Sitting of 9 July 1993

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

  Tourism and Deregulation
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  9.33 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I very much welcome the chance today to talk about the important subject of tourism and deregulation. Before I do so, there are two general points to make about tourism. First, I emphasise the importance that we at the Department of National Heritage attach to tourism and the real seriousness with which we take it. One of the reasons why the Department of National Heritage was set up was that too many subjects in Government were not given enough weight and emphasis in the Departments in which they were located. We set up the Department of National Heritage so that the arts, sport, tourism and other matters would be given proper weight within Government thinking.
  In some areas, tourism has been for too long an underrated industry perhaps the most underrated industry—in the country. It employs roughly 1·5 million people. Some £25 billion a year is spent on tourism, of which £7·7 billion comes from foreign tourists. We had 18 million foreign visitors last year and the figure for this year is likely to be even better. Some 4 per cent. of our gross domestic product is accounted for by tourism. However, because the industry is so fragmented—it is made up of so many small businesses which vary from one part of tourism to another—it has not always been taken with the seriousness that it requires. I assure the House today that our Department will be the champion of the tourism industry.
  Secondly, before I turn to aspects of tourism and deregulation, I stress that I have no plans at this moment to hold yet another review of tourism. We want to get some certainty, security and stability into the tourism industry. Over the next few months, I want every regional tourist board to tell me what it has in mind for its own area. Before the House returns in October, I shall go to every region to see what the boards are doing on the ground.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: When the Minister goes round the regions, will he ask them what impact there would be on tourism within the regions if we opened regional airports more so that people could fly directly to places such as Manchester rather than always having to come via London?
  Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I give him a pledge that I will ask that specific question of every relevant tourism body. Later in my speech, I shall come to the question of direct flights from abroad to this country.
  576
  I have a small idea on which I do not want to place too much weight. Hon. Members will know of the community action projects which, roughly speaking, are for people who draw unemployment benefit and who get an extra £10 if they work for the money that the taxpayer gives them. When the debate is over, I propose to write to every regional tourist board saying, "Will you look at your area and see what opportunities for community action projects there are to improve tourism projects?" There is a great deal of clearing up, cleaning, painting and archive research to be done. I should like the regional tourist boards to come back to me with half dozen or perhaps 10 suggestions of specific projects. We will then consider them and put whatever shove and push we can behind them.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: On the importance of tourism for employment, will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the best things about the expansion of the tourism industry is that over the past 10 years employment in the industry has grown by 28 per cent., compared with only 1 per cent. growth in employment in the country generally? That reinforces the importance of tourism, which is a great contributor to the development of this country. Is it not remarkable that although the Conservative Benches are so full, the Opposition Benches are almost completely empty? Does that not reinforce the fact that the Conservative party is the only party which cares about tourism and the jobs that it produces?
  Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of jobs in tourism. As I have said, about 1·5 million people in this country are involved directly or indirectly in tourism. The figure is even greater in the world as a whole. The WTTO—the world travel organisation or whatever it is called—has produced figures which show that one in 15 people around the world and 6 per cent. of world GDP are involved in tourism. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) has made a very important point.
  However, all of that is simply background to the central subject of this debate which is tourism and deregulation and the important link between them.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend says, "Hear, hear." I am afraid that the laws and customs of the House will not allow a Parliamentary Private Secretary to intervene in this debate. I am very sorry about that. However, I pay a sincere tribute to the great lead and contribution that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has made to the whole question of deregulation and tourism. He has introduced two ten-minute Bills and he has another to come. I am indebted to him for all that he has done.
  The House will recall that during the first Question Time in which I had the honour to represent the Department, I said that I intended to conduct an urgent and detailed inquiry into the effects of regulation, interference and general bureaucracy on the tourism industry. I should like this morning to make an interim report on that important subject.
  When I invited hon. Members, members of tourist boards, hoteliers and restaurateurs to let me know what they felt about bureaucracy and regulation in tourism, little did I know what I was doing. I have been overwhelmed by an avalanche of letters, requests for

  577
  meetings and evidence of bureaucracy from the tourist trade. If I were asked whether the situation is as bad as I had suspected, I would have to say, "No, it's far, far worse."
  We have uncorked an explosion of fury and frustration at the pettifogging burdens, bureaucracy, costs, waste of time and damage to tourists themselves. Every time an environmental health officer comes along and says, "You've got to spend another £4,000 smartening up your kitchen", that £4,000 is added directly to the price that the tourist pays and it lowers our competitiveness vis-à-vis other countries.
  I want to give the House some idea of the initial findings that my civil servants and I discovered as a result of inviting the industry to let us know its feelings. I must emphasise that what I am about to tell the House—for what it is worth—is personal experience related to my civil servants and myself. It has nothing to do with newspaper cuttings or second-hand information. What I am about to recount is news directly from the battlefront.
  Before I elaborate on the details, which will enrage and perhaps very occasionally entertain the House, I must stress that what has become clear is that regulations come in many forms and many guises and from many sources. It is not a matter of one monster coming from one place. With regard to the sources of regulations, we must take a great deal of the blame, because many of the regulations come from Parliament. Many of them come from the European Community—although, I am bound to say, not quite so many as people believe. The regulations come from local authorities, quangos and very often they come from individual officers of quangos who exceed their instructions.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Sproat: I will give way in a second.
  The regulations come from quangos and often from officious and offensive officers of quangos. Sometimes, as I will show, they come entirely from the land of rumour and ignorance.
  Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not so much a matter of the rules and directives as the way in which they are enforced? Is it not the case that many people in the tourism industry in this country believe that we are the only country in Europe in which there is over-zealous regulation and enforcement of those regulations?
  Mr. Sproat: Yes, my hon. Friend has made a very good point. I was about to dissect and analyse the different forms and guises that regulations take.
  Sometimes regulations are just stupid, absurd and wrong. Sometimes enforcement between one part of the country and another is ludicrously inconsistent. Sometimes regulations are well meant in theory, but grotesquely impractical. On other occasions, they are just heavy-handed, officious or completely disproportionate to the alleged offence. Sometimes, they spring from a lack of knowledge and I will touch on that in a moment.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) has made the point so correctly and strongly, perhaps I should run through some of those headings and
  578
  give examples, not of the worst or most expensive things, but simply to give the House some understanding of the range of absurdities, intrusion and offence and the range of regulations from which the burdens spring.
  I said that, in the view of the tourist trade, some regulations are simply completely wrong, stupid or absurd. An example of that is the package travel directive. I am not sure whether I would have set up such a package. None the less, the package travel directive was set up to catch large organisations through which people travelled from abroad and were not absolutely certain what would happen in the country to which they were travelling. However, the package has extended far beyond that and small hotels in this country now suddenly find themselves involved in extremely expensive bonding exercises. That disrupts their cash flow or, in many cases, ruins their profits.
  There is also a problem with signing. We seem to have a paranoia about signing in this country.
  Mr. Richard Page: My hon. Friend may be unaware of the fact that I act as an adviser on parliamentary affairs to the Association of British Travel Agents, which has been considerably involved with the implementation of the package travel directive to which my hon. Friend has just referred. There is considerable debate about the definitions that lie behind the directive. That affects the hotels to which my hon. Friend has just referred and the difficulties that they may face if they happen to offer extra facilities such as golf weekends or pony trekking.
  If my hon. Friend could have those definitions examined and changed, because I do not believe that hotels or business travellers should have been caught by the package, he would incur the greatest debt of gratitude from the tourism industry and, by that one stroke, he would do more to deregulate the industry than any other action.
  Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Gratitude is a rare commodity in politics and if I can catch a smidgen of it, I shall be very grateful. I entirely agree that we should consider the definitions to see whether the wrong people are being caught. In addition, the Foreign Office might like to consider the matter in relation to subsidiarity.
  I referred to signing. We have an extraordinary attitude to signs in this country. It is very difficult—indeed, almost impossible—to erect a hotel sign on or near a road. Tourism is a very important industry, but if somone tries to put up a sign, he will almost certainly not succeed. Indeed, since 16 June, I have learnt of a hotel which had a sign up for 50 years but has been made to take it down.
  I have to be very careful in this debate not to be too disagreeable about other Departments. I must keep my tongue under strict control. However, I believe that the Department of the Environment recently wrote to a hotelier who wanted to put up a sign. The matter was rejected on the grounds that the sign was in ugly black and white and that that would look nasty against the green fields behind it. That is the kind of absurdity that we must stop.
  This country is the sixth—or perhaps the fifth, depending on one's definition—most visited country in the world.
  Lady Olga Maitland: It seems astonishing for the Department of Transport to suggest

  579
  that signs outside hotels distract drivers. How can a sign which gives positive information to a passing driver be distracting?
  Mr. Sproat: I do not think that we should be as strict on signs. Too much is made of the distraction element. As a champion of the tourist industry, I will take up the matter with the Department of Transport and with local authorities—it is not always the Department of Transport; it is also local authorities—and say, "For goodness sake, get this sorted out."
  Ours is the fifth or sixth most visited country in the world. From memory, the most visited country in Europe is France. Anybody who has been to a French town or village will remember that large signs outside the village actually direct people to hotels. If one wants to stay at the Hotel de Paris or the Hotel Plage, one will see the sign for it. If we are serious about tourism, we must do that too. I will look at what the French are doing during the recess—[Interruption.]—by photograph, and I will let the House know what progress we make.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Has my hon. Friend noticed, as he has driven around the country, how many farmers' fields have vehicles parked in them advertising hotels or giving directions to certain places? The law is so strict that people with imagination and initiative are trying to get around them by using such schemes. Is it not better to have sensible rules and regulations that can be properly applied, rather than making it impossible to erect signs and force farmers to do such things?
  Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is sad if the laws come into such disrespect that people who would otherwise never dream of breaking the law feel impelled to do so, I shall return to that point in a different context.
  There is the famous sign of the zoo, which must be indicated by an elephant symbol. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has rightly made a great fuss about the fact that he has a flamingo park in his constituency but was told that it had to be indicated by an elephant symbol. That is the kind of grotesquerie for which there can be no excuse, and it must go. I do not want to weary the House with too many examples. I was trying to give a spread of the difficulties and the stupidity. We have signposting that is stupidly in error, and we have the package travel directive.
  Last year, a hotel in Gloucestershire wanted to hold a dance on new year's eve—a very simple addition to the tourist calendar. To be allowed to do that, the hotel had to fill in no fewer than 88 detailed forms before it could obtain permission to have its dance. That is another stupid example, which gives a flavour of the problem that was raised by one of my hon. Friends at Question Time recently.
  If one likes Camembert cheese, one probably likes it reasonably warm and reasonably soft and runny. Under our batty regulations, one has to keep even Camembert cheese in a refrigerator so cold that the cheese comes out not warm and runny as it should but cold and hard like a piece of refrigerated rubber.
  Mr. Tony Banks: That is how it should be eaten.
  Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views, but they are unusual.
  580
  Inconsistent enforcement has been mentioned. That is a serious point. A famous London hotel, which has been established for more than 100 years, had its air conditioning system passed by Westminster council with no problems at all. Last year, along came a new environmental health officer who said, "I don't like this air conditioning. You will switch it off. Not a room in your hotel will be allowed to be air conditioned by this air conditioning system." The hotel could not operate. It took 100 hours of management time just to sort out that piece of officious, offensive little Hitlerdom. That is another example of inconsistent enforcement.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I do not disagree with several examples that the Minister has given, but does he recognise that there are circumstances in which inefficient air conditioning systems can be a serious threat to people's health? Legionnaire's disease has been caused by contaminated water coming out of inappropriate systems. Does the Minister recognise that it would be a disaster for the tourist industry in London or, indeed, in Britain if there were rumours of disease being caused by malfunctioning air conditioning systems?
  Mr. Sproat: Indeed, it would be. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point, which he properly made at a recent Question Time. There are regulations relating to fire and so on, and indeed air conditioning, that have to be properly enforced. My point was that, after years of environmental health officers passing the system and saying that it was perfectly acceptable—as, indeed, it was and has been so proved—an individual can come along and, off his own bat, cause the destruction of a hotel, restaurant or whatever.
  There is the famous case of certain local authorities stopping restaurants using wooden spoons or wooden boards to chop tomatoes on, so they had to use plastic equipment or something else. They installed new chopping boards and so on, but it turned out that wood is better, because it includes an enzyme which makes it more hygienic than plastic or stainless steel. Thousands of pounds have been spent to implement regulations that have turned out to be faulty.
  There are hundreds of examples. Some local authorities do not allow hotels to have a washing machine in the kitchen, whereas others do. We have done some research on this matter. It can cost £2,000 to £4,000 to build an extension to accommodate a washing machine. Those are petty burdens. For Trusthouse Forte, £2,000 for a new place for a washing machine is not a lot of money, but for a small hotel in the west country, it is an important part of its bottom line.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some parts of the country such as mine, which is a national park, one would not get planning permission to build such an extension? Local authorities are incredibly strict on such matters. A hotel could therefore go out of business because, on the one hand, it is told to build an extension and, on the other hand, the authority refuses to allow it to do so.
  Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes another good point about inconsistency. In some parts of the country, hotels are told that they have to put fly-screens over the kitchen windows, but my Department then comes along and says,

  581
  "This is a listed building—you are not allowed to put up fly-screens anyway." There are so many contradictions, which makes it even more worrying for the tourist trade.
  I was reviewing the different guises of the regulations—the stupid ones, the inconsistent ones, and the ones that might be well meant but which in practice turn out to be absurd. For example, there are the electricity at work regulations. When one mentions them to hoteliers, strong men go pale. A hotelier said to me that the electrician who looked at his hotel sucked his breath betwen his teeth, shook his head sadly and said, "It is going to cost you £17,500 to have all the regulations checked." By the way, after he said that, he added, "I know that you can't afford it, so why don't I Just give you a certificate, and you give me £500 cash?" That is the criminal element which is encouraged by these mad regulations. They breed corruption and the attitude that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned in respect of signs attached to vans in fields and so on.
  Lady Olga Maitland: It costs £2·50 to have each electrical appliance checked. One hotel could spend £4,000 or £5,000 a year. That emphasises that small hotels go out of business because of just one tiny matter.
  Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It must be remembered that it is not just regulations such as those in respect of Camembert, which might seem piffling or not so piffling, but the accumulation of regulations—the fire officers, the environmental health officers, the small company audit requirements, and all the immigration forms that have to be filled in. I have yet to find, although I daresay they exist, a hotel that has been asked to send to the Home Office the forms that they have to fill in for every visitor and keep for a minimum of 12 months. The accumulation of regulations adds to the absurdity and the difficulty of the matter. There is heavy-handed, officious and disproportionate treatment. A publican was actually threatened with a criminal charge and possible imprisonment for smoking a pipe while he pulled a pint. Things have become fairly bad when one is threatened with imprisonment for smoking a pipe in one's own pub.
  There are regulations saying that refrigerators must be tested three times a day for their coolness and those tests must be logged. In some parts of the country, every action of washing and cleaning in the kitchen must be logged. The action carried out must be logged and one must prove in writing that the person who washed the sink had been trained to do so. For heaven's sake! One must keep a list of the chemicals used and, if asked by the local authority, one must produce it.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Did I miss the bit about tourism?
  Mr. John Sykes: The hon. Gentleman misses most things.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is a bit slow this morning—he should be put in the fridge. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that I have asked several parliamentary questions about electricity at work legislation. Over the past five years, between 10 and 16 fatalities have occurred from general electricity incidents throughout British industry. Is not the real point about
  582
  these regulations that when a new regulation is introduced—or, indeed, when we withdraw an existing regulation—we should consider the cost benefit to the tourist industry and to British industry in general? It seems that we have got the whole ratio wrong in many of these regulations.
  Mr. Sproat: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Later in my speech—if I am allowed time with not too many interruptions—I will turn to the whole question of compliance cost assessments, risk assessments and the necessity that the interests of tourism be taken into consideration when any new regulations are made.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who apparently likes his Camembert cheese cold and rubber hard, asked what all this has to do with tourism. We are trying to make our tourism industry competitive. We have been falling in the international league in getting visitors. We are still about fifth or sixth, which is very good, but we are falling. One of the reasons why we are falling is that we are not competitive. One of the reasons why we are not competitive is often because of the grotesque and absurd burden of regulation which so often adds to the cost of the holiday for the tourist and also lowers the quality.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I apologise for missing the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech. A long series of humorous anecdotes about regulations, many of which his Government have been responsible for over the years, does not seem to address the fundamental problems of tourism. It is not simply a question of competitiveness. People come to our country because of the things that we can offer them. One of the things that happen when they come here is that they get ripped off by some of the most expensive hotels in the world.
  Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman used the word "humorous". I must tell him that these regulations are far from humorous for the people who suffer under them.
  I shall give one more instance. I said that many of these regulations originate in the land of rumour and ignorance. A classic only this week came from a district council, which said that it was now apparently the law that one was not allowed to sell a sandwich with ham and tomato in it because one was a cooked substance and the other was an uncooked substance. I said to my officials, "Surely it cannot be against the law to sell a ham and tomato sandwich". They said, "It certainly did strike us as surprising".
  Here is an efficient and competent district council. It was an official letter, not simply an individual, so we looked into the matter. For a long time, we were baffled—we could not find out whether it was against the law or not. Eventually, the latest advice from my wise officials is that it is not against the law to sell a tomato and ham sandwich but it is against the law to chop the tomato and the ham on the same board, which is possibly not even a board because one is not allowed to use wood in certain places.
  That is the absurdity. It shows the difficulty for those people. If my officials and I find it difficult to discover whether one is allowed to have a ham and tomato sandwich, think how difficult it is for a small hotelier trying to serve in the hotel, run the books, get the immigration forms right and deal with the environmental health officers and the fire officers.

  583
  I have dealt with some of the regulations that emanate from this Government. I make no bones about it—in the view of the tourist industry, in many cases the Government have regulated too much, too often, too officiously and too stupidly. The regulations I have already mentioned were specifically and knowingly directed at the tourism industry.
  The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who intervened earlier about Manchester airport, raised a good point when he said that there are some areas of regulation where tourism is not considered at all. He said that there are regulations, laws and statutory instruments which are passed by the House that sharply, directly and forcefully affect the tourism industry but tourism is not allowed to make an input. He raised such an example in relation to aviation policy. I am about to say what the tourist industry has said to me on this matter. I do not directly criticise the Department of Transport in any way. Undoubtedly, it has good reasons and we shall come to them when the industry makes representations to it.
  I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a. keen reader of the Conservative party's manifesto at general election time. If he is a wise and comprehensive reader, he will remember that in our manifesto we pledged that we would put an end to the situation in which too many people who wanted to cross the Atlantic and who lived in the Manchester or Birmingham catchment areas had to leave Manchester or Birmingham, take a plane or train to London and fly across the Atlantic from Heathrow. We said that we wanted more direct flights point-to-point across the Atlantic. However, that still does not happen.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned Manchester. I spoke to representatives of Manchester airport this week. They told me of no fewer than eight different routes across the Atlantic alone—not even mentioning the middle east or the far east—from which foreign airlines would love to fly into Manchester. They estimated that the traffic on each of those routes would be in excess of 100,000 passengers. That would mean another 1 million journeys coming into Manchester.
  The same is true for Birmingham. The House may know that Birmingham is twinned with Chicago, yet the Government do not allow direct flights between Birmingham and Chicago. It is a question of the Government allowing them—it is a regulation. American and British airlines must get permission from the Government if they want to fly between the two points.
  In the past, things such as aviation policy have been conducted almost entirely without proper tourist input. I wish to take the matter up with the Department of Transport. Undoubtedly, we shall have a constructive discussion about it and it will give me the powerful reasons why it thinks that we should not have quite so many tourists coming into Manchester, Birmingham or Stansted.
  I have a letter from Sir John Egan saying that exactly the same thing is true of Stansted. He gave me an example of, for example, Nashville to Stansted which was turned down. He estimates that the decision to turn down a regular American Airlines flight from Nashville to Stansted cost the East Anglian tourist board £10 million. I do not know how he arrived at that figure, but it is the one that he gave me. Another TWA flight from Chicago to Stansted was turned down. Therefore, the hon. Member for Burnley makes an extremely important point about this matter.
  584
  My Department intends to examine those issues where tourism has not made an input in the past to see whether we can improve things for tourism so that matters are not always considered on the basis of whether they will affect an individual airline. They must be considered on the basis of whether they will affect tourism and places such as Manchester and the hinterland.
  I shall give another example where the actions of other Government Departments, which were taken with the best of intentions, affect tourism without meaning to. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches will be aware of use class orders. I shall explain use class orders, although there is probably no one in the House who does not know exactly what they mean. Basically, they mean that an existing hotel which sells up can be turned from a hotel into a hostel without the local authority having any chance to say no. This has become epidemic in places such as Eastbourne, Bournemouth, Clacton, Bridlington, Scarborough, Torquay and Blackpool. What was once a good small hotel becomes a hostel. It is filled not with guests who stay by the night or the week but with people, usually DSS claimants, who stay for months on end. It is essential that we find proper accommodation for DSS claimants or unemployed people, but it is idiotic to place a hostel next to a good hotel that is bringing in good tourist money and jobs to an area.
  It is a disagreeable thing to say and it is a disagreeable phenomenon to contemplate, but is is important to consider the consequences of such a change of use. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has told me of the regular traffic between places such as Liverpool and the south coast. People who are unemployed, no doubt for sad reasons, come down from Liverpool to Torquay. They move into a hostel, create disturbances and make a lot of noise at night. Such hostels attract drug addicts and become little nests of crime.
  People who retire to somewhere like Scarborough hope to spend their retirement in peace and quiet. They suddenly find, however, that their home is next door to some noisy, drunk-infested, drug-infested hostel.
  We should not say that the unemployed and DSS claimants should not have a proper place to live—of course they should—but it should be up to the local council to say no to such a hostel and to say that it will not give planning permission for a hostel. If a local council says it will welcome such a hostel, that is fine. That is local democracy and that represents proper accountability. At the moment, however, there is no control. The tourist industry believes that that control must be returned to local authorities.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that this problem concerns not only my constituents in the tourist business in Blackpool, but many of my hon. Friends, who represent similar tourist areas. Will he accept my thanks for addressing the issue as he has today? Does he also accept that the tourist industry will be greatly heartened by his remarks? A balance must be struck and I look forward to the day when local authorities have the power to control the problem by requiring an application for change of use.
  Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I assure him that my Department will take this matter up with the Department of the Environment at the earliest stage.

  585
  I have gone for longer than I intended as a result of interventions and my tongue running away with me. We shall never overcome the nightmare of over-regulation just by picking off the problems one by one and dealing with each regulatory conundrum and absurdity as it comes to light. Across Whitehall there must be a change of attitude in favour of not regulating rather than regulating. There will, of course, be occasions when we must regulate, but we must change the automatic reaction that dictates, "If in doubt, regulate". The opposite should be the case.
  Changing that attitude does not, of course, mean lowering safety standards or giving the consumer a worse deal. Our regulatory approach must be governed by common sense. At this interim stage I suggest five guidelines and principles that I should like to see adopted.
  First, before the regulator starts to draft he must be certain that he understands the nature of the problem or evil that the regulation is designed to curb. It is not enough to regulate "just in case". We should remember that old American saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". That should be the principle to follow.
  Secondly, every new regulation should be subject not only to a cost compliance assessment, but to a risk assessment. Together, they will form a cost benefit analysis. Furthermore, each of those analyses should make particular reference to the impact that the regulation will have on the tourist industry specifically.
  Thirdly, we need to know how each new regulation will fit into the body of existing rules. Will it be consistent? Will it complement those rules? Why are the existing rules insufficient? Can the new regulation replace some of the old ones? What will be the cumulative effect of related regulations? Will this be the last straw that breaks the camel's back?
  Fourthly, we need a system of back checking. After each new regulation has been in force for some time, we should review it, root and branch, to see what good it has done and at what cost. We should consider whether it has achieved its original purpose and whether it is still necessary.
  Fifthly, to follow those guidelines we need proper consultation machinery, which is not in place now. I want to know what the small hotelier, the entrepreneur running the small specialist restaurant and other members of the tourist trade have to say. Those people are the mainstay of the tourist industry. They must be consulted. They must give their views to Government and Government must take them seriously. Those views should be given to the respective trade association, the regional tourist board or the English tourist board—or individuals can come to see me or write to me directly. I promise the House that I will deal swiftly with anyone who brings a problem to me.
  With those few but heartfelt words, I invite the House to comment on my speech.
  10.15 am
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box in his new role. The Opposition did not disagree with everything that he said in his long speech. If he considers himself to be the champion of the tourist industry, however, that comes rich from a Minister of the Department of National Heritage, which has just cut the grant to the English trourist board and the
  586
  British Tourist Authority. The hon. Gentleman said that that was a fine act by his predecessor, but I hope that he will retract that remark in due course.
  The Opposition welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about signposts, because I am sure that we have all experienced problems with them in our constituencies. My council, Tameside, is taking on the Department of Transport about that.
  The hon. Gentleman should not be surprised that he has received an avalanche of letters from those in the tourist industry since his invitation to them on 14 June to write to him. We have received such letters for months and that is why we are having such a meaningful dialogue with the tourist industry.
  I welcome the fact that this is the second debate on tourism within four months. The debate in March was the first in five years. It is obvious to the Opposition that something is stirring within the Department of National Heritage. I suspect that that is due in some part to those Conservative Members who have recognised the Government's lack of concern about tourism. They are kicking from behind because they are obviously concerned about their marginal seats. After yesterday's poll, however, what is not a Tory marginal seat these days?
  Most importantly, I believe that we are having this second debate because the Labour party has expressed a deep interest in the problems in the tourist industry. The Opposition have spearheaded the attack on the Government's disastrous policy towards the ETB and BTA, which has resulted, as the House is aware, in cuts in grant, the redundancies of key personnel and the loss of many valuable services to the tourist industry.
  How can the Minister claim that the Government support the tourist industry when they have allowed such destructive cuts to it? As the chief executive of the ETB has said, unless the Minister gives a clear commitment to restore the damaging cuts made by his predecessor, there will be no meaningful services beyond 1994.
  I also welcome the fact that this debate is concerned, primarily, with the regulations with which the tourist industry must live. In many cases, as the Minister said, those regulations are unreasonable. But not all regulations are bad. What the House must consider is the detrimental effect that some regulations have on consumer choice and the quality of the product on offer. Indiscriminate regulation, for example in the tour market, will lead to less consumer choice due to the restrictive practices in pricing and the inadequate consumer protection.
  Although I welcome the debate, I must caution the Minister on extolling the virtues of a war on red tape. He must first tell the House why so much additional legislation has been passed by the Government since the introduction of the White Paper of 1985, entitled—wait for it—"Lifting the Burden." It is a bit rich of the Minister to complain about that burden when, since that date, many more regulations have been passed through the House. The industry was entitled to expect some reductions in bureaucracy and regulation before now. Conservative Members may condemn the Minister for some of his statements today. He has attacked many of his ministerial colleagues for their role in that problem.
  As the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said, the industry has had to wade through a multitude of complex measures with little guidance or clarification from the Ministers concerned. As the Minister rightly said, not all the regulations stem from Brussels. They include the

  587
  Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, the food temperature monitoring regulations of 1990, the reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences regulations of 1985 and the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991. The Opposition welcome legislation that benefits the consumer, especially in areas such as food hygiene and health. The Minister's speech will send the wrong signals to those concerned about that subject.
  Which? magazine of June 1993 asked, "How safe is food?" It said:
  "Food scare stories may not seem to be hitting the headlines as much just lately, but problems with the safety of our food have not gone away. There were 65,000 cases of food poisoning reported last year—11,000 more than in 1991. Experts believe that the real total may well be more like two million—many cases don't make the official statistics."
  It was, therefore, wrong of the Minister to make light of those regulations.
  The main problem with the measures that I have mentioned is that the Government have not clarified their effects to the industry. It has been largely left to the English tourist board to do that by producing a number of advisory publications on bed and breakfast, business rates, package travel regulations and the recent pink guide, which covers a wide range of legislation. But how much longer will that be possible, given the cuts that have been imposed on the ETB by the Department of National Heritage? In any case, it is up to the Government, not the ETB, to provide the industry with the necessary information. If the Minister intends to do something about that, we shall applaud him.
  The Government must look into ways of cutting red tape and reducing form filling, but the Minister, who is a deregulator par excellence—that fact came through this morning—might throw out the baby with the bath water. He must not be obsessed with deregulation for its own sake. By now, he must have received enough responses from within the industry, following his request for information on 14 June, to show the overwhelming desire for clarification rather than deregulation. He cannot expect the industry to comply with regulations of which much of the industry is not fully aware.
  I should have liked—I shall not do so because of lack of time—to recite the wide range of regulations for which the Government have provided no help or guidance for the industry. That must be corrected. The Minister cannot escape blame because, having been the Minister responsible for tourism within the Department of Trade and Industry, he was directly responsible for setting in motion a review of the BTA and ETB, which resulted in the loss of the BTA's last tourist information centre in 1983, as well as 12 highly skilled staff. The Minister gave the BTA so little notice of that cutback that all its promotional material for that year referred to the Centre for Tourist Information which, incidentally, covered the whole of Britain. Imagine the impression that that left our overseas visitors when they arrived in this country to see the centre boarded up.
  That review was responsible for the savage cuts in 1983, implemented by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), to the ETB and the BTA, resulting in 50 jobs losses. With that backgoound, is it any wonder that the tourist industry feels a little apprehensive about the new Minister?
  When talking to London taxi drivers, most hon. Members get the usual agenda of chat. It includes, first, the
  588
  nonsensical proposals to deregulate taxis in London, adding to congestion and confusion in the capital. Secondly, and not unrelated, taxi drivers say that they will never vote Tory again. Thirdly—more relevant to the debate—they complain about how many foreign visitors will not return next year because of the high cost of London hotels. The reason for that is not because hotels are paying high wages to their staff. Indeed, they should be subjected to the minimum wage legislation enjoyed by workers in our competitor countries, where the hotels are effectively doing much better.
  For example, the owner of an hotel not far from here, which many of us frequent when we attend briefing lunches, has told me why Britain is perceived to be an expensive destination. He tells me that his hotel has cut prices to the bare minimum and his room rates are lower than in 1989. The few hotels that are still trading profitably are recording their lowest profits since the 1927 recession. His hotel made more profit in 1968, charging £5 a room, than it does today charging £170 a room. He says that VAT at 17·5 per cent. is a direct tourist tax because tourists do not benefit from the compensatory reduction in council tax and PAYE enjoyed by British subjects. France has a standard rate of 18·5 per cent., but, for hotel accommodation, it has a rate of 5·3 per cent. He points out that the cost of tour agents, foreign representatives and a flat £10 per person booking implant fee and a 2–5 per cent. card and transaction fee, all add up to a hefty burden on the hotel industry. He argues that, in addition, the red tape and how regulations are implemented and over regulated are a burden on time and money.
  I do not wish to create the impression that all hotels in London and elsewhere act as honourably as that one. There are too many rogue hoteliers around, but I am convinced that the vast majority are playing the game.
  The Minister must be aware of the low morale within the industry. That fact has come through in his speech. After all, the industry employs between 1·5 million and 1·6 million people and some 10 per cent. of our national work force. It is larger than the Scottish whisky and car industries put together. But it has had seven different Ministers responsible for tourism, all with their different approaches to the industry. It is no wonder that people within the industry are turning away from it in large numbers.
  The Minister recognises that by far the most controversial measure within the industry is the EC package tour directive or, more specifically, the Package Travel Regulations, which came into force on 1 January. However, it is rich of the Minister not to take the blame for what has happened as a result because, since the regulations' introduction, there has been little short of a disaster within the tourist industry. A trade survey showed that 50 per cent. of independent travel agents do not know their legal position under the directive and 66 per cent. do not know how to interpret the directive in dealing with customers. Even the former ABTA president—I see that its adviser has left the Chamber, we hope, temporarily—was forced to conclude in a recent speech to British travel agents at a conference in Palma:
  "Lewis Carroll at his most imaginative could never have invented anything as topsy turvy and through a cracked looking glass as Her Majesty's Government has concoted in enacting the European Directive on Package Holidays."
  If introducing flawed legislation were not enough, the Government have failed outright to publicise the

  589
  measures. The problem has arisen from the most radical element of the new regulations—article 7—which require all operators, whether domestic or not, to have bonding protection for their customers. Originally, the DTI, in its consultation document of 24 July 1991, intended to implement that requirement by setting up a new licensing system for all organisers of packages with a requirement to be bonded, as well as establishing a national back-up fund to help out with the additional costs that those measures will inevitably impose on companies. Yet, to the utter dismay of ABTA, the Consumers Association and trading standards officers, the Government decided not to establish an authority to license all operators or, for that matter, a back-up fund and instead left it up to each organisation to have its own security for refunds and repatriation in the event of insolvency—[Interruption.] I should have thought that Conservative Members would be a bit more attentive, especially if they or their constituents are affected by the measure. The absence of an overall licensing system for all organisers of package holidays has left many companies unclear on how to implement the proposals and whether the new legislation applies to them.
  Both the ETB and the BTA confirm the widely held view within the industry that many of the implications of the European Community package are simply not understood by domestic tourist operators, many of which will find them impossible to comply with. Perhaps the simplest solution at the time was to expand the air travel organisers licence to include packages involving overland travel arrangements. Many companies are finding it impossible to comply with the new regulations because there is no bonding product available for non-air travel packages and no regulatory organisation for bonding. Perhaps the Minister's colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry were biased against the measure because the successful scheme was introduced by a Labour Government in 1974.
  I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain exactly why the licensing measures outlined in the original consultation paper of July 1991 were not introduced as initially intended. I hope that he will give a firm undertaking today to look at the proposals again. It is not just the domestic tourist operators who remain in the dark over the implications of the new proposals. According to the National Consumer Council, many customers are also ignorant of the regulations.
  In April this year the chairman of the Association of Independent Tour Operators was quoted in The Times as saying:
  "The Government admits that the only way for a member of the public to find out that his money is not protected is when a company goes bust and he does not get a refund."
  All hon. Members must recognise that that is a disgrace.
  ABTA and the Association of Independent Tour Operators estimate that only 5,000 of the 30,000 travel organisations are known to provide financial protection. Only a few small companies are able to raise the money to participate in bonding schemes, while many others are unable to make the necessary arrangements through banks and insurance companies. That failure to provide insurance has been blamed on the speed with which the regulations were initially drawn up and implemented.
  590
  Companies were give just three months to provide legal financial protection for holidaymakers in the form of insurance and bonding arrangements.
  I hope that the Minister will explain why the Department of Trade and Industry has failed to provide a way of enforcing the legislation. Is he aware that trading standards officers who were handed the job of policing the regulations do not have the manpower or resources to do so? The Government should be taking steps actively to protect the consumer by introducing sensible measures without placing exorbitant costs on the small businesses in the industry which are already struggling to keep afloat in the recession.
  Mr. Hendry: I am encouraged by the fact that the hon. Gentleman is taking advice from taxi drivers. Scarcely a day goes by when I am not told by a taxi driver that he had Tom Pendry in the back of his cab the other day. Conservative Members would find it encouraging if the Opposition started to promote the views of taxi drivers, which are normally more sensible than those of the official Opposition.
  The hon. Gentleman talks of the costs on companies—in his consultation process did he consult hoteliers and others about Labour's policy for a minimum wage? Has he asked them whether that policy will create jobs? Every hotelier in my constituency with whom I have raised that issue—I have done so with many of them—says that the policy will destroy jobs rather than create them.
  Mr. Pendry: It is always a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was only elected because his constituents thought they were voting for me. I have answered his questions on many occasions. If what he says is true, why is it that all the hoteliers in France, Germany and other places in Europe are knocking the spots off our hoteliers while paying the right wages? That was a silly intervention, but doubtless the hon. Gentleman will tell his constituents that he was listening to me in today's debate. I am sure that the matter will be described in next week's edition of his local paper.
  The hon. Gentleman has thrown me off course a little—I was making a serious point to which I shall return. I said that the Government should be taking steps to protect the consumer. Instead, the Department of Trade and Industry has undermined the new regulations to the detriment of 600 people who were left without a holiday or a refund when the French self-catering specialist, SFV Holidays, collapsed in May of this year.
  In view of that collapse, I should like the Minister at least to give his view on the incorrect advice that the President of the Board of Trade gave in two letters to the Secretary of State for Education in which he said that the Oxfordshire-based holiday company was a borderline case, and so did not have to comply with the EC directive and ensure that travellers' deposits and payments were returned. If the DTI is confused about what constitutes a prearranged package holiday and which companies are covered by the legislation, how on earth can tourist organisations be expected to know?
  On 28 May this year, the chairman of the Association of Independent Tour Operators was quoted in The Financial Times as saying that if the President of the Board of Trade's arguments were accepted,
  "most of our members would not require bonding."
  On 13 June he was quoted as saying:

  591
  "I find it alarming that the Government can allow already flawed legislation to be cracked wide open so soon after implementation—consumers' money is seriously at risk."
  Those are the issues which the Minister must address when he considers the responses to his review on the problems facing the industry that arise front overregulation. Will the Minister confirm that the results of his review will, in his words, be made
  "known before the House rises."—[Official Report, 14 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 619]
  If that is true, why did the information desk at his Department state only a week ago that the review's findings were for the exclusive use of the Minister arid were not to be published? Who is right? The House and the industry demand to know, and I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will look forward to discovering whether the Department's initiative has duplicated the work of the retail, tourism and other services task force.
  Surely, the terms of reference of the DTI task force are to simplify measures and to minimise costs to business. I raised that issue with the Minister at the last National Heritage Question Time. He said that there would be no duplication. I hope that he will expand on that statement as it seems obvious that there will be some duplication. Why is the Minister asking those in the industry to take further time off to answer questions that should already have been covered by the original task force initiative?
  It is a pity that the Minister did not include a question on the deregulation of British Rail in his letter to the trade associations. I am sure that he would have received some interesting replies had he done so. He must agree that the provision of good public transport is vital to the tourist industry, Plans to deregulate British Rail threaten the existence of rail rover tickets and British Rail's present inclusive tour ticketing arrangements. That could result in a considerable loss of income to the tourist industry.
  The overseas visitor and the domestic traveller may not represent much income per route mile to the private sector rail finance operator, but the Minister must be aware of the considerable consumer expenditure that that brings to the United Kingdom. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has raised those issues with the Minister in parliamentary questions, but perhaps the Minister will be able today to give some more satisfactory answers than those that he gave to my hon. Friend.
  Will the Minister also consider one of the more controversial recommendations of the working party of the National Economic Development Council on competitiveness in tourism and leisure which was put to the Government in June 1992? I refer to its proposal for the Government to implement a compulsory grading and classification system of hotels which may well serve to protect the good hotelier from the unscrupulous one which besmirches the reputation of the tourist sector, particularly with foreign tourists. As the report states, there are many communication problems between the existing different national rating systems, particularly between EC countries. Those problems have caused much chaos and confusion among tourists.
  The council also suggests, as the Minister must know, that a mandatory scheme would be to the advantage of the industry, as it would enforce minimum quality standards.
  592
  As I am sure the Minister also knows, the Development of Tourism Act 1969 provides for a compulsory scheme, should such a proposal be taken up.
  I realise that this issue has caused some debate in the industry because of the fears of possible price controls being imposed—although it should be observed that other European countries, such as France, have statutory systems of hotel regulation, without price controls. The subject certainly needs further consideration, which I hope the Minister will undertake to give it in greater depth. He should also take note of the confusion and antagonism generated by the Fire Precautions Act 1971, as it affects the provision of bed spaces, and fire certificates. There is a good deal of unfairness in the application of the regulations. The Minister must agree that hotel fire precautions are far too important to be left as they are, the more so given the Government's controversial delay in implementing EC fire regulations for offices and businesses. These regulations are in need of urgent clarification, to ensure that no one's life is put at risk in an attempt to save money. If small hotels and boarding houses are forced to comply with the 1971 Act, grants to assist them with adapting their premises should be forthcoming from central Government.
  Another subject for further ministerial thought is that of the tourist tax. The Minister may know that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has circulated a green paper for consultation among its members, on the merits of a tourist tax. Although I sympathise strongly with local authorities that are being hammered by the Government with tighter and tighter expenditure controls, I am not convinced at this stage that a tourist tax is the answer. But a consultative paper on the subject is no bad thing, and I hope that the Minister will make a contribution to the debate that the AMA has initiated.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I hear what my hon. Friend says about a tourist tax. He must recognise that, in places like London, which attracts so many tourists, conflicts of interest may arise between those who live here all the time and those who come here as welcome visitors. That applies especially to charges for museums or to see Buckingham palace or the crown jewels. It might seem unfair that residents should have to pay the same prices as those charged to tourists, given that the former already make a contribution through their taxes. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts on that?
  Mr. Pendry: That is precisely why I have said that this consultation exercise should include a genuine debate, which would cover important points such as those that my hon. Friend has mentioned. I should like to listen to that debate and to take part in the exercise. Certainly, there are pros and cons in this argument—my hon. Friend has listed some.
  I hope, too, that the Minister will take part in the exercise and not dismiss it out of hand, so that we will be able to reach sensible conclusions at the end of it all.
  While we are on the subject of additional taxes, will the Minister confirm or deny a rumour to the effect that he is looking into the possibility of introducing a departure tax? A sum of £5 per person has been mentioned—it could yield about £150 million. Will the Minister guarantee that the money will be earmarked for the tourist industry, not swallowed up by the Treasury?

