years ago. We need to deal with the situation now and with the expert view of the Director General of Telecommunications.
The present situation is that anyone who has access to a telephone can make premium rate calls unless the telephone subscriber specifically requests otherwise. The operation is described as call barring and it is to stop the use of 0898 calls from a certain number. I have gone through the process for my flat, about one mile from here, and for a house in Hampshire. The reason I did it is that I do not wish to be faced suddenly with a telephone bill for, say, £1,000 a month, whereas previously it had only been £100. I do not think that this is likely to happen to me. But I ask Members of the Committee to reflect on whether they believe it will happen to them. I suspect that most of them probably think that it will not and they may be right, but the point is that it happens to some people. It comes as an unpleasant shock.
The present regulation is rather like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. I support the amendment because it would lock the stable door before the horse has bolted. The amendment seeks to make it necessary to opt in. It must be done in writing before premium rate calls can be made from the telephone in question. Thus the subscriber must make a conscious decision to opt in to premium rate services if he wishes to make 0898 calls. Opting in is strongly favoured by the Director General of Telecommunications. I commend both amendments to your Lordships.
Lord Reay: Amendment No. 32 would oblige the director general to set up an advisory body on premium rate services (PRS). The advisory body would have a duty to advise the director if in its opinion a particular premium rate service should be discontinued. However, the amendment fails to take account of the arrangements which are already in

1061
place to control premium rate services. There already exists an Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services, known as ICSTIS, which is an effective independent watchdog. As a result of its efforts, 350 services were removed or amended in 1990. Last year it recommended the removal of 255 recorded message services, amendment of nearly 200 others and amendment of over 235 advertisements. That is evidence of its effectiveness in controlling the excesses of the industry.
This week's news provides further evidence of the strength of the regime which we already have. The Director General of Telecommunications has publicly stated his intention to revoke the code of practice. The result of that will be that in one month from now these chatline services will cease to exist. As noble Lords will have gathered from the press, this is because the chatline service providers have failed to keep their compensation fund at an adequate level. I understand that BT has offered to make funds available for any outstanding claims from those who have suffered as a result of chatline use. I would argue that this week's events show very clearly that the powers of Oftel and ICSTIS are very effective.
I have two further difficulties with the amendment. It gives no indication of the grounds on which the proposed new body might recommend disconnection of a premium rate service. I should also point out that the effect of subsection (4) as drafted would be to include within its definition of a premium rate service virtually all telecommunications services, including ordinary voice telephony. We believe that the present watchdog already provides an effective safeguard for the user of premium rate services and that experience so far supports this.
Amendment No. 62 would enshrine in statute the idea of opting in to premium rate services: that is to say that they would be provided only to customers who specifically ask (in writing) to have the possibility of calling such numbers. Opting-in was given thorough consideration by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1988 and rejected by it. Instead it recommended a range of measures to protect customers, most of which have already been implemented by BT.
These measures add up to a strong package of safeguards which are already in place and in the pipeline. Among these I would draw the Committee's attention in particular to call barring, which is a means of preventing premium rate services from being dialled from a subscriber's number. It is now available, free of charge, to 50 per cent. of BT's customers and should be available to over 90 per cent. by the end of 1995. Another way the customer can keep track of calls and their costs is by requesting itemised billing. This is available to 75 per cent. of BT's customers and all of Mercury's and Vodafone's. These and the other measures recommended by the MMC, in our view, provide adequate safeguards for the customer.
There is an additional aspect of this amendment which raises an important issue of principle: it seeks to introduce a new way of modifying a public telecommunications operator licence, which is
1062
currently possible only by agreement between the operator and the director general or upon reference to the MMC. To add a new power for the director general to change the licence unilaterally seems to me to open up new uncertainties for telecommunications operators and place them in a significantly weaker position than they have hitherto had in the regulatory system.
In the light of the safeguards which already exist which flow directly from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's consideration of this very question in 1988, I consider that the proposed amendments are unnecessary.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his full response. This is a complicated subject and we shall certainly have to read what he has said. I must say that I am not entirely convinced by the noble Lord's response, but I shall have to study it with greater care and consider what to do after that. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Information to be given to customers about overall performance]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 4, line 26, after ("inform") insert ("free of charge").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 33 it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 112. These amendments are self-explanatory. As in the case of Amendment No. 33, I assume the consumer will be informed about the material in question without having to pay for that. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 33 and agree that it is important that customers are fully informed about the standards they should expect and whether they are being achieved. I do, however, feel that this extra requirement is not needed. The way in which a designated operator disseminates information on overall performance is already subject to the agreement of the director general and in almost every conceivable circumstance I believe the director general would stipulate that the information should be provided free of charge. I say almost every conceivable circumstance advisedly. It is an important consideration that, in setting up independent regulators, we do not tie their hands in such a way as to impinge on their effectiveness. It is feasible that sometime in the future circumstances may change, for example the director general might see a need for a newly designated operator to recoup postal charges in some way. It is difficult to prejudge entirely future circumstances and I would argue that the discretion of the director general is the best safeguard rather than detailed requirements of the type proposed.
As regards Amendment No. 112, part of Clause 22 requires an electricity supplier who intends to take a customer to court to recover money owed for the provision of electricity supply services to give the customer at least 28 days' notice and to inform him of his rights under this clause to have any dispute over the amount owed to be determined by the director or