  593
  The Minister rightly pointed out how well this country has done in attracting record numbers of overseas tourists in recent years. We all applaud that. Although Britain remains fifth in the world in terms of tourist earnings, our position is under threat from competitors, which are recording higher levels of growth. According to the British Tourist Authority, Britain recorded an average growth of about 7 per cent. between 1980 and 1990 [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) should listen to this, because it is of interest to him.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pendry: No, I am in the middle of saying something—indeed, I am prepared to repeat it for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who was not listening. We recorded an average growth rate of about 7 per cent. between 1980 and 1990. That compares with 15 per cent. for the United States, 9 per cent. for France, 9 per cent. for Italy and 10 per cent. for Spain—they are all pulling further ahead, and Austria and Germany are close on Britain's heels, so the recent reduction in ETB and BTA funding will inevitably lead to a reduction in our market share, although there could be a time lag of between two and three years. Unless the grants are restored, especially the grants for the BTA which, as the Secretary of State recently recognised, is doing a great deal of good work, all this will undoubtedly come about.
  The BTA made this very point by illustrating how Britain's share of American visits to Europe fell during the 1980s, as the BTA's ability to maintain investment in the United States market declined. Without adequate resources for the BTA, the United Kingdom cannot compete effectively for the international tourist trade—a fact underlined by the Select Committee on Employment report of 1990.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson rose—
  Mr. Pendry: I conclude by welcoming this debate. I hope that the Minister will take note not only of what I have said but of the important points emanating from the industry and from other hon. Members today. Tourism is too important an industry to be ignored any longer by any Government. The Opposition have every intention of ensuring that the industry is neglected no longer. The Government have neglected it; the industry knows that it has been neglected. We are making inroads, as never before, into the tourist industry's thinking, and we shall continue to do so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are Opposition Members?"] Some hon. Members are muttering that they are all off to Christchurch for the by-election, where this morning the Tory candidate refused to turn up to talk to hoteliers and small business men. The Labour party is the champion of the tourist industry and will continue to be so.
  10.46 am
  Mr. Rupert Allason: The speech made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) represents a considerable change in the Opposition's thought processes. I recall that when I made my maiden speech during a tourism debate, an Opposition Member rose to say that the tourism industry was not a real industry: it was a Mickey Mouse industry. Today, the hon.
  594
  Gentleman said that the industry is too important to be ignored. I wholly agree. In that debate five years ago I said that the Opposition Member who described the tourist industry thus was entirely correct. The height of professionalism—the acme of service in the tourist industry—is to be found in Disney World and the Epcot Centre in Florida. Those places show exactly how the tourist industry should be run.
  I welcomed many of the Minister's remarks, and I am grateful for the time that he has spent with me when I have made representations to him. I would ask him to put himself in the position of a small business man trying to run a hotel who, before he can open his doors for business, has to comply with 44 regulations. When hoteliers make representations to the Minister I hope that he will consider the burden of bureaucracy that they have to endure.
  In the past, I have brought to the attention of the House several examples of daft regulations—for instance, the food hygiene regulations, which certainly need to be looked at again. I have mentioned the case of the hotelier who was required to check the temperature of his fridge and deep freezers four times a day, and to log the results. I have mentioned how another hotelier told me that the ceiling of his kitchen had to be painted with disinfectant twice a day. We have already heard about the wooden chopping boards, but what about basins? Often, the basins required by the environmental health officers are knee operated. When environmental health officers are asked why hands cannot be washed in the existing basins in which food is prepared, they will say, "That is all right as far as I am concerned—but only after you have put in an extra wash basin. You can ignore it when I have left the room"
  Over-regulation has gone to absurd lengths when hotels have to enforce crazy rules such as not allowing guests to bring their own electric shavers or other electrical appliances into hotel rooms. I have examples of health and safety at work and access for the disabled regulations being enforced in a crazy way. A property in a neighbouring constituency had to have a lift installed at great expense. It will never be used because nobody on that floor is disabled. That enormous investment had to be made, and the cost continues because, although the lift is not used, it has to be inspected every year. I welcome the fact that the debate is about deregulation.
  Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that to tackle the cases that he has identified we need a strong Minister leading a strong Department? That would be much better than an independent commission, which is the Liberal party's proposal. Many Liberal Members represent tourist areas. Has my hon. Friend noted that the party has been represented in the debate by only one of its Members and sometimes by nobody?
  Mr. Allason: That point was made during the last tourism debate when many of us from the west country were unable to be present. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), was here throughout the debate, but, today, his elevated position in the Government prevents him from contributing. In the previous debate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) castigated the Government and made some unfair points. I welcome his presence, but he has not been here throughout the debate and did not hear the Minister's speech. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

  595
  I hope that when the Minister considers the question of deregulation he will also consider the hazards of deregulation. He spoke about use class orders, which have had a detrimental effect on many tourist areas. In Belgrave road in my constituency marvellous guest houses have in effect become doss houses. It is regrettable that no applications were made to the local authority for permission for the change to hostel accommodation. My local paper sought the views of the other hoteliers in Belgrave road and found that they were afraid of intimidation. Hoteliers were not prepared to make their views known because they feared that they would get a brick through the window. They have expressed their anxieties to me.
  That is a manifestation of the criminal behaviour of people who take advantage of the welfare state and use guest house accommodation throughout the summer, thus preventing tourists who would contribute to the economy of the area from using that accommodation. I deplore that change and I urge the Minister to bang heads together in the Department of Social Security and the Department of the Environment so that we may have straight thinking on this issue.
  I am worried about another aspect of deregulation. Many guest house owners who comply with the six-bed space rule feel that there is insufficient enforcement by the Inland Revenue of property owners who are thought to be cowboys. Rogue operators who flout the rules make life difficult for the respectable operators who provide a proper service for visitors, especially in Torbay.
  I welcome the Minister's five principles. I suggest that he examines carefully the practical application of new legislation. I remind him of the draft regulation from Brussels that would have prevented smoked meal from being sent through the Royal Mail. That extraordinary measure would have put out of business all the salmon smokeries that rely on mail order. I asked the Department of Health whether at any time there had been a significant number of cases of poisoning as a result of eating contaminated food sent through the post. I was told that there had been none.
  Why was the draft regulation produced? It was certainly drafted without any thought for the operators or for the fact that small businesses would be driven to bankruptcy. Therefore, we must have practical examination of legislation before it is introduced. Secondly, legislation should be reviewed with tourism in mind because what may be appropriate in one part of the country may be quite inappropriate for a small operator in another part who caters for just a few guests and struggles to run a small kitchen. It is absurd to require him to have two or three deep freezers and fridges and to have meat separated from vegetables. Such regulations are driving people out of business.
  I have some special pleading. When new legislation is being reviewed, will the Minister bear the west country in mind? This issue has been raised with the Prime Minister.
  596
  All too often, regulation and legislation that are appropriate for one part of the country are wholly inappropriate for the west country. We do things well there, but we depend on our tourist industry and any handicap to our efforts must be deplored.
  If the Minister needs advice, I suggest that he sends a questionnaire and conducts a survey either through the regional tourist boards or through the chains of hotels. He could even approach the appropriate small operators and ask the straightforward question, "Which regulation costs you most? What handicap prevents you from being profitable and from being a success and employing more people?" Employment is the key to the future success of the industry.
  The Minister should also look at dual rate VAT because the principle has been accepted by the Government and will clearly be applied next year. An examination of that would be welcomed by the tourist industry. There are many other issues that I should like to bring to the Minister's attention, but time is short. I thank him for his five principles and for his commitment to cutting red tape and slashing bureaucracy. I urge him to get rid of the May day bank holiday and respond to the tourist industry by introducing a holiday in the autumn to extend the season. Will he also consider British summer time? Extending it may not be of enormous benefit to lollipop people in the north of Scotland, but it could be enormously important to our tourist industry.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: My hon. Friend speaks about scrapping May day, which has proved to be extremely unpopular. Perhaps we could replace it with deregulation day which could be held on 9 July to celebrate this debate. Bonfires could be lit throughout the country and could be used to burn all the forms that have to be completed by small businesses and hoteliers, and could include the speech by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).
  Mr. Allason: I would welcome a deregulation day; and I would regulate to have one.
  My hon. Friend the Minister made some robust remarks and I welcome everything that he said. There has been a long tradition of rhetoric without a great deal of action and I look to him to go in there and cut the red tape, to slash bureaucracy and to light the bonfire on deregulation day.
  10.59 am
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: On many occasions when I have spoken in debates about the importance of manufacturing industry, I have been wrongly accused by Conservative members of not being concerned about the tourist industry.
  It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 ( Friday Sittings).

  Sports Council (Restructuring)
  11 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. lain Sproat): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the restructuring of the Sports Council of Great Britain.
  My right hon. Friend and I have decided, following consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, and with the chairmen-designate of the proposed United Kingdom Sports Commission and the Sports Council for England, that we should no longer proceed with work to put those bodies in place of the current Sports Council GB from 1 October.
  For some time now, the Government Departments involved, the Sports Council GB, and many other bodies involved in sport have been giving close attention to how a restructuring of the present arrangements would best deliver the overall objectives set out in our December 1991 policy statement, "Sport and Active Reaction". In particular, we have been looking at whether the original proposal for a United Kingdom body as envisaged in that report is still the best vehicle by which to deliver those objectives.
  We shall therefore be considering other options, with the Sports Council, with a view to announcing fresh proposals as soon as possible. In doing that work, I shall have in mind the objective of maximising the expenditure that goes directly to sport rather than to administration, and the need for effective management of the new stream of income for sport that will follow the introduction of a national lottery. In the meantime, the Sports Council GB will continue its work. I look forward to working closely with the Sports Council. Our shared concern is to develop a structure which best serves the interests of British sport.
  Mr. Tom Pendry: First, I must register a protest from this Bench that this statement is being made on a Friday, with so many Members on both sides of the House with sports interests who are away from the House and also at its being made in the middle of an important debate on the tourist industry. From a personal level. as the Opposition spokesman for both tourism and sport. I am left to deal, at very short notice indeed, with this statement, at a time when I am dealing with a major tourist debate. The statement was handed to me at 9.15, 15 minutes before the commencement of the debate and I have hardly had time to digest its contents.
  The statement represents to me a great opportunity lost. For some two years of discussion, we have had nothing to show for it. I put it to the Minister that had his Department introduced into the consultation process his colleagues the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales earlier, and had he brought in all parties in the House to discuss the issue in consultation with them, as well as talking to those at the sharp end of the British sporting scene, he would today, instead of this nebulous statement, be giving us a positive and forward-looking statement about the structures for sport. Surely the way forward is to have a realistic dialogue with all those responsible for sports administration and obvious interested parties, and to get talks going on the road again.
  I should like to ask some specific questions of the Minister. He said that he would consider other options. It
  598
  was originally the Sports Council which proposed the structure for the commission in October 1991, so I find it a little odd and rich for him to be going back to the Sports Council to discuss other options. What other options has he in mind? How much time and money has been wasted? Here we have a Minister who, as we heard earlier in the debate, abhors wasteful bureaucracy, wiping clean a year and seven months of hard work in this field. How much money and time have been wasted in the process?
  Perhaps the Minister will clarify what he means by "maximising the expenditure" in relation to the Sports Council, which
  "goes directly to sport rather than to administration".
  I hope that the Minister will explain rather more what he meant by that, and will not be taking the grossly overestimated figure that the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) mentioned in the sports debate recently.
  What will happen to those, Mr. Ian Beer and Sir Peter Yarranton, who have been appointed to the new commission? What will happen to them and any other appointed personnel? Has he taken into account the grief and anxiety that the new proposals have caused staff in the Sports Council over the past 19 months? What will this latest example of Government failure do to the morale of the council?
  As I said, we have had little time to consider the full implications of the statement. I hope that the Minister will not take this statement as being a retreat from what the Government and the Opposition said was a good way forward to rationalise the sports structures in this country. I hope that he is not going to throw that baby out with the bath water.
  Therefore, I hope that the Under-Secretary will enter meaningful talks with all the bodies that I have mentioned so that we can strive for a better structure for sport. Certainly, with the lottery coming on stream, we shall need a structure to ensure that that money is fed into the areas of sport and recreation that are necessary. I hope that the Minister will take a positive step forward and involve more people in sport in any proposals that will come forward as a result of further consultation.
  Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman began by protesting because I was making the statement on a Friday. The original proposition was that the information should be put out in a written answer, and I said that, as a courtesy to the House, although it is only one day before the next National Heritage Question Time, which is on Monday, I would make a statement so that there would be some information on the table if hon. Members wished to raise the issue then. I was trying to do the House a courtesy, and I thought that a statement on a Friday was better than no statement at all, which is what would otherwise have happened.
  As to giving the hon. Gentleman maximum notice, I appreciate the difficulties. We both had to make a speech on another subject early this morning. However, when my civil servants got in touch with the hon. Gentleman, he asked when he could have the statement and I well remember that my answer was, "He can have it as early on Friday morning as he cares to pick it up." I do my best to be courteous to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, but we are all in a slightly difficult position because of the sitting hours of the House on a Friday.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me, perfectly fairly, whether we would undertake to have a realistic dialogue with all the

  599
  sports bodies that he mentioned, and we will do that as swiftly as possible over the next few months. I hope that we shall be able to give the answers to the House before the year is out. He asked what other options we had and the answer is that they are what will come out of the discussions that we shall have.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me what I meant by
  "maximising the expenditure that goes directly to sport".
  When I look at the distribution of the £51 million that the Sports Council GB gets—that is not all the money that sport gets from various public sources—I am bound to consider the statement that 37 per cent. of that money goes on the adminstration of the Sports Council. I know that the council says that it depends how one defines administration, but I will gladly look at the matter to see whether the claim that 37 per cent. of the money is spent on the council rather than on sport directly is fair. I want to make sure that when we give money to encourage sport, it goes to the people at the sharp end and not to bureaucrats.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about the position of Sir Peter Yarraton and Mr. Beer—an important and fair question. Both of them support what the Government are doing, and will be coming along with us as continuing members of the Sports Council GB.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that we have come a long way since the heady days of the 1960s and the so-called age of leisure, when full employment was still on the agenda? The Sports Council was established to take advantage of that age of leisure. I remember serving on the east midlands Sports Council as a local authority representative. We were presented with a map with blue flags showing golf courses and red flags for swimming baths all over the place. I managed to get a swimming bath for Clay Cross. I suspect that the Minister's statement is made against the background of an age of mass unemployment, with the Government looking to make cuts wherever they can.
  I ask the Minister not to indulge in cutting expenditure where it provides facilities. If the Government proceed with privatising the coal industry, thousands of welfares in every coalfield throughout Britain—cricket grounds, football pitches, tennis courts, bowling greens and the rest—could be at risk. I hope that those facilities will not be lost if ever the Government privatise the coal industry but that the Government will look after them.
  Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman asked whether my statement was a consequence of the Government's need to make cuts. That is not so. I have not even discussed the
  600
  matter with the Treasury. It is a case of not being convinced that a United Kindom overarching body, with another supporting bureaucracy, is the best way to spend money.
  The hon. Gentleman made a fair point about the need properly to support local cricket grounds and bowls clubs. I entirely agree. It was so that more money could be diverted to such facilities rather than to sports administrators that we decided to re-examine the problem.
  As for properly supporting facilities such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I hope that funds will be available not only from the Sports Council but in due course from the national lottery also.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am disappointed that the United Kingdom sports commission concept seems to have been put on ice, if not abandoned. This country's sporting structure is already considerably fragmented, and I thought that the commission was a positive proposal. This has nothing to do with the Sports Council, but I should like to see a United Kingdom soccer team representing this country at international level. If we could use the talents of all the home countries, we might actually win a few matches.
  Will the Minister say from where the original proposal for the commission emanated, and what has changed the minds of Ministers, who at one stage were very supportive of the proposal?
  Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman asked what changed our mind. The original concept was to find a better way of delivering cash and advice to sportsmen and sportswomen throughout the country. It was thought that a United Kingdom sports commission with an overarching United Kingdom responsibility might do that. However, those excellent ideas—as they seemed—were so fleshed out that it seemed likely that we would get only another vast bureaucracy, taking up more funds that could be devoted to facilities of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  When one gets down to it, Scotland and Wales would have no intention of giving up their grip on their national sport—rightly, I believe—and there would not be a proper job for a United Kingdom sports commission to do. It could represent Britain overseas on certain occasions, and issues such as doping must be examined on a United Kingdom basis. However, although there were good reasons for a United Kingdom commission, there are better reasons for spending money not on bureaucracy but on sportsmen and sportswomen throughout the country.

  Tourism and Deregulation
  Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
  11.14 am
  Mr. Pike: I was saying that I have been wrongly accused by Conservative Members of dismissing the importance of tourism to the nation by concentrating at times on manufacturing industry. That is not true, and I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this debate.
  While I do not in any way dismiss tourism's importance from the point of view of jobs and the economy, I may point out, as a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in the north-west, that we had 971,000 jobs in manufacturing industry in 1979 but only 525,000 in 1992. Tourism will, of course, never fill the jobs lost in the manufacturing base.
  Having said that, I point out that tourism is important to the north-west, as it generates a large amount of money and provides employment for a substantial number of people. I am glad that the Minister, in response to my earlier intervention, placed emphasis on my point about regional airports. Although I was referring specifically to Manchester, my comments apply equally to other regional airports.
  It is nonsense that people from the north-west who want to go abroad are forced to fly from London, and that people entering the United Kingdom are also forced to arrive in London. That compounds London's problems. That is no way meant as a criticism of London, because, as my mother came from Burnley and my father from London, I have a foot in both camps. Too many people are unnecessarily forced to fly to London, causing additional problems with the transport system, and so on. If that can be avoided, it will benefit not only London but the regions. I am not making an anti-London point, but we all know of the nonsensical situation. There are problems even within the London airports, and the present regulatory regime should be changed.
  Anyone who knows Manchester airport will have seen the results of the massive investment made there over the years, including the new second terminal that was opened recently and the rail link for which I fought, together with a number of colleagues, a few years ago. It, too, is now open and is an important added feature.
  The Minister's speech focused on deregulation and he gave examples of stupid controls and regulations. Everyone agrees that if there is no useful purpose for a regulation, it should he abolished. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) stressed the importance of ensuring that anything done is not at the risk of safety. We must ensure, for example, that the incidence of food poisoning is minimised. That must be done sensibly, but the Minister made the point that certain regulations are not sensible and cannot be justified, although he accepted the need for safety.
  As for fire safety, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde also mentioned, one is often confronted in a hotel with a maze of corridors, which should be adequately signed in an emergency. Obstructions caused by furniture, for example, must be avoided, because if the way is blocked there could be a major disaster. The standards in this country are far better than those in many others, but we must ensure that they
  602
  are maintained and improved to avoid the tragedies that occur in other parts of the world. It is a question of sensible regulation.
  No doubt the Government would describe the wages councils, which are now being abolished, as an unnecessary regulation. I do not agree. A report produced by the Manchester low pay unit for Lancashire county council shows that in Blackpool—where many people are employed in hotels and catering—the wages council underpinned the lowest incomes, while those incomes were even lower in parts of the county where wages councils had already been abolished. Low pay is a scandal, and it is disgraceful that the Government should be hell bent on preserving it. Unless we provide fair pay and working conditions, employment in tourism and other sectors will eventually be destroyed.
  Tourism is very important in the north-west, and in Lancashire in particular. The county council has worked hard to promote tourism for a number of years, and has published a profile of every district council in Lancashire describing what it has to offer. The six local authorities in north-east Lancashire—Blackburn, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, Ribble Valley and Rossendale—have got together, along with the Red Rose tourism consortium, to promote the area's hill country.
  Some Conservative Members—and other people who appear regularly on television—seem to believe that they would need a passport to travel north of Watford gap. They will no doubt be surprised to learn that such places as Burnley have a tremendous amount to offer. The era of tall, dark chimneys, smoke and soot has gone; indeed, it was never as bad as it is said to have been. In Burnley, my constituency, the green hills of the Pennines and the surrounding country can be seen from every point. It is possible to walk from the central station into the countryside without crossing a single road, via a footpath that was constructed along a mineral railway, now long closed.
  In 1991, a total of 469,620 tourist nights were clocked up, and £9·457 million was spent. That is not bad, and it can be built on. A total of 2·3 million nights and nearly £44 million was spent in the Lancashire hill country. Early this century, Burnley council acquired Towneley hall, which attracted 234,000 visitors in 1990–91. It was difficult to persuade the Department of Transport to allow the erection of a sign on the motorway showing drivers where to turn off for Towneley hall; the Department said that that could be done only if the hall attracted 300,000 visitors a year, changing the figure later to 600,000. The sign was eventually allowed, 'but only as a result of the efforts of the then chief executive of the council, Brian Whittle, who pursued the issue vigorously through me.
  I do not advocate a proliferation of distracting motorway signs like the advertisements that appear on some countries' motorways and autoroutes; however, it would be sensible to produce a limited number indicating local tourist attractions. The current regulations are nonsensical, although I accept that some control must be exercised. Surely it is worth signposting such attractions, even if they are visited by only 50,000 people each year.
  Burnley also contains Gawthorpe hall, a National Trust property. It is possible to walk along the Bronte trail through Burnley and Pendle into Haworth, in Yorkshire, where the Brontes lived. They were also connected with Gawthorpe.

  603
  The Leeds-Liverpool canal runs through Burnley. I have said many times that the Government should pay more attention to the canal system, which brought the nation prosperity at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th, but has been neglected for many years. A positive approach could make the canals an asset again. The weavers triangle could be developed and an old wharfside museum can already be visited.
  Burnley has pursued the policies advocated in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance", published in 1989–90. In its efforts to produce a sustainable tourist industry, it has given objective consideration to such matters as publicity, road signs, events, the development of leisure sites, camping and the conversion of historical buildings to maximise potential for both jobs and the economy. Some years ago, when I was leader of the council, we acquired Queen street mill. I hope that, if the Minister ever visits Burnley, he will go and see the mill: it is the only original cotton mill still working on a steam engine, and it is a major feature of the town. Prince Charles visited it a few years ago, and its future has now been secured through an agreement with English Heritage, the county council and Burnley council.
  I believe that the Government should consider our industrial heritage, which, if sensibly marketed, can be a tourist attraction. Although people are unlikely to spend a week or a fortnight holidaying in Burnley—as they might in the constituency of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason)—it is within easy reach of the Yorkshire dales Blackpool and many other places, and it would be possible to market four or five-day holiday centres. I hope that the Government will co-operate with Burnley council, and other local authorities, to that end.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde mentioned railways and the marketing of tickets. He made some important points. The Minister should consider what happened after bus deregulation and privatisation. Tickets such as the red rose rambler tickets were immediately discontinued. Such tickets enabled people to travel anywhere within Lancashire at a sensible price. They could travel on any bus, whether a municipal bus or a national bus. It was t great tragedy that such tickets were discontinued. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde made the point that through tickets and combined tickets, which attract tourism, could be threatened by railway privatisation.
  I do not intend to get involved in a debate on railway privatisation, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rightly rule me out of order. However, I make the point that we need investment in our railways for tourism. We need electrification of the line from Manchester through Preston to Blackpool. It is nonsense that such a major tourist centre as Blackpool has now lost its InterCity railway line. I can understand why it lost that service. One had to go to Preston and change there to a diesel locomotive for the final stretch of the journey. The delay caused made it an unattractive service. The line should be electrified.
  Mr Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Genleman agree that if Richard Branson wished to run a service from London straight to Blackpool, he should be given the opportunity to do so through the privatisation of British Rail?
  Mr. Pike: I do not think that that will happen. We shall all have to wait to see what happens to the Bill, and
  604
  whether the House agrees to the Lords amendment. I do not believe that ownership is the problem with the railways. The problem has been the Government's lack of investment in public transport.
  We should consider regulations carefully. If regulations are a bar, they should go. However, we must ensure that our industry retains every aspect of safety. We have a good reputation because of the inspections that ensure safety and ensure that certain standards are met. Food hygiene must be considered as a matter of great urgency. We all know of the problems that can be caused if we do not have proper standards in restaurants and hotel kitchens. Regulations that cannot be proved to be needed should be scrapped, but let us not scrap regulations just for the sake of it.
  I accept that tourism is an important industry. I want it to grow, especially in my area of Burnley and in Lancashire generally. Tourism can keep people in work and it can create wealth in the local economy.
  11.33 am
  Mr. Robert Banks: The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) spoke for Burnley, which is a tourist destination that does not immediately spring to mind. His speech marked the sea change that is taking place throughout the country in terms of support for tourism.
  The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) paid lip service to tourism. Nobody really believes that the Labour party is serious about tourism. The Conservative Party has had a total commitment to tourism and our job has always been to expound the fact that jobs in tourism are real jobs which require skill, which are successful and which are long term. We have largely been successful in that.
  I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Front Bench. I can think of no better champion of the tourist industry than him. He has already expressed his support for tourism with an energy and zeal that are not in question. We very much look forward to the results of his efforts, which I have no doubt will be wholly successful.
  It is gratifying that the Government have demonstrated their commitment to tourism by holding a second debate so soon after the previous one. This debate comes at an important time, because the discussion about deregulation has made us aware that so much regulation is a hindrance to the development of the industry.
  We take some satisfaction from the fact that the industry has displayed great resilience during a period of difficulties. There has been a great advance in the quality of catering. There are advances in terms of special offers and value for money which the tourist industry offers those who come here for enjoyment. I pay a warm tribute to the skills and dedication of those in the tourist industry who make it so successful.
  In the first four months of this year, the number of overseas visitors has increased to a record 5·2 million—a 6 per cent. increase on the same period last year. Spending by overseas visitors has increased by 13 per cent. to a record £2·2 billion during the first four months of this year. That augurs well for a successful year.
  I congratulate the Home Office on its review of the licensing laws. That review is fundamental to the tourist industry, especially for those in catering and for foreign visitors, who are still confused by the difference between our licensing laws and those on the continent and who find

  605
  it frustrating that they cannot buy drinks in some places, such as cafes and restaurants, as easily as they can on the continent.
  If Manchester's bid for the Olympic games is successful, there will be enormous benefits for the whole of the north of England, including Yorkshire and Lancashire. We wish our negotiators every success. My constituency would benefit from the spin-off and a considerable number of jobs would be involved, not only in building, but in running the operation.
  This debate is about removing excessive and unnecessary regulations. Over the years, we have tended to legislate too much. More often than not, we give wide powers to Ministers to lay regulations as they see fit. In the best interests of improving the quality of our services and ensuring that we have proper regulations to govern the industry, we have allowed matters to get out of hand. We have lost sight of common sense in dealing with everyday problems.
  The point is highlighted by my constituent Mrs. Everett, chairman of the Harrogate District Hotels, Guest Houses and Restaurants Association. An inspector came to her hotel and said that she must have all her electrical appliances regularly tested by an electrician to fulfil the requirements of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, which have already been mentioned in the debate. She later discovered that the regulations merely recommend the regular inspection of appliances as best practice rather than as a full legal requirement. In the meantime, Mrs. Everett had forked out £400 for an inspection which she could well have done herself.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend consider the regulations on hoists and lifts, under which the insurance industry is largely the regulator because it has a vested financial interest in the matter? Self-regulation, rather than over-zealous bureaucracy, is a much better way to enforce regulations.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is right. The insurance industry plays a real role in assisting people and in ensuring that they comply with common-sense standards to meet the requirements of insurance policies.
  These regulations have often been found to be confusing, misleading and inconsistent. Environmental health officers who work for different authorities work to different guidelines and different standards. Therefore, hotels and restaurants around the country are unwittingly involved in a regulatory lucky dip as to which environmental health standards are applied.
  With more than 400 local authorities in the country, all with their own particular environmental health standards, it is unfair that what might be accepted by an environmental health officer in one part of the country might be rejected in another part. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will carefully consider that point. As a result of removing some of the regulations, the army of inspectors might be reduced.
  I want to refer briefly to the Immigration (Hotel Records) Order 1972 which the Minister quite rightly mentioned. The order requires hotels to keep a detailed record of each guest for inspection by the police and to maintain such lists for 12 months. It is unlikely that many illegal immigrants will come to Harrogate and stay in our
  606
  hotels, some of which are quite expensive and some of which are very modest and reasonable in respect of cost. However, the whole concept is out of hand. That bureaucratic problem is completely unnecessary.
  My hon. Friend the Minister gave a good example of the regulation governing sandwiches. Under a similar extraordinary regulation, one cannot cut up celery on a board on which one has cut up cheese. If one is making cheese and celery sandwiches or a salad with cheese and celery, one must not, according to the regulation about which I have been informed, use the same board. Frankly, that is ridiculous.
  Can one use the same knife? The answer to that must be no. What happens if one wants to mix something else into the salad or the sandwiches? No doubt one must use another board for that. Clearly, matters have got out of hand. I have no doubt that we could dispense with many of those stupid regulations.
  A moment ago, I referred to the number of environmental health inspectors. In 1990, the Health and Safety Executive employed 3,698 people. That figure rose to 4,321 last year. We must tackle the problem that that rise in the number of staff represents. I believe that that will occur naturally.
  The hon. Member for Burnley and others referred to signs. Perhaps I can add weight to the point by referring to a lady in my constituency in Knaresborough who set up a very small dolls house museum. That is a tourist attraction. She has been battling with Harrogate borough council to have a sign erected. Very reluctantly, the council agreed that she could have a sign for just one month. To my mind, that is utterly ridiculous. Why could she not have a sign for three months because that is the period during which she wants to keep the museum open and it represents the tourism season? I hope that the council will change its mind.
  That point illustrates the reluctance of local authorities to back tourism projects. We must get everyone working to support tourism. Local authorities can do so much in that respect and they must take full account of the communications to tell people where there are places to visit.
  I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the House as I cannot stay for the whole of the debate. I must fulfil commitments in my constituency. However, I very much welcome the enormous amount of work that is being done to get rid of the unnecessary regulations. It is even more important that the people in the industry have had an opportunity to make direct contact with the Minister through the various' task force groups. That is enormously important because it gives people a strong feeling that they can get through to Government and say, "For goodness sake, get this load of bureaucracy off our backs."
  11.44 am
  Mr. Nick Harvey: May I also take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his new appointment and thank him for his helpful replies to representations that I have made on behalf of constituents? I wish him well in his campaign with regard to deregulation. I very much support the thrust of that campaign and I welcome his initiative.
  The south-west is as heavily dependent on tourism as any other part of the country. As tourism and agriculture