1063
an arbitrator. The amendment would mean that under no circumstances could the customer be charged for action the supplier had to take to fulfil this duty. The Secretary of State may prescribe the manner in which the supplier must inform customers about possible court action. This will enable him to ensure that the way customers are informed will in practice avoid customers incurring a charge.
I have some sympathy with the thrust of the amendment as I do not believe that in general customers should be charged for being informed of their rights and given a chance to settle a dispute without going to court. But the requirement to inform also covers the small minority of customers who have no dispute but simply refuse to pay. This is as it should be—even such people have the same rights to be informed as those involved in a genuine dispute. It may, however, be appropriate to make different arrangements over paying for action the supplier has had to take in relation to such customers. If after consultation the Secretary of State believes this to be necessary, he should have the power to make those arrangements.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. It seems to me that he sympathises with my amendments but refuses to put them on the face of the Bill. That seems to me a rather perverse attitude, but there is nothing much I can do about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Procedures for dealing with complaints]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 45, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Director").
The noble Lord said: Surely in the new Section 27E to be inserted in the Telecommunications Act 1984 it should be the director who decides who should be representative rather than the operator. Is that not right? I beg to move.
Lord Reay: This amendment would require the director to lay down the persons and bodies to be consulted by a designated operator on its proposed complaints procedure. The establishment of a procedure for handling complaints is principally a matter of day to day management for the designated operator. In order to ensure that the interests of customers are properly protected, the Bill requires the operator to consult customer representatives and to get the director's approval for the procedure. Since it is for the designated operator to undertake the consultation, in our view it would be an unusual and unnecessary interference in the operator's business for the director to dictate who should be consulted.
The Bill requires a designated operator to have a complaints handling procedure, but the operator cannot establish such a procedure without the director's approval. If the director considers that there are deficiencies in the proposed procedure as a result of inadequate consultation, it is open to him to withhold his approval.
1064
I consider that these arrangements provide adequate protection for customers and that there is no justification for the interference in the operator's business which would result from the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: In practice, therefore, the noble Lord is saying that the operator will decide who he consults, but, if the operator does not consult the people the director thinks he ought to consult, then the director can tell him to change his procedures. Is that right?
Lord Reay: The operator cannot establish a complaints procedure without the director's approval. If the director is not satisfied with the procedure which the operator has used and considers that the consultation has been inadequate, it is open to the director to withhold his approval.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Then that meets my point that the director has the final say on consultation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Disputes about discrimination etc. in fixing charges]
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 38 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Billing disputes]
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 7, line 9, after ("which") insert ("in all the circumstances is fair and reasonable for").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 40, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 41. I shall go further and point out that something has gone wrong and that Amendment No. 41 should read:
"leave out ('is entitled')",
rather than just "entitled".
I welcome the clause giving Oftel the power to determine billing disputes, which make up such a large proportion of complaints. However, I remain uneasy about the limitation of the power to determine disputes only in accordance with the contract. That is a point I made at Second Reading.
It is reasonable enough that an operator should be able to recover payment for calls which its equipment shows as occurring on a certain line, but trouble arises because of the insecurity of the network. When I tried to explain the problem at Second Reading I failed to make myself clear because the Minister, when responding to the debate, did not answer the point I had tried to make. He said:
"If a telephone line is tampered with—and that occurs outside the customer's premises,—then British Telecom is only entitled to the cost of calls that have been legally made". —[Official Report, 14/2/92; col. 960.]
I am not absolutely sure that the note which the Minister received from the Box about legality was quite right. As I understand it BT undertook last March not to press customers on calls which did not cross the network terminating point, but the changes to the contract have still not been made so that in contractual terms the customer is still liable for calls which do not cross the network terminating point.
More important than that, I venture to think that the Government's response, both here and in another place, has paid insufficient regard to reality. In the end it comes down to problems of proof and in any dispute the operator has all the big guns.
Perhaps I may take as an example the case of a member of the Consumers' Association. He was baffled when he was woken up by his telephone ringing during the night. It rang three times between 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the morning. It was his BT call-back facility informing him of the cost of the last call he had made. That is a useful service for people who work from home. The individual took the matter up with BT and was told to ignore the problem as the facility was obviously not functioning properly. However, when his bill came it showed the 0898 numbers which matched the times of the calls which had woken him up. He then wrote to BT, who said that their print-out showed that the numbers were used during the period of monitoring and that there was no reason to doubt the charges. The matter was taken up with Oftel, which in its turn said that there was nothing it could do. No one seems to have taken any account of the extraordinary surrounding circumstances. In the end, instead of taking the matter to arbitration—as he could have done then but will not be able to do once this Bill is passed—the customer paid up, as is the normal solution in such disputes, rather than face the risk of disconnection.
Clause 6 will give the regulator new powers to demand information from the operator but in the end, as I understand it, he will still be bound by the strictures of the operator's contract. The amendment suggests that he should be given a specific power enabling him to look beyond the contract and to determine a case according to what is in the circumstances fair and reasonable.
From what the Minister has been saying I have a fair idea of what the Government's answer to that may be, but it seems to me only right that, if the regulator is to be given new responsibilities, he should be given the power to carry out those responsibilities effectively and fairly. As we were reminded earlier, he is judge and jury where billing disputes are concerned, and he should have the power to look at all the circumstances where there is a dispute. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: When responding to the amendment, will my noble friend let the Committee know how accurate the telephone companies' metering equipment is? If it is inaccurate that could lead to many disputes, particularly with some of the more modern systems where a call which one makes from a number other than one's own can be charged to the account for one's own number.
Lord Reay: This linked pair of amendments would give the Director General of Telecommunications a very wide power to assess the amount which a customer should pay when a bill is in dispute. The present wording of the Bill allows him to determine only what the designated operator is "legally entitled" to recover.
The clause as it stands is intended to enable the director general to determine cases where the
1066
customer is questioning the accuracy of the bill. It includes a power for the director general to obtain such information as he may require from the designated operator in order to arrive at his decision on the case. That could well include requiring evidence which would satisfy him that the customer's line had not been tampered with.
The amendments, however, would enable customers to try to persuade the director general that he should consider other matters such as their ability to pay. In other words, it would give the director general far wider discretion and it could potentially deprive the operator of payment for units used on the subscriber's premises. That would take away from the consumer the responsibility for paying bills legally incurred. We believe that that is a principle which should be retained.
The noble Lord raised the matter of unauthorised calls. At the end of the duopoly review the director general announced that he would be asking British Telecom to agree that customers would not be liable for calls made outside their premises. The formal amendment to BT's contract with its customers has still to be finalised but BT assure me that its staff has been instructed to interpret the existing contract in that way and similar instructions have gone to the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, which is responsible for BT's arbitration scheme for settling disputes.
I recognise that there may be difficulties in some cases in providing evidence of what has gone on. That point was taken up by my noble friend. But BT will still be in the position of trying to obtain payment and therefore it will have to provide evidence sufficient to satisfy the director general that the meter has recorded accurately the units used and that network security has not been violated.
Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to say to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that the Bill takes away no existing rights to go to arbitration.
9 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he will clarify a point with regard to the metering equipment. If a customer is in dispute, is there any way in which he can make an independent check on that equipment or are all checks carried out by British Telecom or Mercury, as the case may be?
Lord Reay: The amendments to BT's licence, which was agreed last year, require meters to be approved to a designated standard of accuracy.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I am grateful for the information about arbitration. Obviously I misread the Bill. For the rest, I am afraid that I am not very satisfied with the reply. The amendment has nothing whatever to do with disputes about the ability to pay. It was directly concerned with the question of whether a charge had been wrongly made. The illustration that I gave was intended to demonstrate that point.
It may be that the amendment ought to be drafted in a different way. As I said at the beginning, it is defective as it appears on the Marshalled List. In the light of what the Minister said, I should like to think

1067
again about the matter and perhaps return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 46 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Deposits]:
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 8, line 27, at end insert ("and
(c) the conditions under which a deposit shall be returned in a single payment to the customer.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The straightforward point is that, in as much as Clause 7 lays down the conditions under which a designated operator will require deposits, we want to add the condition that the deposit will be returned to the customer in a lump sum. The current practice is to deduct the deposit from future bills.
There is a certain amount of evidence from citizens advice bureaux in many parts of the country that customers find that method both surprising and inconvenient. It is surprising because it has not been made clear to them that the deposit will not be returned in a lump sum. But also there is a delay of about four to five quarters before the amount is even credited to their account.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the deposit is returned in a lump sum and in one fell swoop. If there were to be any delay it would be ideal that the lump sum should be repaid with interest. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I support this amendment. There are many people who have small incomes and find considerable difficulty in paying the deposit at all. I have in mind in particular disabled or elderly people. If they are told that the deposit will be returned to them after a year, they may well rely upon that sum and be put to considerable financial inconvenience if the deposit is not returned as a whole.
Perhaps my noble friend can enlighten me on another point. Years ago, when I was managing rented property, the question arose of deposits in respect of rent. I was told that there was never any point in taking a deposit in respect of rent because it counted as rent in advance. Therefore until the deposit was used up, the tenant need not pay that rent. I wonder whether the same position applies to deposits on telephone and power accounts and whether a deposit, which after all is a sum against non-payment of the account when the account is due, is legally payment in advance for those supplies and services.
Lord Reay: This amendment relates to the process whereby the director general and the designated operator agree upon criteria for the requirement to pay a deposit. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that the criteria included provision for the customer to be given back the deposit in one lump sum under certain conditions.
I understand that BT's practice has usually been to credit, against the fifth quarterly bill sent to the customer, the amount of any deposit it has held. That
1068
has worked to the disadvantage of customers who only incur very low bills. We have challenged BT on this question and it recognises the force of the argument that those customers should not have to wait until another quarter has passed before they are reimbursed. Accordingly, I am very happy to be able to tell the Committee that BT has agreed to change its procedure, so that any customer whose fifth bill does not cover the return of the full deposit will automatically be sent a cheque for the remaining sum with interest. The new procedure will require some programming and organisational changes for BT but we expect it to come into effect in May.
My noble friend asked me a specific and separate question, to which the answer is that the deposit is not a payment in advance in the case of a BT bill.
Given that the problem which this amendment seeks to solve by legislation has now been overcome by negotiation, I have no doubt that the noble Lord will wish to withdraw it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps we may clarify the matter. The issue has been resolved by negotiation with BT. However, does it mean that it will be resolved with all designated operators? I presume that it is an assurance; it is not legally binding. Alternatively, is it part of the conditions of licence? If it is not, it would be better to put the matter on the face of the Bill. We are pleased with the news that the noble Lord gives us but we are not sure of its status.
Lord Reay: There are only two designated operators. The noble Lord wonders whether the matter has been pursued in the case of Kingston upon Hull. It has not yet been pursued in that case.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Since it is such a desirable objective, should it not be put on the face of the Bill with the agreement of all sides of the House?
Lord Reay: The noble Lord asks for too much. I believe that I gave a satisfactory answer to the amendment. The matter which the amendment seeks to put in the Bill has been dealt with and the outcome that he wishes has been produced. I believe that that is a very satisfactory situation for all concerned.
Lord Swinfen: I am sorry but I am not satisfied with what my noble friend said. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not satisfied. There is nothing to guarantee that British Telecom will not go back on the current suggested agreement. I gather that so far it is only a suggested agreement. There is no guarantee that the other operators will come up to scratch. It would do absolutely no harm whatever to put the issue on the face of the Bill. It is a matter of good faith. I see absolutely no reason why my noble friend should decline to do that. He may not like the exact wording. However, since he is agreeable—he says that people wish to make such a change—there is no reason why at the next stage he should not bring forward an amendment to the same effect with wording that suits him.
Lord Reay: Kingston is a small operator compared with BT. It is not a matter that has yet been pursued with it, but it will be. BT was challenged by us on this

1069
question. There is no question of BT not yet having agreed. It has agreed to change its procedure. The arrangement which the noble Lord seeks to achieve by legislation has already been achieved. Therefore I see no reason why a provision should be put on the face of the Bill. However, since noble Lords are so insistent, I am willing to consider the matter further without any commitment.
Lord Desai: I thank the Minister for that clarification and concession. If BT has agreed to change its procedures, it will help BT if everyone else does so too. BT may welcome the fact that if it has decided to behave, everyone else ought to be made to behave too and the matter not left to chance. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 8, line 29, at end insert:
("(2A) Before settling, or varying, the criteria the designated operator shall consult persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons likely to be affected.
(2B) The designated operator shall—

(a) prepare a summary of the criteria, with the agreement of the Director;

(b) publicise it in such manner as may be approved by the Director; and

(c) send a copy of it, free of charge, to any person who asks for one.").

The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen put down an amendment which I liked and was disposed to accept. However, there were difficulties with the precise wording chosen. I have therefore put down an amendment which seeks to carry out the proposal of the two noble Lords.
The effect of the amendment is to require a designated operator to consult customer representative bodies before setting the criteria for charging a deposit. It also requires that the criteria be publicised and sent free of charge to anyone who requests it in a similar manner to the way in which performance standards are to be publicised. I believe that it will be of considerable benefit to customers to make the practice on deposits more transparent. I recommend the amendment to the House.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend. I am delighted that I was not called upon to move my Amendment No. 49 and for once to be in total agreement with my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 8, line 32, at end insert:
("(3A) Subsection (2A) above does not apply to any variation made in compliance with a direction under subsection (3) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 8, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) The criteria shall provide that disabled people shall be exempt from the requirement to pay a deposit.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of the amendment would be to exempt disabled people—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord so early. Is he speaking also to Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 59?
Lord Swinfen: I was not but I should be delighted if the noble Lord would like to speak to them once I have moved the amendment. At this hour of the night I am not always as awake as I ought to be.
The effect of the amendment would be to exempt disabled people from the requirement to pay a lump sum security deposit as a condition of receiving a telephone service. Although the exemption will apply to all disabled people without the necessity of a means test, it is likely that many people in this category will either already have a telephone service or will not be required to pay a deposit under existing criteria because they have already established a satisfactory payment record. It is anticipated, therefore, that the majority of beneficiaries of the exemption will be new subscribers who are likely to be on a low income and have not previously had the opportunity to establish any telephone payment record.
Most disabled people are receiving below average incomes. The OPCS survey The financial circumstances of disabled adults living in private households (1988) showed that 75 per cent. of disabled people depend on benefits as their main source of income. Under the Government's community care policies many more vulnerable disabled people can be expected to be living alone or with carers in the community. Access to a telephone will be vital to facilitate their care and their ability to remain independent for as long as possible.
Evidence from citizens advice bureaux, however, indicates that the requirement to pay a deposit is a major obstacle to many disabled people wishing to obtain a telephone service and in some instances a complete barrier preventing them from obtaining any service at all. For many of these people the telephone is an essential service and a lifeline.
A CAB in Merseyside reports the case of a client with severe angina, living alone and receiving invalidity benefit and income support. His doctor says that he needs a telephone. The CAB has successfully helped him to appeal against the refusal of a budgeting loan from the social fund to pay for the cost of installation. But the client now has a letter from British Telecom requiring £125 security deposit. He cannot afford this and cannot see how he can obtain a telephone.
A CAB in Cheshire reports the case of a client with two dependent children who was terminally ill with cancer, separated from her husband and in receipt of income support. She had recently had an operation and was advised by her consultant that she must have a telephone. She received from a charity £150 to have the telephone connected but BT demanded £350 deposit. British Telecom would not move when approached by the CAB. It was determined to get its deposit, showing absolutely no compassion. The CAB was in the process of obtaining another donation from a charity when the client died.

1071
I welcome Clause 7 which will require the telephone companies to establish criteria for deposits, subject to the agreement of the regulator, and provide a right of appeal against deposit decisions to the director. I also welcome the recent change in policy by British Telecom, following intervention by the regulator, which has resulted in a new ceiling on deposits of £150. This will undoubtedly be of considerable assistance to customers in such a position. However, the requirement to raise a lump sum of up to £150 in order to gain access to a telephone service will still prove to be a barrier to many would-be customers. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: I have some sympathy with the effect of this amendment, which would relieve the disabled of the need to pay a deposit and thus ease access to a service which they might need. The Government are similarly concerned that the system shall be fair to those who are disadvantaged, such as the disabled, and Clause 7 of the Bill will ensure that the system is fair, by making the setting of criteria on deposits subject to the scrutiny of the director general.
However, I do not think a blanket exemption from deposits is in fact the right solution. There is already considerable general protection for the disabled under existing legislation and the licence conditions of BT. The director general has a duty to promote the interests of consumers, including, in particular, those who are disabled or of pensionable age. That is laid down under Section 3 of the Telecommunications Act. The director also has a specific body, the Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Disabled and Elderly People, set up under the Telecommunications Act 1984, to advise him on matters affecting the disabled and elderly.
Clause 7 already provides a check on the criteria for determining whether a deposit should be paid, and if so at what level, by requiring designated operators to seek the director general's approval. The director general can also, under subsection 3, require the operator to modify the criteria. In addition, where a customer is unhappy at a request to pay a deposit, he will be able to appeal to the director general to decide whether the criteria have been properly applied. The director general will have the authority to decide, for instance that it is inappropriate, in a particular circumstance, for a disabled customer to pay a deposit even though he has not previously been a customer.
In addition, BT already pays special attention to the disabled. The needs of disabled and elderly persons are specifically covered in BT's general code of practice and a Guide to Service for the Disabled has also been published. BT's licence requires them to consult the director general from time to time about the supply and connection of apparatus for the disabled. Furthermore, BT provides a wide range of other services helpful to the disabled, including the Supportline Scheme, and has established an Action for Disabled Customers department to help it meet the needs of the disabled.
However, I can assure the Committee that neither the Government, Oftel nor BP are complacent about the issue. Conscious of the anxieties expressed during
1072
the passage of the Bill in another place, BT was asked to look again at its policy on deposits with regard to the elderly and disabled. As a result, BT now propose to lift the standard credit vetting of these groups in cases where the customer has applied for the Supportline Service or where the local authority is providing assistance to the customer with the cost of having a telephone under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Where those conditions apply BT will not require a deposit unless the customer has a recent history of default with BT.
That policy will be introduced on a trial basis to iron out any problems which may arise, but the intention is to continue with the policy after the trial. It is a further step in the right direction and serves to show that the combination of existing arrangements and the new provisions in the Bill is robust enough to ensure that the elderly and disabled are properly catered for. I therefore hope that my noble friend will agree that his amendment is not necessary.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for his response, particularly the last part, which I found to be of considerable interest. To a large extent the first part of his reply was irrelevant. The amendment deals solely with deposits and not with other services for disabled people. However, the last part was of considerable interest. I should like to read it carefully when it is published in Hansard and consider it further. I shall then decide what I wish to do at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 8, line 32, at end insert:
("(4) The criteria settled shall provide that the amount of the deposit required shall be reasonable with regard to the customer's ability to pay, where the customer consents to a means enquiry.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment too deals with the question of deposits. Its intention is to ensure that any potential telephone customers who may experience difficulty in paying a deposit are offered the option of making a declaration of their means and of having the amount of deposit fixed with regard to those means.
It is not the intention that all new customers should submit to a means inquiry. A great many customers will not be asked to pay a deposit at all. Of those who are required to pay, many will have no difficulty in meeting the request or will not wish to reveal their means to the telephone company. The deposits will be fixed according to the criteria settled under the present clause as just amended. But the amendment that I am proposing is aimed at those who, because of low income, are at risk of being barred from access to a telephone service altogether by the request for a deposit which is out of proportion to their means.
Evidence from the citizens advice bureau indicates that the requirement to pay a deposit is a major obstacle for low income clients wishing to obtain a telephone service. In some cases it acts as a complete barrier preventing the would-be customer from getting any service at all. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The effect of this amendment would be to make the criteria set for seeking a deposit take account of the customer's ability to pay for the service, provided that the customer agrees to some assessment of his ability to pay. I can understand the concern that a low income customer regarded as a potential credit risk should not be charged the same deposit as a wealthy customer similarly regarded as a risk. However, I would be surprised if many customers in either category would be prepared to undergo any form of means test.
I appreciate the sad fact that many of those customers on low incomes come into the category of credit risk. However, if BT was not able to require a deposit commensurate with the risk of non-payment, the cost of default would fall on creditworthy customers who were paying their bills and some of these would be on low incomes. I remind the Committee that the cost of customers defaulting on BT bills was £170 million in the financial year 1990–91.
The new provisions of Clause 7 of the Bill will aid the position of all customers regarding deposits. The right of appeal to the director general is provided where customers are unhappy at a request to pay a deposit. The director general will be able to look at whether the deposit criteria have been applied correctly or whether they are inappropriate in the particular case. In the case of someone with a low income, the director general will be able to consider whether there are particular circumstances which should be taken into account. If he decides the criteria have been applied incorrectly or are inappropriate in that case, he can direct the designated operator to reduce the amount of the deposit or lift the requirement to pay any deposit at all. In the light of that reply I hope that the noble Lord will therefore agree that the customer is protected under this Bill and that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Lord for those explanations. However, I am sorry that he has not been prepared to accept the amendment. It has been proposed by the citizens advice bureaux after a great deal of experience encountered at its various locations. In its opinion it would considerably ease the problem of many who turn to the CAB. Nonetheless, I shall consider carefully what the noble Lord has had to say. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 9, line 3, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment arises on Clause 7 which deals with disputes about pre-telephone connection deposits. At page 8, line 21 of the Bill, it is provided that a telephone company shall settle criteria by reference to which the obligation of an intending telephone user to pay a deposit is to be determined. Subsection (3) at the top of page 9 reads:
"If the Director or arbitrator (or arbiter) considers that the criteria have not been correctly applied, or that they are inappropriate in the particular case, he may determine—