  607
  are our two traditional industries and job providers, and both are in long-term decline although for different reasons, I thought it necessary to participate in this debate.
  The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) made many valid points in addition to some rather silly points about where right hon. and hon. Members might be this morning. Hon. Members of all parties have long standing commitments on Friday mornings which prevent them attending debates of which we are notified only one week in advance.
  Mr. Raynsford: Where is the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) now?
  Mr. Harvey: The remarks by the hon. Member for Torbay about my being absent from the Chamber for a minute or two while the Minister was speaking have just been alluded to by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). It is notable that the hon. Member for Torbay slunk off within seconds of completing his speech.
  It is clear that there is agreement on both sides of the House that the tourism industry is over-taxed, over-regulated, over-charged and over-burdened. If the Government are to set about the task of trying to remove some of the burdens, many of us on the Opposition Benches will be behind them.
  I was pleased to hear Conservative Members exploding the myth that Brussels is to blame for all the problems. Few people are more ready than I am to blame Brussels for a variety of sins. However, the claim that Brussels is responsible for many of the regulations that are burdening the tourism industry is not true. The blame very largely lies with the United Kingdom and with this Chamber.
  I welcome the strong remarks that have been made by the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). It is never too late for a sinner to repent, but one wonders how many of the regulations that the hon. Member for South Hams has castigated he actually voted for during their consideration in this House.
  There are many examples, some of which have been referred to today, of regulations to do with fire, health, food and hygiene which cause problems for the very small businesses which typify the tourism industry. It is not always simply a question of how the regulations are framed. The problems are caused by their application.
  In a recent survey that I conducted of hoteliers in my constituency, more than 40 per cent. said that the inspectors of those regulations were rude or arrogant. The Daily Telegraph, which publishes many useful things in addition to opinion polls, has said:
  "Amid this regulatory chaos Environmental Health Officers have been running riot, behaving with a petty-minded arrogance which would not be out of place in a totalitarian state."
  It is easy to understand why that is so when we consider some of the things that have happened.
  During the debate on 4 May, the hon. Member for South Hams said:
  "Directives from Brussels are often quite sensible and come to Britain suggesting one way of dealing with a problem, but once the directive arrives here Whitehall officials occupy themselves by rewriting it, more often than not with the opposite effect, causing unnecessary and often immeasureable damage … Then there is legislation from our own Parliament."—[Official Report, 4 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 20.]
  That is only too true. While our competitors in the rest of Europe find ways of getting round the various directives, it often seems that Whitehall is not satisfied if
  608
  documents have not trebled in length and complexity. Indeed, one often feels that one needs to be a member of MENSA to understand those directives. One wonders whether there is not some ingenious job creation scheme afoot in Whitehall whereby officials spend several years putting those burdens and directives together and then manage to promote a deregulating initiative so that they can spend more years taking them all apart.
  Several hon. Members have referred to chopping boards. It seems that if one wants to put together a club sandwich, one needs three knives and three chopping boards. There have also been problems with refrigerators, and I entirely support the Minister's views on cheese. I think that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) must have been bringing his normal humour to bear on the matter.
  However, there are small stores in small communities in my constituency on which not only tourists but the whole community are heavily dependent. People operate very much at the margins, make very small returns and just about manage to eke out an existence. When they are confronted with the shock of the uniform business rate and then the requirement to buy expensive new refrigeration units, some of which can cost several thousand pounds, which can be a large proportion of their income, that is an understandable burden for them.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I, too, had exactly the same lobbying from my village shops until they got their first electricity bills. Their bills dropped very significantly because they were not trying to cool down the area around the cabinets. The attitude has completely changed.
  Mr. Harvey: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Lady says. Unfortunately, the three shopkeepers who approached me in this regard have subsequently gone out of business and therefore have not received any further electricity bills to compare with earlier ones.
  I have also been approached by constituents who have been running holiday flats in the town of Ilfracombe. They have been running them for about 12 years or so and have brought them up to a high standard which has been given the three-key mark by the tourist board. Suddenly they find themselves required to bring about all sorts of alterations in order to meet the fire control requirements. The property next door—the buildings are semi-detached—is subject to no such regulations, because the owners run-bed-and-breakfast accommodation rather than holiday flats. The buildings are architecturally identical, save that they are mirror images of each other. The owners are confronted with a bill for about £60,000. In recent years they have survived on profits of about £5,000. Clearly, it is impossible for them to try to meet those sudden requirements.
  The matter was made more galling for the owners when the inspectors who visited them initially confused their property with another and did not mean to visit theirs at all. They agreed that the owners might reasonably raise the level of a patio so that a regulation about the number of rooms being more than 20 ft above ground level could be circumvented, and then heartily agreed that that would make matters entirely legal without improving the fire conditions of the building.
  The matter was made even more galling for the owners when they learnt from the regional tourist board that local

  609
  authorities in other parts of the county have no plans to implement the legislation because the task would apparently be too great to contemplate, leaving other parts of south Devon at a great advantage over them. I agree that the insurance industry could contribute greatly to tightening up in that regard, and it should be given more of a rein to do so.
  I have another example of people who own holiday flats and who put televisions in them. They rent out the flats for fewer than 140 days in a year in order to get around some of the local rating charges, but they have to pay the television licence fee for the full 365 days. Of course, they remove the television sets for fear of their being stolen when the flats are unoccupied. Something could be done in that regard to help tourism. Also, the business rate needs to be looked at more closely. In many cases, valuations assume 365 days of trade, and all too often that is not the case.
  I hope that the Minister will comment on the high water charges in the south-west if he is trying to improve tourism in Devon and Cornwall. Beaches are fundamental to tourism in our part of the world. We have great difficulty in that a mere 3 per cent. of the population are trying to pay the costs of cleaning up 30 per cent. of the nation's beaches. Although we welcome the Prime Minister's recent interest in the subject, we regard his suggestion that the programme to clean up the beaches might be delayed as more of a threat than an assistance.
  Surely, after water customers have had to go through the agonies of paying vastly increased water bills in recent years, the last thing that they want to hear is that the beaches will not be cleaned up. Tourists are becoming increasingly discerning in deciding where to go on holiday. They are becoming more aware of which beaches pass tests and win blue flags and which do not. That is vital to tourism-related industries that live off the back of beaches.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) referred to the Home Office review of the licensing laws. I agree with his comments. Another threat to tourism is the general tone of some of the options being floated by those who are seeking to alter the law on Sunday trading in general. I hope that we have successfully buried the idea that Sunday trading should apply differently in coastal resorts compared, with inland resorts. It clearly would be extremely damaging for coastal holiday resorts if businesses suddenly had to close their doors. What about Canterbury, Salisbury and South Molton in the middle of north Devon? They would be brutally affected if, suddenly, they had to close their tea rooms, antique rooms and so on. I hope that when the House considers Sunday trading next Session, no such distinction is built in.
  Reference has been made to British Rail and the forthcoming privatisation. The year before last, 100,000 international passes were sold, enabling people to use the United Kingdom rail network. I hope that, under the new arrangements that the Government are introducing, it will be clearly demarcated that someone, somewhere—some organisation—has responsibility for marketing those passes.
  VAT is another problem which afflicts small tourism businesses. They rightly feel aggrieved that, with the growing single market in Europe, VAT in France operates at 5·5 per cent. on hotel accommodation and meals.
  610
  The Minister has been helpful in his responses to representations from my constituency on road signing. Four years ago, a new road was opened, giving access into north Devon. It has done much to improve communications in the area, but it was hoped that it would greatly assist local businesses. Unfortunately, in the four years that it has been open, precisely the reverse has proved to be the case, and for the very reason that hon. Members have already referred to—the over-prescriptive regulations which appear to govern the erection of directional signs.
  Mr. Waterson: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about planning matters, will he state his party's policy on the operation of the use classes regulation, which has already been canvassed, particularly in the light of the attack on my campaign by a Liberal Democrat county councillor in Eastbourne?
  Mr. Harvey: I certainly cannot comment on remarks by a county councillor in Eastbourne, as I do not know what they are and I cannot stand by every remark made by every county councillor in every county. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman my own view, which, from the sound of it, concurs with his own. I have been lobbying Ministers in the Department of the Environment for some time to bring in precisely the change of use requirement, and I back that very strongly.
  My party's housing spokesman would have to say more generally whether the party agreed with it, but I took the Minister's point that, by bringing in such a requirement one puts it back in the hands of the local council and local democracy to determine such matters. There would not appear to be any obligation on local authorities to act in one way or another. It would be hard to find that exceptionable.
  The problem with the new road in north Devon is that it has been carved through countryside where there are no businesses, leaving the old road, which it largely superseded, as a barren wasteland.
  The hotels, pubs, campsites, garages, shops and everything else that used to pick up a healthy passing trade are completely isolated and abandoned. When some of them started to put up signs on the new road pointing to what the area had to offer the passing tourists in the neighbouring villages, the local authority moved in. It interpreted the Department's regulations rigidly and demanded that the signs be taken down.
  The result is that people are completely unaware of what north Devon has to offer them and they pass it by, carrying on at the great speed that they are able to achieve on the north Devon link road. In no time at all, they are in north Cornwall where there is a proliferation of signs on both sides of all the roads telling them precisely what is available.
  Mrs. Lait: While I accept that many local authorities are reluctant to put up signs—clearly, the hon. Gentleman's local authority is one of them—I simply wonder which political party runs his local authority and has taken this specific view.
  Mr. Harvey: It is nothing to do with which political party has taken the view. The attitude started when the local authority was independent and it has continued under the authority with a Liberal Democrat grouping. My colleagues, who are Liberal Democrat councillors, regularly tell me that they want me to challenge the

  611
  Minister in the House on the fact that the regulations are over-prescriptive and the local authority has no choice but to implement them.
  The problem has arisen in north Devon because the road is new. The regional office of the Department of Transport is more vigilant in north Devon because the road is new than it is in those of surrounding aurtthorities which are, in some cases, run by Liberal Democrats as well. It is not a party political problem—it is a problem of the regulations being over-prescriptive.
  The solution that we think that we have found is one with which we hope the Department will agree—putting up some sort of uniform signs, perhaps with the use of symbols, along the road point out that there are local communities on either side where pubs, hotels, campsites and so on are available. The Department of Transport—I am sure that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) will agree that it is run by the Conservatives—has thus far refused even to agree to that.
  The suggestion that has come back is that small information boards could be put up in lay-bys. While that would certainly do no harm, I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that it would do little to inform passing motorists of what the area has to offer. With the full support of my Liberal Democrat-controlled local authority, I appeal to Ministers to make the regulations more flexible so that local authorities have more latitude in applying them.
  In Devon, there has been a 5 per cent. drop in the number of tourists in each of the past three years—each drop coming on the one before. In the town of Ilfracombe, there are many hotels for sale. In many cases, elegant Victorian properties with 16, 18, 20 or more bedrooms are for sale for as little as £60,000 or £70,000. They are all much of an age and a great deal needs to be done to improve them. According to the inspector whom I quoted earlier, they are all getting into trouble in terms of the fire regulations.
  Surely, the single greatest thing that would give a boost to a town such as Ilfracombe would be to reintroduce section 4 grants to England. Those grants are still available in Scotland and Wales. Good use was made of those grants in the past in Ilfracombe and elsewhere and it would be one of the single biggest things that could be done to boost those areas.
  Another concern is the cuts in the grants to tourist boards. When the Prime Minister visited Cornwall recently, he said;
  "The West Country in a sense is its own best advertisement for tourism; we do not need to tell people about the West Country as a tourist centre, it is instinctively there. When people think about holidays, they will instinctively think of the West Country among places as somewhere to go."
  I simply cannot begin to understand why that should be more true of the west country than of Scotland or Wales.
  Expenditure on tourism per head of population is £6·26 in Northern Ireland, £5·06 in Wales and £3·20 in Scotland. However, the sum for England is a mere 42p. If that is not bad enough, it will get worse because, in 1995–96, the figures will have increased to £8·60 in Northern Ireland, £5·39 in Wales, a modest cut of 6p to £3·14 in Scotland and it will have halved to 21p per head in England. That is the real problem which the west country faces. We are operating at a gross disadvantage compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I have already explained the great importance of tourism in Devon and Cornwall.
  612
  Shortly, the Government will announce their review of assisted areas. I know that there is a feeling in many coastal resorts represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government's pledge at the start of their review—that they would examine the future trends as well as the past patterns of unemployment—will need to be recognised in the coastal areas if any alternative employment is to grow up. It is a sad fact that 11 of the 20 top unemployment black spots rely on the holiday industry.
  The blame for the unsatisfactory state of affairs cannot fairly be laid in Brussels. Many regulations about which hon. Members have spoken eloquently have been passed by the House. In many cases, Conservative Members must have voted for them. The Government have set us at a disadvantage compared with the rest of the EC. I welcome the Minister's remarks and the initiatives that he has taken. They cannot come soon enough. The tourism industry is absolutely desperate. I wish the Minister well. I hope that he will make rapid headway in this regard.
  12.6 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about getting more traffic into our regional airports, especially Manchester airport. I also throw my support behind the campaign to get the Olympic games into Manchester. If we were successful in getting the games, they would not simply be the north-west games; it would be a great success for the whole of the United Kingdom and British industry. The knock-on effect, with the number of tourists that would come into the region—tourists would not simply come to Manchester; they would come to all parts of the north-west—would be extremely beneficial.
  Mr. Pendry: I concur with what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he think that it is a little ironic that the Government have given something like £50 million plus to the bid for the Olympic games at the same time as they have effectively cut the amount of money to the north-west tourist board? Surely, if we are to attract International Olympic Committee delegates and their wives to the north-west, we must ensure that it is presented in an attractive package. The Government should not be cutting back in that tourist area; they should be giving money on top of the capital expenditure that they are giving to the Olympic games bid.
  Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, he must agree that the money that the Government are spending on ensuring that the games come to Manchester, irrespective of whether we are successful, will be spent in Manchester.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the expenditure of about £55 million for the new stadium in Manchester. That must be welcomed. As the British Tourist Authority is concerned, the amount of money is being maintained. We must ensure that the money that is being given to the regional tourist boards is more effectively targeted. I have no problem whatever with the sums of money that will be spent to support the tourist industry in the United Kingdom.
  I welcome the Minister's five principles. I would prefer to call them the five steps to heaven. As far as the tourist industry is concerned, we need a cost-benefit analysis to

  613
  ensure that the benefits of any rules and regulations that are made are not outweighed by the massive costs incurred in implementing them.
  Hon. Members have already referred to the need for sensible rules and regulations. Common sense must be applied to them. They must be consistent and clear so that their interpretation does not differ from area to area, or even within areas, according to which local authority officer enforces them. Few things can be easier than dreaming up new directives and rules to be imposed on our businesses, but somewhere along the line someone must work out the cost of their implementation. We must discover who benefits from that.
  Reference has also been made to the new fire regulations that have been introduced. It has been estimated that it may cost £8 billion to implement them. That fantastic sum of money will have to be borne by businesses. We must be careful that we do not go overboard when enforcing the rules. For example, even small artists' workshops will be required to erect all sorts of fire doors and fire exit signs, even though they may be visited by few people. Similar regulations will be imposed on stately homes.
  One officer may say that the owner of a property must do this, that and the other, but planning regulations may prevent the owner from complying. We must ensure that enterprise is not snuffed out. We must also ensure that guest houses and bed and breakfasts, which are national institutions, are protected and not forced out of business by the enforcement of certain rules that were never intended for such accommodation. The owners of such properties must be properly consulted before rules are introduced.
  The likely benefit derived from some rules may be zero, and the cost of their implementation may be disproportionately high. One should not assume that many small businesses do not want to comply: they may not have the cash. Once the owner of a company had explained that, despite spending X thousands of pounds complying with certain regulations, no benefit would be gained by his customers, it would be difficult for him to borrow money from the bank.
  Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman's constituency includes the Trough of Bowland, which is one of the most beautiful parts of the north-west. What does he think about the pressure being exerted on farmers as a result of the common agricultural policy and other regulations? Does he believe that the beauty of the Trough of Bowland may be endangered if some of those farmers go out of business?
  Mr. Evans: That refers to a separate issue relating to the impact of rules and regulations on rural areas. I accept, however, that if some of my farmers were put out of business by some unwieldy European Community rules and regulations, that would have an impact on the beauty of my constituency. I believe that the Government and the European Community are looking towards more environmentally sensitive assistance for farmers. However, the money should be targeted more effectively at farmers instead of the middle men, because the great danger is that money is not getting to the right people. I know that the Government are considering that problem.
  614
  Food safety has been mentioned time and again. The stringent interpretation of the Food Safety Act 1990 has meant that those in the catering industry have incurred a bill of £1 billion. Such is the cost of buying new fridges and bringing premises up to the standard required. Restaurants, hotels and catering establishments live in fear of the knock on the door. It may not happen at midnight and it may not be the KGB: it is the EHO, the state Securitate. They will not be deflected from their task of enforcing the new rules.
  Mr. Tom Cox: Many hon. Members have made repeated reference today to the food safety regulations. I am the first to accept that there are stupid regulations in all walks of life, but who has introduced them? Are they the result of Government legislation, EC legislation or local authority legislation? I do not want to hear about the British Securitate. Let us spell out who is introducing the regulations and forcing many businesses in the tourist industry to comply with them.
  Mr. Evans: It has already been said that the regulations may come from Brussels, Westminster or local authorities. It is their interpretation, however, that causes the problem. A rule may be introduced for one reason, but when it is enforced it is screwed just a little too tight so that it is enforced in such a way as was never intended. We must be extremely careful about that.
  Some EHOs are caring and helpful when it comes to helping businesses to comply with rules and regulations. Others display a clipboard mentality. They are extremely hard and tell the owners of businesses that they have to do this and that. We must be careful of that mentality. We must ensure that such maverick inspectors have their clipboards taken from them.
  Nowadays, the temperature of fridges must be checked regularly and forms must be completed to prove that they have been checked. If an inspector turns up and an owner has not filled in those forms, woe betide him. The representatives of one hotel chain told me that, given the volume of paperwork as a result of the new regulations, they believe that they would be far better served if they got rid of one of their chefs and employed a secretary to cope with the forms. That must be wrong. Another hotel chain has estimated that its overall electricity bill has increased by 2 per cent. since it had to introduce new fridges; the regulations insist that hotels must have some fridges at one temperature and others at another for different food. We must consider those regulations again.
  The Forte hotel chain has, informed me that since the new food safety regulations were introduced, it has had to deal with more than 1,000 different forms. One of the top agricultural shows, the Bath and West, reported a £91,000 loss due to the £250,000 cost of meeting the new hygiene safety requirements.
  Another part of the problem is that many EHOs seem to try it on when ordering compliance with regulations. One survey recently revealed that of 2,000 pubs, 40 per cent. of compliance requests were not legally binding, but had cost each business, on average, £2,000. There are 500,000 food handlers in this country and if one multiplied that cost, the final bill would, all of a sudden, be £1 billion.
  When I was last in Spain, I began to wonder whether food handlers were operating the same rules as our own. One may order some ham from a wonderful ham hanging on the wall and the flies are beaten off it before the meat

  615
  is cut. It then goes back on the stained wall. I am not too sure whether that practice has ever killed anyone, but standards in Spain do seem to be somewhat different from our own.
  Many a time I have had a beer in France where the head has constituted a far larger part of the drink than the beer. In this country, we are about to introduce beer orders that may require larger glasses to be used so that one can still have a head on a pint of beer that does not constitute the pint.
  It is quite crazy that we are going down one route while the rest of the European Community seems to be going down another. I am not saying that we should introduce Community-wide regulations that are so stringent that certain practices on the continent are ruled out. In many instances, our fellow Europeans may have a healthier outlook than we have.
  I am sure that we are all aware that many village halls are now not allowed to prepare food on the premises because of the cost of sticking to the letter of the law of the health and food regulations. We need to save our village halls so that they can continue to provide their traditional service. Village halls are an integral part of the British way of life and many overseas visitors find them extremely attractive. They add to the charm of our villages, as does the Women's Institutes' jam and marmalade. Whenever I go to fetes I make a habit of buying jam and marmalade. Although I am not a great eater of them, the principle is at stake.
  The Institute of Directors carried out a survey of its members. The Minister will be delighted to learn that 81 per cent. of those who responded felt that the initiative on deregulation was extremely important, but only 30 per cent. felt that we shall be successful in tackling the problem. That is alarming, so the Minister has the support of Conservative Members in his battle to deregulate.
  We must show equal zeal against the army of clipboard bureaucrats, who in many cases are being weighed down by new rules and regulations. It may be difficult for environmental health officers to keep up with the pace of change. Few things are worse for a business than when, having just established good relations with an environmental health officer who is assisting the business, he is then changed and the whole process must be started again.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned licensing laws. I should like them to be liberalised, because on the continent one can drink until midnight or 1 am, particularly in tourist areas, and it is a shame that in this country we cannot drink after 1 o'clock. Weekend licensing laws and licensing in tourist areas should be changed, as many tourists would like to be able to drink a little later into the night.
  Music licensing laws are another problem. If more than two people play in an establishment, a licence must be acquired, but a loud discotheque does not require a licence.
  Mrs. Lait: Another horror of the licensing laws is that if an hotelier or innkeeper wishes to change the shape of his bar, he must get permission from the licensing justices.
  Mr. Evans: That is another rule which places an unnecessary burden on businesses, in terms of both cost and time. Those running businesses must leave the
  616
  business to sort out the matter at the local town hall, and we all know how long that can take. The business person's time could be better spent.
  I contacted the owner of a restaurant in my constituency, the Inn and Whitewell, which the hon. Member for Burnley probably knows well. The restaurant owner believes that the law on refrigeration of cheeses is a disaster because it ruins good cheeses. He said that processed cheeses carry listeria but traditional natural cheeses, such as Stilton and brie, lose much of their taste when taken straight from the fridge. He also said that the European Community is in the process of considering a law requiring all foodstuffs to be transported in refrigerated vehicles. An hon. Member has already mentioned smoked salmon being sent by post. That, too, may be covered by that regulation.
  Another law will require restaurants to give a customer a clean glass whenever a drink is poured, even if the customer wants to keep his old glass. Again, should we consider such a regulation and employ officers to enforce it? It would be better to take a common-sense approach to the introduction of new rules and regulations.
  Sometimes existing regulations are unused. For example, the long measure is illegal in this country. Under that silly rule, someone who pours more than a pint of beer could be prosecuted. It should be discarded.
  The European Community has decided that beaches awarded its blue flag of excellence must deny access to all four-legged animals. I understand what is behind that rule, but it will mean the end of donkey rides, which have brought great happiness to many generations, and future generations should not be denied access to that wonderful entertainment on our beaches.
  Mr. Hendry: Guide dogs would also be denied access.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. Should people be denied access to donkey rides simply because of that regulation? We must have a common-sense interpretation of such rules and regulations.
  I am delighted that this debate is taking place. When scrapping May day, we should consider creating deregulation day on 9 July to celebrate the fact that this debate has taken place. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, and wish him well in his efforts to bring about deregulation.
  12.25 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: This has been an interesting debate. I have great respect for the Minister and I hope that he will remain in his position for a while so that we can hear about the progress that he makes on the regulations in the tourist industry, which many of his hon. Friends feel are farcical.
  However, we would pay close attention in our own homes to many of the rules and regulations that have been mentioned this morning, especially those involving appliances. When people go to hotels we must consider the fact that they will not know the layout and we must ensure that equipment that they may need to use is safe. It is so easy to knock authorities, at whatever level, for introducing regulations but we must look at the matter closely before making changes.
  In the previous debate on tourism last March, I spoke about London local authorities' concern about their representation on the board of the London Forum. A little

  617
  progress has been made since March. I understand that two representatives from London authorities will sit on the board of the London Forum. However, many local authorities, irrespective of which party controls them, feel that they will not be adequately represented in a role which they have sought to expand for many years—the development of tourism in London.
  The Minister may be in a position today to comment on the fact that, as I understand it, the London boroughs grants committee is still not represented on the board of the London Forum. If he cannot do so today, perhaps the Minister will write to me about that. As we have heard many times this morning, there must be proper representation on, and co-ordination between the London Forum, the London tourist board and London local authorities. I think that I am the first London Member to be called in the debate and I do not think that even the Minister made much reference to London.
  I realise that in a debate such as today's it is always open to hon. Members to say that this district or that district was not mentioned, but we must not lose sight of the fact that London is one of the great tourist attractions in the United Kingdom. I agree that there are many other attractions, but London must be high on the list of places that people want to visit when they come to the United Kingdom. Evidence proves that London boroughs have played an extremely supportive role in seeking to develop tourism in London. I hope that we shall hear the Minister's views on how London is represented. I am sure that Conservative Members who represent London would also like to receive some answers on that issue.
  This morning, the Minister stated that tourism is big business in terms of money spent and numbers of visitors. I sometimes feel that the tourism industry has become a rip-off. The expensive prices charged for hotels and meals in London has been mentioned. High prices may also apply in other parts of the country. Until last November, I had been for three years the treasurer of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It was my job as treasurer to sign the cheques for the bills for hotel accommodation, meals and other expenses incurred by the British group when overseas delegations came to London. I was able to see how the hotel charges were calculated.
  Despite repeated attempts by the staff of the IPU—to whom I give great credit—to ask the management of well-known London hotels whether they would give them, as good customers, a favourable rate, they received no help. They told the hotel management that there was not a one-off business transaction and that, in the course of the year, they would bring many people to London to stay at the hotels. However, they never received a favourable response and the hotel management never said, "As you are good customers, we shall give you a favourable rate which will benefit both you and us as it will ensure your continuing custom."
  Employees of the hotel and tourist industry in London and, I am sure, in other parts of the country, work long hours. Their work is often seasonal. I have asked people who work in both the hotel and tourist industry about their conditions and salaries. They are certainly not overpaid; I do not believe that they are even reasonably
  618
  paid. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned the abolition of the wages councils. We know that a gulf divides opinion in the House on that subject.
  Those of us who are members of the Council of Europe, travel to Europe fairly often and stay in European hotels know that the fears screamed about by the British Government and Conservative Members are not realised in Europe, where such a policy does not put people out of work or drive businesses out of business. Funnily enough, our competitors in Europe are able to apply a minimum wage. Why can they have such a policy while we cannot? We do not even allow people who want to adopt that policy to do so, in the hope that, as other organisations see the benefits to be gained from paying proper wages and operating proper working conditions, they will follow the lead.
  While the tourist industry obviously brings benefits, it also brings problems. One only has to look around the Houses of Parliament to see those problems. One does not have to be a London Member to know what the problems are. In the debate on this subject in March, I mentioned the enormous numbers of coaches that come to this part of London. There is still no adequate parking for them, and, despite our representations to the Department of Transport and local authorities, there has never been any clear recognition that this is a problem which must and will be tackled. Large, modern coaches continue to park in bus lanes and side streets, often for hours on end. Something must be done about that. In the many years of this Government's term of office there has been little evidence to show that they are willing to tackle this sort of problem.
  Tourists and residents of London all want an efficient public transport system that is safe to use and reasonably priced. Despite all the problems—imposed by the Government—that London Transport has had to put up with, and despite the savage cuts in investment programmes experienced by the London bus and underground network, London Transport has managed to build up a good system. This debate, however, is about deregulation, and London Members know that high on the priority list for privatisation come the London bus service and London's transport system generally, which is to be deregulated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is interesting to hear those roars of approval from Conservative Members.
  Mr. Raynsford: None of them comes from London.
  Mr. Cox: Even so, one assumes that many of them make use of London's public transport while they are here. I have a question for them: what surveys have been carried out to determine public opinion? How many people in the 32 Greater London boroughs have been asked for their views on the deregulation of transport services in London? We hear a great deal of talk from the Government about the citizens charter, about making the voice of the people heard and about ensuring that the Government respond to that voice. Earlier this morning, we heard Conservative Members saying that, despite the problems in their constituencies, the powers that be do not listen. I do not dispute the fact that there are problems in Conservative constituencies, but those who roar their approval of deregulation should ask themselves how much consultation has taken place with the people of London. There has been none—
  Mr. Nigel Evans: What about the general election?
  Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman has not been in this place long. We are not so naive as to think that the manifesto, which contains hundreds of little comments, covers the point. During the general election campaign, Conservative candidates in London certainly made no attempt to bring up the issue, which the hon. Gentleman claims was in the manifesto. His senior colleagues, spokesmen and spokeswomen for the party in London, did not want to raise the issue or commit themselves to it. They did not try to find out what the people of London thought about it.
  What will happen to London's transport system? There are now some outer-London Members in the Chamber. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has received scores of letters and cards of the type that my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and I have received saying, "Protect the travelcard. We do not want to lose it."
  The travelcard is extremely popular with London tourists because London Transport has given it great publicity. Research shows that about 75 per cent. of all overseas visitors to London make use of that card. That is because it offers great benefits. It not only takes people to places in central London to see the shops and visit the theatre, but allows them to travel to attractive outer London areas. People like to visit parks such as Richmond and Wimbledon or Kew gardens. When we visit countries overseas, we like to visit similar places.
  The research showed that visitors did not like to have to fiddle with coins when paying the fare on the bus, the underground or the train. I am sure that all of us who have visited countries in which we cannot speak the language and do not understand the currency do not want to have to fiddle to find the correct sum to pay for a journey. That is the great benefit of travelcards.
  We have not been given any assurance about how the travelcard will be protected. Many visitors to London make use of that card, as London tourist board research has clearly shown. The Minister spoke about developing tourism in London, so I hope that we shall hear more about that.
  The London tourist board made representations to the Department of Transport after the publication of a paper called "A Bus Strategy for London" in March. The board said:
  "Visitors and residents alike need an efficient transport network which provides for access into and out of London and for ease of travel in London, whether by rail, bus, taxi or coach. It should be efficient, reliable, and provided at reasonable cost. A network approach which allows for transfer between bus, underground and British Rail using a single ticket, is essential in a complex city like London."
  That view by the London tourist board sums it up. I do not think that any hon. Member would say, "Do not take too much notice of them because they are not really representative." We hope that we shall hear a little more about that today, or perhaps in correspondence.
  There are other aspects. London Transport has set up an excellent information service. One can go not only to London tourist board offices but to London Transport offices and quickly get understandable information packs about the services provided. I am sure that when we go abroad, we want something similar. The packs give useful information such as where to board buses and what is required for every destination, and similar information
  620
  about underground trains and British Rail. What will happen to that service under the deregulation proposals for public transport in London?
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) naively said that the pledge was in the manifesto. Tory Members claim that everything can be left to the private operators, who will work together to ensure that operator A knows what operators B, C and D are doing, whatever they may be called and whatever routes they may be operating, so there will be no problem. I do not believe that for one minute, and neither do the people who have been running London Transport for many years or the people involved in the tourist industry in London.
  We all know that if the new operators do not come together there will be congestion and chaos. Already, London has enormous traffic problems. Unless the current system developed by London Transport and British Rail is protected, I and many other hon. Members, the people who live in London and the people who come to London often and know it well, believe that there will be utter chaos. I hope that we shall hear a little more about that.
  There are famous images in many parts of the country. People come here and say, "I have always seen or heard about this or that." Nothing highlights that point more than the London red bus. People who have never been here before, who have come from distant parts of the world, say the moment that they arrive, "Ah! There's a London bus." We all know that London's red buses are famous as tourist attractions in other parts of the world. All of that will be done away with.
  Often—this goes back to an earlier point—one Department does not know what another is hoping to do. Those of us who take part in transport debates put those points to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), the Minister for Transport in London. He said, "We are not sure about that. We hope that, once deregulation comes about, the new operators will be willing to preserve the London red bus."
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is on to a crucial and interesting point. He knows that companies spend vast amounts of money creating a corporate image, and that changing one is a big decision. The red bus is one of those things that people recognise as being part of London. There will not be red buses if deregulation comes in. Already, different coloured buses are appearing on the streets. My hon. Friend might like to mention the black cab. New York is characterised by its yellow cabs. More and more of London's black cabs are disappearing as they are covered in advertisements. Again, London is losing an international mark of recognition that has long been so important to it.
  Mr. Cox: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about London's red buses and black cabs. Hon. Members in all parts of the House acknowledge the significance of the London red bus. It will be interesting to hear the comments of Conservative Members who represent London constituencies [Interruption.] I did not hear the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), but if he wants me to give way, I shall willingly do so.
  Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to hear the comments of Conservative Members—but the way he is going on, we shall not have a chance to speak.
  Mr. Cox: I made only one intervention, but the hon. Gentleman made several early in the debate. Those of us who have been Members of Parliament for any length of time know that if one jumps up and down like a yo-yo, one cannot complain if one is not called to speak. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament long enough to know our procedures. If he chooses to intervene on his Minister to score local press points, he should not expect an automatic right to be called later. The hon. Gentleman should give some thought to his general performance in such debates.
  In such a debate, hon. Members raise various points of particular interest to them, and rightly so. That is what the House is about. Although the constituency that I represent does not have a large tourism industry, as do the constituencies of certain other hon. Members, other aspects of it are of crucial importance to my own. I have tried to highlight some of them. What is to happen to the travelcard and to the availability of concise information about the traffic systems that will operate after deregulation?
  As to the future of the London red bus, hon. Members in all parts of the House know that, with hindsight, the Government would have introduced strict and tough regulations for those who took over industries that were privatised in the past. Any Government have the right, especially in the privatisation of state assets, to tell those who are to take over, "We are prepared to consider your bids, but we will impose conditions that you will be required to observe." The President of the Board of Trade might argue, "That would kill off the incentive. Potential bidders would not be interested in taking on the operation on those terms." We know that that is not the case. Operators have made so much money from past privatisations that they would willingly have taken them on even if certain conditions had been attached.
  I hope that the Minister will have a chat with the Secretary of State for Transport and with the hon. Member for Epping Forest and tell them that the red bus has a fundamental role to play in the image of London and for the people who visit it. The Government must ensure that those who seek to run a deregulated bus service in London undertake that the red bus will continue to be part of London's traffic scene. If that opportunity is lost, it will have gone for ever, and enormous annoyance will be caused to Londoners and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West is even better qualified than I to talk of Londoners' reaction to the denial of their right to express their views about the development of county hall.
  I hope that the Minister will impress on his colleagues the need to ensure that the London red bus will continue to run on London's streets, whichever organisations or individuals manage London's transport after deregulation.
  12.55 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I am pleased that we are debating tourism for the second time in five months. I especially welcome the emphasis on deregulation, which allows me to express some concern on behalf of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). My hon.
  622
  Friend has asked to be associated with my comments; a heavy programme of constituency engagements prevents him from being present.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his return to his old job, which has not been mentioned so far. [HON MEMBERS: "Yes, it has."] I shall mention it now in any case. My hon. Friend carried out the same duties with considerable flair and dynamism more than 10 years ago, and today's robust speech demonstrated that he has not changed a bit. However, he may not welcome my reminding him of a parliamentary answer that he gave me on July 1982 in response to anxieties that I had expressed, along with other hon. Members representing coastal resorts. He said then that grants under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 should no longer be tied to assisted areas, but should henceforth be distributed throughout the whole of England according to tourism need.
  That far-sighted policy undoubtedly helped many seaside resorts, including my own, to resist the decline of the traditional British seaside holiday. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it enabled hotels and guest houses to upgrade their facilities, and helped resorts to improve their attractions and extend their seasons to withstand the competition from better, cheaper and hotter continental rivals. In Bournemouth, for example, more than 50 investment generating projects worth over £8 million were launched with section 4 grants worth one tenth of that figure.
  I know that my hon. Friend is well aware of the widespread and continuing disappointment felt by the tourist industry about the abandoning of the section 4 scheme four year ago. The plug was pulled at exactly the wrong time—at the beginning of a recession that has hit the south coast, in particular, harder than any of its predecessors.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: Unfortunately, I cannot stay until the end of the debate. Following my hon. Friend's reference to the south coast, I take this opportunity to inform my hon. Friend the Minister of an exciting new project in my constituency. A heritage centre is being constructed to celebrate the area's railway and aviation history. I know that those two subjects are dear to my hon. Friend's heart; perhaps he will find time to visit my constituency during the next six months, and to consider how his Department could help further the project.
  Mr. Atkinson: That interesting intervention reminds me of the problems that we are experiencing in trying to restore Bournemouth's central station to reflect its Victorian heritage. We are seeking grants from the Department of the Environment and elsewhere. I wish my hon. Friend well with his constituency's railway project. The forthcoming National Lottery Etc. Bill will enable such projects to apply for funds. Without modest Government encouragement and pump-priming help of that kind, a growing number of hotels and guest houses have turned to other methods outside tourism to survive. Many have become rest or retirement homes for the elderly. That shift represents a permanent loss of beds for visitors which must mean, in due course, a permanent loss of visitors.
  Now there is a new concern, which my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) referred to earlier and