(a) whether the person concerned is to be required to pay a deposit, and

1074

(b) if so, the amount which he is to be required to pay, and"—

I add the word "may"—
"give the appropriate direction to the designated operator".
Surely, if the director or arbitrator considers that the criteria have not been correctly applied, or are inappropriate, he should be under an obligation to give the appropriate direction to the telephone company. Surely "may" in line 3 should read "shall". The Committee will note by contrast that in other cases of dispute the director or arbitrator is bound to make the appropriate order. Page 2, line 39, reads,
"shall be determined by order".
On page 6, lines 6 to 8, we see the words:
"shall … make such order as he considers appropriate"
—not "may".
I cannot understand why, in the case of a deposit dispute where it is determined that the criteria have not been correctly applied, there is no obligation to give an appropriate direction. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Reay: Under the provisions of Clause 7 the director general, or his appointed arbitrator, can consider complaints from customers about deposits. Subsection (3) of that clause then states that the director general "may" make a determination on the appropriateness of a deposit. The effect of this amendment would be to state that the director general "shall" make such a determination. It seems it is intended to remove any discretion of the director general to do otherwise.
I sympathise with the concept that the director general must make a decision on such a dispute referred to him by a customer, but in practice the director general could be open to judicial review if he refused to do so. It would only be in a very exceptional circumstance that the director might need the discretion not to proceed—perhaps if a customer withdrew a complaint—but in our view it would be unnecessarily restrictive to prevent any flexibility in the Bill. We should like to keep this discretion in existence. I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Brightman: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I must say that I cannot understand it. The scenario is that the director has decided that the criteria have not been correctly applied, or he has decided that they are inappropriate. The Bill states that in those cases, where he has made his determination, he still has a discretion on whether he gives effect to it. I must confess that to me it is a total nonsense.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. If a complainant withdraws his complaint then there is no reference; the reference is withdrawn under subsection (2). So there is no question of whether the criteria are appropriate, inappropriate, or correctly applied. But once they go through with the reference—that means that the complaint has not been withdrawn—and the director has to determine, as the Bill states and as the noble and learned Lord quotes, where the criteria have not been correctly applied, or are inappropriate, then it

1075
must follow that the director or the arbitrator, or arbiter, must take action. It does not seem to me that there is any discretion allowable in the matter at all.
Lord Swinfen: As the Bill is drafted the director or arbiter is allowed to leave everything up in the air; it is just nebulous, and it makes absolute nonsense. My noble friend should reassess his position and give an undertaking that he will consider very seriously what the noble and learned Lord said.
Lord Ezra: I should like to support what other noble Lords have said on this matter. It seems to me the most extraordinary inconsequential use of language. If the director decides that the criteria have not been correctly applied he must determine whether or not certain action has to be taken. There seems to be no point in leaving the rest of the sentence conditional.
Lord Hacking: I should like to join with other noble Lords and ask the Minister to reconsider this point.
Lord Reay: In the light of the strong arguments deployed by noble Lords around the Committee I am willing to look at this matter again. However, I cannot give any commitment.
Lord Brightman: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56 to 59 not moved.]
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Disconnections]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 9, line 40, at end insert ("and any power of that designated operator to discontinue the provision of that service shall be exercised only in accordance with a code of practice on disconnections approved by the Director.").
The noble Lord said: As the Committee will be aware, the gas, water and electricity utilities have statutory codes of practice on disconnections included in their licences. For some reason telecommunications does not. It is not apparently considered to be an essential utility. Indeed British Telecom, so far as I am aware, does not publish its disconnection figures.
Noble Lords will be in no doubt that the telephone is an essential means of participating in modern life and in some cases it is a means of survival. There are particular groups such as elderly people and people with disabilities for whom the telephone can be neither more nor less than a lifeline. Social services departments increasingly rely on telecommunications for successful implementation of community care policies. The telephone is a vital part of modern life. It seems to us that the telecommunications business should be brought into line with gas, water and electricity. That is what we intend to achieve by this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment. I entirely understand the point about people for whom the telephone is a lifeline and of vital importance but for most other people the telephone is not vitally
1076
important. There are more telephone boxes situated up and down the country, and in working order, than there have been for many years. It is perfectly right that the disconnection rule has been made with regard to gas, electricity and water. I cannot accept that people who are in good health and are able to go out to a telephone box should have this special consideration.
Lord Reay: This amendment would compel designated operators to agree a code of practice on disconnections with the director. BT has already established procedures so that customers are not disconnected for debt unless they have been given every opportunity to pay their bill or contact the company to discuss the problem. Its policy is to try and come to an arrangement with customers who are experiencing difficulties, and as a result the number of people actually disconnected is a small proportion of those initially warned about disconnection.
BT also has special arrangements for the disabled, such as the protected service scheme, which enables "at risk" customers to nominate a friend or relative as guarantor. If the subscriber does not pay the bill BT will contact the guarantor who may then pay instead. This can provide a good deal of peace of mind as it helps avoid the possibility of disconnection as a result of bills being inadvertently left unpaid, for example, during an extended stay in hospital.
The director recently issued a consultative document on the future of BT's price caps. In that document he acknowledged that there is public concern about the company's policy on disconnections. In recognition of this concern the director has said that he intends to review BT's disconnections policy. He will do this after the passage of the Bill so that he can conduct his review in the context of the new regulatory framework which is being laid down. I welcome this review.
The director general already has the power to seek amendments to BT's licence if he sees the need to establish a more formal code of practice on disconnections. We must wait and see the outcome of his review. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to allow the director to come to a judgment after assessing all the facts and that he will not press his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am glad to hear that the director general is making this review. I believe that that is very important. I hope very much that, as a result, there will be a code of practice on disconnections. I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes; where I come from in mid-Wales, telephone boxes are situated about five miles apart and there are many sick, elderly and disabled people in the area. If the gas, water and electricity utility codes of practice apply to the well off, I do not see why a telephone disconnection code of practice should not also apply to them.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: We are not talking about well-off people. I made it perfectly clear that there should be a no-disconnection policy in relation

1077
to elderly and disabled people. I made the distinction quite clear. I was speaking about people who are healthy and quite capable of walking five miles.
Lord Williams of Elvel: To my mind that constitutes a code of practice. However, let us not argue about definitions. I thank the Minister for his response. We shall certainly wait to see what the director general brings forward after the review. I am glad that he is taking such matters into consideration. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 9 [Enforcement of standards of performance, etc.]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 10, line 1, leave out ("achieve") and insert ("conduct his business in such a way as can reasonably be expected to lead to his achieving").
The noble Lord said: I should point out to Members of the Committee that I intend to speak just to Amendment No. 61. Amendment No. 63, which is also tabled in my name and grouped with this amendment, covers a different matter. Amendment No. 113 which is tabled in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Desai, has, so far as I can ascertain—although the noble Lords will no doubt put me right if I am wrong—no connection whatever with the amendment now before the Committee. The amendment is of considerable importance to the telecommunications industry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to intervene. But do I take it that the noble Lord is to speak separately to Amendment No. 63 and therefore allow us to speak separately to Amendment No. 113?
Lord Hacking: I can only speak for myself. As I said, I intend to speak separately to Amendment No. 63. The amendment is of considerable importance to the telecommunications industry. It seeks to relieve the industry of the absolute duty in the enforcement of the new overall standards of performance. That is fair; the industry is rightly worried about matters beyond its control. For example, as was cited on Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—who, alas, is not present in the Chamber—the extensive damage to the overhead cabling in the 1987 hurricane fell into the category of events over which British Telecom had no control.
I thought it right to investigate this matter further and inquire of the circumstances in more detail. I learnt that no degree of reasonable planning and forethought could have enabled British Telecom to tackle the damage caused by the storm so quickly and efficiently that there would have been no decline in overall performance. Yet, in the Bill, any failure to meet the overall standards will be treated as if British Telecom has breached its licence so enabling the director to take enforcement action.
On Second Reading, as some Members of the Committee may recall, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, cited other examples of deliberate
1078
action to vandalise and put pay phones out of action. When I raised the matter on that occasion, I argued that not only was it unfair and impractical but that it also displayed an unevenhandedness by the Government towards the regulation of the utility industries. I drew attention to the equivalent position for the gas industry which is covered in Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill and in the new Section 33C(3) of the Gas Act 1986.
I also drew attention to Clause 23 of this Bill and to the new proposed subsection (3) of Section 40 of the Electricity Act. Therefore it appears that the telecommunications industry is being paired off with the water industry, which is under an absolute standard under the Water Industry Act 1991.
As the Minister was unable to give me an answer when he replied to the Second Reading debate, I pressed him on whether he would write to me. The Minister was kind enough to write to me on 28th February giving a reply that I can only describe as a bit "Delphic". In his letter the Minister stated:
"We have sought in the Bill to build on the regulatory frameworks which already exist for each utility."
He then cited the public electricity supply licence where the performance standard is monitored under a reasonability clause but pointed out that the test of reasonability was now shifting from the company to the regulator. Having referred to the gas industry, his letter continued:
"There is no equivalent provision in licences issued to designated telecommunications operators so the enforcement provision in Clause 9 of the Bill is based instead on the powers in the Water Industry Act 1991".
There is an immediate and simple answer—that when the Telecommunications Act of 1984 was passed and the conditions of the licences were agreed—the Citizen's Charter had not been invented and there were no standards of performance!
However, as I thought that the matter should be checked in a little more detail, I looked at the public electricity supply licence and was able to confirm that what the Minister had told me in his letter concerning that licence was correct. I then looked at a number of the provisions of the licence that was granted to British Telecommunications on 22nd June 1984 by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right honourable Norman Tebbit. On examining the provisions of Schedule 1, I found that the Minister's letter to me was not exactly correct. Condition 1, relating to the universal provision of telecommunications services, applies a general "reasonable" standard. In condition 5, on international services, one finds the words,
"necessary to satisfy all reasonable demands for such Services".
Condition 6, on the terms for the public emergency call services, again applies a practical test. The words used are "as swiftly as practicable". Under condition 11, on public call box services, one sees that the duty on BT relates to the continued provision of the service being practical—and so forth as the conditions continue. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that the reasonability test applies under the actual conditions of this licence.
However, we must approach this logically. Surely it is not a question of what the existing licences contain

1079
but of what the correct position should be and, above all, of whether the application of regulations on all the utility industries should be even-handed. Questions therefore arise such as, "Why not one test for all the utility industries? Why different treatments for electricity and gas on the one hand and for water and telecommunications on the other? What features of supply are common to the water and telecommunications industries?".
I then focused on an important aspect of the supply of water. I thought about the issue of contamination and poison and concluded that a special or absolute duty might perhaps be reasonably applied to the water industry. Then I recalled my grandmother talking to me about the introduction of telephones at the end of the last century and about how her family, believing the medical evidence of the time, thought that she would be in grave danger of catching measles if she spoke over the telephone to a cousin who was suffering from them. I wondered for a moment whether the Minister was in possession of new medical knowledge and that now contagious or infectious diseases can be passed down telephone lines. If that is not the case, can we have a logical even-handed approach to this matter? Will the Minister therefore give the amendment favourable consideration? I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Amendment No. 61 would have the effect of changing the duty which the Bill currently places upon designated telecommunications operators to achieve standards of overall performance to a duty to conduct their business in such a way as could reasonably be expected to lead to the achievement of those standards. The amendment would therefore weaken the duty on designated operators to achieve overall standards.
The reason we have adopted a different approach for gas and electricity than for telecoms and water is that we have sought to build on the regulatory frameworks which already exist for each utility. For electricity, therefore, the enforcement provision in Clause 23 is based on a condition in the public electricity supply licence. It significantly strengthens the licence conditions so that the director general, rather than the company, is the judge of whether the company has made reasonable efforts to achieve the standards set. A similar enforcement provision is included in Clause 11 for gas, the other energy utility.
There is no equivalent provision in licences issued to designated telecommunications operators so the enforcement provision in Clause 9 is based instead on the powers in the Water Industry Act. That is because we decided, in the absence of any existing regulatory mechanism for telecommunications, that it would be appropriate to place the same requirement to achieve overall standards on designated operators as already exists for water and sewerage companies.
The key points to note are, first, that as a result of the Bill powers will exist for all the regulators to set overall performance standards to protect the consumer and there will be a clear discipline on each of the utilities, enforced by the regulator, to comply with the standards set. Secondly, the requirement to
1080
comply with overall performance standards will be enforceable for all the utilities by order as if it were a licence condition.
Ensuring that those broad provisions are common to all the utilities is more important than the exact replication of detailed enforcement powers. The existing regulatory framework for electricity, under which the Director General of Electricity Supply has already set and is monitoring overall performance standards, is working well and we believe that it is sensible to build upon this. I suggest that the amendment proposed is not desirable and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Hacking: I can hardly be satisfied by that reply. I rehearsed the Minister's arguments when I read extracts from his letter. All he has done is to repeat his previous argument that I was challenging in my address to the Committee. I was seeking a logical answer to the points I was making. The Minister has not attempted to answer the points that I made. I remain dissatisfied.
Lord Reay: That points to the Government's consistency. I have been repeating the arguments I put in the letter that I wrote to the noble Lord.
Lord Hacking: I am arguing about the Government's inconsistency—their inconsistent treatment in the application of regulations to different industries for no good reason, or at least for no reason that the Minister or the Government have cared to advance. I shall not divide the Committee at this stage. I express great dissatisfaction. I remind the Minister, in case he has forgotten, that I remain anxious that this place may not be considering this matter again in full during the Bill's next stages. Nonetheless, with the concern that I express again, and with my dissatisfaction, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
(" . In section 16(5) of the Telecommunications Act 1984 there shall be inserted after paragraph (a)—
"(aa) that the telecommunications operator has agreed to take and is taking all such steps as it appears to the Director for the time being to be appropriate for the operator to take for the purpose of securing or facilitating compliance with the condition in question." ").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak to this amendment and not to Amendment No. 113 which is in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Desai. The amendment deals with the licence enforcement order; in other words, the power of the regulator to order anyone who has breached conditions of licence to remedy that breach. The current position concerning the telecommunications industry is to be found in Section 16(5) of the Telecommunications Act 1984. In subsection (5) there are two circumstances under which the regulator can

1081
desist from the order of compliance. One is when the duties imposed on him under Section 3 preclude him from making the order. The second is when,
"the contraventions or apprehended contraventions are of a trivial nature".
However, what about when the licensee has agreed to take the necessary action to ensure compliance and is doing so? When this comes up in other industries, there is a simple and sensible solution. I refer, for example, to Section 25(5) (b) of the Electricity Act 1989. It is held that the director can desist from making the enforcement order when,
"the licence holder has agreed to take and is taking all such steps as it appears to the Director for the time being to be appropriate for the licence holder to take for the purpose of securing or facilitating compliance with the condition or requirement in question".
We can then turn to the water industry where a similar situation arises. Once again the Secretary of State or director can desist from making the enforcement order when—I quote from Section 19(1) (b) of the Water Industry Act 1991—
"the company has given, and is complying with, an undertaking to take all such steps as it appears to him for the time being to be appropriate for the company to take for the purpose of securing or facilitating compliance with the condition or requirement in question".
One goes then to the water industry, the next main industry which is the subject of the Bill. Again, one finds the matter being dealt with in a way which applies the same test. I am sorry; I am misleading the Committee. I am now referring to the gas industry. In the Bill Clause 44 adds to subsection (5) of Section 28 of the Gas Act the provision which your Lordships will find on page 40.
With that background, the question has to be asked: why not the same even-handed treatment for the telecommunications industry? It stands alone and separate from the other three industries. I wish to press the Minister to reply to that. Why the difference? I beg to move.
Lord Reay: If a telecommunications operator contravenes a licence condition—something which is in practice extremely rare —the director general is currently obliged to take enforcement action to remedy the situation. The effect of the amendment would be to remove or relax that obligation where the operator had subsequently agreed to take action to correct the contravention. In that case, enforcement action might not then be taken.
In practice, however, under the Telecommunications Act 1984, the director general already has flexibility over the application of enforcement action. He has discretion to make a provisional rather than a final enforcement order and then, if that has the desired effect and the operator takes steps to correct the contravention, no final order need be made. The director general also has discretion not to take enforcement action if the breach of a licence condition is of a trivial nature.
At present, the enforcement regulations are straightforward and clearly understood by all operators. The amendment would create uncertainty over the circumstances in which enforcement action would be taken and so detract from this position. It should be borne in mind that the regulator is
1082
overseeing a large number of telecommunications operators, not just the designated operators. He oversees some 130 operators in all. I can confirm that the regulator is content that the existing provisions work well and he would not wish to see them relaxed. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Hacking: The ball is on the other foot now. I have heard what the Minister said and I shall wish to consider that. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Referrals
("( ) In section 49 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (investigation of complaints) the following paragraph shall be inserted in subsection (1) after paragraph (b)—
";or
(c) is referred to him by the Council under subsection of section ( ) below."").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 64, I wish to speak also to the amendments that are grouped with it on the groupings list: that is, Amendments Nos. 65 to 71, 75 to 81, 90, 91, 94 to 98, 101—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, wished to take Amendments Nos. 81 to 119—those are her amendments—outside the group on the groupings list. The noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that he is speaking to Amendments Nos. 64 to 71. He is also speaking to Amendments Nos. 75 to 80 rather than to Amendment No. 81.
Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Lord for that information, as it alleviates my task. In any event I wish to speak specifically on Amendments Nos. 64 to 71. We now reach the important issue of the consumers' councils. In the course of our Second Reading debate a number of noble Lords, including myself, spoke about the unevenness of the consumers' councils as regards the four utilities with which this Bill is concerned.
It was pointed out that only one of the four utilities—namely, the gas industry—has a powerful, strong and well constituted council. As regards the other utilities, the councils vary considerably. There is no common practice. Perhaps the weakest utility of all in this regard is the telecommunications industry. I introduce these amendments to strengthen that council. It seems appropriate in a Bill of this kind which is concerned with strengthening the position of the consumer that the consumers' councils should form a significant part of the provision.
At present in the telecommunications sector there are four territorial committees with two specialist committees. It is felt that the specialist committees work pretty effectively but that the four territorial committees do not play a role which is in any way similar to the role exercised by the gas consumers' council. It is that deficiency which the amendments