  623
  which was articulated so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) in his Adjournment debate on 26 February and on which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and myself have been making representations to the Minister.
  I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the fact this morning that smaller hotels and guest houses are now becoming bed-and-breakfast hotels for social security claimants. It is becoming big business, to the extent that companies are advertising in inner cities for claimants to come and live and claim on the south coast. Instead of attracting holidaymakers, with money to spend that sustains local economies on which many thousands of jobs are based, we are attracting only those with little money to spend. The effect of that trend, if unchecked, will be to turn decline into decay. I was encouraged to hear, as was Bournemouth borough council, that my hon. Friend the Minister is making representations to the Department of the Environment for the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 to be amended to allow local authorities to exercise a degree of control over the decline.
  As the now reconfirmed champion of the English tourist industry, will the Minister reconsider including England in the scope of section 4 grants for all the good reasons that justified his initiative in July 1982? The increase in competition arising from the single European market this year and the opening of the channel tunnel next year add to the case for including England in that scope.
  Despite all the difficulties that have faced our seaside resorts, I share my hon. Friend the Minister's optimism for the future. Holidaymakers from this country and abroad will still get great value for money from our small, owner-run hotels, certainly in Bournemouth. Our local authorities should ensure that visitors obtain value for money from local visitor attractions and facilities. A tourist can be ripped off only once; they will never come back again. A can of Coke that costs 60p on Bournemouth beach can only he described as a rip off.
  I welcome the Government's new determination to eliminate all unnecessary regulations and frustrations by enterprise initiatives in tourism, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) reminded us. We have been in this situation before with the 1985 White Paper, "Lifting the Burden" which did much to help hotels and other businesses. We have relaxed the liquor licensing laws, abolished the wages councils and introduced the seaside resorts campaigns all in response to the demands of industry.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take this opportunity to review the gaming laws to bring them into line with those on the continent. While it is small in comparison with many other countries, the British casino industry generates some £2 billion worth of business a year, much of which, of course, goes to the Exchequer in taxes. Yet section 12 of the Gaming Act 1968 imposes a 48-hour rule that prevents members of other clubs from enjoying the facilities of clubs in areas that they may be visiting for a limited period. No such restrictions apply to members of social, drinking, Conservative or Labour clubs who visit clubs in other areas, providing that they show their affiliation card and abide by the local club rules. I ask the Minister to look into the restriction of opportunities in the gaming industry.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will review the working of the six-bed qualification for business rates for
  624
  bed-and-breakfast establishments that replaced the 100-day rule and I ask him to suggest a simpler calculation based on the number of weeks in the year that businesses open for trade. That was the old system under the old commercial rates; it worked well and better than the present system.
  Now that the principle of subsidiarity has been firmly established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I hope that, as other hon. Members have said, we shall see an end to the many unnecessary Community-imposed regulations on tourism. For example, it is nonsense to require trading standards officers to investigate those who advertise Dorset cream teas to ensure that they do not serve them with pump-action UHT cream.
  Unfortunately, one of the proposals in the "Lifting the Burden" White Paper, which could have been of enormous assistance to small buisnesses and not simply to the tourism industry, has not been achieved yet. That proposal was to negotiate increased flexibility in the European Community to raise the VAT threshold above the rate of inflation.
  Lifting the requirement for businesses to register for VAT to an annual turnover of £100,000 a year would relieve tens of thousands of small businesses in the tourism industry and elsewhere of the considerable burden of administering VAT without any loss of revenue to the Exchequer because of the departmental savings that would be made in administration costs.
  I hope that the White Paper proposals published recently by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, on the future of funding of the police, will see an end to the burden on conference towns and their police authorities in respect of bearing the entire costs of policing and providing security for party conferences.
  The Lancashire police authority will face a bill of more than £2 million this year as a result of the Conservative party conference in Blackpool in October. Dorset will face a similar bill next year. There will be considerable extra expense for the Blackpool local authority this year and for Bournemouth local authority next year as a result of that policing. It is totally unreasonable for local council taxpayers to bear the cost of protecting our national leaders in that way. I hope that the forthcoming changes in funding the police will reflect that situation.
  1.6 pm
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: This debate is timely and appropriate and it is right that every hon. Member who has spoken stressed the importance of tourism to Britain and to the national economy. It is certainly not a Mickey Mouse industry. I was slightly perturbed by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) that Disneyland was a model for tourism. That was not a very well-advised comment to make from an economic point of view bearing in mind the current situation of Euro Disney. I for one do not relish the idea of this country being festooned with more synthetic plastic theme parks when we have quite enough genuine and decent tourist attractions to bring people to this country and for them to enjoy.
  As a country, we have a considerable range of tourist attractions. We have wonderful landscape, beautiful cities and towns and many historic sites. We also have great art collections. We have a huge variety of elements which will

  625
  bring people to this country and will cause people in Britain to visit other parts of the country. We should focus on those assets and make the most of them.
  Some emphasis has been placed on the number of tourists coming to Britain. I believe that there is a danger of complacency. Some Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), referred to the record number of overseas visitors. If we take into account internal visits, the total number of visitors has still not returned to the levels achieved in the late 1980s.
  We have begun to come out of the worst dip that occurred in the early 1990s as a result of the recession and there is an encouraging upward trend in overseas visitors. However, far fewer people from within the United Kingdom are taking holidays here. Many of them can no longer afford to do so because they have lost their jobs or their incomes have dropped during the recession. We still have a long way to go to pull our industry back to the levels that were achieved some years ago.
  Figures show that there were 16·3 million visitors to London last year and that figure is expected to rise this year to perhaps 17·3 million. That will take us back to the level that we saw in 1990, but it still leaves London with approximately 1·5 million fewer visitors than there were in 1989, when there were 18·9 million visitors. That puts the issue in perspective. We have a long way to go to increase tourism and to put Britain once again in a leading role in the international tourist industry.
  Tourism is an increasingly competitive industry. We should be very worried about the relative decline of Britain in relation to other European countries and certainly in relation to America throughout the 1980s. The figures that were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) highlighted the fact that the growth of tourism in the 1980s lagged behind that of America, France and Spain. We cannot afford to allow our position to be further eroded by losses to other European countries which will increasingly be attractive magnets to tourists from all over the world. Even the Minister conceded that we have been falling down the international league and that that trend has to be reversed. Action is needed to reverse that trend, not just to encourage more international visitors to Britain but to encourage more British people to take their holidays in the United Kingdom.
  It is an illusion that deregulation is the key to changing our competitive position, improving the strength of our tourism and encouraging more tourist visits to Britain. However much Conservative Members talk about deregulation and tell funny stories about anomalies—there are many anomalies; I am the first to agree that—deregulation will not solve the problem of Britain's position in the international tourist league. The removal of a few regulations and the easing of the financial position for some elements of our tourist business might be welcome, but it will not attract the huge increase in the number of overseas tourists and United Kingdom tourists that we need if we are to be able to strengthen our tourist industry.
  Opposition Members rightly argue for a sensible balance. Of course, we do not want foolish and inappropriate regulations. We certainly do not want regulations that inhibit the promotion of tourism. We have
  626
  heard of many examples, including a ban on motorway signs pointing out important tourist attractions and the restrictions on advertising for hotels at the entrance to towns. There are obvious restrictions, the effect of which is to inhibit the benefit of information for the tourist industry. We need to consider those matters very seriously.
  We also need to distinguish unnecessary and harmful regulations from those that are vital to the health and safety of the community and which help to promote good standards, which in turn will encourage more tourists to visit this country. I am glad to hear the recognition that fire regulations are vital and that we must be careful before abandoning regulations that protect individuals who stay or work in hotels from the risk of death or serious injury as a result of an unnecessary fire or a fire that is not properly contained for lack of controls and protections. We do not have—no pun is intended—to put people's lives at risk by calling for a bonfire of regulations. We still suffer too many deaths and injuries from fires in small hotels, boarding houses and houses in multiple occupation. Often the borderline is uncertain, as hon. Members have said.
  We need to be absolutely sure that tourists and other people, including the staff who work in hotels and boarding houses, are properly protected by suitable fire regulations. However, it is not just a matter of fire; we need also to think about other safety angles. The Minister paid attention to an incident that caused considerable inconvenience to a hotel because of controls over its air conditioning unit.
  There can be nothing more disastrous to the reputation of this country than any further outbreaks of legionnaire's disease attributable to malfunctioning or insanitary air conditioning units causing death or serious injury. That would have disastrous consequences for our ability to attract other people to Britain. Therefore, we must be careful before we abandon public health and fire controls. They are important to ensure the safety of the public and give assurances to tourists, as well as people in Britain, that we will maintain the highest safety and hygiene standards.
  The maintenance of standards is an important issue. There is a problem for Britain in international tourism in that there is a growing perception that we are, in some respects, a country which is overpriced—we do not always offer good value for money. Hotel pricing, certainly in London, is an issue which has been highlighted by many of my hon. Friends in this debate—and rightly so. A comparison that one must inevitably make with hotel prices in comparable European countries, such as France and Germany, shows that the price levels in Britain are in a different league. That is a serious risk if people are talking about whether to come to Britain and spend a slightly longer time here or to visit another European country. They look at the prices and see that it is simply not feasible for them to afford such a price for hotel accommodation.
  Another issue that endangers our reputation as a country is the incidence of touting for tickets for sporting events, theatres and other events. This is a serious issue. We joke about the ticket tout at Wimbledon every summer and measures are suggested to deal with the problem. However, we all know that the problem of touting in tourism is extensive. It leads to extensive rip-offs. People who are ripped off will not come back. It may be that the overpriced can of Coke on Bournemouth beach is enough to deter people from going back to Bournemouth. Certainly, a ticket at an absurd price for Wimbledon, a

  627
  sporting event or a theatre in London could be the deciding factor in discouraging an overseas visitor from coming back to this country. We need to examine seriously the whole issue of touting.
  Mr. Pendry: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point,. perhaps he will reflect on one of the worst potential problems—the opening of Buckingham palace. Because the tickets were sold in advance, they are now selling on the black market at something like 10 times the face value of the ticket. That matter should be addressed by the Government. I hope that they will take note of my hon. Friend's comments.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that appropriate intervention. It highlights a specific problem which will certainly cause immense damage if it is seen that the British monarchy is the subject of a rip-off by touts who are using the opportunity of a visit to Buckingham palace to make unjustified extortionate gains at the expense of tourists.
  The London tourist board has drawn attention to touting as a serious problem in a briefing document issued by the London tourist board before today's debate. I quote:
  "The growth of touting for theatre tickets and those for other events, hotel rooms and most recently taxis"—
  incidentally, it does not mention Buckingham palace, but I am glad that my hon. Friend highlighted that—
  "is not simply undesirable, it also damages London's reputation for fairness, honesty and value for money.
  In the case of theatre and event tickets the practice is open to abuse for, frequently, the face value of tickets is not disclosed to the purchaser. The sale of such tickets does not benefit the venue or the arts activity as the difference in value is pocketed by the tout."
  The London tourist board then makes some proposals for dealing with the problem, including the licensing of ticket agencies and the need to make it a legal requirement to inform the customer at the moment of purchase of the face value of the ticket. In that way, a customer will be able to make an informed choice and will be aware whether he is being ripped off. It also suggests that the touting of tickets outside major events should be unlawful; Wimbledon is an obvious example.
  Touting is damaging our reputation as a tourist centre and may therefore make it difficult for us to attract tourists. The London tourist board believes that more regulation is necessary to tackle that problem. I have not had a chance to consider the implications of the proposals with those in the tourist industry and I am not advocating that such regulation is, necessarily, the right solution. It is clear, however, that if we do not take steps to enforce proper standards and to stop the gross exploitation of tourists and others by touts, our reputation will be damaged. That cannot be in the best interests of our tourist industry. A balance must be struck. We need regulations to prevent abuse and to protect public safety, but they must be sensible and they must encourage initiative. They should not damage the tourist industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) was right to stress that transport is critical to tourism in London. While people cannot travel around London comfortably, with reasonable confidence that they will get to their destination on time and that they will benefit from a service that is reliable and frequent, the London tourist industry, will inevitably be harmed.
  628
  I represent Greenwich, which is one of London's main tourist attractions, and I am only too well aware of the damage caused to it by inadequate transport links with the rest of London. Network South East is a joke. The recent reduction in services on a Sunday, from two trains an hour, which was already inadequate, to one, will have a deplorable impact on an area which needs to attract more tourists to its considerable number of exhibitions and historic buildings and sites.
  It is of fundamental importance that the quality of the existing rail services must be improved to assist Greenwich. We also need new rail services. We are still waiting for the promised Jubilee line extension. I wish that I could have received a pound for every time that Ministers have relaunched that project. Those of us who attended the debates on it would now be extremely rich, because that extension has been promised many times. When it is built, it will be the first tube link to Greenwich and it is long overdue.
  The riverbus service has been clinging on by its fingernails for the past couple of years and the prospect of bankruptcy has hovered over it too many times. A reliable and regular river transport service will be an important feature in making London a more attractive environment for tourists in the 21st century.
  What is needed for all transport is not deregulation but investment. The supposed competition that will flow from the privatisation of the railway services will not improve the rail service to Greenwich. That can be done only by investment in long-overdue new rolling stock and more reliable, regular services.
  The riverbus service must also receive more investment to prevent its closure which would be a disaster for those who rely on it and would also damage London's overall transport network.
  We need not deregulation, but investment in improved transport services. We must also ensure that our transport policies improve the environment for Londoners and tourists. One of the biggest problems that we face in Greenwich is the excessive volume of traffic that passes through an area that was never designed to cope with it. Greenwich and its residents are now under serious threat because of that traffic and the pollution that it causes.
  We are urgently seeking a ban on heavy goods vehicles through our historic town centre and I hope that it will be in place before too long. If the Minister is keen to promote transport policies that will enable tourism to flourish in London, I hope that he will say a few words to his colleagues in the Department of Transport about the importance of measures that will make major tourist attractions like Greenwich a more pleasant environment for people to visit. Such policies will also avoid the risk of tourists suffering the risk of injury or death at the hands of 40-tonne lorries coming through the centre of an historic town which was never designed for that volume of heavy traffic. That measure could begin the process. We need more positive transport policies to improve the quality and appearance of tourist sites in London such as Greenwich.
  One hon. Member suggested that local authorities were not always helpful in promoting tourism. The local authority in my constituency has been exceptionally keen to encourage and promote tourism and is doing its best to ensure that Greenwich becomes an even more important tourist attraction than it already is. However, it is hampered in one respect. It is a technical point, but I hope that the Minister will speak to his colleagues in the

  629
  Department of the Environment about it. It concerns the standard spending assessment provision for local government finance relating to tourism. Local authorities incur expenditure to promote tourism and cope with the consequences. This includes additional street cleansing, parks maintenance, traffic management and tourist information, which all cost money and should be provided for. However, the current formula is based entirely on the number of people who stay overnight in hotels, rather than on the number of day visitors. That is desperately unfair to the many tourist areas that attract large numbers of day visitors but do not have a large network of hotels and thus have a small number of overnight stays.
  In Greenwich, we estimate that in 1991—the last year for which figures are available, because they were based on a survey rather than on regular monitoring, which reduces paperwork—the number of overnight stays represented just 7 per cent. of total tourist visits to the area. Those who know Greenwich will know that, because it is frequently visited by tourists who take a boat down the river or come by other means of transport to see the fine sights and tourist attractions, it is severely penalised by the SSA formula. Ironically, areas of London with a larger hotel network get the advantage of much more substantial expenditure in the form of hotel bills and the cost of meals, which are the most expensive items in tourists' total outgoings. Based on the 1991 survey of tourists coming to Greenwich, we estimate that tourists spend on average £9·59 a day, which is a small sum compared to the huge amounts spent by tourists staying in central London.
  Authorities for which the SSA does not adequately reflect the need to cope with a considerable number of tourists, and which have the added disadvantage of not getting the financial benefit of tourists staying in the area, rightly feel aggrieved. I hope that the Department of the Environment, which is currently conducting a review of standard spending assessments, will reconsider the formula so that it reflects more accurately the pattern and cost of tourism, not just the number of overnight stays. I hope that the Minister will put in a good word with the Department of the Environment, as that issue concerns not only Greenwich but many other tourist areas with the phenomenon of a disproportionate number of day visitors to overnight stays.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde highlighted another issue relating to regulation in his opening speech from the Front Bench. It is an issue in which I have a constituency interest and it involved the collapse of the SFV Holidays travel company, and the problems encountered by people who booked holidays with it in the absence of bonding arrangements.
  From the evidence that I have received, it appears that the DTI played a crucial role in giving guidance to SFV that, in the circumstances, the company did not have to comply with the bonding regulation. If that is true, the DTI has done no service to the many people who booked holidays with that company and lost substantial sums of money. One of my constituents lost more than £2,000 and his holiday as a result of booking with SFV. He rightly feels extremely aggrieved that the company, apparently on advice of the DTI, had no bonding arrangements in place to cover the eventuality.
  630
  That example emphasises the fact that we cannot be too relaxed about regulation. If we do not have appropriate regulations, which can be made to stick, some companies will always try to evade the provisions and, as a result, operate without proper safeguards. It is often just such companies which fail and, when they do so, innocent people suffer serious financial losses and have every right to feel aggrieved, not just about the treatment that they have received from the company, but about the British Government's failure to provide proper protection.
  Tourism is crucial to Britain's economy, and there is considerable scope for growth in that industry, in terms of both internal tourism and the attraction of tourism from overseas. We need to encourage and support the tourist industry and to take measures to make it possible for all those involved to operate more effectively. The Government must give a lead and take more positive action. They should ensure that there is necessary infrastructure and investment, where necessary, to help tourism. They should be stamping out damaging practices such as touting and ensuring that regulation exists, where needed, to ensure high standards and public safety. They should look to change regulation where it is foolish and unnecessary.
  Above all, our concern should be not with ideology and slogans, but with the promotion of tourism in Britain as a fundamental element in our economy. We should do everything that we can to put Britain back at the top of the league of international tourism.
  1.32 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in today's important debate on tourism and deregulation. We have heard precious little from the Labour Members present on the subject of deregulation. In some cases, they seemed to be proposing more regulations. It is not so much that they do not want to participate in the bonfire of regulations, but that they want to produce a regulation to supervise the bonfire. That is hardly surprising, as one does not have to scratch the surface very deeply to find the old Labour party which wants to control the lives of ordinary people and regulate for the sake of it.
  I have a personal dream that one day in the not-too-distant future there will be a heritage theme park in London that is easily accessible to visitors and which is based on the history of the British Labour party. It will be populated with life-size working models of old Labour politicians—a sort of Jurassic park of the Labour party. It would be a tremendous tourism attraction—[Interruption.] I can hear some trumpeting from the dinosaurs opposite.
  To be serious, I am not opposed to Government regulations, where appropriate. I would go so far as to say that I am opposed to deregulation when it leads to anomalies and problems for businesses. As my hon. Friend the Minister stressed, it is always a matter of judgment, although the burden of proof should always be on those who want more, rather than less, regulation.
  Hon. Members have been good enough to refer to my Adjournment debate earlier this year on the use classes order. Relaxation of the regulations in that area of planning law may cause damage to the environment in various seaside resorts and other parts of the country, even though the Department of the Environment seems to

  631
  regard this as its contribution to deregulation—in which view it is sorely mistaken. In essence, the change came about because the 1987 regulations lump together hotels and hostels in the same use class, so planning permission is no longer required to change the use from a hotel to a hostel.
  No one is trying to deny the rights of those who want or have to live in hostels for various reasons, but there must be proper planning zones in these towns. The heart of a town's economy, if it is tourism, must be preserved; and the whole process should brought within planning regulations, or there will always be the danger that has been realised in some towns—not, I am pleased to say, in Eastbourne so far—of a downward spiral of noise, nuisance, petty crime and even violence.
  I am particularly grateful for the efforts of the Eastbourne Hotels Association, which has done a great deal to preserve the character of the town as a seaside tourist resort and has tried to resist some of the worst effects of this ill-conceived stroke of the legal draftsman's pen. I am indebted to Mr. Edward Lewis, chairman of the association, for giving me some of the examples to which I will refer later.
  The Minister will know that later this month I shall be accompanying a delegation from the Eastbourne Hotels Association to see him to discuss some of these subjects.
  Let us move on from poor deregulation to poor regulations. I have said that I recognise the importance of Government regulations where appropriate. In some circumstances, the Government have a positive duty to regulate, but only if the regulations comply with certain criteria. First, their drafting must identify a specific problem or risk. Secondly, they must be accurately and clearly drafted. Thirdly, they must be a proportionate response to the risk with which they are supposed to deal. Finally, there must be no alternative course of action that the Government can take in the circumstances.
  When these criteria are applied to certain regulations affecting the tourist industry, they provide examples of the nanny state's ability to scold and cajole in every aspect of our lives. To quote a letter from Mr. Lewis:
  "The amount of bureaucracy has increased, mainly, it appears, as a result of initiatives emanating from the European Community, but often compounded … by more rigorous application by our own Government and, similarly, it appears that British authorities are applying the EC regulations in a stricter fashion than the authorities in other EC countries."
  I join other hon. Members in commending my hon. Friend's initiative, announced on 14 June, to reduce bureaucracy and over-regulation. It has not surprised me in the least to learn that he has been almost overwhelmed with representations. We have heard something about the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1990. I have to admit that I am not averse to a bit of cheese. Finely presented on an attractive cheeseboard, it can be the highlight of a delicious meal, but I draw the line at hard Brie and Camembert with the consistency of an ice hockey puck. Soft cheese is supposed to be soft cheese, but one would not think so looking at the 1990 regulations, which require that all relevant food, including such cheeses, can be displayed at catering premises for up to only four hours
  "where such display is for the purpose of service to a purchaser for consumption on those premises".
  In short, the cheeseboard has a life of four hours. What nonsense! Although I acknowledge the concerns about listeria, judging by what I have read, the regulation is
  632
  disproportionate to the risk. In my grandfather's day the Stilton was kept for days, if not weeks, as more port was added to mature the cheese. He, like the cheese, lived to a ripe old age.
  Then there are requirements upon hotels to keep record cards and registers. We have heard about that. The Immigration (Hotel Records) Order 1972 requires everyone over the age of 16 to register his name and nationality at the hotel. Those records must be kept for 12 months and be available for inspection by any police constable or any other person authorised by the Secretary of State. I have yet to find an hotelier in my constituency who can recall anyone authorised, or for that matter unauthorised, who has ever asked to see those records. It is absurd to restrict that duty to hotels or guest houses if it serves a purpose of keeping track of the movements of foreign visitors. It is yet another unnecessary bureaucratic burden on hotel owners and operators.
  Not only visitors have to be logged in and logged out of hotels; items of food must be recorded and a history produced. That record of movements must be kept so that one can trace the journey of a lamb chop not only into the premises but into the freezer, out of it, into the refrigerator and on to the plate. It is another nightmare of records and log books for the small hotel keeper to contend with. The Food Safety Act 1990 requires individual itemised records of each item of food that is placed in the freezer, the checking of temperatures of fridges and freezers three times a day and the maintaining yet again of copious records. Even that is not the end of the story because when the food is ultimately thrown out—presumably after four hours if it happens to be cheese—precise records have to be kept of the rubbish collection.
  The Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires the filling of forms and the monitoring of waste collected from a hotel and it must be individually itemised, dustbin by dustbin, bag by bag, together with an assessment of the credentials of those collecting the waste from the hotel. That imposes enormous additional paperwork on the poor hotel keeper and, of course, it is all rigorously, if not ruthlessly, supervised by the food gestapo.
  Then there is the hotel that tries to help parents by providing some entertainment for children so that the parents can take a break and go off to do something on their own. We could include in that category people such as the Butlin redcoats and that frequent resident of the kiddies' corner in McDonald restaurants, Ronald McDonald. Those people appear to be caught by the provisions of the Children Act 1989 which states that persons who provide any form of activity supervised by a responsible person, whether or not on a regular basis on non-domestic premises, for children under the age of eight years, must be registered as child minders. Give him a group of seven-year-olds and poor old Ronald loses his sense of fun. The additional requirement is that to be a child minder the person must perform the act for reward and must do so for more than two hours each day. I assume that Ronald McDonald does not provide his services free. Even he gets paid, as do the redcoats.
  Perhaps even Father Christmas gets caught. Imagine the scene in the weeks leading up to Christmas. Children are left by their parents with Father Christmas, perhaps while the parents go to buy the very Christmas presents that the children are whispering, or seeking to whisper, into Father Christmas's ear. To the child seated on his knee Father Christmas asks, "How old are you, young

  633
  man?" The child answers, "Seven, Mister." Christmas spirit rapidly evaporates as Father Christmas says, "Well, I am afraid that pursuant to section 71 of the Children Act 1989 you will have to get off my knee." Those are all absurd examples, but they all add to the cost of running British tourist and leisure industries.
  The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 also impose great burdens on my constituents. We have also heard about the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, which seem to impose the most bizarre, complex and expensive requirements on hotel owners in my constituency and those of other hon. Members. There is also the issue of notices. When one enters a hotel reception lobby, one wants to see a welcoming notice or two, possibly something about the fire regulations or where to park one's car.
  The difficulty is that one is now met with a panoply of different notices. There is the Tourism (Sleeping Accommodation Price Display) Order 1977, the Price Marking (Food and Drink on Premises) Order 1979, the Price Indications (Method of Payment) Regulations 1991, the Price Indications (Bureau de Change) Regulations—I could go on and on. All that means a proliferation of notices, which almost blots out the welcome of the receptionist. On top of that, there are the bizarre requirements of the Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations 1989, notifying the alcoholic strength of drinks sold. I do not know what others in the Chamber today think, but that is not the sort of notice that I immediately seek out when I am ordering a drink in my favourite pub.
  I ask the Minister to review, as soon as possible, the requirement—placed on all hotels and guest houses offering services to tourists—to establish bonding arrangements. I am glad that that point has already been raised. As we have heard from more than one hon. Member, the new EC directive imposes a sharp increase in overheads if a hotel includes within its prices golf or tennis lessons or tournaments. Such additional services can mean that the hotel is said to be providing a package. At a time when the British tourist industry is developing leisure and entertainment packages as an answer to the sunseeker-type holiday abroad, the regulations distort the market. The situation with package holidays abroad is quite different. Going abroad means that the tourist is subject to the vagaries of airlines, ferries, foreign hotels and so on. In those cases, I accept the argument for bonding.
  My hoteliers in Eastbourne, and others elsewhere, do not need to be told how to look after their guests, to make them comfortable, safe and happy. They will provide them with hygienic food properly prepared in pleasant surroundings. Eastbourne provides a warm and hospitable welcome all year round and we are looking forward to welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister there at some time.
  The wind of deregulation is blowing strongly. It is encouraged by the Prime Minister, and my hon. Friend the Minister is already performing tremendous tasks. The post-Maastricht mood here and throughout the Community is in favour of deregulation and abolishing unnecessary bureaucracy. Regulations are fine as long as they benefit the consumer. The unnecessary regulation, whether in Britain or in mainland Europe, is nothing less
  634
  than a curse to the consumer. This has been a timely debate and I have every confidence that my hon. Friend the Minister is the right man to be carrying the cause of deregulation forward.
  1.47 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I do not think that I am a pervert because I happen to prefer my Camembert and Brie cold out of the fridge. It is still a soft cheese in comparison with Cheddar and one can still get the taste of it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, it is obviously a matter of taste. Clearly we shall not agree, but I refuse to back off because I prefer my cheese cold rather than oozing towards me like a glutinous threatening blob. However, enough about Tory Members.
  The significance of tourism to the economy of London is undisputed. It is estimated to have earned the capital city about £4·4 billion in 1991—£3·6 billion having been spent by overseas visitors and £720 million by British citizens. London receives enormous benefits from visitors, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, even with the slightly declining number of 16 million, a lot of people come into the capital city annually.
  Although that volume of tourists is welcome, it exerts enormous pressure on the centre of London in particular. That may be fun if one is a young and fit student backpacker from Germany or France, milling about on Victoria or Westminster station, but not if one is frail or a commuter trying to get to work—if one is lucky enough to have a job in the capital after 14 years of Conservative government. There are continuing incidents of friction between large parties of tourists and commuters on inadequate concourses and in ticketing areas on the London Underground and at British Rail's main stations.
  It is great that large numbers of people still want to visit London, but we must do more to make them welcome and to help them get as much from their visit as they can so that they will want to return again and again.
  The Minister made great play of the question of regulations and offered a whole series of anecdotes. He said that they were not amusing, but he played them for all that he could and raised laughs from Conservative Members. As I pointed out before, many of those regulations, if not all, were passed or left on the statute book by previous Conservative Governments—but also, I accept, by other Governments.
  New regulations from Brussels have been agreed by British Ministers, so it is no use their blaming the Commission. British Ministers connived in those regulations, so, although the Minister may not take personal responsibility for them, he cannot detach himself entirely from the Government's actions. When the Government have constructed or helped to construct regulations, they cannot seek to win cheap cheers from their own supporters by attacking those measures.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich said, the right balance must be struck. Total deregulation would be even worse than total regulation. Neither is desirable, but we want to stop tourists being ripped off in London and elsewhere. There must be sensible regulations on quality and standards.
  It has been said that London hotels are among the most expensive in the world. The Minister spoke of the high cost of staying in a London hotel, as if that could all be blamed

  635
  on regulation. That is nonsense. At worst, regulations impose inconvenience and a marginal cost element. If one asks hoteliers about the real reason for prices being forced up, they will cite value added tax, the business rate and all the other charges that licensing authorities, at the behest or connivance of Government, require hoteliers to make. It is nonsense for the Minister and Conservative Members to argue that high costs are all down to regulation and that abolishing all regulations will produce cheaper hotels stays in London and elsewhere. In London, a balance must be struck between the needs of tourists and those of residents and the desirability of protecting both categories.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred to the high cost of London's public transport. We have the highest urban fares in the world, but we do not have the best transport system. The service is poor, and bus deregulation is a nonsensical concept which ought to be scrapped. It has all to do with ideology, not with the needs of London's residents or visitors. A lousy transport system for London affects us all.
  I do not approve of museum and art gallery charges; I view them as a charge on knowledge, especially in the case of museums. Other European capitals operate such charges, and I do not object to tourists being charged, but I do object to charges for residents. The science museum charges £4 for entry—unlike the Victoria and Albert, whose charge is optional—although it is perhaps the most important museum to which we can take our kids. I used to love going there; everything was free, and there was plenty to do and to learn about. There is much talk nowadays of single parents and social security. If you are a single parent on social security, just try to get the money to take your child to the science museum! We must try to find a way of getting around this nonsense.
  A visit to the tower of London is a good trip, but it costs £6.70, including admission to the Crown jewels. I used to love going there, too. Londoners, however, do not visit such attractions as much as tourists. They tend to say to themselves, "It will always be there. I will go and see it tomorrow, or next week." Eventually, of course, they will die without visiting any of those places.
  Admission to the tower of London used to be free, although there was a small charge for viewing the Crown jewels. I understand that Buckingham palace is about to impose a standard charge of £8—although some people may be stupid enough to pay 10 times that to a tout. Why should our citizens have to pay twice over? We already pay for the upkeep of the science museum, the tower of London and Buckingham palace through our taxes. During the consultation process, the Minister should consider introducing the differential charging system that operates in many other parts of the world. Those who can produce evidence of United Kingdom residency should be admitted free, or at a reduced rate: I consider it grotesquely unfair to charge tourists the same as residents.
  Countries such as Greece have many western European visitors who can afford to pay reasonably high prices. Restaurants and food shops in such countries make a price distinction between tourists and residents, and I see no reason to object to such a system here. I want tourists to enjoy their time in the capital, but it is not just a question of saying that all regulations are nonsense and should be dispensed with; we should examine the products and the standards of service that tourists are offered. They should feel that they have got something out of their visit.
  636
  Souvenirs are a classic example. I did a bit of market research on the other side of Westminster bridge, by the station. I had a look at the trash that is on offer to tourists. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting cited red buses as one of the great features of London, along with red telephone boxes. It is regrettable that we are getting rid of such things. This may sound silly, but another London symbol is the copper's helmet. I pushed off quite a few of those in my day, during demonstrations, but it is possible to go out and buy one: they are all made in China. The same applies to dolls representing the royal family. I was told that there was a fairly well-upholstered Fergie doll—it was not on sale at the time—with a packet of pins that could be pushed into it, and a dazzling array of holiday clothes.
  Looking around, I saw "Made in Taiwan", "Made in Bangladesh" and "Made in Hong Kong". I do not object to those economies selling us their products, but I feel that a souvenir from a capital city should be of local manufacture as well as local representation.
  Looking on the brighter side, London Underground offers an excellent range of souvenirs, all of which are made in England. The London tourist centre in Victoria also has an excellent array of high-quality souvenirs which are made in this country. The work of the London tourist centre in Victoria has not been mentioned so far. It is helpful, friendly and informed, which is so important. It makes visitors feel welcome, and I hope that the Minister will consider the resources that it needs to extend the services and the personnel there who can greet visitors. We could assist visitors greatly by requiring quality standards for all souvenirs.
  We could also help tourists far more by providing information booths around central London in which different languages are spoken. We are arrogant in this country. In other capital cities, one can speak English and always find someone who can give the required information. Try speaking a language other than English around London. People who speak another language in my area of London would probably get their faces kicked in. It is not noted for being a charming part. We need more bilingual notices on trains and buses and at stations to assist visitors. There are many signs in English in other European capitals. French and German should be far more in evidence at our stations and other places where people seek information. There should be more announcements in French and German at stations, rather than the language that many of us who were born here do not understand as it comes out of public address systems in London stations and elsewhere in Britain.
  I move on to register my protest at the appalling public transport links between Heathrow and central London. To get on a train that is not a dedicated link is an atrocious introduction to visitors. I am glad to see that the British Airports Authority and British Rail have come to an agreement with regard to a dedicated link on that route, which will mean that communication from central London and Heathrow is more like the good connection between central London and Gatwick.
  There are many wonderful places and many good tours in London for visitors to take, but a number of them are substandard. For example, try going on some of the river cruises and hearing the semi-literate, ill-informed and prejudiced commentaries given. Some of the comments, I might add, are about this place and may be justified. However, visitors hear those commentaries. The Circle

  637
  line trip in New York provides a professional commentary of the sort that visitors should hear on a river tour here. Such services are obvious targets for quality regulation.
  There are some excellent organised sight-seeing tours in London, put on by private and public sector organisers, but there are a number of distasteful tours that commemorate past incidents of violence and brutality. London is one of the safest cities for tourists in the world. Obviously, plenty more needs to be done because London residents are as concerned about their safety as we are about the safety of tourists, but the idea of having "the bus trip to murder", for example, does not seem desirable. Jack the Ripper walks and the Jack the Ripper exhibition at the London Dungeon are, at the very least, in poor taste, but could be seen by many—and certainly by myself—as insulting to women, especially as the women concerned in a number of those murders were prostitutes. Such women, to this day, are still regarded by some as people who do not deserve protection from violent or murderous assailants. London should not be seen, and Londoners do not want it to be seen, as a place where we are proud of the horrific events in our past.
  In conclusion—those are words that Conservative Members love hearing; I shall roll them round my tongue once again—in conclusion, London needs to welcome tourists and honoured guests to our capital city, but sensible measures are required to ensure that our visitors are not cheated or ripped off and that Londoners are not inconvenienced or penalised by tourists so that we regard them as a curse rather than as welcome paying guests.
  2.4 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is a pleasure to say a few words in this long debate about the deregulation of tourism. As I live in London and in my constituency of Hastings, I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the points raised by Opposition Members. However, I fear that their underlying answer to the problem is to regulate rather than to deregulate. Deregulation is the key to this debate so that we can offer an infinitely better reception to people from abroad and to people from this country who wish to spend a holiday in some of our most attractive tourist areas.
  I agree with practically everything that was said by my colleagues, so I shall not repeat what they have said. My hon. Friend the Minister began to list some of the activities of the men with briefcases which affect the tourism industry. Mr. Michael Ann of the Department of Trade and Industry retail and tourism group listed them recently in a local business newspaper. The list included
  "environmental health, national insurance, VAT, weights and measures, building control, liquor licensing, swimming pool inspection, electrical safety, planning, trading standards, wages inspection, the English Tourist Board, the RAC and AA, insurance, performing rights and phonographic rights."
  The list also included
  "the Lotteries and Amusements Act, the Theatres Act and the Data Protection Act."
  After dealing with all that, I cannot imagine that there is much time to run an hotel.
  A hotelier in my constituency told me a tale, not of the ham and tomato sandwich, but of the beef and tomato sandwich. We have dealt with ham and tomato sandwiches at great length. However, to produce a beef and tomato sandwich, one would need four colour-coded chopping
  638
  boards with their matching colour-coded knives. The ingredients would have to be taken from a fridge so cold that the tomato, beef and butter would be solid. If one took that freezing cold concoction, wrapped in shrink-wrap paper, as it would have to be, to a client sitting in the bar who then wanted it warmed up, one could not toast it behind the bar because the bar is not a catering kitchen. That sums up fairly succinctly some of the problems that our hoteliers face.
  There has been agreement in the debate about what needs to be done, but we have not heard many answers. In the few minutes that remain, I want to consider some of the ways in which we can deal with the problems posed by regulation and over-regulation. No Conservative Member would say that we should abandon all regulation instantly. There is clearly a need for a degree of sensible regulation. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister suggested, we must consider the cost of compliance and the risk analysis involved.
  It is easy to say that, but it is considerably more difficult to put it into practice. There are instances when we ask Departments to consider compliance costs. The problem is that the science of compliance costs is not as well understood as it could be and our systems are exceedingly weak. I should like to see the National Audit Office or the Audit Commission, or both working together, produce considerably better systems of cost compliance related to, and involving, those who will have to comply rather than how much it would cost Government Departments.
  I was also encouraged by the fact that the Minister wants better relations with the industries involved, although I was slightly disheartened when he said that he wanted to talk to trade associations. So many businesses in tourism are small. If they are dealing with the men with briefcases, they will certainly not have time to join trade associations, let alone be vocal members of them. It would benefit the industry enormously if we could devise consultation that helped people and did not take yet more time out of the business.
  We have castigated environmental health officers at great length. I have a certain sympathy—not a great deal—with them because the poor souls do not understand what they are doing. There is a need for training in business methods, in the science of hygiene and in various other disciplines, which would include science and technology as it applies to many companies. If we could institute better training for our environmental health officers, we might obtain a better understanding of what we are trying to achieve.
  I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister instigated the debate. It has given hon. Members an opportunity to air some of the concerns of businesses in our constituencies. We wish the Minister all power to the elbow to try to get the industry deregulated so that it can continue profitably.
  2.9 pm
  Mr. Charles Hendry: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he opened the debate. It was one of the most encouraging speeches that I have ever heard in the House. His robust presentation and understanding of the issues will comfort many of our constituents. They will know that the battle is being joined.