1083
seek to put right. This matter is a real test of the seriousness of the Government in concerning themselves with safeguarding the interests of the consumer in these important industries. If they are serious about that, they should put right this anomaly.
It has always seemed to me difficult to understand why we should have these different consumers' council regimes. The utilities all provide essential services. The interests of the customers are fully taken into account and it would appear that in all cases there was justification for powerful consumer bodies. The task of the director is to ensure that operators adhere to the conditions of their licences in providing a service. But there must be relatively independent consumer bodies to safeguard the interests of consumers. Those bodies must work alongside the important work of the director. I await with great interest the Minister's reply so that I may discover the views of the Government on the amendments. I very much hope that this will be among the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will take away with him and ponder upon until we come back to the matter at a later stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I have a good deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I do not know that I would go the whole way and would want to set up the panoply of a telecommunications consumers' council. However, I should like to take this opportunity to say for the record that from the consumers' point of view the status quo is not satisfactory.
Oftel is not readily accessible to the ordinary consumer. It is not easy for a consumer in any part of the country to find the telephone number of Oftel nor to get in touch with it. If consumers write to Oftel they may not receive a response for a considerable period of time. The absence of such a body means that there is no consultative procedure, which would be of benefit to the director general. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will consider putting it to the director general that there might be a review of consumer representation so far as concerns telecommunications.
Lord Desai: In rising to support the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, my noble friend Lord Williams and myself, I should also like to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 65 to 71 and 75 to 80.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, the purpose of the amendments is to strengthen consumer representation in the telecommunications field on the lines of the Gas Consumers' Council. In other words there would be a properly financed and staffed body which would be accessible to consumers—both individuals and businesses—and which would report regularly and take up complaints.
Since the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has already spoken about the proposed telecommunications consumers' council perhaps I may point out that the Gas Consumers' Council, which is the model in this instance, currently cannot deal with complaints concerning supply matters. Given the lateness of the hour I wish to say only that the main purpose of
1084
Amendments Nos. 75 to 80 is to enable the Gas Consumers' Council to deal with supply matters as well. The amendments also concern many other smaller matters, all of which are designed to strengthen the accountability of the Gas Consumers' Council and the proposed telecommunications consumers' council.
Lord Reay: Did the noble Lord speak to all the amendments through to Amendment No. 80?
I shall speak first to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the other amendments in the group comprising Amendments Nos. 64 to 71. That series of amendments would scrap the existing structure of national and local telecommunications advisory committees and replace them with a single body analogous to the Gas Consumers' Council.
As the law stands the prime responsibility for protecting the interests of consumers lies clearly with the director general. That is his function. He has the necessary powers for that, enshrined in statute and in the public telecommunications operators' licences.
As the noble Lord explained, the telecommunications industry already has four national advisory committees, one each for Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. In our view the committees do a good job. They have a good track record in helping consumers to resolve problems. They have been in existence since before the 1984 Telecommunications Act. The members of each national advisory committee are appointed by the Secretary of State, not by the director general. Therefore, any fear that they are not sufficiently independent is unfounded.
In addition to the four national bodies, there are 160 local telecommunications advisory committees, either voluntary or sponsored by an organisation such as a chamber of commerce or local authority. They know what their responsibilities are and how to discharge them properly.
There exists then, in our opinion, a perfectly good statutory regime under which the director general has clear duties to promote the interests of consumers and clear powers to discharge those duties. He is able to draw upon the advice of the advisory committees in doing so, and all except the committees for England handle customer complaints in the first instance as well. All that is well established and would in my view only be harmed by what would amount to an upheaval which would follow from adopting the noble Lord's amendment.
Another problem raised by these amendments is that they would divide the responsibility for investigating customer complaints from the power to resolve them. In our view, that could cause confusion and delay to the customer. The proposed new council would be able to investigate complaints but not settle them by a legal determination. In order to have effective regulation there has to be one person or one body to make the decisions, with power to settle complaints in the interests of either the consumer or the business, based upon a fair judgment of the legitimacy of those complaints. Oftel has both the power and the independence to deal with consumers' problems with telecommunications operators.

1085
The noble Lord has implicitly endorsed our view that the regulator should remain the only person with the power to determine disputes. But I seriously question the benefit of a new organisation existing alongside the regulator to investigate disputes. Therefore I cannot accept the amendments.
My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes raised a very interesting and important question which certainly deserves to be looked into. As she suggested, I am willing to ask the director general to consider whether a review of the existing structure is needed.
I turn to the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, spoke. The effect of Amendment No. 75 is to oblige the Secretary of State to take into account relevant experience of people he is considering for appointment to the Gas Consumers' Council (GCC). The Secretary of State will take into account a great many factors in deciding whom to appoint as a member of the council. Experience or knowledge of the subject are naturally factors which would be considered, but to place one of those factors on the face of legislation would implicitly reduce the scope to take others into account. Therefore we would not consider it desirable to oblige them by law to do so.
Amendment No. 76 would have two effects. It would oblige the director general to take up cases where the GCC has not been able to resolve a dispute; and it would remove the existing requirement for the GCC to refer "enforcement matters" to the director general. In our view this amendment would confuse the legal responsibilities and powers of the director general and the GCC with no advantage accruing to the customer. Indeed, I would argue that the result could be a less useful system for resolving customer complaints.
With regard to Amendment No. 77, we consider that where the director general has statutory responsibility for something it is only right that he should control the handling of it. The amendment would cause confusion between the responsibilities of Ofgas and the GCC in a way which seems to us to be at the very least unhelpful.
The provisions relating to written reports would be particularly harmful. The GCC, having investigated a complaint which only the director general can resolve, can draw up a written report and, if it wishes, send copies to all sorts of people. This report can recommend that the gas supplier reconsiders the matter. Alternatively, or presumably once the supplier has refused, another report can be drawn up and copied to those people again recommending that the director general should consider exercising his enforcement functions. At this point we would finally have arrived at where we would have been at the outset if the director general had been allowed to deal with the matter himself.
This amendment sets up in statute the untried mechanisms that I have described. What we believe we want is a customer complaint handling system which is quick, clear and decisive. I do not feel that the amendment is the route to that.
On Amendment No. 78, the GCC is already free to offer advice on such matters to the Secretary of State. My understanding is that it corresponds with and calls
1086
upon the Secretary of State and that he considers its advice. The amendment seems to place an unnecessary new statutory duty on the GCC. I therefore cannot agree to it.
Amendment No. 79 seems to impose a very open-ended and onerous requirement. I cannot understand it as being right that Ofgas should be obliged to pass on all information to the GCC whether or not the GCC has a specific use for it. Some information will be commercially confidential or otherwise sensitive and the director general is required to bear that in mind in any publication that he makes based upon it. However, the new clause fails to cater for that possibility and leaves the director general with no choice but to pass such information outside his control. One result of that risk could well be that gas suppliers would supply the director general only with information which they felt could safely be published without their permission. Therefore the quality and depth of information available to the director general would be considerably less than we had envisaged.
Amendment No. 80 is consequential upon Amendment No. 78. I argue that it is not necessary.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: Will the noble Lord elucidate something that he said at the beginning of his remarks in response to his noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes? Did he say that he would be asking the director general to conduct a review of consumer representation within the telecom sector?
Lord Reay: I said that I would ask the director general to consider whether a review of the existing structure is necessary.
Lord Ezra: That is half a crumb. I remind the noble Lord of one of the wider issues raised at Second Reading. A number of noble Lords believed that the time had come to have a more clearly defined separation of the economic regulation function of the director general; the regulator on the one hand, and the consumer protection function on the other. It was not suggested that the two be entirely separated. Nonetheless it was felt that consumer representation should be strengthened and become the function of an at least quasi-independent body. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
In view of the fact that that approach will be made to the director general, I am ready to withdraw the amendment at this stage and to return to the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 71 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Interpretation]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 10, line 38, leave out ("operators") and insert ("operator").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. Its effect is to correct a wrong definition of designated operator which is currently defined in the Bill only in the plural.
The amendment does not signify any change of policy. As currently printed, it would operate in the plural. The definition means that every reference in the

1087
Bill to a designated operator can only be taken to mean all designated operators. That is not our intention. We wish "designated operator" to be capable of meaning one designated operator. The amendment enables different standards to be set for different operators if that is desirable. I trust that the Committee will find the amendment acceptable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 11, line 4, leave out ("25") and insert ("35").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 74. Both amendments have more or less the same purpose. My amendment is interrogatory in the sense of asking why the figure of 25 per cent. is used and not, say, 35 per cent. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, goes into a little more detail but I shall leave it to him to explain. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: I wish to address the Committee on my Amendment No. 74 at this stage. Like that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, it is directed to the definition of market share. The Bill will apply to an operator who provides 25 per cent. of the voice telephony services in his licensed area. I believe that if the citizen is to have rights as regards the quality of his or her telephone service enshrined in legislation those rights should be available whatever company is supplying the relevant services. Thus my preference would be for no qualifying threshold.
However, if there is to be such a threshold it needs to be expressed more precisely than as,
"25 per cent. of the voice telephony services in his licensed area".
Nowhere does the Bill define what is meant by that phrase. The proportion of the services could be calculated in a number of ways; for instance, call volume, exchange line provision, call revenue, combined call and exchange line revenue and so forth. The definition is crucial since it determines to whom the legislation may apply, yet the Bill is silent on it.
British Telecom has approached me. It believes that Clause 10, which covers interpretation, should be amended to indicate that an operator provides 25 per cent. of the service when calls over exchange lines installed by that operator account for 25 per cent. of the call revenue generated over all exchange lines (by whomsoever supplied) in that operator's licensed area.
I suggest that call revenue responds best to market power because of the scope for cherry-picking customers who make the most intensive use of telephone services. I can see no good reason why the market should not be defined now. Doing so would have the advantage that all the players, including the new entrants, would know exactly where they stood. That is the reason for tabling my amendment.
Lord Reay: The effect of the amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, appears to be to increase the level of market share at which a designated operator comes under the jurisdiction of the director general.
The object of the Bill is to provide the regulators with the powers to ensure improved services for utility
1088
customers where competition is too limited to provide the stimulus of good service. For that reason the Bill concentrates on areas where utilities still have an effective monopoly; in the case of telecommunications, where a company has 25 per cent. of voice telephony services. The figure of 25 per cent. is not an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air but is based on the definition of 25 per cent. of a market which constitutes a monopoly under the Fair Trading Act.
I believe, therefore, that it would be wrong to depart from what is a soundly-based definition and I would resist the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: In what respect does the noble Lord believe that it is soundly based? It has come under heavy criticism.
Lord Reay: It is the figure drawn from the 25 per cent. of the market which constitutes a monopoly under the Fair Trading Act.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The Fair Trading Act definition of monopoly as 25 per cent. of the market has come under heavy criticism.
Lord Reay: We believe that it is a sound reason for why the figure should be 25 per cent. in this case. It supplies the reason why we have adopted 25 per cent. in this case.
I turn to Amendment No. 74, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. Its effect would be to enable the Secretary of State to designate for the purposes of the Bill an operator with more than 25 per cent. of the voice telephony market judged as a percentage of call revenue. It appears to be aimed at trying to include Mercury within the Bill's scope, since Mercury tends to operate mainly in the market of more expensive calls.
The Government's policy is that the Bill should apply only to those operators who can exercise a dominant influence over the market. Operators such as Mercury are competing for market share with BT in selected markets such as international calls, and consumers are reaping the benefits in terms of competition over service and price.
We consider competition to be working and believe that we do not need to use the Bill to try to increase the regulator's role in relation to those operators. BT still has a virtual monopoly in the provision of a number of services and the Bill is therefore necessary to ensure high standards of service. I therefore cannot agree with the amendment.
Lord Hacking: I raised a number of technical points. It is a question of definition, and I shall be grateful, if the Minister cannot agree with me on his feet, if he will do me the courtesy of reading my speech again. I presented the points as precisely as I could.
Lord Reay: I am happy to give an assurance that I will read the noble Lord's speech in Hansard. I will study further the technical points that he made and, if necessary, reply to him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his replies. I am bound to say, as I did when

1089
intervening, that the figure of 25 per cent. of a market in the Fair Trading Act 1973 has come under considerable criticism, not least by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. As the noble Lord knows, it is difficult to define a market and to say whether or not 25 per cent. is a dominating position. It depends on what percentage other people have in the same market, however one defines it.
1090
However, if because it's there, because it's there, because it's there, is the reason that 25 per cent. appears in the Bill, which the noble Lord seemed to imply, there is nothing much more I can say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 80 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Standards of performance]:
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 12, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) the Council; and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 81 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who apologises for her absence, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 90, 94 to 98, 101, 104 and 119.
These amendments are simple, clear and extremely modest. Each one adds the word "Council" and, as in the Gas Act, it means the Gas Consumers Council. If the Government accept the amendments, as I believe they should, it means that the Gas Consumers Council will be entitled to be consulted as of right. It is widely acknowledged that the Gas Consumers Council is unique; that it is effective, efficient and held in high regard. If these minor amendments are not added to the Bill, the position of the Gas Consumers Council will be undermined at a time when the Government have committed themselves, through the Citizen's Charter, to a better deal for consumers.
The regard in which the Gas Consumers Council is held owes a great deal to the brilliance of its former chairman, Sheila Black, and of course to its present chairman. I have a letter from Sheila Black, in which she says,
"As former chairman of GCC, I well recall how we worked alongside Ofgas on monitoring disconnections, helping to shorten the time on collecting data for that project, eventually of benefit to everyone—Ofgas, British Gas and consumers. The work on Standards of Service produced a real Citizen's Charter from British Gas, was also to the benefit of companies and consumers".
Continued consultation, therefore, is of the greatest importance to everybody concerned, and I very much agree with those sentiments.
My noble friend has been extremely courteous, patient and acute at this late hour, but I hope that he will not argue that these consultations will not be required because it is a matter of course that the council is likely to be consulted. That is not good enough. The requirement to consult the Gas Consumers Council is something which, in view of its stature and standing, the work it has done and the benefits it will bring, is important enough to write into the Bill. I hope also that he will not argue that he cannot do it because the other utilities do not have consumer councils. That is an area into which we do not want to stray at this time of the night.
I hope my noble friend will consider these modest amendments favourably.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I would like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, in this group of amendments. I believe that we all admire the work of the Gas Consumers Council and would wish it to be reinforced. Indeed, part of the amendment which we have just discussed was designed to reinforce, perhaps over-reinforce, the powers of that consumer council. But I stray into territory that the noble Baroness has warned me against. It is because
1092
the Gas Consumers Council is so successful that we on this side of the Committee would like to see consumer councils of a similar nature for the other utilities. I see that the noble Baroness is waving me down and I do not want to offend her.
I very much hope that the Government will accept these amendments because they mark an important step in consumer protection.
Lord Ezra: I would also like to support this series of amendments. They are modest, as the noble Baroness said when introducing them, but they are of great importance. We are here concerned with strengthening the position of the consumer and of the councils wherever appropriate. It is appropriate in these cases because the director is having to make consultations in every one of these cases. In the normal course of events, as the noble Baroness surmised, he will probably approach the consumers council anyway, but I agree with her that that is not good enough and that the council should be designated as such in order to give it increased status and position in these matters.
Lord Reay: The amendments to Clauses 11, 15 and 17 introduce a specific requirement on the director to consult the Gas Consumers Council where there is currently a general requirement to consult consumer representatives when setting guaranteed standards, overall performance standards and standards for the promotion of the efficient use of gas. It is not the case that this Bill undermines the position of the Gas Consumers Council.
In this Bill we have extended the role of the Gas Consumers Council. We have extended it by involving it in complaints handling and the determination of disputes. In Clause 14, which relates to complaints handling procedure, and Clause 16 on the determination of disputes, the director is specifically required to consult the council because the council will have an active role in dealing with complaints and disputes. It is therefore appropriate in those cases that the requirement to consult should actually go so far as to specify the council.
The clauses which these amendments seek to change are different. They relate to the setting of standards which will affect large numbers of consumers whose interests may be represented by a wide range of different organisations. The director is therefore required to consult persons or bodies likely to be representative of persons likely to be affected. That could cover a whole range of bodies as diverse as the National Consumer Council and Age Concern. Any reasonable person would include the Gas Consumers Council in this definition and I do not see the need to name it specifically when there is such a wide-ranging obligation to consult. Beyond that, to refer specifically only to the Gas Consumers Council would detract from the standing of other bodies whose views may be equally valid.
As regards Amendment No. 94, that would introduce a new requirement on the director general to consult the council before he publishes information on performance against standards that he has set and compensation paid when those standards are not met.