  639
  Tourism is vital to my constituency. The Peak district national park attracts 22 million visitors a year, which means that it attracts more visitors than Blackpool and Scarborough combined and more than any other national park in the world except Mount Fuji. In the Peak district national park, man has actually harnessed nature to create something even better. Natural facilities are used for sport and recreation, hang-gliding, caving and walking—as long as one is careful to avoid hang-gliders swooping down and catching one behind the neck. Man has improved the environment further by the introduction of reservoirs. People can sail, and there are trails such as the Longdendale trail, the Sett valley walk and the Pennine way, which starts in my constituency.
  On top of that, community activities that have been introduced add another dimension which attracts tourists to our area. The Buxton festival, which starts next week, will attract many people, and this year's festival is expected to be better than ever. The Glossop Victorian weekend is due to be held in a couple of weeks. A host of small villages hold well-dressing festivals, country fairs, sheepdog shows, garland days and May queen festivals. That is what makes us one of the most attractive parts of the country and one of the reasons why so many people visit us.
  I thank the Foundation for Sports and the Arts which has helped many organisations in my constituency to flourish by giving grants now in excess of £250,000.
  I also thank the Department of National Heritage for the way in which it has already positively intervened in the case of the Buxton crescent. The Buxton crescent is one of the most spectacular and important buildings in the north of England. We have seen it decaying and falling apart, but, thanks to the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the former Minister and the current Minister, we are seeing it put right. We have reason to be optimistic that, this year, the builders will move in and start to restore the building. That owes more to the Department of National Heritage, backed by English Heritage and the national heritage memorial fund, than to anybody else. I welcome the fact that they are working so helpfully in conjunction with High Peak borough council.
  But all is not well. There is a general problem facing businesses—too much red tape. Whereas we were once a nation of shopkeepers, many small businesses are being closed because we have become a nation of health inspectors. Partly, as we have heard, that is European Community-inspired, but all too often a three-page directive from the European Community is turned into a 30-page regulatory document by our own officials.
  Over the past week, my office contacted many businesses to find out about the problems that they are facing. Many of those problems have been referred to. There has been massive investment in hygiene. As for the refrigeration of cheese, we have a delicatessen in Buxton, which The Times described as one of the best delicatessens in the north of England. But Pugsons of Buxton is facing a significant problem because of the need to keep quiches and cheeses at temperatures which destroy living enzymes. Cheese is a living food.
  We have heard about sandwiches and the need for washing down. A new fear is creeping in about a European ruling that will require every hotel bedroom to have a bidet. Bidets are not part of the British culture and heritage, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to resist that ruling as well.
  640
  Bureaucrats have gone into the Buxton opera house and said that a window must be changed because Judith Christian, who runs the opera house and who was appointed because she is so sensible, can reach that window and open it by standing on a chair. They said that the window was dangerous because she might throw herself out. However, she is not that sort of person. We need people who will not make such regulations for our buildings. There are too many petty rules.
  The signposting issue must be tackled. We must get rid of the wretched elephants that appear on signposts up and down the country. I have an otter sanctuary and an owl haven in my constituency which should not be signposted by elephants. I like elephants: my tie is covered in elephants. I am an adviser to an elephant charity. When a five-year-old says, "Mummy and Daddy, let us go and see the elephants", how does one explain that it is not an elephant but an otter or an owl?
  The only thing like an elephant that we have in High Peak is the remains of a mammoth in Buxton museum. But if one puts up an elephant to say that the Buxton museum has remains of a mammoth, one will be told to take it down because a different symbol is used to indicate a museum. We have bureaucracy gone mad.
  I welcome what the Government are doing. I welcome the approach taken by the Minister, and I congratulate him on his initiative.
  2.15 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: I shall wind up a fruitful and useful morning by quoting a letter from the owner of the Manor hotel at Mundesley, Norfolk, which will be familiar to the Minister. At the end of a four-page fax, she says from the bottom of her heart
  "Help. We seem to be in the middle of the road with traffic coming at us from all angles with no way out. What do we do?"
  She has been buried by regulation.
  The law is an ass. This morning we heard such a catalogue of examples that it was almost impossible to cap each one with a better one. Unless we get this regulation under control, we shall never be able to manage the costs that have been raised by Labour Members—the price to the customer. It is not surprising that this country has become expensive for tourism.
  There is no better place to see regulation at its worst than in Sutton. Sutton may not be the heart of everyone's touristic world, but in a sense we are a good example because we are perfect for business men wanting to go to Heathrow or Gatwick. We are in a light industrial area and we have good conference facilities.
  The hotels that provide their facilities are drowning under paper work. Their greatest burden is overzealous town hall Hitlers driving them crazy. Those town hall Hitlers take European Community directives—which go via Whitehall and are meant to be guidelines—and then interpret them as fact and law and the poor miserable hotelier must comply with them. As a result, my leading hotel spent thousands of pounds complying with yet more fire regulations although it had been okayed only the year before. Every time another inspection officer comes to interview them, they duck—it costs money.
  There are other examples of pettifogging. For example, my council insists that everyone in the catering trade—the chefs, stewards, stewardesses and even the chambermaids, because they must prepare a Teasmade—must attend an

  641
  expensive two-day course of basic food hygiene. They get a certificate at the end. What do they learn? They are told not to chew gum while preparing food.
  The law is an ass. I could go on for a long time about the examples of what we must tackle. The tourism industry in this country has been regarded as a second show. It is time that we put tourism ahead of football. We should make it our first priority, bearing in mind that it is one of our largest and most important income earners. I congratulate the Minister on tackling this jungle of bureaucracy. He is my Tarzan and the Tarzan for all people in the tourist industry. I wish him well in his endeavours.
  2.18 pm
  Mr. Pendry: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The Minister and I agreed to take just a few moments to conclude, because we wanted those who turned up for the debate and who have a real interest in the subject to speak.
  It has been a good debate. I know that the Minister will not have time to reply to all the good points made today, but I hope that he will reflect on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) made a particularly important point, which was picked up by other hon. Members, about the importance of promoting areas outside the capital, Oxford and Stratford. I agree with him that Burnley should be promoted, but other areas in the north, such as that represented by my neighbour and almost namesake, the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) and my area of Tameside should also be promoted. I hope that the Minister will consider that request.
  There is no doubt that London is the focus for overseas visitors and my hon. Friends who represent London made typically thoughtful speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made a good point when he pleaded that red London buses should remain, whatever deregulation may be introduced. Those hon. Members who cheered deregulation when my hon. Friend referred to it would think again if they saw some of the clapped-out buses that those of us whose bus services have been deregulated must now endure.
  I hope that the Minister will also respond to the point that my hon. Friend made about the parking problems encountered by buses and tour buses in London.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) put to rest the bogus claim that the Labour party is not interested in the tourist industry. They made a balanced case for good regulation over bad regulation. They also referred to other problems such as that caused by ticket touting. The Government resisted an attempt to make that an offence under the Criminal Justice Bill, which is now in Committee. I was surprised by that because I have two letters on the subject from the Prime Minister, who said that, as soon as parliamentary time allows, he will introduce legislation to prevent ticket touting at football matches. That also follows the recommendation contained in Lord Justice Taylor's report. Today's debate, however, has highlighted that that problem transcends football.
  In conclusion—my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has stressed that they are the
  642
  magical words in such debates—the tourist industry does not want us to indulge in petty party-political arguments when discussing its problems. The debate has, however, revealed genuine cross-party concerns. I hope that the debate will give the Minister the type of opportunity that he wants, new as he is to his post, to ensure that where regulation is necessary within the industry, it will be clarified and made relevant to those at the sharp end.
  As has been pointed out today, much of the legislation that Conservative Members have complained about was voted for by them. Too many sloppy Acts have been passed since the White Paper "Lifting the Burden" was published in 1985.
  I hope that we can have more debates on tourism. We have got to get the message through to that vital industry that the House cares about tourism. If there are some healthy punch ups between hon. Members on both sides of the House, I hope that the synthesis of such clashes will be good for the industry.
  Although we have had two debates in four months on tourism, I hope that we will have many more.
  2.22 pm
  Mr. Sproat: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate and attempt to follow the wise advice given to me by the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).
  I thank the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for his welcome of the fact that this is the second debate on tourism in four months and for his call for many more.
  Tourism is an extremely important industry and, although hon. Members on both sides of the House may place a different emphasis on what is the right balance to be struck between regulating and non-regulating, there is widespread agreement among hon. Members that the industry is subject to too much regulation overall. It is commonly held that too much of it is wrong and that where it is stupid, it should be repealed.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that a lot of the regulation that we have discussed and castigated as stupid or absurd had been passed by Tory Governments. That is exactly so. I do not care tuppence who passed them—if they are stupid, they should be changed and if they are not, they should be kept. That goes not only for the House but for local authorities, whether they are run by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or Labour.
  We are trying to lift a burden from the tourist industry. As Minister responsible for tourism I want, first, to subtract the measures that damage the industry—we have been discussing those today—and, secondly, to find measures that increase the industry's competitiveness. The latter is not a subject for this debate. Those matters constitute a double punch.
  I am acutely aware of all the questions about funding the British Tourist Authority—by the way, it is the English tourist board which has had it money cut—and the relationship between the regional tourist boards and the English tourist board. We must see whether we can involve the Scottish and Welsh tourist boards in a more co-ordinated way in dealing with visitors within this country. We all understand that the Scots and Welsh want to keep their own tourist boards. Scotland is a very sellable tourist commodity and it is right that Scotland should wish

  643
  to sell it. However, while maintaining total control over its national tourist product, there may be room for more co-ordination between the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland tourist boards.
  A sad aspect of this debate is that although the Department of National Heritage is responsible for tourism as a whole, it is not responsible for many of the problems that have been mentioned in this debate. I must work out how we can convince the Department of the Environment that use class orders should be changed. I have been convinced of that by hon. Members and representations that I have received from outside. I will send a powerful letter to the Department of the Environment setting out the arguments about why local councils should have a right to say whether buildings that were once hotels should be converted into hostels.
  Similarly, I will write to the Department of Health on the Children Act 1989. One of my hon. Friends mentioned the anomaly that McDonald's wants to run children's parties but when more than eight children are in the party room, another so-called "qualified carer" must be present to ensure that the children do not misbehave themselves. That makes it uneconomical for McDonald's to run that helpful facility for parents.
  Mrs. Lait: When my hon. Friend talks to the Department of Employment about the May day bank holiday, although I welcome a deregulation day bank holiday, will he bear in mind the fact that, in Hastings, May day is a valuable tourist day? It is one of our most successful weekends because we hold a Morris dancing festival.
  Mr. Sproat: I am glad that my hon. Friend did not ask me to attend the Morris dancing festival, but I note what she said.
  644
  Hon. Members asked about hotel registers and the immigrations forms that must be filled in. Nobody has yet found an hotel that has been asked by the police or anybody else to return such a form. I shall probably now be flooded with letters from the Home Office saying that that is the most important measure that it has passed for a long time, but I look forward to hearing from it.
  The Department of Transport is responsible for signs and I hope that we can get some movement on that. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) rightly asked about aviation and I hope that we can follow that up. Motorway service areas are part of the tourist product. We deregulated those last August; until a few months ago, one could land at Dover and try to reach Birmingham without seeing a single motorway station.
  One hon. Member talked about pints of beer and whether it should be illegal to sell a pint of beer in a pint glass because the head constituted a tiny proportion of the beer at the top of the glass. The Department of Trade and Industry is considering whether to regulate that and place costs of £30 million on the pubs and clubs of the land, which would have to get rid of their old glasses and buy new glasses that can hold a pint plus the froth on top.
  Those are all small issues in themselves, but they have clearly exercised the House today. I give a pledge that I will take up those matters with the appropriate Departments. I have been asked whether a statement will be made in the House, as I promised, about an interim report on the inquiry. I will certainly seek to provide one, probably by way of a written answer, which I will make as full as possible. The lengthy debate that we have had today shows the great interest that the House, as well as the industry, has in the subject.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Hong Kong (Ethnic Minorities)
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
  2.30 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise with the House and the Minister one relatively small issue relating to the transfer of Hong Kong to Chinese control. While it is a small problem in terms of the numbers of people involved, it is of great humanitarian and constitutional importance.
  Like many people in the United Kingdom, I have felt somewhat guilty about the transfer of Hong Kong to Chinese control. Every other colony that has moved out of our control has been able to secure freedom, independence and national consciousness, but Hong Kong is the exception because we are transferring it to Chinese control on the basis of an outdated and irrelevant agreement made with the Manchu emperors.
  The comparison with little Macau is unusual. Macau is only 20 miles from Hong Kong—less than half the distance from the House to Southend on Sea. The Portuguese, who control Macau, have agreed to transfer control to China by the end of the century, but everyone there is entitled to seek Portuguese citizenship. Some 100,000 passports have already been issued to the 400,000 people there—men, women and children—and another 100.000 passports are on the way.
  Due to the iniquities of the Foreign Office and the EC, which appear to haunt us all the time now, a considerable number of those 400,000 delightful people will be entitled to come to settle in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Most of the Macau people have lived there for generations, or at least have proof of having done so. Most of them speak English as that makes commercial sense and most of them speak Portuguese of a sort because they are aware of the rules of admission once the colony is transferred. I am sure that if the Minister telephones the Foreign Office he will receive a Euro-assurance that the numbers involved are small. However, on the basis of the time that those people have spent living there and their ability to speak Portuguese—actively spoken in Macau—the numbers will become considerable.
  I cannot hold our delightful Under-Secretary of State responsible for the sins of the Foreign Office or Brussels, but I can ask him to bear in mind that loophole when he considers my request on behalf of a tiny group of people, who have the ethnic background of Asians, White Russians and Eurasians, have lived in Hong Kong and had British nationality for generations, and who have paid their taxes and given their obligations to the British Administration. They now seem likely to become stateless people. Their numbers are tiny—they amount to 7,000. But the real number will probably be about 5,000 because the balance will have qualified for citizenship as part of the 50,000 passport scheme.
  We must consider the facts. First, will those people actually become stateless? The Government have insisted that they are currently British dependent territorial citizens and will be able to seek classification as British nationals overseas. We are told that that will ensure that they have the protection of the British consuls. However, the status of BN(O) will be handed down for only two generations.
  646
  The great-grandchild of any one of those BNOs will have no nationality, no homeland and no security unless we do something.
  Am I right in my belief about statelessness? Everyone else seems to think so. The International Commission of Jurists has determined that the ethnic minorities
  "will become effectively stateless in 1997".
  That is clear and precise.
  Article 10 of the 1961 convention, to which I understand we are a party, obliges any state involved in the transfer of territory
  "to secure that no person shall become stateless as a result".
  Will the Chinese sort things out for this small group of people when they take over? Sad to say, there is no sign of that. Chinese laws on nationality are essentially race based and the 5,000 have no right to Chinese citizenship even if they wanted to take it up. The Chinese Government have made their position clear. They have stated that the 5,000 will have to stay in Hong Kong as stateless persons or else seek some sort of special Chinese passports whose status has not been defined. The Chinese policy, stated openly and publicly, has been to advise the 5,000 to appeal to London to grant them United Kingdom passports.
  What does the Legislative Council of Hong Kong think? Does it believe that the problem is insignificant? Far from it. It has passed a unanimous resolution appealing to the United Kingdom Government to make a concession. It took the trouble to send a delegation here a fortnight ago to seek help from the Foreign Office and from the friends of justice and humanity to get the problem solved.
  Disregarding the democratic representations, what does the Governor think? Unprecedentedly—this says a great deal for him—he took the trouble to make a clear public statement as recently as Thursday 10 June. He stated unambiguously:
  "I think that the case has been put not only by the delegation of legislative councillors, but also by me and others—and we will go on putting the case and I hope that we can get some movement on that."
  Clearly the Governor, as well as LegCo, believes that this is a just cause requiring action.
  It seems that everyone at every level accepts that this is a real problem, a grave injustice and a genuine personal crisis for the 5,000 forgotten United Kingdom citizens of Hong Kong. I understand that the Government have made the concession of stating that, should things get rough in Hong Kong after the changeover—which they might—they will look sympathetically at the plight of the 5,000. If that is to be regarded as a guarantee, what on earth would we lose by making the nationality concession? The 5,000 appear to wish to stay in Hong Kong—there is not the slightest evidence that they do not want to. So what difference would it make if we gave them nationality?
  As the House of Commons has unfortunately tended to become an area of interest promotion, I should like to emphasise that I have no connection, direct or indirect, by the back door or the front door, with Hong Kong or with any business operating there, or with the 5,000 or any of their industrial or commercial ventures. Indeed, I have been to Hong Kong only once, for a short holiday with my wife. My principal memory is of paying more for a cup of coffee—£2·80—than I have paid anywhere else in the world. I did not enjoy that, the more so since we were joined at breakfast by five of my fellow Members of Parliament who were staying in the same lavish and costly hotel as participants in one of those mass of useless delegations paid for by some taxpayer somewhere.

  647
  I therefore have no interest in Hong Kong. My only possible interest lies in the fact that it owes me £2 for the coffee.
  My real interest stems from my belief that Britain is in danger of flouting its inescapable duty to a group of citizens whose rights are being ignored and whose future will be unstable and constitutionally deprived unless we do something. It would be terrible if we told these 5,000 people that they belong nowhere—that they are nationals of nowhere—especially as they have served Britain so well in the past.
  I believe that nothing would be lost by saying yes to these people. If the Government really mean what they say—that if the 5,000 get into trouble, they will help them—what is lost by giving them passports? Home Office Ministers, including the Minister answering this debate, are people of sincerity and judgment. I appreciate that the last thing that I can hope for is that the Minister will suddenly announce in an Adjournment debate that that policy is to be overturned. However, I hope that he can at least give an assurance that, on the basis of what appear to be facts and the real problems of real people, he will think about what I and others, including the Hong Kong Legislative Council, the Governor and the representatives of the Chinese Government, have said. I hope that the Minister will at least say, "I shall look at this again and think about what has been said."
  2.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on selecting this subject for debate and I welcome the opportunity that it provides for me to set out the Government's position on the Hong Kong ethnic minorities. There has been some misunderstanding on the subject over the years and I hope that I can put matters right.
  My hon. Friend spoke about Macau. Portugal is not granting Portuguese citizenship to all residents of Macau; nor can people travel there from Hong Kong and acquire Portuguese citizenship. I do not think that my hon. Friend suggested that, but he may be as aware as I am that in a debate on Monday in another place it was suggested that the Portuguese Government had said that they would give Portuguese nationality to all those from Hong Kong who apply in Macau.
  It is not true to say that residence in Macau leads to the acquisition of Portuguese citizenship. The Portuguese Nationality Act 1981 provides that only children born in Macau to existing Portuguese citizens will get Portuguese citizenship. Portugal is not operating any kind of assurance package after the fashion of our selection scheme under the terms of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I accept everything that the Minister has said. Does he accept that 100,000 Portuguese passports have already been issued to adults? Therefore, we are not debating an insignificant problem. While I agree that what was said in the Lords was rubbish, there is a problem.
  Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend's estimate that 100,000 citizens of Macau have Portuguese citizenship is right as far as I know. That number may increase. As Portuguese
  648
  citizens, those people who are not in Macau may travel to the EC and may visit this country. If they want to reside here they will have to make it clear that they are not dependent on social security. That applies to any EC national.
  The issue raised by my hon. Friend is not new. Over the past six or seven years, it has been debated regularly in the House and, within the past six months; there have been two debates in the Hong Kong Legislative Council in which the Government's position has been explained. There is clearly a need for our position to be repeated because of questions asked in Hong Kong and in this country by my hon. Friend and by many others.
  I should like to make plain which members of the Hong Kong community we are debating. We estimate that currently in Hong Kong about 28,000 people belong to the non-Chinese ethnic minorities. The great majority of them have another nationality besides British. For example, most of them hold citizenship of either India or Pakistan. Perhaps 7,000 of them have only British nationality in the form of British dependent territories citizenship—BDTC—or British nationality overseas.
  The question at the heart of the debate is whether special measures should be taken for that section of the Hong Kong community, or whether they should compete, like everybody else, for the 50,000 British citizenship places that we have already made available under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act.
  Representations have been made on behalf of that group for a number of years and Parliament carefully considered their position when formulating its citizenship scheme for Hong Kong in 1990. It concluded that there was no case for making special citizenship provision for them and that remains our position.
  Let us look at the arguments that have been advanced in favour of special treatment. First, it is said that after 1997, the ethnic minorities will not have a proper nationality and passport. That refers to the status of British national (overseas)—BN(O)—or British overseas citizen—BOC—and their related passports. The British Government do not accept that those nationality statuses are in any way inferior to BDTC status. There are more than I million people in the world with BOC status and the BOC passport is well established. There are more than 500,000 people in Hong Kong now with BN(O) status and the BN(O) passport is accepted throughout the world. Holders do not need entry clearance for visits to the United Kingdom, although, like everyone else, they require entry clearance if they wish to come here on a more permanent basis.
  BN(O) and BOC passports give the holders an entitlement to registration as British citizens provided that they have completed five years' residence in the United Kingdom and have achieved settled status. Those passports also confer British consular protection worldwide and will do so in the Hong Kong special administrative region, as it will be known after 1997, if the holders are not Chinese nationals as well. The ethnic minorities will, therefore, be in no different position in those respects after 1997.
  Secondly, the ethnic minorities have expressed fears that, unlike the ethnic Chinese, they will not have the right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997. In our view, those fears are quite groundless. The Joint Declaration and article 24(6) of the Basic Law guarantee the ethnic minorities the right of abode in Hong Kong if they do not have a right

  649
  of abode elsewhere. The Peking authorities have said that people in Hong Kong who are not ethnically Chinese are welcome to remain and that it is open to them to apply for Chinese citizenship.
  Thirdly, it is claimed that under existing arrangements, the ethnic minorities, their children or grandchildren will be left stateless. There is no question of that. Specific provision has been made in article 6 of the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986 to deal with that question. People with solely British nationality—that is, BDTC, BN(O) or BOC—before 1997 will retain British nationality after 1997, either as BN(O)s or BOCs. The children of those who become BOCs or BN(O)s under the 1986 order will automatically become BOCs if they would otherwise be stateless. Their grandchildren will have an entitlement to acquire BOC status by registration—again, if they would otherwise be stateless.
  Fouthly, concern has been expressed on the limitations on the transmissibility of the ethnic minorities' British nationality status to future generations. They are, however, in no way unique in this. No form of British nationality will be transmissible indefinitely in Hong Kong. The British Government cannot give indefinite rights to transmit nationality from one generation to the next, expecially where the territory in question is not British. Those limitations in respect of future generations would apply even if they were to be given British citizenship, assuming that they remained in Hong Kong, as they have said they wish to do.
  The Government therefore remain firmly of the view that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to introduce legislation to give the ethnic minorities British citizenship. They are, of course, free, along with all other BDTCs, to apply for British citizenship under the selection scheme that was set up under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990.
  Records for the selection scheme are not kept on the basis of ethnic origin, but a check made on the basis of surnames indicated that the ethnic minorities who have applied have been successful in about the same proportion as other applicants. About 60 per cent. of those who applied have been successful. The scheme could not, however, be arranged to give preference to the ethnic minorities. It is designed on an impartial and objective basis under which points are awarded according to set objective criteria.
  The Government do not see any case for taking further action on the matter of citizenship. We have been prepared to give an assurance relating to the admissibility of the ethnic minorities to the United Kingdom in the event of their coming under pressure to leave Hong Kong. My hon. Friend alluded to that in his speech.
  We do not expect that any members of the non-Chinese ethnic minority will be forced to leave Hong Kong after 1997. Their right of abode in the special administrative region of Hong Kong is explicitly protected in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, and we have no reason to think that the Chinese will not honour their commitments in that respect.
  650
  Over the years, however, we have regularly assured the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong that if, against all expectations, members of that group came under pressure to leave Hong Kong and had nowhere else to go, the Government of the day would be expected to consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom. I am glad, in view of my hon. Friend's remarks, to repeat that assurance today.
  I hope that my comments today show that the Government are perfectly happy to see members of the ethnic minorities being offered British citizenship if they qualify for it. There has been some misunderstanding on that point. We see the ethnic minorities in the same way as all other British nationals in Hong Kong. If they meet the selection criteria under the selection scheme and secure the requisite number of points, they are entitled to British citizenship.
  The scheme awards points according to age, education, experience, ability with the English language, British connections and so on. It is, however, competitive and there are bound to be those who are unable to gain the appropriate number of points. Nevertheless, we recognise that the ethnic minorities have made a substantial contribution to Hong Kong's economic prosperity and we have no wish to deny any of them British citizenship if they qualify under the scheme.
  It would be wrong to pretend that the scheme could accommodate all 2,000 to 2,500 families in the ethnic minorities with only BDTC citizenship in the second tranche, which is planned to start in January 1994. Only about 12,000 places will be available for all groups in the second tranche. Many thousands of people will be competing for those places and it is unrealistic to expect that the ethnic minorities will be able to obtain more than a proportion of them.
  Nor is it possible to grant British citizenship to ethnic minorities in Hong Kong under the British Nationality Act 1981, under which eligibility for British citizenship is, in general, tied closely to past and future residence in the United Kingdom. If special treatment were to be accorded to that group, new primary legislation would be necessary—and we were not persuaded that there is any case for fresh legislation.
  We took the action that we considered necessary for Hong Kong in 1990, when we passed the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act. It was our view at the time that the immigration assurance that I have just repeated and the provision that we were making by means of the 1990 Act struck the right balance between maintaining confidence in Hong Kong and limiting potential immigration to the United Kingdom.
  We believe that we got that balance right and that there are no new circumstances that would justify making different arrangements now. The ethnic minorities' ties are with Hong Kong rather than with the United Kingdom and our primary objective has been to ensure their security in Hong Kong. We believe that we have done that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly, at eight minutes to Three o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the names of individuals who(a) are spouses of hon. Members, (b) are Members of the House of Lords, (c) are spouses of Members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, any salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Davis
  There are two hon. Members of this House who are also members of the non-departmental public bodies to which my right hon. Friend makes appoint-ments. These are my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West and Torridge (Miss Nicholson), who was appointed a member of the Medical Research Council for the period 12 August 1991 to 31 July 1995; and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who was appointed a member of the Agricultural and Food Research Council for the period 1 January 1991 to 31 July 1994. Both Members receive an honorarium of £4,600 per annum.

  In addition, Lord Chorley is a member of the Natural Environment Research Council. He was first appointed on 1 August 1988 and reappointed on 1 August 1991 for a further term of three years. He, too, receives an honorarium of £4,600 per annum.

  Information is not available on whether any members of the non-departmental public bodies for which my right hon. Friend makes appointments have spouses either in this House or in another place. Similarly, information is not available on whether appointees have been parliamentary candidates, except where candidates were elected.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many maintenance assessments have been issued by the Child Support Agency since it came into operation;

  (2) how many inquiry forms have been issued to absent parents by the Child Support Agency at the latest date for which figures are available;

  (3) how many (a) non-income support and (b) income support cases have been referred to the Child Support Agency at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Mrs. Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  284
  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 7 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many maintenance assessments have been issued by the Agency; the number of enquiry forms issued to absent parents; and how many non-income support and income support cases have been referred to the Agency.
  Although information is not available at this stage relating to the number of non-income support/income support cases referred to the Agency, I can tell you that during the period 5 April to 28 May over 53,000 maintenance application forms were received. In the same period over 19,000 maintenance enquiry forms were issued, and over 700 maintenance assessments were calculated and the parents notified.
  At this early stage these figures should be regarded as provisional and may be subject to amendment.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to extend the period for which residential allowance is paid to new care home residents who attend hospital during their period in residential care.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 10 May at column 340.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on trends in manufacturing productivity over the past year.

  Mr. Nelson
  Manufacturing productivity in the three months to April was 7·8 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Apart from the three months to March, this was the highest growth rate for over six years.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Africa (Aid)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy concerning aid to Africa; what consultations he has with voluntary organisations that work in Africa prior to taking policy decisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Sub-Saharan Africa is a priority for British bilateral assistance. In 1991–92 we disbursed £334 million in grant aid, excluding Commonwealth Development Corporation investments.

  We have regular contact with non-governmental organisations on a range of operational and policy issues. The establishment of the British Overseas NGOs for Development last month will promote greater coordination between NGOs and ODA.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Heritage Buildings
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what funds are made available by his Department to county councils for the maintenance and repair of heritage buildings owned by them.

  Mr. Brooke
  Such funding is provided through the grant schemes administered by English Heritage, one of the Department's sponsored bodies. During 1992–93, English Heritage made 46 offers to county councils under its main grant programmes, representing £0·5 million in total. In addition, it contributed over £7 million, in the form of town schemes and areas grants, to owners of listed buildings through partnership arrangements with local authorities.

  Local Authority Guidance
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the new guidance for local authorities on historic buildings and conservation areas will be available for public comment.

  Mr. Brooke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have just issued for comment a major new statement of Government policy for historic buildings and conservation areas. This is the first major re-statement of the Government's policies for conservation since March 1987. It reaffirms our determination to protect the 500,000 listed buildings and 7,500 conservation areas which are so important a part of this country's cultural heritage. It emphasises the role of the planning system in striking a balance between the interests of conservation and the need to provide for sensible development. At the same time it reflects recent changes in the legislation; major court judgments since 1987; and some recent reassessment of priorities, for instance for the listing of historic buildings.

  This statement will be revised in the light of public comments and then published jointly by our two Departments as planning policy guidance note 15. As such, it will be of central importance for some years to come for a wide range of decisions affecting historic buildings and conservation areas. We hope, therefore, that everyone with an interest in conservation policy will let us have his or her comments on the draft.

  At the same time we are issuing a consultation paper on the effectiveness of planning controls in protecting the character and appearance of conservation areas. The paper seeks views on the extent to which problems currently exist and on possible solutions. It invites full public discussion of a range of options, with a view to striking the right balance between protecting the heritage and minimising bureaucratic controls over businesses and private citizens, both of which are important objectives of Government policy. The decisions we take in the light of public responses to this consultation paper will be reflected in the final version of PPG 15.

  I have arranged for copies of both documents to be placed in the Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Passive Smoking
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to protect workers in the tourism and leisure industry from the danger to their health of passive smoking.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The protection of workers from risks to health from passive smoking at work is already covered by section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which applies to all industries.

  Medical Waste Incinerators
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines and procedures exist or are proposed on the role and responsibilities of the Health and Safety Executive in monitoring and supervising medical waste incinerator facilities.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive's responsibilities in respect of incinerators, including those which handle medical waste, extend to enforcing the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and regulations made under the Act in respect of the health, safety and welfare of employees and the health and safety or others who may be affected by work activities to the extent that such activities are not covered by other more specific environmental legislation not enforced by HSE.

  Of particular relevance are the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, which are each supported by an approved code of practice. Both regulations require employers to assess the risk to their employees and to others who may be affected by the work activity, and carry out steps to bring into effect and maintain the level of control required by their assessments. The COSHH regulations specifically expand and clarify the duties of employers regarding hazardous substances at work to which employees and others may be exposed.

  At visits to incinerators, HSE's role is to ensure that compliance with the relevant legislation is achieved by employers and workers at the workplace. The Health and Safety Commission's Health Services Advisory Committee has published guidance on the safe disposal, including incineration, of medical waste and HSE inspectors refer to this guidance during inspection and other visits to incineration facilities.

  Emissions from incinerators and operating conditions are covered by environmental legislation and are the responsibility of other enforcing authorities.

TRANSPORT

  Bicycles (Carriage by Rail)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the future of carriage of bicycles by rail following privatisation; and if the will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received a number of representations from cycling organisations and others.

  We expect private sector rail operators to be more responsive to the demands of all their passengers,

  287
  including cyclists. Following a meeting I had with the cycling groups recently, they have agreed to produce a pamphlet explaining the commercial opportunity cyclists present to the operators of rail services and the ways in which services can be made more attractive to cyclists. I have agreed to bring this pamphlet to the attention of prospective franchisees.

  Disability
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations with organisations. representing workers with disabilities were undertaken before the reconstitution of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Freeman
  We consulted a wide range of organisations representing both transport and disability interests, including organisations of, and for, people with disabilities.

  Consultants
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the consultants currently employed by his Department, Railtrack and the British Railways Board on work relating to the implementation of the Railways Bill together with their terms of reference.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department's consultants and their areas of advice are listed in the table:

  Linklaters and Paines—Legal issues

  Samuel Montagu and Co.—Merchant Banking

  KPMG Peat Marwick—Accountancy

  Coopers and Lybrand—Access charges

  Richard Ellis—Property matters

  Dewe Rogerson—Marketing

  PJR—Management and organisation

  Mercer—Freight: Access and regulation —Franchising

  Ernst & Young—Information systems

  Consultants employed by the British Railways Board are a matter for the board. Railtrack is at present a division of the board.

  Buses
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which county councils he formally consulted in relation to the consultation paper on operation of local bus services outside London.

  Mr. Freeman
  The paper was sent to the Association of County Councils and to all those county councils which asked for a copy. We are ensuring that all county councils are aware of the consultation.

  Public Transport, London
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the type and scope of parliamentary questions from hon. Members in respect of London's public transport service on which he will not provide substantive answers.

  Mr. Norris
  It is for the House authorities to decide what questions are accepted, for answer by Ministers. Where a question has been so accepted, I will always, as far as practicable, provide a substantive answer on the matters for which I am responsible.

  Rail Bridge, Barmouth
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in the current situation in respect of the rail bridge link to Barmouth and the Cambrian coast line.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from British Rail that there are no significant problems with the Barmouth rail bridge.

  Rolling Stock
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the criteria used to determine the figure of £150 million as the total available for a rolling stock leasing project; and if the sum will be treated as public expenditure.

  Mr. Freeman
  The purpose of the leasing concession announced in the autumn statement was to encourage the development of a private sector leasing market in the transition to the privatised railway. The figure of £150 million reflected a judgment on the size of the concession the Government considered prudent to make, given the need to offer the leasing industry some genuine experience of rolling stock leasing.

  Only rental payments made by the public sector under the lease will score as public expenditure as they are made.

  Rail Users' Consultative Committees
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers the rail users' consultative committees will have to publish their reports into closure proposals under his railway privatisation plans.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government intend that rail users' consultative committees should be free to publish their reports on closure proposals and will propose that the Railways Bill be amended to that effect.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has made of(a) the potential regenerative effect of privatisation of trust ports in the regions and (b) the regenerative effects of such privatisations which have already taken place.

  Mr. Norris
  Privatised trust ports will be able to broaden their capital base and, as appropriate, diversify their activities, within a framework of accountability to shareholders.

  This will be to their advantage in the development of the port and the local economy which it serves. It is not therefore necessary for the Secretary of State to undertake such studies.

  Through Rail Tickets
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made as to the availability of through tickets to passengers starting journeys at Chepstow, Cromer, Felixstowe, Knaresborough, Newmarket, Whitby, Bishop Auckland, Burnley, Milford Haven and Welshpool stations after rail privatisation;

  (2) if his proposals for the continuing availability under rail franchising arrangements, of through tickets, will include ticket sales at unmanned stations.
  289
  Mr. Freeman
  We have made it clear that through tickets will be available at as many stations as possible. The precise coverage is not yet determined.

  Rolling Stock
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what sums his Department has approved for capital expenditure by British Rail for the Network SouthEast system, excluding replacement of existing rolling stock and equipment;

  (2) what sums he has authorised for investment expenditure on regional railways in 1993–94, excluding replacement of rolling stock and existing equipment but including all new facilities and expansion of the existing system.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answers 7 July 1993]: The Government have set British Rail's external financing limit at £1,495 million for 1993–94. This should allow investment of some £1·1 billion. Priorities within that figure are for British Rail to determine, but they will include investment related to the channel tunnel which will benefit Network SouthEast infrastructure as well as international services. The estimate for investment by Network SouthEast in 1993–94 excluding rolling stock and channel tunnel preparations will amount to approximately £95 million and for Regional Railways approximately £44 million. In addition British Rail is exploring the scope for utilising private finance to enable further improvements to be made.

  From next April, the responsibility for infrastructure investment will lie with Railtrack. It will take a strategic view of investment and will be charged with producing an indicative 10-year investment plan.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Repurchased Homes
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate by district the number of homes repurchased and allocated by the Housing Executive and housing associations, respectively, the total amounts spent and the priority categories of the households to whom the homes were allocated.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information in relation to properties repurchased by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and housing associations, excluding the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Association, as a result of the housing initiative announced by the Chancellor in his autumn statement, is given in the table.

  All the properties repurchased by the Housing Executive have been allocated to households in urgent housing need or to transfer applicants whose vacated properties were then used to house urgent housing need applicants. Of the eight properties repurchased by housing associations, six have been allocated to households in urgent housing need and two are being repaired prior to allocation.

  Properties repurchased by the Housing Executive and housing associations under the house purchase initiative.
  290

  District

  Northern Ireland housing executive

  Housing associations

  Antrim

  —

  —

  Armagh

  3

  —

  Ballycastle

  1

  —

  Ballymena

  4

  —

  Ballymoney

  1

  —

  Banbridge

  2

  —

  Bangor

  1

  —

  Belfast 1

  6

  —

  Belfast 2

  7

  —

  Belfast 3

  4

  —

  Belfast 4

  4

  —

  Belfast 5

  —

  —

  Belfast 6

  —

  —

  Belfast 7

  5

  —

  Carrickfergus

  11

  —

  Castlereagh 1

  1

  —

  Castlereagh 2

  4

  —

  Coleraine

  2

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  —

  —

  Downpatrick

  7

  —

  Dungannon

  2

  —

  Fermanagh

  3

  —

  Larne

  5

  —

  Limavady

  6

  —

  Lisburn 1

  3

  —

  Lisburn 2

  3

  —

  Lisburn 3

  3

  —

  Londonderry 1

  —

  8

  Londonderry 2

  —

  —

  Londonderry 3

  2

  —

  Lurgan

  8

  —

  Magherafelt

  1

  —

  Newry 1

  5

  —

  Newry 2

  4

  —

  Newtonwabbey 1

  3

  —

  Newtownabbey 1

  2

  —

  Newtownards 1

  4

  —

  Newtownards 2

  3

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  Portadown

  1

  —

  Strabane

  1

  —

  Total number

  122

  8

  Total Cost

  £2,558·750

  £174,500

HEALTH

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had regarding the retention in St. Bartholomew's hospital of a casualty unit capable of treating cardiac failure and other life-threatening events and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have received a number of representations regarding the accident and emergency department at St. Bartholomew's hospital. Where appropriate, details have been referred to North East Thames regional health authority which was responsible for consulting on the proposed closure of the accident and emergency department.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many nursing and auxiliary staff have been made redundant at St. George's hospital, Tooting in each of the last three years;

  (2) at the latest date for which information is available what percentage of the facilities at St. George's hospital, Tooting, were in full use, in part use and closed;

  (3) what has been the salary and wages or remuneration of the following grades (a) business managers, (b) nurses and midwives, (c) administration and clerical, (d) ancillary staff, (e) non-national health service staff and (f) the chairman of the trust at St. George's hospital, Tooting, in each of the last three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Dr. Elizabeth Valiance, the chairman of St. George's Healthcare National Health Service Trust, for details.

  The chairman's remuneration is £19,285 a year.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which district health authority chairmen are also chairs of NHS trusts; and if he will name the trusts and authorities involved.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Members of district health authorities are ineligible under national health service regulations to serve concurrently as directors of NHS trusts.

  Medical Waste
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is her latest estimate of the scale of demand in England and Wales over the next 10 years for new facilities for disposing of medical waste, broken down(a) by region, (b) by volume, (c) by the proposed means of disposal and (d) by the type of operator envisaged;

  (2) if she will give details of current proposals for further units for incineration of medical waste, including the location of the units and the firms or organisations which will operate them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Around 125,000 tonnes of waste produced by the national health service in England each year is disposed of as clinical waste. Health authorities are individually responsible for making arrangements for disposing of their waste. Each health authority has confirmed that its waste is disposed of in accordance with the interim standards of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and that by 1995 it will meet the full requirements of the Act. Incineration is expected to be the normal means of disposal, and will be carried out by health authorities themselves, or public or private contractors depending on local circumstances.

  The Department has issued strategic guidance, copies of which will be placed in the Library, to assist health authorities to formulate and implement environmental policies. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mental Illness
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric patients were resident in mental illness institutions operated by her Department in each year since 292
  the commencement of the Mental Health Act 1983, distinguishing between those compulsorily detained under the Act and those voluntarily admitted.

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information is shown in the table.

  The table provides the number of patients resident in mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units, and special hospitals at 31 December; number formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, and number treated informally, England, for the years 1983 to 1986, and the total number of residents under the mental illness specialty in NHS hospitals and units at 31 March for the years 1989 to 1992.

  Year

  Residents:formally detained

  Treated informally

  Total

  31 December

  1983

  6,216

  104,194

  110,410

  1984

  5,892

  99,636

  105,528

  1985

  6,423

  94,738

  101,161

  1986

  6,295

  88,821

  95,116

  31 March

  1989

  n.a.

  n.a.

  83,900

  1990

  n.a.

  n.a.

  81,800

  1991

  n.a.

  n.a.

  70,800

  1992

  n.a.

  n.a.

  64,700

  Data for 1987 and 1988 are not considered reliable; data for 1989 to 1992 cannot be identified separately.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps her Department is taking to monitor the impact of the NHS management executive letter TEL 93/2 on the time within which detained patients' appeals are heard and the ability of NHS trusts to convene early and effective hearings;

  (2) when she intends to bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 so as to correct the error identified in NHS management executive letter TEL 93/2;

  (3) what training is available to non-executive directors of NHS trusts to equip them for their responsibilities towards patients and the public, with particular reference to hearings pertaining to patients' appeals.

  Mr. Bowls
  The Mental Health Act Commission keeps in touch with national health service trusts about the arrangements for hearing patients' appeals. We will consider carefully any proposals it makes.

  We recognise the pressures placed on non-executive directors of NHS trusts as a result of the problem described in the NHS management executive's letter TEL 93/2. This can only be corrected by primary legislation and we shall be seeking the earliest opportunity to introduce it.

  We are committed to ensuring that high-quality training is provided to chairmen and non-executive directors of trusts. A wide range of training and induction is available locally and nationally, and the NHS management executive will be making proposals this autumn for enhancing and improving the way in which training and support is provided. On the issue of managers' power to discharge detained patients, training and guidance are available from the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, in conjunction with the Mental Health Act Commission, and from the NHS Trust Federation. A copy of the NHS management executive's letter TEL 93/2 will be placed in the Library.
  293
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times section 4 of the Mental Health Act 1983 has been used each year since the Act came into force.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table.

  The Mental Health Act 1983 came into force in September 1983. The table gives the number of admissions under section 4 and changes during the year from other sections and from other Acts to section 4 and data for that year have been analysed in terms of the 1983 Act.
  Table provides data on the use of section 4 of the Mental Health Act 1983: covering admissions to national health service facilities, private nursing homes and special hospitals under this section, and changes in legal status of patients in national health service facilities from other sections or other Acts to section 4 in each of the years 1983 to 1989–90.

  Year and source

  Mental Health Act 1983, section 4: Assesment in emergency

  1983

  Admissions1

  5,640

  Changes to2

  N/a

  TOTAL

  5,640

  1984

  Admissions1

  3,622

  Changes to2

  N/a

  TOTAL

  3,622

  1985

  Admissions1

  3,464

  Changes to2

  N/a

  TOTAL

  3,464

  1986

  Admissions1

  2,786

  Changes to2

  N/a

  TOTAL

  2,786

  1987–88

  Admissions1

  2,196

  Changes to2

  288

  TOTAL

  2,484

  1988–89

  Admissions1

  2,030

  Changes to2

  263

  TOTAL

  2,293

  1989–90

  Admissions1

  1,868

  Changes to2

  236

  TOTAL

  2,104

  1 Admissions to special hospitals relate to calendar years.

  2 Patients in national health service facilities only (not available before 1987–88: changes to section 4 are mostly from informal status, with some from place of safety orders.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the national director of MIND will receive a full reply to the letter sent to her dated 11 May 1993.

  Mr. Bowis
  I met the national director of MIND informally earlier this month and am having a full meeting with her on 12 July when we shall be discussing a range of issues including matters raised in her letter.
  294
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is provided for primary health care teams, social workers and carers in the field of mental illness; and what plans she has to improve that training.

  Mr. Bowis
  Guidance to health authorities and local authorities on developing human skills and resources for all mental health workers is contained in the "Mental Illness Key Area Handbook", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where in her Department the responsibility for providing the resources for training programmes for health care workers and others concerned with mental illness in the community lies.

  Mr. Bowls
  The responsibility for providing resources for training programmes lies with health and local authorities from within their overall financial allocations.

  Training Initiatives
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she intends to facilitate the resourcing of major national training initiatives in health care, with particular reference to those offered by open distance learning providers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service management executive has consistently supported the development of major national training initiatives which improve the delivery of care to patients. Such initiatives provide professional and managerial development opportunities for a wide range of NHS staff. Given the prevalence of shift and rota working within the NHS, some of these initiatives are delivered through open and distance learning.

  It is the policy of the management executive to support these programmes through meeting their development costs. Decisions about the investment in training for particular individuals must remain a decision for local managers, in the light of local need to develop better services.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Abortion
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with police forces about the steps taken to protect women who choose to seek legal abortion from intimidation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. Enforcement of the Public Order Act 1986 as it relates to threatening words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress is the responsibility of chief officers of police.

  Winston Silcott
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given by his Department to a reference to the Court of Appeal in the case of conviction for murder of Winston Silcott.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is considering a report of inquiries made on its behalf by the Metropolitan police. In the light of the results of that consideration my right hon. and learned Friend will decide whether there are grounds for any action on his part.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the content of the acquis built up by intergovernmental co-operation between the 12 member states referred to in the press release of the meeting of 1 and 2 June of the Ministers responsible for immigration in Copenhagen; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The "acquis" will be those instruments and agreements between the member states which the applicant countries will be required to accept on acceding to the Community. This will include legally binding instruments such as the Dublin convention. Discussions between the member states on other items to be included are at an early stage.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work has been begun by the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Borders and Immigration referred to in the Copenhagen meeting of Ministers responsible for immigration on 1 and 2 June.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Borders and Immigration (CIREFI) is intended to provide a permanent mechanism for regular exhange of information, consultation and collaboration on practical matters between the relevant departments of the member states including information on member states' control procedures and immigration legislation.

  It has so far held only one meeting, on 7 April 1993.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the agenda of the ad hoc group on immigration under the Belgian presidency; and how many days have been allocated for its meetings.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Belgian presidency has provisionally allocated a total of eight days to four meetings of the ad hoc group on immigration.

  It will be for the Belgian presidency to determine the agenda for each of these meetings as they arise. The main agenda item for the first meeting will be the presentation of the presidency's programme for the coming six months. It is expected that the ad hoc group and its sub-groups will continue work currently in hand both on preparations for implementation of the Dublin convention and external frontiers convention, and under the immigration and asylum work programme agreed by Ministers at the end of the Dutch presidency in December 1991, including on admission for employment, harmonisation of asylum procedures and measures to combat illegal immigration.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the budget of the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Borders and Immigration; and what are the sources of its funding.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Borders and Immigration (CIREFI) has no separate budget. Meetings are serviced by a small number of staff from the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Communities and accommodation is provided within the offices of the Council.
  296
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for further relaxation of controls at internal borders of the European Community as referred to in the press release of the meeting of 1 and 2 June of the Ministers responsible for immigration in Copenhagen.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend, the then Home Secretary, informed the House in a written answer on 17 December 1992, at column 445, that we would be considering what further changes might be made in the course of 1993 to the United Kingdom immigration arrangements vis-á-vis member states of the Europoan Community, in furtherance of our policy of reducing checks on European Community nationals to the minimum compatible with the retention of effective immigration controls on third-country nationals, together with adequate safeguards against the entry of terrorists and other serious criminals.

  The change which we have in mind is that EC nationals arriving at ferry ports from other European Community member states would be required to confirm their EC status by holding up an EC passport or identity card, but immigration officers would not normally examine the document in detail. The officer would, however, make a full examination where there was any suspicion that the document was not genuine or that the passenger was not in fact an EC national. We have not yet reached any decision on exactly when this arrangement might be introduced at ferry ports or on whether, as the European Commission have suggested, it might be possible to extend it to some smaller regional airports in respect of EC passengers arriving from elsewhere within the European Community.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the relationship between United Kingdom immigration policy and the premise referred to in the report of the meeting of Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 and 2 June on the necessity of control of migratory flows for the successful integration of immigrants lawfully resident in the territories of member states.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At the meeting of EC Immigration Ministers in Copenhagen, which I attended, there was a general consensus that the maintenance of effective immigration controls was an important factor in achieving the successful integration of immigrants lawfully resident in member states of the Community.

  This view is entirely compatible with the Government's policy of applying immigration controls which are both firm and fair.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the address and the name of the director of the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Borders and Immigration.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Centre for Immigration, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Borders and Immigration (CIREFI) has no director. Meetings are chaired by the EC presidency and are held in Brussels in the offices of the Council of the European Communities.

  Small Firms (Crime)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to help small firms guard against crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office Crime Prevention Centre has recently issued to police forces a retail security guide for use by beat police officers. It gives detailed guidance on how small retail premises can be protected from burglary and will help police officers to provide appropriate advice to shopkeepers. Specialist crime prevention officers and architectural liaison officers are also available in police forces to advise on particular problems.

  The Government have encouraged the development of business watch, shop watch and industry watch schemes —along the lines of the neighbourhood watch model. Many small businesses have also benefited directly from various crime prevention schemes supported and funded by the Home Office safer cities programme. We are also proposing to set up a retail action group.

  Erwin Van Haarlem
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds Erwin Van Haarlem was released from prison and deported to Prague.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Mr. Van Haarlem was convicted on 3 March 1989 for an offence under Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, with a recommendation that he should be deported on his release. The then Home Secretary accepted this recommendation. Section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 permits the early release of prisoners who are subject to deportation orders. Mr. Van Haarlem was released under this provision and deported to Prague on 5 April this year.

  Prisoners (Visiting Facilities)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of(a) demand for and (b) availability of legal visiting facilities for category A remand residents at (i) Belmarsh and (ii) other prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Peter Bottomley dated July 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question about the demand and availability of legal visit facilities for Category A remand prisoners at HM Prison Belmarsh and other establishments.
  It is for the governor of each establishment to monitor the demand for legal visiting facilities to ensure that adequate facilities are available to members of the legal profession so that they can conduct interviews with remand prisoners in the interests of the criminal justice system.
  In the case of Belmarsh, there are adequate facilities to cope with the normal demand for legal visits requested by category A prisoners and the governor has made available additional facilities to deal with any urgent or immediate request which cannot be accommodated in the usual way.

  London Bombings
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) held under the provisions of the prevention of terrorism Acts (b) charged and (c) released in connection with the Bishopsgate bomb and the London taxi bombs.

  Mr. Howard
  Following the incidents on 24 April 1993 in Bishopsgate, EC2, Seven Sisters road, N4 and Judd street, WC1, 10 people were detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. One person was charged with a terrorist-related offence, but the charge was not proceeded with. One person was charged in relation to other offences and one person was returned to Northern Ireland to complete a prison sentence. The remaining seven people were released without charge.

  Metropolitan Police/RUC Consultations
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Metropolitan police take to consult the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Londonderry in appropriate cases.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Metropolitan police have a close working relationship with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and will take whatever steps are appropriate to consult the RUC where necessary.

  Racial Hatred
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to respond to the Commission for Racial Equality's recommendation in its 1992 review of the Race Relations Acts calling for an independent review of the law on incitement to racial hatred.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In its second review of the Race Relations Act 1976 the Commission for Racial Equality put forward a number of wide-ranging recommendations. These are currently under consideration and a formal response for the review as a whole will be issued as soon as possible.

  Domestic Violence
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) of 29 March,Official Report, column 103, how many times the interdepartmental group on domestic violence has met; which Departments participated; and how frequent are their meetings.

  Mr. Maclean
  The official interdepartmental group on domestic violence, chaired by the Home Office, and with participation from the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Departments of Employment, the Environment, Health and Social Security, the Department for Education, the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices and the Treasury, has met twice to discuss areas in which work on domestic violence can be taken forward at national and local level. It will continue to meet as and when appropriate.

  Refuges
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the interdepartmental co-ordination on refuge provisions.
  299
  Mr. Maclean
  As stated in the Government's reply to the third report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1992–93, (Cm 2269), refuge provision is one of a number of matters that will be considered by the interdepartmental group on domestic violence.

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions during the past five years he has exercised his power of recall under section 42 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in respect of a person who was at time of recall a sentenced prisoner detained in prison.

  Mr. Maclean
  The total number of conditionally discharged patients recalled under section 42 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in the last five years for which the information is available is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  40

  1988

  43

  1989

  36

  1990

  41

  1991

  56

  Information as to the number of these who were serving a sentence of imprisonment at the time is not separately recorded and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last five years he has used his power under section 50(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 1983 to release on licence or discharge under supervision a prisoner who has been the subject of a transfer direction and a restriction direction.

  Mr. Maclean
  I regret that this information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedural arrangements his Department requires to be complied with before he will use his power under section 50(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 1983 to release on licence or discharge under supervision in the case of a person considered fit to leave treatment in hospital and suitable for release or discharge.

  Mr. Maclean
  The power to discharge a patient under section 50(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 1983 can be used to discharge, on life licence, a life sentence prisoner who has been transferred to hospital during the course of his sentence. In such a case, if the patient's responsible medical officer or a mental health review tribunal have recommended that the patient be discharged, the practice has been to consult the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if available, about the length of time for which the patient should be detained in order to satisfy requirements of retribution and deterrence. In any case in which that period has already been served, the views of the parole board would be sought about the discharge recommendation. If the parole board supported the proposed discharge, consideration would then be given as to whether in all the circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate for the patient to be discharged on life licence. In any case in which the decision was taken not to discharge such a300
  patient, and it was not considered appropriate for that patient to remain in hospital, the patient would be returned to prison in order to continue to serve the life sentence.

  Consideration is presently being given to what procedures will apply in the case of discretionary life sentence prisoners who have been, or will be, transferred to hospital, and who will benefit from the new arrangements governing their release contained in part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Immigration Office, Birmingham Airport
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publicise the availability of the new immigration office at Birmingham airport.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Local organisations have been advised of the new immigration public enquiry office and its opening has received publicity in the Birmingham press. It will be given further publicity following an official opening to take place shortly.

  Prisoners' Health Care
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which Prison Service establishments the health care service for prisoners now purchases NHS services; and what has been the annual cost(a) by establishment and (b) in total in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Liz Lynne dated July 1993:
  I have been asked to reply to your Question seeking information about Prison Service establishments which are purchasing services from NHS providers and the cost of these services.
  The health care services (excluding pharmaceutical services) at present provided under contracts with NHS provider authorities and units, as distinct from contracts with individual practitioners, are indicated in the following table. The aggregate cost of the contracts in this financial year is £225,000. For reasons of commercial confidentiality I am unable to give information about costs in earlier years when there was only one contract.

  Establishment

  Type of Service

  HM Prison Belmarsh

  General Medical Services

  HM Prison Durham

  Psychiatric Services

  HM Prison Frankland

  Psychiatric Services

  HM Remand Centre Low Newton

  Psychiatric Services

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which Prison Service establishments negotiations are in progress with the NHS for the provision of health care services.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Liz Lynne, dated July 1993:
  I have been asked to reply to your Question about current negotiations between Prison Service establishments and the NHS for the provision of health care services.

  301
  I am not aware that any establishment is in formal negotiation with NHS providers at the present time. Invitations to tender for a contract to provide genito-urinary services to three establishments—HM Prisons Brixton, Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs—are expected to issue soon.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints procedure exists for prisoners who wish to complain about any aspect of medical care or treatment which they receive from the health care service for prisoners or the NHS contractor.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Liz Lynne, dated July 1993:
  I have been asked to reply to your Question about the complaints procedure available to prisoners who wish to complain about any aspect of medical care or treatment.
  In Prison Service establishments formal complaints which relate to clincal care or treatment received in prison are normally first considered by the head of health care of the establishment. They may also be referred, either on appeal or by exercise of a right of direct confidential access, to the Directorate of Health Care at Prison Service headquarters where they are considered by a senior doctor. In general this procedure is available whether the service complained of is provided by staff of the Health Care Service for Prisoners or by an external provider under contract, but individual contracts may provide—and one current contract does so provide—for clinical complaints to be considered under NHS procedures.
  Other avenues normally available to prisoners, including Boards of Visitors and Members of Parliament, can also be used to ventilate complaints about health care.

WALES

  Council Homes (Juveniles)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has issued to local authorities regarding juveniles in council homes, including the use of restraint where necessary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Draft guidance on permissible forms of control in children's residential care was issued for consultation to Welsh local authorities and voluntary organisations in November 1992. As a result of that exercise, which ended in December 1992, the guidance was changed substantially from the draft originally circulated.

  The final guidance issued by the Department on 29 April 1993 under cover of Welsh Office circular 38/93 was much stronger and more explicit. It sets out a broad framework of principles and circumstances where a child may be restrained. It is designed to cover young people living in both secure and open children's homes and offers positive and practical advice to staff and managers on the care and control of young people in residental care. At the same time, it recognises that managers will need to decide who best to put this guidance into operation. The onus is on the care worker to make judgments as to whether restraint is required in the predominating circumstances and to determine the degree of restraint appropriate and when it should be used. Copies of this guidance are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mobile Libraries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many mobile libraries were operating in each local authority area of the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The available information is given in the following table:

  Number of mobile libraries

  19801

  19851

  19921

  Gwynedd

  7

  7

  7

  Clwyd

  17

  14

  13

  1 At 31 March.

  Source: CIPFA.

  Village Halls
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many village halls were located in each local authority area of the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not available centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Medical Waste Incinerators
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidelines and procedures exist or are proposed on the role and responsibilities of metropolitan districts in monitoring and supervising medical waste incinerators in(a) the private sector and (b) the NHS;

  (2) what guidelines and procedures exist or are proposed on the role and responsibility of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in monitoring and supervising medical waste incinerator facilities in the private sector.

  Mr. Yeo
  The incineration of medical waste is a prescribed process under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is responsible for the integrated pollution control of private sector and NHS incinerators with a capacity of 1 tonne per hour or more. They have issued a process guidance note, IPR5/2 "Clinical Waste Incineration", which sets out in detail how these processes should be operated and monitored. Local authorities, including metropolitan districts, are responsible for air pollution control of private sector and NHS incinerators with a capacity of less than 1 tonne per hour; the Secretary of State's guidance note PG 5/1(92) "Clinical Waste Incineration Processes," provides guidance relating to these smaller incinerators. The Secretary of State has also issued waste management paper 25, which gives guidance to waste regulation authorities in relation to their responsibilities in respect of the licensing of the handling and storage of medical waste.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the locations, the names of the companies involved, their capacities and their proposed timetable for development for medical waste incinerators which currently are in receipt of planning consent.
  303
  Mr. Yeo
  The Department does not keep this information.

  Dioxin
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the levels of recorded dioxin contamination(a) in the north-west of England, (b) on Merseyside and (c) in Knowsley.

  Mr. Yeo
  As part of a larger survey of milk in the United Kingdom, carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, two samples of whole cow's milk were obtained in 1990 from north-west England, but outside the Merseyside and Knowsley areas. Concentrations of dioxins and furans in the milk were within the normal range observed in the United Kingdom (0·04–0·27 ng TEQ/kg milk).

  In 1986 a background survey of dioxins and furans in soils of the United Kingdom was carried out by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. Samples were taken from sites in north-west England but outside the Merseyside and Knowsley areas. A report of the results is in the Library of the House.

  In 1992 measurements of dioxin levels in soil and grass adjacent to the Cleanaway incinerator at Ellesmere. Port were obtained as part of a national survey of emissions from incinerators carried out by HMIP. The results obtained for soil and grass were 0·26 and 0·11 ng TEQ/kg respectively.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the budget for the Rural Development Commission in each year since 1990–91; and what is the proposed budget for the next financial year.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 28 June 1993]: The Rural Development Commission's expenditure for the first three years is as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  35·058

  1991–92

  32·263

  1992–93

  36·210

  The commission's budget for this and the next financial year is as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  39·002

  1994–95

  41·020

  All figures include corporation tax except 1994–95 which is a planning figure only.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions he has reached about the future of local government in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I gave yesterday.

  Police Reform
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his proposals for police reform in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The existing police forces in Scotland will continue after local government reorganisation but joint police committees willl be established where forces cover more than one council area.

  In line with the principles of the citizen's charter, we wish our police forces to be seen to consult the public they serve about priorities, to publish annual targets and to report on performance achieved against those targets. I expect forces to build on their existing procedures for consulting the public, especially community councils, and for setting targets for various activities as required under the Justice Charter for Scotland. To ensure that performance can be measured against resources devoted to policing, we shall require chief constables to produce their annual reports on a financial year basis and I propose to take statutory power to prescribe classes of information which these reports should contain. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland will continue to monitor the performance of forces. Reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on its annual inspections of police forces have been published for some time and we shall expect chief constables in future to make public their responses to the recommendations of inspection reports.

  Our police forces have become multi-disciplinary bodies with a wide range of professional skills, deployed by civilians as well as by uniformed officers. We wish chief constables and their subordinate commanders within forces to have greater freedom to deply those resources. Accordingly, I intend to remove the statutory controls exercised by the Secretary of State and by police authorities over police and civilian establishments. The police grant payable to police authorities will become subject to a cash limit, though police authorities will retain a measure of discretion in determining expenditure. I shall take reserve powers to ensure that police authorities provide sufficient funds to maintain an efficient force with adequate manpower; and to ensure sensible collaboration and common standards between forces in the interests of efficiency—including standards for information systems. My Department will shortly be issuing fresh guidance on civilianisation to help ensure that police officers perform only those tasks requiring their powers. Some Scottish forces have already introduced local command units with budgets delegated to the local cammanders and we shall encourage wider adoption of these arrangements.

  With my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Northern Ireland, I shall be considering the recommendations of the report of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards and, after consultation with interested parties, will reach decisions on the recommendations of the report. I am also undertaking a review of police conduct and performance procedures in Scotland and, depending on responses to the consultation paper being issued this month, new procedures will be introduced to deal with unsatisfactory performance and unacceptable conduct in the police service. These changes together should enhance

  305
  the professionalism of the police by increasing flexiblity to reward good performance and to deal effectively with poor performance.

  In conjunction with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary I shall be considering legislative provision to ensure that constables from different jurisdictions have adequate powers throughout Great Britain.

  Where primary legislation is required I propose to take the earliest suitable opportunity to introduce new provisions.

  I believe that these proposals will ensure that, in keeping with the requirements of the justice charter, the organisation of the police in Scotland both achieves a proper accountability to local people, and promotes the efficiency and effectiveness of individual police forces in their fight against crime.

  Midwives
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many midwives were employed in national health service hospitals each year since 1980; how many community midwives were employed over the same period; and if he will describe the changes in Government policy concerning staffing complements for midwives over the same period.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: The data requested for the years 1980–91 are published in the annual issues of "Scottish Health Statistics". Data for 1992 are contained in "Health Briefing—NHSiS Non-medical/ dental Manpower Summary: 1980–1992". Copies of these publications are available in the House of Commons Library. There have been no changes during this period in Government policy concerning staffing complements for midwives. It remains for individual health boards and national health service trusts to decide the level of midwifery staffing appropriate to their needs in the light of local circumstances.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women, in each health board area, were refused the services of a community midwife in 1992 on the grounds of non-availability.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: Following inquiries of health boards, I am advised that in 1992 no woman, in any Scottish health board area, was refused a community midwife service on grounds of non-availability.

  Women's Refuges
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many places are currently available in women's refuge hostels in Scotland; and what is the rate per 10,000 population.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: There are currently 283 places in women's refuge hostels in Scotland; this is 0·55 places per 10,000 population.

  Community Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve provision for(a) the elderly, (b) children with special needs, (c) adults with mental or
  306
  physical handicap, (d) adults experiencing and recovering from mental illness and (e) persons with a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse under the care in the community legislation.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: Under the new community care arrangements, local authorities, in consultation with health boards and other agencies, are responsible for assessing care needs and developing plans to meet these needs. The authorities have been provided with extensive guidance and considerable additional resources. Local authorities should, therefore, be well placed to ensure that good quality services are available for these vulnerable groups.

  The local authority inspection units and the Scottish Office social work services inspectorate are both concerned with promoting higher standards in all types of care provision.

  Hospital Building Programme
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the capital allocated for the hospital building programme announced in November 1992 for new build hospitals in Lothian, Lanarkshire and Glasgow remain available for this purpose.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: Yes.

  Care of the Elderly
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effects on the elderly since the implementation on 1 April of the care in the community legislation.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: My officials have regular meetings with staff from local authority social work departments, housing departments, health boards, voluntary organisations and representatives of independent sector home owners concerning the operation of the new arrangements. A programme of monitoring will also take place through the analysis of statistical returns, the commissioning of research and the work of the social work services inspectorate.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the names of individuals who(a) are spouses of hon. Members, (b) are members of the House of Lords, (c) are spouses of members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by her Department since 1988 to quasi-autonomus non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, any salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Jack
  Our records show that only one member of the House of Lords has been appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food since 1988. Details of this appointment as requested by the hon. Member are as follows:
  307

  Name

  Title of Post

  Salary

  Duration

  Lord Mackay of Ardbreknish1 (John Jackson Mackay)

  Chairman, Sea Fish Industry Authority

  £28,780 per annum

  Three years from 1 October 1990

  1 Appointed jointly with Secretaries of State for Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The other information requested by the hon. Member is not held centrally. To provide it could be done only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  THORP
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the actual and projected figures for current and future employment at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield with an explanation for the basis of the figures and a sector-by-sector breakdown of the jobs involved.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc. I understand that the company will shortly be publishing information of the type requested.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any plutonium of weapons-useable quality has been exported to Japan from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  The usefulness of reprocessed plutonium for weapons purposes depends on its composition. It is not in the public interest for me to comment further. All

  Year

  Registered with BCE

  JACCS training

  Other training

  Total training

  Percentage of those registered with BCE

  1989–90

  18,251

  1,384

  552

  1,936

  10·6

  1990–91

  10,441

  796

  218

  1,014

  9·7

  1991–92

  15,536

  1,671

  155

  1,826

  11·8

  1992–93

  13,790

  2,475

  335

  2,810

  20·4

  TOTALS

  58,018

  6,326

  1,260

  7,586

  13·1

  These figures do not include those who entered retraining directly via other agencies, jobcentres, restart programmes etc.

  Information about previous occupation and/or industry before entering a Government training scheme is not collected centrally.

  From April 1993 entrants to training for work who have been made redundant as a result of pit closure will be identified if they are not covered by normal eligibility rules.

  Coal
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of coal produced in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) England in the last year for which full figures are available; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1986.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amounts of coal produced in England, Scotland and Wales were as follows:
  308
  reactor grade plutonium is held in secure conditions while in the United Kingdom. Any exports are subject to stringent internationally accepted standards of safeguards and physical protection. The Government would allow the export of plutonium from reprocessing only on receipt of satisfactory assurances that the material would be used only for peaceful purposes.

  Miners (Retraining)
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proportion of miners leaving the industry in each year since 1989–90 went on a retraining scheme on leaving the industry;

  (2) what proportion of miners leaving the industry in each year since 1989–90 went on (a) a training scheme funded through the job and career change scheme and (b) a Government training scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  British Coal Enterprise has advised us that of the 58,018 former British Coal employees registered for assistance with them since 1989–90, 13·1 per cent., 7,586, have entered retraining. These figures are detailed on a year-by-year basis, with information given on those who went on the job and career change scheme and those who have taken other retraining. Other retraining includes Government schemes and further education support by local education authority grants.

  Thousand tones

  Wales

  Scotland

  England

  Total1

  1986

  9,295

  6,758

  88,582

  108,099

  1987

  8,037

  6,143

  87,475

  104,533

  1988

  7,374

  6,086

  88,210

  104,066

  1989

  6,789

  6,251

  85,245

  100,605

  1990

  6,398

  6,519

  78,146

  93,508

  1991

  5,194

  7,072

  79,469

  94,921

  1992

  4,873

  6,935

  68,730

  84,874

  Source: British Coal, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics.

  1 Only direct production by British Coal is readily available by country. The total also includes an estimate for slurry etc. recovered and disposed of other by British Coal from dumps, ponds, rivers etc.

  Energy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the proportion of energy used in(a) housing, (b) commercial, (c) industrial and (d) public building since 1990.
  309
  Mr. Eggar
  The percentages of energy consumption by sector are given in the table. Further details will be published in the 1993 edition of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics at the end of July. A detailed description of the consumer sectors used is given on pages 14 and 15 of the 1992 edition of the digest.

  Sector

  Percentage of energy consumed

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Domestic

  42

  44

  43

  Commerce

  11

  11

  11

  Industry

  40

  37

  37

  Public services

  8

  8

  9

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of total United Kingdom energy expenditure was accounted for by(a) transport, (b) buildings and (c) other industries in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  The percentage of United Kingdom energy expenditure by various sectors are given in the table. Further details will be published in the 1993 edition of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics at the end of July. A detailed description of the consumer sectors used is given on pages 14 and 15 of the 1992 edition of the digest.

  Sector

  Percentage of total expenditure on energy

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Transport

  45

  44

  44

  Domestic, public services and commerce

  39

  41

  41

  Industry

  15

  14

  14

  Other (agriculture)

  1

  1

  1

  Company Investigations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement outlining his Department's reasons for not acknowledging the existence or otherwise of investigations into the affairs of individual companies' or accountancy partnerships in response to parliamentary questions about business collapses and frauds; and for how long this practice has been in operation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department undertakes a number of inquiries every year into companies under the Companies Acts 1985 and 1989, Insurance Companies Act 1982 and Financial Services Act 1986. Further details are available in the companies annual report published each year. It has long been the policy under Labour as well as Conservative Governments to announce only the appointment of inspectors under certain Companies Act powers. The vast majority of inquiries are not announced both for operational reasons and in order not to prejudice the outcome. Public announcement would undermine the effectiveness of the inquiries and would unduly damage the business of the companies concerned, particularly where no misconduct is discovered.

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will publish the estimated costs to his Department and to other Government departments of the move of 310
  Warren Spring Laboratory to the Atomic Energy Authority, including the costs of disruption to existing research programmes, staff relocation and redundancies;

  (2) if he will publish a list of the organisations he consulted before deciding to close Warren Spring Laboratory.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 29 June 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central on 7 July 1993, Official Report, column 153.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is Her Majesy's Government's policy towards the reprocessing of Iraqi nuclear waste at Dounreay.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]: As was explained in the reply of my right hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy of 5 November 1991 to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), Official Report, column 68, the United Kingdom and France expressed willingness to assist with recovery of material from Iraq. During these discussions, the United Kingdom and France went to considerable lengths to accommodate the International Atomic Energy Agency's concerns over the responsibility for the long-term storage of waste from reprocessing and questions over the legal liability for the material. In the event, the IAEA decided to pursue another option.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent information he has received on the activities of the Indian security forces in Indian-controlled Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We receive regular information from our high commission in Delhi on the activities of the Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as media reports. The continuing loss of life on all sides is a cause of grave concern.