1093
Although we have taken steps in this Bill to extend the role of the council, we did not believe that publication of information was an area where it was appropriate to involve the council.
The director has to strike a delicate balance between passing on information he has obtained which may be of interest to customers and retaining information which might damage individuals or companies. An example might be where information on standards of performance reveal that British Gas had consistently failed to maintain a supply to a business. That business may have made great efforts to ensure that its customers are not inconvenienced by the failure of British Gas and would, understandably, not wish existing or potential customers to discover its difficulties.
The responsibility for achieving that balance should clearly lie with the director who has been given a duty to collect such information. By requiring the director to consult the council the amendment would dilute the director's sole responsibility for deciding what information to publish on standards of performance and compensation paid. Therefore, I do not think that the amendment is suitable.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 96, 97 and 98. These amendments introduce new requirements for a public gas supplier to consult the Gas Consumers Council if he has been ordered by the director to carry out a review of his complaints handling procedure. The clause strengthens the role of the council by requiring a public gas supplier to consult the council when it establishes a complaints handling procedure. The director general may order a review of complaints handling procedures once they have been established. If he does so he has a general power to specify the manner in which the review is to be undertaken. This could include a requirement that the council be consulted.
It is therefore not necessary to include a specific requirement that the supplier should consult the council during a review of its complaints handling procedure if such a review is ordered by the director. The place for consultation is during the review and the director has the power to require that it takes place. Once the director has the report of the review it is his responsibility to decide what action to take and these amendments would make that responsibility less clear.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 119. The Bill provides for the abolition of British Gas's monopoly of supply to customers using less than 25,000 therms a year. I expect an initial reduction of the monopoly threshold to a level not less than 2,500 therms to take place in the next Parliament. The director general is responsible for promoting competition in gas supply and has considerable expertise and knowledge in this field. The Secretary of State is therefore obliged to consult the director before reducing the therm monopoly threshold. The Secretary of State may also consult a range of other people. I believe that this requirement to consult strikes the right balance and I therefore urge that this amendment should not be pressed.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I am grateful to my noble friend for his courteous reply. On reflection, I
1094
agree with him that the Bill does not undermine the Gas Consumers Council, but neither does it reinforce it very much. It is a body which is worthy of reinforcement. I also agree that some of the later amendments in the group to which I was speaking may not be as appropriate as some of the earlier ones.
I should like also to say to the Minister that requiring the director to consult the Gas Consumers Council is not exclusive. It does not mean that if he consults the Gas Consumers Council he cannot, or may not, consult any of the other excellent bodies where appropriate, including those that my noble friend mentioned.
In view of these lingering doubts I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter as my noble friend Lady Gardner may wish to raise the matter again at a later stage. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 12, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) prescribe that, before a public gas supplier exercises his power to cut off supply under Schedule 5, paragraph 7(5), he shall make contact with the customer and provide a written statement of the options by which the customer can pay the charges due to him in respect of gas supply. This statement shall include information with respect to—

(a) a payment arrangement to pay by instalments, and

(b) the installation of a coinless pre-payment meter, and

(c) a direct payment arrangement with the Department of Social Security for customers who are in receipt of income support or other state benefits.

The statement shall ask the customer to indicate the preferred payment method.").
The noble Lord said: This is a relatively simple amendment. It has the purpose of requiring a gas supplier to seek methods of repayment for cutting off supplies to a customer. It also has the purpose of requiring a supplier to offer different payment options before disconnection. We believe that this amendment makes it easier for those on low incomes to re-budget in order to pay their debts and take away some of the unnecessary stress, if it is unnecessary, of disconnection. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: This amendment would require British Gas to inform customers of alternatives to lump sum payment arrangements and give them a chance to respond before cutting off supply.
British Gas's licence obliges the company to draw up a code of practice which includes guidance to domestic customers if they have difficulty paying their bills. British Gas is also obliged to distinguish between customers who have difficulty in paying and others in default and to adopt methods for dealing with customers who have difficulty in paying.
To comply with these licence conditions British Gas takes a series of steps. It encourages customers in debt to make contact as soon as possible to discuss ways of paying off the debt. A copy of the code of practice is sent to every customer who is sent a second reminder of an outstanding bill. The code encourages customers to contact British Gas but also lists other sources of help and advice—the Gas Consumers Council, citizens advice bureaux, local authorities and the DSS.

1095
It sets out the different ways in which payment can be made—by instalments, savings stamps, token meters or coin meters.
If the customer fails to contact British Gas, debt collection staff will always visit the customer and either discuss the problem or leave a "Helpline pack", which includes a further copy of the code of practice, and a Helpline card. The Helpline card again encourages the customer to contact the company, the DSS or an advice agency and sets out the methods of payment available. The company will take no further action for 21 days if the case is under consideration by the DSS. If British Gas wishes to proceed with disconnection it must obtain a warrant of entry. It will again write to the customer informing him of this action, referring to the code of practice and offering a pre-payment meter (token-operated where feasible) if it is safe and practical to fit one. These arrangements are working very well: gas disconnections are at an all time low (18,161 or 0.11 per cent. of domestic credit customers in the year to June 1991, compared with a peak of 61,796 or 0·4 per cent. in the year to 31st March 1988).
I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that the amendment is not necessary. British Gas's current arrangements are broadly similar—and in some ways go further—than what the amendment proposes and are enforceable as licence conditions. Furthermore, they have the advantage that they can be adapted to changing circumstances, which would not be possible if the requirements were prescribed on the face of the Bill. In view of those considerations, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the Minister. The reply is absolutely satifactory. I am grateful to him for spelling out in detail and for the record exactly what the situation is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 86 to 93 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Information with respect to levels of performance]:
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Procedures for dealing with complaints]:
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 98 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 99:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Accountability of the regulator
.—(1) In section 34 of the Gas Act 1986 (General Functions of Director), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons likely to be affected, give directions prescribing the standards of performance which ought to be achieved by the director in carrying out his functions under the Act".
1096
(2) In section 39 of the Gas Act 1986 (Annual and other reports of Director) in subsection (2), after the words "under section 34(3)" insert "and (3A)".
(3) In section 39 of the Gas Act 1986, at end of subsection (2), after the word "above" insert—
"and his performance in carrying out his functions in relation to standards set by the Secretary of State in directions under section 34(3A) above".").
The noble Lord said: I shall not be speaking to Amendment No. 117 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, which was originally grouped with this amendment. The noble Baroness wishes to speak to it herself on the next day of Committee.
At Second Reading a number of noble Lords referred to the accountability of the regulator. The amendment seeks to address the problem raised by noble Lords on Second Reading. As a result of the Bill, I believe that public awareness of the role of the regulators in relation to privatised utilities is now becoming much more generally recognised. The Bill extends the existing powers of the Director General of Gas Supply to include adjudication on disputes in a number of areas. The expanded role will increasingly bring the director into a direct service relationship with the public. No doubt the various organisations will be called upon to assist individual customers in pursuing grievances.
As I said, concern was expressed on Second Reading—and, indeed, in another place—about the lack of requirement in the Bill for the directors to give reasons for their decisions. We discussed that aspect earlier today. But the question which now arises is the role of the Director General of Gas Supply and whether his performance—that is, the performance of the regulator himself—in carrying out his functions in relation to the standards set by the Secretary of State (under directions in the section referred to in the amendment) should be measured and, finally, whether the Secretary of State should set standards which the regulator ought to live up to.
The method is just one way of regulating a regulator. It may not be the only method. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, will be seeking to produce another one. However, it is a problem that will not go away. As the regulators become more powerful, there will need to be some mechanism for ensuring that they perform as they are meant to perform. This is only one suggestion; I put it forward as such. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to set performance standards for the Director General of Gas supply. I entirely agree that the director should be accountable for his performance: he is already accountable to the Secretary of State, to Parliament and, through the system of judicial review, to the courts. However, if he is to perform his duties effectively, the director must, in our view, retain his independence of the political process. For the Secretary of State to set performance standards for the regulator as the amendment envisages would involve him in second-guessing the director and would compromise that independence.

1097
I do not, therefore, think that the Secretary of State should be involved in setting performance standards for the director. The director is appointed by the Secretary of State and, if he does not carry out his duties satisfactorily, he can be replaced.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As always, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I believe that we shall have to return to the matter at the next sitting of the Committee, when the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, will move her amendment. I put the method forward as one alternative. I do not say that it is the only alternative; indeed, it may be that a direct relationship between the regulators and a parliamentary committee of some sort would be preferable. However, I give notice to the noble Lord that the discussion is not yet finished. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Promotion of efficient use of gas]:
[Amendments Nos. 100 to 103 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Billing disputes]:
[Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Local Government Finance Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.

Offshore Safety Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.

  REFUGEES: CULTURAL AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
  REFUGEES: CULTURAL AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMPENSATION RECOVERY
  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMPENSATION RECOVERY
  FARMLINK PROJECT
  FARMLINK PROJECT
  BT SHARE OFFER: COSTS
  BT SHARE OFFER: COSTS
  ROYAL PARKS: CONTRACTORS' STAFFING ARRANGEMENTS
  ROYAL PARKS: CONTRACTORS' STAFFING ARRANGEMENTS
  LONDON ZOO: LISTED BUILDING MAINTENANCE
  LONDON ZOO: LISTED BUILDING MAINTENANCE
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD: FUNDING
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD: FUNDING