  Brazilian Embassies (Dogs)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he has given to the Brazilian ambassador to the Court of St. James's in respect of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the keeping of Filo Braziliero dogs in Brazilian embassies.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  Mr. Asil Nadir
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) of 14 June,Official Report, column 423, what assistance he has now received from Turkish authorities in connection with the return of Mr. Nadir to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Turkish authorities offered co-operation and assistance to investigators of the Serious
  311
  Fraud Office during their visit to Ankara from 7 to 9 June. They have since provided substantial responses to the major part of a detailed commission rogatoire.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Tests (Nevada)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received from the United States Administration in regard to the future use of the nuclear test site in Nevada by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  We are in close contact with the United States Administration on all aspects of nuclear testing. President Clinton announced on 3 July that he was extending the moratorium on testing at the Nevada test site to the end of September 1994, provided that no other state tests before then.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek to obtain a copy of the testimony given before the United States Congress on 29 June by the Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, Mr. Gallucci, in regard to the current evaluation by the United States Administration of the Iraqi military nuclear programme; and if he will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hanley
  A copy of Mr. Gallucci's testimony has been obtained which will be placed in the Library.

  RAF Support Command
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flying days have been lost due to bad weather, at each RAF base in Support Command since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent on maintenance by each base in Support Command since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information is available only from financial year 1990–91. The information shown is for property maintenance work costing less than £300,000 which comes under the unit's own budget. Projects costing more than £300,000 are controled centrally and cannot be accredited to the individual unit or establishment without disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  Station

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total

  Amport House

  0·184

  0·295

  0·199

  0·678

  Biggin Hill

  0·618

  0·716

  0·448

  1·782

  Boscombe Down

  0·636

  0·821

  0·632

  2·089

  Brampton

  2·061

  2·408

  2·451

  6·920

  Central Medical Establishment, Kelvin

  0·910

  0·109

  0·830

  0·283

  Ely

  0·779

  0·828

  0·296

  1·903

  Farnborough

  0·253

  0·762

  0·249

  1·264

  Harrogate

  0·306

  0·164

  0·291

  0·761

  Headley Court

  0·711

  0·802

  0·647

  2·160

  Inspectorate of Recruitment, Cranwell

  0·208

  0·265

  0·229

  0·702

  Innsworth

  2·034

  1·873

  1·402

  5·309

  London Dental Centre, Uxbridge

  0·500

  0·160

  0·900

  0·300

  312

  Station

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total

  Rudloe Manor

  1·219

  1·752

  2·305

  5·276

  Stanbridge

  0·545

  1·075

  0·803

  2·423

  Swanton Morley

  1·049

  1·433

  0·000

  2·482

  Uxbridge

  2·974

  2·697

  2·813

  8·304

  Wroughton

  1·460

  1·399

  1·873

  4·732

  Abingdon

  1·830

  1·660

  0·683

  4·173

  Bampton Castle

  0·000

  0·000

  0·200

  0·200

  Cardington

  0·286

  0·423

  0·514

  1·223

  Carlisle

  1·155

  2·543

  4·200

  7·898

  Chilmark

  0·784

  1·232

  0·687

  2·704

  Digby

  0·482

  0·932

  0·780

  2·195

  Henlow

  1·340

  1·523

  2·517

  5·380

  Kemble

  0·290

  0·327

  0·387

  0·743

  North Luffenham

  1·021

  1·730

  1·253

  4·005

  Oakhangar

  0·140

  0·442

  1·113

  1·569

  Quedgeley

  0·918

  1·214

  1·122

  3·254

  Sealand

  1·244

  2·146

  2·124

  5·514

  Stafford

  1·579

  3·117

  3·284

  7·980

  St. Athan

  5·605

  7·700

  7·453

  20·758

  Rudloe Manor

  0·000

  0·000

  0·300

  0·300

  Swanton Morley

  0·000

  0·000

  0·778

  0·778

  Special Signals Unit, Woolwich

  0·000

  0·125

  0·000

  0·125

  Chivenor

  1·300

  1·800

  3·431

  6·531

  Church Fenton

  0·864

  0·854

  0·347

  2·065

  Cosford

  4·182

  4·052

  3·648

  11·882

  Cranwell

  2·497

  3·139

  3·247

  8·883

  Finningley

  3·069

  2·695

  2·368

  8·132

  Halton

  2·862

  3·806

  4·263

  10·931

  Hereford

  1·316

  1·610

  1·083

  4·009

  Linton

  1·175

  1·509

  1·844

  4·528

  Locking

  1·683

  2·271

  2·699

  6·653

  Newton

  1·322

  1·375

  1·584

  4·281

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the area of land, in acres, of each RAF station in Support Command; what are the number and length of runways at each station; and what type of aircraft each station has.

  Mr. Hanley
  The following information shows only those airfields supporting training aircraft; RLG denotes relief landing ground.

  Unit

  Runway Length (ft)

  Aircraft Type

  Area (acres)

  RAF Chivenor

  6,000

  Hawk

  508

  4,400

  RAF Cranwell

  6,800

  Tucano

  1,823

  4,800

  RAF Barkston Heath

  6,000

  RLG

  553

  4,200

  Tucano

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  6,000

  Tucano

  718

  4,400

  RAF Elvington

  10,000

  Disused

  405

  RAF Church Fenton

  5,800

  RLG

  445

  5,500

  Tucano

  RAF Topcliffe

  6,000

  Light

  197

  4,100

  aircraft

  RAF Dishforth

  6,100

  RLG

  477

  4,500

  Light aircraft

  RAF St. Athan

  6,000

  Various

  992

  RAF Scampton

  9,000

  Tucano/Bulldog

  898

  313

  Unit

  Runway Length (ft)

  Aircraft Type

  Area (acres)

  RAF Binbrook

  7,500

  Disused

  570

  4,200

  4,200

  RAF Shawbury

  6,000

  Helicopters

  748

  4,500

  RAF Ternhill

  3,100

  Helicopters

  279

  3,200

  RAF Swinderby

  6,000

  Chipmunk

  629

  4,100

  RAF Valley

  7,500

  Hawk

  797

  5,400

  4,200

  RAF Mona

  5,500

  RLG Hawk

  170

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of service personnel and civilian personnel at each RAF base in Support Command; and what is the total pay bill incurred in respect of each base per annum.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 7 July the information is as follows:

  RAF station

  Civilian establishment

  Service establishment

  Civilian/Service pay costs1992–93 (£ million)

  2 Signals Unit, Bampton Castle

  4

  64

  1·444

  9 Signals Unit, Boddington

  7

  99

  1·878

  Boscombe Down

  15

  19

  1·206

  Bracknell

  103

  178

  5·377

  Brampton

  690

  980

  31·710

  217 Maintenance Unit, Cardington

  113

  6

  1·441

  14 Maintenance Unit, Carlisle

  892

  13

  12·310

  Chaplains School Amport House

  32

  —

  0·280

  11 Maintenance Unit, Chilmark

  232

  13

  3·422

  Chivenor

  119

  794

  14·607

  Cosford

  309

  512

  14·969

  Cranwell

  458

  1,248

  34·557

  Digby

  54

  72

  1·982

  Finningley

  149

  557

  15·671

  Halton

  358

  978

  24·899

  Harrogate

  24

  36

  0·847

  Headley Court

  61

  116

  3·119

  Henlow1

  841

  928

  28·664

  Hereford

  141

  299

  7·123

  Innsworth

  88

  172

  3·577

  Linton-on-Ouse

  165

  363

  9·511

  Locking

  235

  527

  13·415

  Newton

  384

  562

  12·953

  North Luffenham

  140

  652

  13·331

  1001 Signals Unit, Oakhangar

  31

  368

  6·567

  7 Maintenance Unit, Quedgeley

  145

  8

  4·879

  Rudloe Manor2

  226

  717

  12·071

  St. Athan

  1,208

  2,639

  65·484

  Scampton

  93

  438

  15·758

  30 Maintenance Unit, Sealand

  1,283

  469

  29·382

  Shawbury

  131

  341

  8·398

  16 Maintenance Unit, Stafford

  763

  664

  20·878

  314

  RAF station

  Civilian establishment

  Service establishment

  Civilian/Service pay costs 1992–93 (£ million)

  Stanbridge

  176

  217

  11·683

  Swanton Morley

  347

  863

  16·419

  Swinderby

  33

  202

  4·664

  Uxbridge

  135

  451

  13·368

  Valley

  211

  805

  15·638

  Wittering

  5

  257

  4·360

  PA Hospital Wroughton

  130

  438

  9·852

  London—various locations

  52

  79

  2·536

  1 Including detachment at Wyton.

  2 Including detachments.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service families, and how many service houses, are on station for each RAF base in Support Command.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 7 July the information requested is as follows:

  Total married quarters

  Total occupied

  Flying training units

  Chivenor

  325

  321

  Cranwell

  451

  403

  Finningley

  375

  285

  Linton-on-Ouse

  162

  127

  Shawbury

  160

  126

  Valley

  374

  356

  Other units

  Amport House

  3

  2

  Bedford Rae

  7

  4

  Boscombe Down

  135

  133

  Bracknell

  138

  103

  Brampton

  404

  349

  Carlisle

  14

  14

  Chilmark

  5

  4

  Cosford

  339

  305

  Digby

  230

  127

  Henlow

  401

  381

  Hereford

  165

  146

  Innsworth

  355

  332

  Halton

  550

  530

  Harrogate

  114

  111

  Headley Court

  63

  63

  Locking

  325

  304

  North Luffenham

  269

  249

  Oakhangar

  92

  91

  Quedgeley

  9

  8

  Rudloe Manor

  217

  207

  St. Athan

  829

  812

  Scampton

  427

  294

  Sealand

  276

  189

  Stafford

  286

  254

  Stanbridge

  128

  119

  Swanton Morley

  224

  208

  Swinderby

  155

  47

  Uxbridge

  833

  736

  Wroughton

  131

  130

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional expense has been incurred by his Department as a result of the passing of UN Security Council resolution 816; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The additional annual costs are currently assessed at around £20,000,000.
  315
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the military consequences of the mobilisation of Bosnian-Croat citizens of fighting age in Bosnia-Herzegovina on 30 June and the imposition of curfew; if he will consider the withdrawal of British forces deployed near Vitez; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The mobilisation of Bosnian-Croat citizens to serve in the Croatian Defence Council, a militia type force based throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina and organised for the local defence of Bosnian Croat communities, was in response to the on-going fighting against Bosnian government, mainly Muslim, forces.

  It is unlikely the mobilisation will have any implications for the British forces in Vitez. The safety of our troops is paramount, however, and we keep their deployment continually under review.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) of 1 April,Official Report, column 500, what assessment he has made of UNMO document DTG: 131600Z Mar 93 and, note verbale S/24900/Add.27 of 16 March in relation to the identity, origin or destination of the aircraft that violated the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina near Gladovici on 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Assessment of available evidence of the reported no-fly zone violation on 13 March has not produced conclusive proof as to the nature of the mission, the identity of the aircraft operators, or the location of the aircraft operating base.

  Desert Storm Syndrome
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library details of all organisations and individuals who have made representations to his Department about the Desert Storm syndrome.
  316
  Mr. Hanley
  Apart from questions from various hon. Members, which are recorded in the Official Report, and letters from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), my Department has record of only eight written representa-tions to date concerning the alleged condition popularly known as Desert Storm syndrome. For reasons of confidentiality I am not able to provide names. There has additionally been recent media interest in this subject and other representations may be in the process of being made as a result.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the medical evidence related to the alleged Desert Storm syndrome.

  Mr. Hanley
  The wide variety of symptoms which are alleged to make up the condition popularly known as Desert Storm syndrome are prevalent within the general population. There is no evidence that the incidence of these symptoms in the services has increased since the Gulf conflict. There is nothing in the available medical evidence in the United Kingdom that would suggest that the symptoms described cannot be explained in conventional medical terms, but my Department is actively seeking further information and will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Depleted Uranium Shells
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether depleted uranium ammunition was used by United States forces in accidental attacks on British forces during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Hanley
  No.

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

Museum of Mankind: Future
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy for the future of the Museum of Mankind.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the future of the Museum of Mankind is a matter for the trustees of the British Museum. The museum submitted proposals to my department for the relocation of the ethnography collection to Bloomsbury when the British Library moves to St. Pancras. We are considering that proposal.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that the trustees of the British Museum are champing at the bit to divest themselves of the need for 6 Burlington Gardens? The Royal Academy and the Architectural Foundation, backed by the Royal Fine Art Commission, are equally keen to see set up an architectural centre, similar to the Pavillon d'Arsenal in Paris, where architectural projects, lectures and seminars can be held. Does my noble friend realise that the whole project could go ahead if it received the blessing of Her Majesty's Government?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the British Museum submitted a proposal to the department for the relocation of the collection to Bloomsbury as part of the option for the utilisation of space vacated by the British Library. The British Library is not scheduled to vacate Bloomsbury until 1996. The Secretary of State for National Heritage met with representatives of the Architectural Foundation. We support the principle of an architectural centre for London and I am sure that the Government will study any proposals carefully.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the building to be vacated— sooner or later—by the Museum of Mankind has been seriously proposed as a home for the important and large Khalili collection of Islamic art, which is currently on offer as a free loan to the nation? Can the Minister confirm that that offer also is receiving serious and urgent attention so that the nation does not lose the Khalili collection as it lost the Thyssen-Bornemisza collection?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, a number of parties are interested in Burlington Gardens, including the Royal Academy. We have had a number of proposals from other national museums in addition to the proposal
1634
from Dr. Khalili. Any decision on the future of the property is for the Secretary of State. who will consider all proposals carefully.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his encouraging reply Will he hear in mind that the natural geographical and cultural link is between the Royal Academy and the present Museum of Mankind, rather than with some potential collection of Islamic art?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an observation which adds to the debate. I am sure that the Secretary of State will consider carefully what has been said in your Lordships' House.

Political Parties: Donations
11.10 a.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they still see no reason for political parties to say from where their donations have come.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, where individuals make donations for political purposes, they are entitled to the right of privacy if that is their wish.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. It is on the same lines as what I received on 15th November 1990 from his noble friend Lord Ferrers. However, in view of intervening events, the Government may want to weigh the right of privacy for individual donors—I accept that on its merits for the moment—against the greater public interest of informing people who is donating finance to the party which provides the government of this country. If the noble Viscount finds it difficult to accept that comment from the Opposition, will he listen to the voices of his own party? I refer to the Charter Movement for democracy within the Conservative Party, and to the noble Lords, Lord McAlpine and Lord Parkinson. all of them voices speaking out for the declaration of donations.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe, as do the Liberal and Labour parties, that it is wrong to comment on past individual donations. If people want to make public their donations to any political party or charity, it is entirely up to them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that he could have defused part of the coming attack if he had said that future political donations would be made public? is he willing to say that now? Can he name any other body concerned in public life which is not required to publish its accounts on an annual basis?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it would be an unreasonable intrusion into the privacy of an individual. We believe in voluntary parties in this country which receive voluntary contributions from people who wish to support them. Seventy per cent. of all Conservative Party income is raised in the constituencies.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that all the charities in this land respect the wish of a donor's anonymity?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton makes an important point. It is entirely for the donor of any money to any political party to decide whether or not he or she wishes to make that fact public. If a company gives money to a political party, that fact must be included in the annual audited accounts.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, since when was the Conservative Party a charity?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is not, but often it looks as if the Liberal Party might be.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that some time ago the Conservative Government altered the rules about trade union donations so that trade unionists now have to opt in to the political levy? Why are not shareholders given a similar privilege? Why should Members on these Benches have to contribute, whether they like it or not, through companies in which they hold shares to the miserable party opposite? Is not this refusal to face the desire, which has been put many times by many people, that donations to political parties should be made public vindictive to their opponents, devious towards the public and contemptible to any fair-minded man?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, any company has the right to give money to any political party that it so wishes. if the sum is more than £200 that has to appear in the annual accounts. In the Labour Party the trade unions fund nearly two-thirds of the income which buys them 70 per cent. of the block vote at the conference which decides party policy, 40 per cent. of the votes in the Labour leadership election and 40 per cent. of the vote in selecting Labour candidates.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in the position just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, where shareholders might have the right to opt in, would it not be even worse if public support was demanded and taxpayers had no say about supporting all political parties whether they wished to or not? I know that that is one of the suggestions put forward.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. There are much better and more important things to do than spend taxpayers' money on funding political party antics.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, we understand why the noble Viscount is bound to be rather defensive in his answers. However, does he not feel that it is rather unfair to the constituency parties and the ordinary members of the Conservative Party, who, we understand, make jam and run wine and cheese parties, and who raise 70 per cent. of the funds, that they should be implicated with these shady international financiers who seem to provide the other 30 per cent.?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, they are not in any way implicated. What is more, when this evening I go to a Conservative Party fund raising event the people I shall meet there will be proud that the money that they raise by selling jam is being used in a worthwhile cause.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has the Minister analysed the motives of the donors wanting privacy? Is it because of modesty or because of shame?
Viscount Astor: Modesty, my Lords. I do not think that the Liberal Party publicises the amount that it receives from individual donations and the names of the donors unless those donors wish their names to be publicised.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be a little careful when mentioning the sale of jam? He may fall foul of the European Commission.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord always shows to your Lordships that there is no Question in this House on which he is not able to bring in the European element.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to answer my quite clear earlier question? Can he name any other body in public life which does not publish its accounts on a yearly basis?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is an entirely different question from the Question on the Order Paper. I am saying that it is up to individuals who give money to political parties, whatever that political party may be, to decide whether they wish to publicise their donations. We feel that in this country people have a right of privacy if they wish to give money to any cause, whether it be the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or indeed any charity.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are few of us at all events on these Back Benches who agree with what he has said?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's support.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the Minister accept that he has demeaned political life in this country by describing political parties as indulging in antics? Is he including Her Majesty's Government's activities in the definition of "antics"? Does he also accept that there is a qualitative difference between giving to charities and giving to political parties which exercise power? It is therefore a corruption of public life in this country if those who exercise power are not willing to publish accounts showing from where they receive their funds.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, of course there is a difference between charities and political parties, but I think it perfectly proper that any person should have the freedom to decide how he wishes to spend his money.

UK Planning Decisions: EC Impact
11.18 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether and, if so, in what circumstances the European Commission has power to interfere with planning decisions in regard to property in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Commission has no rights to interfere directly with planning decisions in the United Kingdom, but certain Community directives have implications for the operation of the planning system.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, as I have no doubt he is, that the latter part of his Answer is very far from clear—and is probably not intended to be clear? Does it mean, or does it not mean, that the Commission can say in respect of a particular planning decision, "This shall be stopped"?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is a complicated area, and I certainly have no desire to create any more confusion. The point is that the Commission does not have any direct role of interference in planning decisions but there are some Community directives—for instance, on environmental impact assessments, on the birds directive and on the habitats directive—where the Commission has a role to play in terms of deciding what should and should not be developed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, whatever powers the Commission has in this particular field, it can have them only on the basis of approval by the Council of Ministers? Is the Minister aware that the Commission makes a number of proposals for submission to the Council and they are filtered through the Committee of Permanent Representatives on which the Commission is represented? Is he further aware that the Committee of Permanent Representatives passes such measures as it believes merits the attention of, the Council of Ministers, but in practice gets a number through on the nod, including many of those which are effective in this field? Further, if restrictions are placed on this country and others, does the Minister agree that they are placed there because of the docility and imbecility of the Council of Ministers?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot think of any directives which are passed on the nod and not without a great deal of discussion between member states on the merits of a particular case.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, could have been put more succinctly by asking whether it is true that the Commission proposes and the Council disposes, and that is that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that would have been very appropriate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord
1638
Bruce of Donington, always likes to make an important point when dealing with matters of this kind.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that in certain instances the European Commission occasionally has a wiser head than this country, and does not the case of Oxleas Wood bear that out?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. I cannot think of any occasion when the European Commission has been wiser than the British Government. Certainly, the decision on Oxleas Wood had nothing to do with the European Community and everything to do with the wisdom of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if that is really the case—and I rather doubt it—can the noble Lord explain why infraction proceedings were instigated by the European Commission under the environmental impact assessment directive on the subject of Oxleas Wood and why they are still outstanding? Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Government are continuing to oppose those infraction proceedings and why taxpayers' money is being spent on that? Will the noble Lord further assure my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington that the environmental impact assessment directive received a great deal of discussion before it was unanimously agreed?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree with the latter part of the noble Lord's question. As regards the first part, it is up to the Commission to decide whether Or not to make a case against the United Kingdom. We do not believe that there has been an infraction of the directive and we shall continue to oppose very vigorously what the Commission has said about us.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington in relation to the environmental impact assessment. directive, is it not clear that there were major debates on it in the Council? Will the noble Lord accept that. I participated in those debates and that it is quite untrue to say that this matter was cut and dried as regards the COREPER debates?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I accept the point that the noble Lord made. It is true that directives are not passed on the nod, but greatly discussed. I fear that we are getting far away from the original Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the questions and answers which have been given, does the noble Lord agree that it would be very good if the proceedings of the Council of Ministers were made public?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a decision for the Council of Ministers.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, returning to my noble friend's original Answer, can he confirm that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, planning decisions affecting solely matters concerning this country are solely matters for the British authorities?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords.

"News at Ten": Scheduling
11.24 a.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What correspondence they have had with the Independent Television Commission or the chairman of Independent Television News about the proposed move of "News at Ten" to an early evening transmission time.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to the chairman of the Independent Television Commission on 29th June, sending a copy of his letter to the chairman of ITN. The letter stressed the importance of ITV continuing to provide a high quality news service, competing effectively with the BBC.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that important Answer, is he aware that the "News at Ten" situation is only one of a number of instances, including questions of ownership and takeovers, where a number of ITV companies, in the pursuit of profit, are seeking to get out of the public service obligations laid on them under the Broadcasting Act which has been working for only about six months? Would it not be wise for the Government to resist these pressures, to encourage a period of stability, and then to review the workings of what is undoubtedly a deeply flawed Act with a view to making any changes in step with the renewal of the BBC's charter in 1996?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that it is premature to reach conclusions as to the quality of ITV services. The new arrangements came into effect only on 1st January this year. Monitoring the output of ITV is the responsibility of the ITC and not the Government. The ITC's assessment will he included in its annual report to Parliament. We have had a debate in your Lordships' House about the moratorium which was intended to provide a short period of stability at the start of the new licence period, not to offer long-term protection against the normal discipline of takeovers. Following the debate in your Lordships' House, that is one of the issues which we are considering.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, in declaring an interest in these matters as vice-chairman of the BBC, can the Minister explain, because I am somewhat puzzled, why the Government should have been surprised that commercial companies put profit first? Is that not what lay behind the Broadcasting Act? As to the main issue of "News at Ten" and its possible move, the Minister will be aware that the commercial companies have made it clear that they may have lost a battle but not the war and that they intend to return to the issue. If they do —or rather, when they do—will the Minister say whether the Government believe that they have appropriate powers to prevent moving "News at Ten" and, if so, what are those powers?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, ITV companies have always been profit-making entities. That has been the case since the ITV system came into being in this country. I understand that the ITC and the ITV companies will discuss the question at a meeting next week. It would be unwise to prejudge its outcome. The Government do not seek to intervene in programme content and the editorial judgment of broadcasters. But the Prime Minister thought that the ITC should be aware of the widespread concern as regards the proposal to move "News at Ten" to an earlier slot. It is for the ITC to enforce licence conditions under the provisions of the Act.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the timing of television news programmes should be decided by the preferences of TV viewers rather than by politicians?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. It is for the ITV companies to agree their scheduling and "News at Ten" has to be shown during a peak period. It also has to be broadcast simultaneously by all the ITV companies.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that under the present dispensation—
Baroness Birk: My Lords,—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Birk: Is it not true that what we are experiencing now as regards "News at Ten" is the tip of an ugly iceberg which I, and my friends on these Benches, warned the Government would appear resulting from the combination of the priority of profit over programme quality and the enormous payment to the Treasury resulting from the horrendous auction? That leaves one with a certain amount of sympathy for the companies because of the sums of money they have to pay out. Although the Minister, in reply, I believe, to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said that it was premature to make a decision now to investigate the situation again, is it not the case that the strong reaction of the Government and the Opposition at the highest level, plus the damning report, recently published, of the all-party National Heritage Committee, show the need for a review either of this deeply flawed Act, as has been said, or of broadcasting generally, together with ITV and the BBC? In the meantime will the Government consider introducing legislation to oblige ITV companies to show a half-hour news bulletin starting at 10 o'clock'?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that the ITV companies have taken note of the concern expressed not only by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in another place, but also by the Select Committee on National Heritage and, of course, by your Lordships' House. I must advise the noble Baroness that the ownership rules were extensively debated in your Lordships' House during the passage of the legislation. Many of the provisions have only just come into force and a very good case would have to be made for making changes at this stage. My right

1641
honourable friend the Secretary of State had a helpful meeting with the ITV companies on 14th June and is considering the views put to him at that meeting.

Appropriation (No, 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
11.30 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draft order authorises expenditure of £3,116 million for Northern Ireland departments in the current financial year. That is additional to the sum voted on account in February, and brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £5,492 million. That is an increase of 9.6 per cent. on 1992–93 provisional outturn.
Before turning to the details of the Estimates, I should like to set them in the context of the recent performance of the Northern Ireland economy. The local economy has been remarkably resilient despite the severe recession which has affected the United Kingdom. Indeed, there is general recognition that Northern Ireland has fared better than most other regions of the United Kingdom. Industrial output levels have remained relatively stable and employment has fallen by less than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Recent trends in unemployment have been encouraging, with seasonally adjusted unemployment falling by 2,900 in the past three months. Recent surveys of the local business community point to a marked upturn in business confidence, improved export market performance and high levels of planned investment, but we cannot, of course, be complacent. Unemployment is still too high and the single market will present challenges as well as opportunities. However, Northern Ireland is well placed to take advantage of the recovery in the national economy now under way.
I now turn, to the main items of expenditure covered by the order, and detailed in the Estimates booklet, starting with the Department of Agriculture. Total net provision in the two agriculture Votes amounts to some £151 million. In Vote I, £29 million is for EC and national agriculture and fishery support measures. That covers the various market support schemes under the reformed common agricultural policy and introduces support measures for the local potato sector; £9 million is to assist structural improvements and £18 million is for support for farming in less favoured areas.
In Vote 2, some £122 million is for regional agriculture, fisheries, forestry and support measures. That includes £53 million for agricultural, scientific and veterinary services. It covers a wide range of professional and technical services, including animal health and disease control; £28 million is for watercourse management, fisheries and forestry and £11 million for the agricultural development operational programme.
In the Department of Economic Development's Vote 1, £148 million is for the Industrial Development Board. This will enable it to carry out its role of strengthening Northern Ireland's industrial base and to meet its existing commitments, primarily in the area of selective assistance to industry. The board also aims to attract internationally competitive inward investors. Together with the development of existing companies, this provides a sound base for growth in durable employment.
In Vote 2, £37 million is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Total employment in firms assisted by the unit is now almost 28,000; £9.8 million is for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, to assist in the creation of a strong industrial base in Northern Ireland.
Finally in Vote 2, £11.9 million is for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to assist the further development of tourism in Northern Ireland. For the fourth successive year, a record number of visitors—I.25 million—came to Northern Ireland last year.
In Vote 3, £193 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. This includes £47 million for the youth training programme; £52 million for the "Action for Community Employment" programme; and £21 million for the job training programme.
I now turn to the Estimates for the Department of the Environment. In Vote 1,£176 million is for roads, transport and ports. This includes £144 million for the roads service, where emphasis is being placed on the maintenance of Northern Ireland's well-developed road system.
DoE Vote 2 covers the important area of housing. Some £193 million is to provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing and the housing executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing will be some £552 million.
In Vote 3, gross expenditure on the water and sewerage services in 1993–94 is estimated a t £174 million. That is an increase of some £27 million over 1992–93 outturn; £77 million is for capital expenditure and £97 million for operational and maintenance purposes.
In DoE Vote 4, £135 million is for environmental services. Increased resources are being devoted to monitoring and controlling pollution and the number of water quality sampling stations has been increased; £37 million is for urban regeneration measures. It will be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need.
The Estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,253 million, an increase of 2.5 per cent. over last year. Vote 1 includes £772 million for recurrent expenditure by education arid library boards. That includes £407 million for school teachers' salaries and £250 million for other expenditure on schools and on further education services; £115 million is for libraries, youth, transport and administration; £129 million is for voluntary schools and £8 million for integrated schools. I know that your Lordships continue to take a keen interest in the development of integrated education in Northern

1643
Ireland. There are now 18 integrated schools in operation, with over 3,300 pupils in attendance. I think that your Lordships will agree that that is encouraging news.
Vote 2 includes £94 million for universities and £128 million for student support; £15 million is for arts and museums and £3 million for community relations activities funded by the Department of Education.
For the Department of Health and Social Services, total net provision is £1,209 million. This will maintain and improve the standard of the Province's health and personal social services. It is an increase of £74 million over estimated outturn for 1992–93.Spending on the family health services will be £250 million, while £929 million is for the health and social services boards; £38 million is for capital expenditure, to maintain a substantial programme of works.
In Vote 4, £1,127 million is for a range of social security benefits, an increase of more than 6 per cent. on last year. In Vote 5, £482 million is to cover expenditure on the Independent Living Funds, housing benefit, the Social Fund and payments to the National Insurance Fund.
Finally, I turn to the Department of Finance and Personnel. In Vote 3, over £4 million is for the community relations programme. It brings total spending on the programme to £7 million, reflecting the importance the Government attach to improving community relations.
I hope that your Lordships have found this short summary of the main components of the Estimates helpful. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Blease: My Lords, the usual procedure is for the appropriation order to be debated first in another place. Normally, I like to read what the elected representatives for Northern Ireland have to say on business matters and take some solace or leadership from them. However, on this occasion, if they wish to do so, they will be able to read the comments made in this House.
First, I should like to draw attention to the total sums mentioned by the Minister. The essence of appropriation orders is that they act as blood transfusions to the body politic in Northern Ireland. They are transfusions by which the economic and social life of the province can keep the heart of the community working in a purposeful way.
In the context of the UK Government's fiscal commitments the sums we are invited to consider demand a reasoned approach to the policies, support, accountability and effective and efficient use of the available resources. In that connection, I wish to compliment the Northern Ireland Audit Office on its work and the clear concise form of its published reports.
I turn to the order. I am not sure that I can deal in detail with the sums mentioned. I shall try to point out the Votes to which I shall refer. In the Vote for the Department of Health and Social Services (page 10) I
1644
wish to draw attention to the establishment of the Voluntary Activity Unit. That new unit was noted in our appropriation order debate on 25th February 1993. It was formally established on 16th June 1993 when an Assistant Secretary was appointed to the Department of Health and Social Services as head of the unit. I understand that a major part of the funding of that interdepartmental unit will be derived from the EC's structural funds. I see no amount relating to that unit in the Vote in the Northern Ireland 1993–93 estimates.
I have noted the Voluntary Activity Unit's strategy paper Support for the Voluntary Sector and for Community Development in Northern Ireland. In the light of that report which has just been issued, I welcome that initiative. I understand that the unit will play a lead role in co-ordinating voluntary activity and community service development. It will also provide the appropriate machinery for active interdepartmental participation. I note also that the unit's aim will be to ensure the effective and efficient development and delivery of appropriate community services. That is a worthy, laudable and timely aim. It is worthy of the support of this House and the community in Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister tell us the initial sum granted for that unit; and how and when the Department of Finance and Personnel proposes to carry out the consultations with interested bodies in the voluntary sector about the EC's structural funds plan? That department is separate from the department in which the unit has been set up. Wide-ranging co-ordination is required in that respect. Will the Voluntary Activity Unit publish an annual report?
I turn now to the Northern Ireland Economic Council which is referred to on two pages of the Estimates. It comes under the Department of Finance and Personnel which I note has had a decrease of £1,000 in the total funds granted to it. In June of this year the Northern Ireland Economic Council in its Report 102 entitled Business Confidence Surveys in Northern Ireland states:
"The aim of this discussion paper is to assess the results of business confidence surveys published on a regular basis in Northern Ireland. These surveys attract a good deal of media attention when published and, therefore, it is of interest to evaluate their accuracy and the degree of confidence that can be put on their results. In principle, a business survey should provide a guide to the state of business sentiment prevailing among participating firms and thus to their intentions concerning future business decisions. The surveys are, therefore, a key source of information on local economic trends".
The proliferation of such reports, surveys and analyses published in Northern Ireland sometimes gives rise to considerable confusion. We must pursue a path that is in the best interests of all sections of the community. I realise that it is difficult for the Government and the Northern Ireland Office to react to those reports when it is considered necessary and desirable to do so. Some of those reports are reviewed in the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel monthly economic report. They are useful but may not receive the coverage necessary.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the press reports of the Northern Ireland Economic Research

1645
Centre. It is an independent research institution which I understand has links with Queen's University, Belfast and Ulster University and with industrial bodies. According to the press report, the NIERC suggests that the long-term unemployed should be offered semi-permanent jobs. It continues by suggesting that the current levels of unemployment of 100,000, or 14 per cent., of the working population, were likely to continue at that level for the next 10 years.
The press report states that a spokesman for the Department of Economic Development welcomed the NIERC's views on the economy as they were in line with the Government's own views on the economy. Will the Minister undertake to inquire into the NIERC statement and the DED's comments? Will he tell us whether the Government have policies for the long-term unemployed as mentioned by the NIERC? Incidentally, there are no copies of the NIERC publication in the Library of the House of Lords.
The third point arising from the order is referred to in two reports: one from the Department of Finance and Personnel and the other from the Department of Economic Development. One report is entitled Research and Development Activity in Northern Ireland and the other relates to the Industrial Research and Technology Unit. On 7th May 1993, the Northern Ireland Economic Council published a press release on Report 101 on research and development. The press release states:
"The main findings of the Report is that Northern Ireland suffers from a low level of industrially financed R&D. Only 17 per cent. of private sector firms, accounting for 36 per cent. of employment, spent £49 million on R&D in 1991 in Northern Ireland. Industrially financed R&D in Northern Ireland amounted to just 0.4 per cent. of GDP, compared with 1.1 per cent. in the UK. 0.6 per cent. in the Republic of Ireland, 2.2 per cent. in Japan, 1.8 per cent. in Germany and 1.4 per cent. in the US".
The press release continues:
"It is the Council's view that R&D policy in Northern Ireland has, in the past, lacked a sense of direction which is unfortunate given its importance to economic growth. In order to ensure that R&D plays its full part in increasing the competitiveness of the local economy the Council makes a series of policy recornmendations".
The report then lists a series of recommendations. The Industrial Research and Technology Unit was established within the provisions of the Department for Economic Development. The IRTU's board, chairman and chief executive were appointed recently by the Secretary of State. The unit issued its corporate plan a few days ago. I consider that that plan should be warmly welcomed and supported. I understand that the role of the unit is to act as a focus, catalyst and facilitator. Will the Minister indicate how the corporate plan is to be pursued? We know that the unit has a board and a chief executive. How will it incorporate the sectoral approaches to the economy in Northern Ireland? How is its ongoing role to be evaluated and monitored? Will that be the function of the board or the department? Will a report be published annually? If the role of the IRTU is to be enhanced, why was the vote reduced by more than £1 million, according to page 51 of the Northern Ireland Estimates for 1993–94?
1646
The decision to review the Northern Ireland education reforms has been widely welcomed by teachers' organisations and parents. It is important. that the Ministers in Northern Ireland have an opportunity to review certain decisions in the light of discussions with organisations. The Training and Employment Agency's corporate and national plans have been published within the past few days. They have aroused considerable public interest. The agency's work is vital to the promotion of skills and employment and is to be warmly 'welcomed and supported. The announcement on 6th July of the creation of 600 jobs in the clothing industry in the north west of the Province is also to be warmly welcomed.
I wish to comment on the Health and Personal Social Services Order 1993. I know that the Minister has arranged for consultations with representatives of organisations in Northern Ireland which. are directly concerned with the order. However, I have been pressed to indicate the serious anxiety about the brief and difficult period allocated for consultations. I shall not go into detail about the time and so forth. This is an important and controversial piece of legislation and I believe that there are a number of valid reasons why the term should be extended. With those remarks I support the order.
11.53 a.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I wish to raise a few technical matters of which I have given the Minister notice. The first concerns crime prevention. Will the Minister say whether the Government's conclusions on that matter have yet been published and if not when it is expected that they will be? The Minister will be well aware that ordinary crime, theft arid vandalism. impose considerable burdens on the whole community in Northern Ireland. Prevention will require real co-operation between numerous government departments and voluntary bodies. However, Northern Ireland has a population which is small enough to make possible an overall experiment in this field. which will be worthwhile. I hope that 25 years of research in the United States on the positive value of pre-school education and nurture will be taken into account.
I turn to fine default and defaulters. Will the Minister say what progress has been made on measures to reduce that, in particular to reduce the number of defaulters committed to prison, usually for very brief periods? If we can have progress on that matter it will have an important bearing on the future of the Crumlin Road prison, to which I shall refer in a moment. Can the Minister say when legislation on unit fines in Northern Ireland will be ready? Will the not altogether satisfactory experience in England and Wales be taken into account when it comes to legislating for Northern Ireland? Will the Minister also say when the Government expect to come forward with non-custodial penalties for fine defaulters? That is another important way of reducing the amount of imprisonment?
I turn to the Crumlin Road prison, which, as everyone knows, is an extremely old building. Will the

1647
Minister give us some hope that refurbishment of the cells will begin sooner than in late 1994, which is a previously forecast date? I am well aware that the matter depends on certain preliminary work being carried out but, obviously, the sooner improvements can be made to the cells the better. Perhaps I may observe in passing that it cannot be right that remand prisoners should be kept in conditions which are appreciably worse than those in the other two major men's prisons where people are serving long-term sentences.
Finally, I turn to the Northern Ireland prison rules. I understand that work is in progress on a revision of those rules. Will the Minister say what consultation is being undertaken with outside bodies as regards the revision? When will at least draft new rules be ready and available?
11.56 a.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I welcome the order and thank the Minister for the manner in which he introduced it. It brings home to us in Northern Ireland just how much it costs to run Northern Ireland. We are aware of that in particular because of the high costs associated with terrorism. We hope that that can be removed as quickly as possible. I do not wish to go into the accounts in detail because I intend to comment further on the next order. However, perhaps I may ask questions in respect of three straightforward matters.
Consultation is now in hand for the post-1993 European Community structural funds. That is important because the funds are sizeable. They are particularly important in Northern Ireland because of the substantial sums which are expected across the border in the Republic of Ireland. The Department of Finance and Personnel has issued an excellent consultation paper which is now being discussed. I hope that the standard of consultation and discussion will continue as the plans take shape.
In the past, European funds for grants such as this have been subject to additionality. That means that if any funds come from the EC, the Treasury will withdraw equivalent amounts which were to be spent on that project. That is disheartening and blunts the planning process. Is the noble Earl able to advise us that the rules of additionality no longer apply?
Sadly, bomb damage on a massive scale continues. Thousands of householders, shopkeepers and so forth, are having to repair bomb damage. The way in which compensation has been paid has taken into account betterment. That means that if a shopkeeper replaces a roof which has been blown off he will not receive compensation because the new roof is said to be better than the old one. That may well be, but all the poor sufferer of the bomb damage wants is to get his roof replaced. It seems unfair not to pay full compensation because of so-called betterment.
As regards road surfaces, we are fortunate in Northern Ireland to have an excellent road system which permits fast and reasonably safe movement from one place to another. One of the most dangerous roads at present is the road from Antrim to
1648
Ballymena. The first stage of the dual carriage-way was completed some three years ago and it was intended to commence the second stage immediately afterwards, but that appears to have been put back for some years. It is an important road. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give some better news as to when the second stage of the dual carriage-way will be commenced. I support the order.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I wish to raise one important subject which I have already discussed with the Minister. It is in relation to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast. The Government have given guarantees that the future of the hospital is secure, that there is no intention to run it down, and that all rumours to the contrary are malicious. That is the Government's view but that is not the view of the people who live in West Belfast.
The hospital has been in existence for 150 years. Its patients come from both the loyalist and republican communities. It is the one thing on which those two communities agree: they do not wish to see the run-down or closure of the Royal Victoria Hospital. At present in that area of Belfast there are two constituency doctors who are campaigning in that regard—Dr. Des Hall and Dr. Joe Hendron, who is also the Member of Parliament for the area. I take a great interest in this matter because I was formerly the elected representative for West Belfast. I speak in the debate knowing that the Minister who is to reply is in charge of hospital services in the City of Belfast.
One hears varying accounts of what is to happen and what is rumoured to happen. The general public in Northern Ireland believe that the ENT departments in the hospital are to be closed down completely and that a whole lot of electro-surgery departments are to be closed down completely and transferred to another hospital outside the constituency.
I know that the Government will approach the matter from the point of view of cutting costs but when dealing with hospitals in Belfast there is much more at stake than the pure cost of the hospitals. As has been said by Dr. Des Hall, who is a great campaigner on this issue, the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast is an institution which has held together the social fabric of the people in that area. There has never been any dispute among the various communities, whatever their religious and political ideals, about that hospital. It is extremely important that the hospital should be kept open, irrespective of what decisions have been arrived at by the Government. Six thousand people in West Belfast are employed in that hospital and it is quite obvious that, if it is run down to the extent that has been advocated, many of those 6,000 people will lose their jobs, as will those who work in the small shops which depend for their income on the people who work there. The economic consequences of the closure of the hospital would be absolutely chaotic for that area.
I know that the Minister has received many deputations from all sections of the community in West Belfast. There have been demonstrations and assurances have been given. I should the like the Minister to give an assurance in this House that the

1649
future of the Royal Victoria Hospital is secure and that it will not be closed down or run down merely on a cost-effective basis.
12.4 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, those of us who follow closely the affairs of Northern Ireland and who meet on Friday mornings and late at night derive a great deal of encouragement from the quality of our debates, even though there are not many noble Lords here. I thank the noble Earl for the way in which he introduced the order and I thank those noble Lords who have spoken so far. I certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in his plea for the Royal Victoria Hospital.
Lord Blease: Hear, hear!
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, whose experience of the affairs of Northern Ireland was reflected in the very comprehensive set of questions that he asked the noble Earl.
It is right to put the order in some perspective. Although there is exceptionally bad news politically in Northern Ireland, which we shall no doubt come to in our discussions on the next order, not all is bad economically. As we know, there has been a terrible recession in the United Kingdom as a whole, but Northern Ireland has proved relatively resilient to that recession. For example, unemployment is now only 6.7 per cent. higher than it was in April 1990, the previous trough; whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom the rise has been nearly 90 per cent. over that period. Since February, when seasonally adjusted unemployment in Northern Ireland peaked at 170,400, it has fallen to 104,500. That is still a great many people unemployed but the tide is moving in the right direction. There has been a fall from 14.3 per cent. to 13.9 per cent. and the number of unemployed fell by over 1,000 from April to May.
In the most recent CBI survey of business confidence in Northern Ireland, 31 per cent. of industrialists expect capital investment to increase whereas only 10 per cent. expect it to fall; 25 per cent. expect general investment to increase and only 10 per cent. expect it to fall. Therefore, there is a mild breeze of economic recovery in Northern Ireland.
We all know that, economically, that has a great deal to do with government support because 40 per cent. of all jobs in Northern Ireland are, in one way or another, government funded. Harland and Wolff, a major employer. still relies heavily on government defence contracts. Therefore, this appropriation order continues to be the bedrock on which the Northern Ireland economy rests.
From the point of view of taxpayers in mainland Britain, it is quite a heavy burden. It comes to about £100 per household. From these Benches we believe that that is a burden which must be taken up. It is a responsibility that we cannot avoid. However, we must make sure that the large sums of money spent—and I know that this is one of the preoccupations of the Government—are spent as wisely and as prudently as possible.
1650
I have one or two specific points to raise which I have mentioned to the Minister in comparing this appropriation order with the previous one. Why has the sum granted to the Department of Economic Development gone down, especially that part assigned to the local enterprise development unit? That is down from £53.5 million in last year's order to approximately £48 million. The noble Earl will know that that department is responsible for expenditure on local enterprise, labour mark et services and energy efficiency. I should have thought that all those are crucial to an economy which is struggling to recover from a recession. For example, I wonder whether energy efficiency would be improved were the electricity inter-connections with the South to be restored.
My second question about the order is: why has the: sum granted to the Department of Finance and Personnel gone down, especially that portion assigned to community relations, cultural tradition and the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council? That figure is down from £2.9 million in 1992 to just under £2.5 million this year.
I raise that in particular because community relations are more important in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the UK. The Government must be extremely careful not to make false economies in that area. There have been very shaky events in Northern Ireland. One of the priorities in the Government's mind should be that community relations and cultural traditions are worth every penny of the funding which they inspire. Having asked those questions of the Minister, he can take it that the order has the general support of these Benches.
12.10 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for the care and the clarity with which he explained the main provisions of the order to the House. I look forward with great interest to hearing his response to the range of questions that have been asked this morning.
At about this time of the year, when seeking the approval of Parliament to the supply of money, it has become the practice of Ministers to offer an optimistic review of the performance of the Northern Ireland economy. That seems to me to be the recurring theme of speeches. Indeed, this morning the Minister referred to the economy being remarkably resilient. If I may say so, those are precisely the words that were used by the noble Earl a year ago. Of course, it is important that the Government should be making that point whenever possible as the economy, in terms of the Government's priorities, is second only to the maintenance of law and order, and rightly so.
Therefore, while I believe that it is fair to say that the economy is in a better shape than we would have expected two years ago, it is premature at this stage to speak confidently about the recovery. Indeed, that is the message from the April assessment of the Economic Council.
As has been mentioned, the total funding authorised by the order is, once again, very substantial. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord

1651
Holme, that that is fully justified. The reasons for it are well known. But, given the fact that Northern Ireland is so heavily dependent upon public expenditure, any significant cutbacks in public spending which apply across the board will be more threatening in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. It follows that we are concerned at the cuts that may be applied in the autumn, and their consequences.
I am in no position to say anything about the merits of the allocation between the departments, but I assume—and I hope that the Minister can assure us —that that aspect is being constantly reviewed by Ministers. It needs to be constantly and closely examined. Again, that point was made in the report of the Economic Council.
Bearing all that in mind, I wish to draw attention to one or two of the programmes in which I happen to have an interest in order to seek information and clarification. I shall begin with the Department of Health and Social Services as it is the Minister's special field of responsibility. For many years, the NHS in Northern Ireland has had more health service staff per head employed in the service than any health authority in England and Wales. I am not quite sure about the position in Scotland. Yet, Northern Ireland has the largest proportion of patients—that is, one in five —waiting for more than a year for treatment. What is the explanation for that long waiting time? One wonders whether there is a mismatch of resources locally. Are the operating theatre sessions badly organised? Further, is there a failure of management at board level or within the hospitals? That has been suggested by some of the consultants at the Royal Victoria Hospital. Perhaps the Minister can assure the House that the matter is at least being studied.
The morbidity statistics show that Northern Ireland has the highest male death rate from heart disease of any region in the United Kingdom. Is that significant statistic being inquired into by the medical school or by a university department? Alternatively, has an outside body been commissioned to consider it? Further, is the Health Promotion Agency addressing the issue in any helpful way? The situation seems to point to a need for greater emphasis to be placed on preventive care.
I must tell the Minister that I very much appreciate his willingness to meet a deputation later on this month to discuss the widespread concerns among social workers arising out of the possible legislation which will enable community trusts to manage the children's service of Northern Ireland. The Minister will know that there is a very strong conviction among professionals in Northern Ireland that the envisaged legislation will produce the wrong model of care. I also trust that the Minister will look carefully at the case of the Royal Victoria Hospital. I am absolutely sure that my noble friend Lord Fitt was right to raise the issue in your Lordships' House.
Before I leave the Minister's special responsibilities, can he tell the House what steps the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency is taking to recover
1652
overpayments of income support benefit and mortgage interest, which was the subject of the 39th report from the Public Accounts Committee?
Northern Ireland has the youngest population of any region in the United Kingdom. Given the high birthrate, why is it that provision for nursery education is so woefully inadequate? The education departments in England and Wales have a very poor reputation in that regard, as was vigorously demonstrated during the passage through the House of the Education Bill. But Northern Ireland has an even worse record. It has the lowest level of publicly-funded childcare in the whole of the UK, having only five places available in day nurseries for every 1,000 children. Surely Northern Ireland should be doing far better than that? More day places would bring so many beneficial results and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, had that in mind. It will even help to make it possible for more women to continue in employment, which is an important issue being addressed by the Equal Opportunities Commission. In the longer term, it might be a small part of the solution to the chronic problem of under-achievement in the secondary schools, which is one of the features of the education system. Can the Minister offer any words of reassurance?
I turn now to the Vote on economic development. I should like briefly to mention two points. The department is at the core of the job creation programme in Northern Ireland. We are all aware that the PAC has looked critically at the number of jobs actually created by LEDU and the cost of the jobs created. It published its report in May. I must say that I was not entirely surprised at the line pursued by the PAC as I had already picked up some of the concerns two or three years ago. When does the department expect to be in a position to reply to the report?
One item that surprises me in the detailed breakdown of the Estimates, notwithstanding what was said by the Minister about the tourist industry in Northern Ireland and its potential, is that in Vote 2 the expenditure on tourist development is slightly down. I believe that the main reduction will be on promotion and marketing. I had understood that the Government—and, indeed, the Government of the Republic—fully recognise that tourism is a growth industry capable of contributing substantially to economic prosperity in many parts of the island of Ireland. That is particularly so at a time when agriculture is shedding so much labour. Perhaps the Minister can explain the proposed curtailment.
Within Northern Ireland reconciliation is essential to the work of the Government. I agree very much with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. Therefore, special encouragement has to be given at all times to cross-community projects and to encouraging cross-community co-operation. I can assure the noble Earl that we on these Benches will never be critical of expenditure on those programmes. The programme of community relations work is also inevitably part of the responsibility of the Department of Education. Its youth service programmes have a cross-community dimension.

1653
I should like to ask whether there is more that the Department of Education can do in support of the integrated schools movement. I am pleased to see that an increased allocation is sought for in those schools in the department's Vote 1. However, I am not sure how to interpret the quite substantial decrease in the amount sought for 100 per cent. grants on the provision of premises and equipment.
I believe that there may be some unease about the future. Yet there is evidence, referred to in last year's annual report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights, that there is a high level of support for the concept of integrated schooling. Parents are asking that more information should be made available on integrated education. I gladly acknowledge that the Government have given positive support for integrated education. However, perhaps I may suggest that continued commitment on the part of the Ministers and of the department is required in order to ensure that development continues in the future.
That is my main approach to the order. Public expenditure in Northern Ireland is heavy, but justifiably so. Nevertheless, we have a duty to ensure that the money is being spent wisely and efficiently, not only on the provision of existing services but also on the building up of those services which are being demanded by the requirements of a better society in the future.
12.20 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their particular contributions to this debate this morning. When discussing Northern Ireland there is almost inevitably a tendency to focus on the problems and the difficulties. I do not seek to underestimate them but there is also a positive side which can easily be overlooked. Much has been achieved in Northern Ireland in recent years on the security, economic and social fronts. The local economy has survived the recession remarkably well and is well placed to take advantage of the recovery now under way, while new opportunities are opening up in Europe and beyond. That point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham.
Northern Ireland also enjoys a high standard of education and a first-rate health service, while significant improvements have been made in housing. I recognise that there is much more to do but let us acknowledge what has been achieved, often in difficult circumstances.
I shall now try to answer some of your Lordships' questions. I am of course always extremely mindful of the help and courtesy that your Lordships have displayed in giving me notice of many of the questions that have been raised this morning.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked about voluntary activity units. The Voluntary Activity Unit has assumed lead responsibility on community development and will provide structures necessary for interdepartmental consideration of key issues in this field. In establishing the appropriate interdepartmental liaison machinery, Northern Ireland departments will have regard to the need to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of departments' existing
1654
commitments to community development, and ensure as far as possible that there is coherence between existing programmes which have a community development dimension. I am grateful for the helpful comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and I undertake to write to him on the funding point and on the annual report. The initial task of the Voluntary Activity Unit will be to prepare a draft strategy statement on the unit's precise aims and role and, as promised in the Strategy for the Support of the Voluntary Sector and for Community Development in Northern Ireland, the voluntary and community sector will be consulted on this. Work on drafting a strategy statement is presently under way.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, also asked how the new Structural Fund regulations will work. These have not yet been agreed but it is likely that in Northern Ireland they will work in a broadly similar way to last time. A plan and operational programmes will be submitted to the Commission which will respond with a community support framework. This will set out the areas to be funded.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, also referred to a number of recent reports on the Northern Ireland economy. Business confidence surveys act as an important source of information on local economic trends and attract a good deal of media attention. The aim of the Northern Ireland Economic Council discussion paper was to assess the accuracy and reliability of the results of the two surveys published in Northern Ireland on a regular basis. These are the PA Consulting Group Quarterly Survey of Business Prospects and the CBI Business Confidence Survey. The council concluded that, suitably interpreted, surveys of business opinion are useful as economic indicators in the short run and provide greater understanding of business psychology. They can therefore assist in assessing the state of the local economy and act as a guide to possible future economic trends.
The noble Lord also asked about the Government's policy for increasing employment. Achieving higher levels of employment in Northern Ireland depends on increasing economic growth and on Northern Ireland industry becoming more internationally competitive. The Government's strategy to achieve this includes helping companies to identify and remove obstacles of growth; encouraging inward investment; building up management and workforce skills; developing an enterprise culture; supporting innovation and research and development; and targeting programmes, where necessary, on areas of social and economic deprivation and on the needs of the long-term unemployed. The NI EC's suggestion that Government should become an employer of last resort is very radical and will clearly require further study by officials.
The noble Lord also referred to the recent Northern Ireland Economic Council report on the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU). Let me say that we very much welcome this report, with which IRTU co-operated. The NIEC's conclusions reflect very closely those outlined in IRTU's strategy document Innovation 2000, in particular, the need to

1655
raise both the level and quality of R&D activity in Northern Ireland. IRTU's recently published corporate plan for 1993–95 will address many of the NIEC's concerns; for example, the need for close collaboration with universities and others involved in industrial R&D and in promoting awareness campaigns. The unit's funding is slightly lower this year but this is due to the fact that additional resources were given last year. However, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in answer to his points on monitoring.
As regards the extension of time for consultation on the health and personal social services order, new legislation on health and social services trusts was published for consultation on 17th June. The period of consultation is due to end on 6th August. I will, however, take into account the noble Lord's concern about the timing proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the Government's response to the recent public consultation exercise on the discussion document Crime and the Community. Your Lordships will recall that this document articulates a coherent set of criminal justice policies and initiatives for Northern Ireland, including a proposed community safety strategy. The document was published in March and comments were sought by 30th June. A number of interesting, constructive and useful responses have been received. Others are still awaited. The Government will give careful consideration to these responses before taking decisions on the way forward. The noble Lord also emphasised that effective crime prevention requires good co-ordination between government departments. The Government agree strongly with that. That is why one of the elements in our proposed community safety strategy is to improve arrangements for co-ordination within central Government. Our aim is to link any new arrangements, where appropriate, into existing inter-departmental co-ordinating arrangements. The noble Lord's point is therefore a valid and constructive one.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked about the refurbishment programme for Belfast Prison. This will begin later this year. Present plans provide for the completion of extensive preliminary work to improve the services and up-grade the security of the prison before the refurbishment of cells can begin in the summer of 1995.
On the segregation and integration of prisoners, there has been no change in the policy re-iterated by my noble friend Lord Belstead in this House on 4th March 1992 in responding to the report by my noble friend Lord Colville on the management of prisoners from opposing factions in Belfast Prison. Segregation of prisoners acts against security, the best interest of prisoners and staff and the efficient management of the prison service.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked about the revision of prison rules. I hope that the extensive review of the 1982 prison rules, which will involve consultation with a wide range of interests inside and outside the prison service, will be completed by the end of 1994. He also asked about fine defaulters. The
1656
apprehension and imprisonment of fine defaulters often incurs costs—to the RUC and prison service in particular—out of all proportion to the sums owed. Accordingly, we are reviewing current enforcement measures and examining cost-effective alternatives to imprisonment. The noble Lord asked when the relevant legislation on unit fines will be ready. In March the Government published the discussion paper Crime and the Community in which we sought comment on a range of criminal law issues in Northern Ireland, including unit fines. The closing date for comments was 30th June. In conjunction with the publication of the paper, officials had been working on legislation to introduce unit fines in Northern Ireland.
However, as the noble Lord will know, the Government announced on 13th May their proposal to abolish unit fines for England and Wales. In the circumstances, the proposal for a draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order published on 8th June does not include provisions for unit fines. The analysis of the responses to Crime and the Community will help inform my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as to how he might best ensure that fines imposed in Northern Ireland take sufficient account of offenders' means.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, raised a number of interesting points. First, in relation to structural funds, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will fully accept the additionality requirement in the new EC regulations, just as they accept the existing requirement. All receipts, including those for Northern Ireland, will continue to be handled in a way which fully satisfies the additionality criterion.
In relation to compensation, the principle behind compensation for criminal damage to property in Northern Ireland is that the claimant is restored to his former situation, so far as money can achieve that. Deductions to take account of betterment are fully compatible with the principle that the claimant should not be enriched. I may add that the Compensation Agency is aware of the difficulties which betterment deductions may cause applicants and is therefore careful to minimise its effects by carefully examining each individual case.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, asked about the starting date of the second phase of the dual carriageway between Antrim and Ballymena. Under current plans this is due to commence in the latter part of 1996–97, but I can assure the noble Lord that the matter is kept under continual review.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked about the future of the Royal Group of Hospitals. I was very concerned by the stories which have been circulating about the Royal Victoria Hospital. I want to say again that there is no question of the hospital closing, as has already been said by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Nor is there any conspiracy to reduce it to a second-rate hospital. The Royal is a great hospital and it is this Government's wish that it should remain so. In the past five years alone £13 million have been spent on major schemes, to say

1657
nothing of spending on minor ones. There are already further schemes on site and in the pipeline amounting to £18 million. Those figures speak for themselves.
The reforms in the National Health Service have brought changes to the majority of hospitals and the Royal cannot expect to be immune from the effects of the reforms, particularly those arising from the introduction of the internal market. The reforms are designed to improve standards of healthcare and I am sure that the Royal Victoria Hospital will continue to provide a range of first-class services.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked why the funding for the Department of Finance has been reduced. The reasons are largely technical. The main decrease is in the running costs of the Valuation and Lands Agency which was launched in April 1993. Vote 2 reflects an overall decrease in superannuation payments. In Vote 3 the sums available for community relations have been increased by some £100,000.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, also asked a similar question about the Department of Economic Development votes. The reduction in the sum granted to the Department of Economic Development is largely attributable to the privatisations of Harland and Wolff and Shorts, and the effects of the new industrial development strategy, which aims to make more effective use of resources to improve the competitiveness of Northern Ireland companies. These changes in provision do not reflect any reduction in Government commitment to industrial development, which remains the second public expenditure priority after law and order.
The noble Lord also referred to housing conditions. The Government's record on housing in Northern Ireland is one of great success. By 1987 unfitness levels had been reduced by 35 per cent., and the 1991 survey showed that, in comparable terms, there had been a further reduction of 20 per cent. The number of dwellings lacking basic amenities, such as a bath or internal lavatory, fell from 120,000 in 1974 to 19,000 —or 3 per cent. of the housing stock—in 1991. Certainly we recognise that there are still problems in the private sector and in rural dwellings. The Government have increased by £7 million the funding allocated this year to tackle those problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised a number of points in relation to the health service, for which, as he rightly pointed out, I have Ministerial responsibility.
The noble Lord asked about the proportion of patients in Northern Ireland waiting for treatment for more than one year. Traditionally, admissions to hospital in Northern Ireland have tended to be greater per head of population than in England. What the noble Lord said about the proportion of patients in Northern Ireland waiting for treatment for more than one year is therefore true. However, in the past two years considerable resources (£2.2 million) have been provided to reduce the length of time people have to wait for treatment in Northern Ireland. In March 1991 there were 8,640 waiting longer than one year for treatment, namely 32 per cent. of the total number waiting, whereas in March this year the number waiting more than one year had been reduced to 18 per
1658
cent. I should add that I have secured further resources of almost £10 million over the next three years to provide additional operations. mainly in cardiac surgery but covering other specialties where patients are also having to wait unduly.
The noble Lord asked about the high level of deaths among men from coronary heart disease. Because of Government concern at the high level of heart disease the Northern Ireland Change of Heart Coronary Prevention Programme was launched in 1986. Since then death rates from coronary heart disease in men have fallen by about 25 per cent. Despite that improvement, heart disease remains a major health problem in Northern Ireland. The Health Promotion Agency, which manages the Change of Heart programme, will therefore continue to give a high priority in its work to tackling the major risk factors associated with heart disease. As the noble Lord would expect, these include smoking, faulty nutrition and lack of exercise.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about the response of the Social Security Agency to the PAC report on over-payment of income support and mortgage interest. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report found the major cause of financial error in 1991–92 to be related to mortgage interest payments. Those cases are now being reviewed, over-payments identified and repayments sought where appropriate. The new system of paying mortgage interest direct to lenders and recovery of over-payments from lenders should ensure that a similar situation should not recur. The Social Security Agency, in conjunction with the Benefits Agency. is reviewing and seeking to improve its arrangements for checking the accuracy of payments.
The department ceased collecting details of the total amount of debt outstanding in respect of social security payments because the information being collected was not very accurate. Following the agency's review of its debt management arrangements, it was decided to develop a computerised over-payment recording system which would provide accurate details of total debt. That system is nearing completion and is due to be piloted in July with implementation in all offices before the end of the year.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about the level of publicly funded child care in Northern Ireland. The Government consider that it is important to encourage a mixed economy of public, private and voluntary child care provision and there has been continuing improvement in the overall level of day care in Northern Ireland in recent years. As a result of a number of social and policy developments, Ministers in Northern Ireland established an inter-departmental review of policy on early years provision, and a report is expected to be published in the near future. That report will form the basis for the future development of services.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about the resources available for tourism in Northern Ireland. The provision for the Northern Ireland

1659
Tourist Board for 1992–93 of £10.7 million includes an extra £1 million which was provided to meet specific and inescapable pressures.
The noble Lord also asked about the PAC report on LEDU performance. The report is a very positive one and the Department of Economic Development is currently considering the points which have been raised. The noble Lord will appreciate that it is not normal practice to comment on a report until a memorandum of reply has been laid before your Lordships' House.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested that more information should be made available about integrated schools. Information services are provided to parents and schools by the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, which works closely with the Department of Education and receives grant aid from the Government. The publicity arrangements over the coming months include, for example, road shows, public seminars, stands at public events and television programmes. A measure of the success which has been achieved is the significant growth in the number of new integrated schools since the Education Reform Order 1989 brought in new provisions to encourage and facilitate integrated education. There are now 18 integrated schools spread throughout Northern Ireland, and proposals have been published to open another three new integrated schools this coming September. A further three new groups of parents are also considering proposals for next year.
I conclude by thanking your Lordships for participating in the debate. Noble Lords have shown their customary interest in and profound knowledge of matters affecting Northern Ireland. The significant sums sought in this order will enable us to build on the progress which has already been made in the economic and social fields in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1993
12.40 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th May be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this draft order renews the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, by which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. As it has become customary over the years I would like, again, to give your Lordships an account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the previous year.
Regrettably, as your Lordships will remember from the recent debate on security, the use of violence for political ends continues to threaten the lives of the men and women of Northern Ireland. Your Lordships will, I am sure, remember many of the 75 brutal murders by terrorists in Northern Ireland last year,
1660
and many of the 37 that have been perpetrated since the beginning of this year. Neither can or will the number of bomb attacks in towns acrossNorthern Ireland be forgotten—Belvoir Park, Bangor, Portadown, Magherafelt, Newry, Strabane, Newtownards and, of course, Belfast.
It remains our first priority to bring this terrorism to an end from whichever organisation it comes and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the RUC and the security forces that support them. Their steadfastness is matched by that of the ordinary men and women of Northern Ireland who continue to go about their daily lives with stoicism and determination. The Government for their part will continue to look for further measures which will assist, by being effective and proportionate, in the defeat of terrorism. Such measures must also take into account the importance of developing the highest level of community confidence in, and support for, the security forces in carrying out their arduous task. The support of all sections of the community for the security forces is essential in the fight against terrorist violence. The Government will also continue to provide the police and Armed Forces with all necessary resources and, as an integral part of this, the Army will support the police for as long as is required.
The police and Armed Forces are having significant successes against terrorists. Last year, 405 people were charged with terrorist related offences, including 101 with murder and attempted murder and 354 people were convicted of terrorist offences. This year, as at 27th June, 182 people have been charged with such offences. Furthermore, important finds of firearms, rocket and mortar launchers, ammunition, explosives and other terrorist equipment continue. For example, on Tuesday 6th July, two vehicle borne bombs containing 1,600 kilogrammes of explosives were intercepted by the police as a result of a vehicle checkpoint. In addition, the security forces, through their sheer hard work, have prevented and deterred numerous attacks. They will continue to do so.
I particularly stress to your Lordships that both the numerical level and the equipment of the security forces are kept under careful review. The adequacy of the criminal law, by which those guilty of terrorist offences may be brought to justice and judicially punished, is similarly subject to regular examination. I can therefore assure your Lordships that the Government remain determined and unrelenting in their commitment to the defeat of the terrorists.
On the economic front your Lordships may take heart. Northern Ireland has held up well under adverse national and world-wide economic conditions. Unemployment is down. The total at 104,500, or 13.9 per cent. of the workforce, is of course higher than we would wish but it has come a long way from the 1986 peak of 17.6 per cent. Output levels in Northern Ireland have risen by 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. over the past year, which compares favourably with figures for the United Kingdom as a whole of around 1 per cent. Those figures show the resilience of the economy in Northern Ireland and of those who

1661
work to create its wealth and employment. The Government will continue to work in partnership with business to reinforce the progress already made.
This strategy is well demonstrated by the successful year of the Industrial Development Board which has attracted 10 new projects and around 2,000 jobs by way of inward investment. Equally encouraging is the high level of demand for the IDB's export services which have yielded export orders of £120 million.
The joint initiatives between the IDB and its counterpart the Irish Trade Board continue to bear fruit. The successful exhibition mounted by the Irish Trade Board and IDB in Chicago earlier this month, in which 25 Northern Ireland companies participated, is an excellent example. I was there and can bear witness to the strength and determination by all exhibitors to promote trade on behalf of the island of Ireland.
LEDU is also responsible for impressive achievements on the small business front, including a record number of 1,429 new business start-ups and a 4 per cent. net rise since last year in employment among LEDU's companies (approximately 1,000 jobs).
Neither should we forget the important contribution made to the Northern Ireland economy by tourism. Almost 1.3 million visitors came to Northern Ireland in 1992 compared with 1.186 million in 1991, and the Government will continue to encourage the growth of the tourism sector. In addition to our own support for the tourism infrastructure the European Regional Development Fund has provided over £35 million in the period 1990–1993, which generated investments worth £51 million.
I am also able to report the successful completion of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Electricity plc, the transmission, distribution and supply business, was floated on the Stock Exchange on Monday 21st June.
One of the department's aims in privatising NIE was to broaden and deepen share ownership and the flotation of NIE proved very popular. Some 40 per cent. of the shares available to the general public have been allocated to Northern Ireland citizens and almost 50 per cent. of NIE employees applied for and have received shares. Such support for the future of the company is very encouraging.
Along with constitutional politicians of every party, the Government are in the business of encouraging job creation and preservation. On the community relations front, we have gone on tackling adverse conditions in those areas characterised by disproportionate disadvantage and inequality in Northern Ireland. The Making Belfast Work initiative continues to be at the heart of this campaign with a further £24 million made available for this year. High priority is also given to the Targeting Social Need initiative, through which government policies and programmes are targeted more sharply at the areas and people in great need.
A short time ago I paid tribute to the security forces but I also wish to pay tribute to the individuals and organisations whose efforts at local level have encouraged better community relations. The work
1662
continues and shows a growing desire within the community for positive change in the relationship between the two traditions.
I should now like to turn to developments on the political front. When I addressed your Lordships last year there had been, during the preceding weeks, intensive discussions between the British Government and the four main Northern Ireland parties on what has come to be known as strand 1; that is, discussions on the relationships between the people of Northern Ireland, including the relationship between any new institutions and the Westminster Parliament. In addition, all the participants had recently agreed to the Irish Government joining the discussions to consider issues in strand 2; the relationships among the people of the island of Ireland. That took place on 6th July and subsequently, on 28th July, the two Governments held the opening meeting on the third strand, dealing with future relationships between them.
The talks continued until the summer holiday and resumed in the autumn. They closed on 10th November. The following day I repeated to your Lordships a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the political talks. This indicated that we had not as yet succeeded in our ambitious task of securing an overall settlement; that is to say, "a new beginning for relationships and between the peoples of these islands".
I will not repeat that Statement except to say that the talks had witnessed a substantive and detailed engagement between responsible and representative political leaders on issues of the first importance. That was a considerable achievement. Much was done to identify common ground between the participants and to enlarge it, and also to increase their respective understanding of, and respect for, others' positions.
Although those talks came to a close, the independent chairman, Sir Ninian Stephen, expressed the view that their objectives remained valid and achievable. The two Governments also agreed that further dialogue was both necessary and desirable. The four Northern Ireland parties agreed with that, and undertook to "enter into informal consultations with a view to seeking a way forward".
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also indicated in another place that he remains very keen to assist on the re-opening of dialogue. to establish how we might build on the advances of the past two years. At Downing Street on. 16th June, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach reaffirmed the desire of the two Governments for further talks. That position was reaffirmed by the two Governments again yesterday, at an IGC meeting in London. The Secretary of State has been in contact with the four main Northern Ireland parties and there are issues which require further and private consideration, but the Government's overall aim is to continue to develop the common ground and to work towards the kind of settlement which can be widely agreed and which provides the best chance of achieving a less antagonistic way of living in a divided community. We

1663
firmly believe that the people of Northern Ireland hope for and expect no less, and they certainly deserve no less.
To achieve that will hasten the day when conditions in Northern Ireland are such that direct rule can be brought to an end. The Government wish to increase the opportunities for democratically sustained political responsibility in Northern Ireland and we very much hope that that can be realised in the context of a widely agreed foundation for reform.
However, it is regrettable that more progress needs to be made before direct rule will no longer be needed in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. It is therefore necessary to make provision for the renewal of direct rule by means of the order, a draft of which we are at present considering. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th May be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
12.51 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in our earlier debate this morning we heard the estimate of £3.1 billion for the upkeep of Northern Ireland for one year. I say it slowly—an estimate of £3,116 million. Without these massive subventions for the upkeep of Northern Ireland, the Province could not exist as an economic or political entity. However, the same conditions apply to the Republic of Ireland, which depends on massive subventions from the European Community. One only has to read the newspapers over the past week or fortnight to see the tenacious fight that the Irish Government put up within the Community for many billions of pounds. I believe that they achieved an agreement which means that for every day for the next seven years £3 million will be given to support the economy of the island of Ireland.
Given those massive financial public contributions, one only has to see what would happen if they were not available. I know that it hurts some people for me to say this, but both parts of Ireland have a dependency culture. They depend to a great extent on Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom; they believe that it is an entitlement that they should depend on massive subventions from this Parliament.
In his remarks on the order, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned the massive sums. He went on to say that politically Northern Ireland had suffered great pitfalls within recent weeks. As someone who lived in Northern Ireland and as a public representative there for years, I have to say that at present in Northern Ireland dangerous tensions are coming to the fore. The reason for that is well known to anyone with any experience of Northern Ireland: we are in July, the time of year when the Orange Order commemorates the Battle of the Boyne. Sometimes it is done as a show of triumphalism, that it is the majority party in Northern Ireland. However, in recent years, particularly this year, the marches and demonstrations will take place in an atmosphere of defiance because the Orange Order and the Protestant community in Northern Ireland at the moment feel a dreadful sense of insecurity. It is because of that
1664
dreadful sense of insecurity that we have the loyalist murderers, thugs and gunmen emerging from their community. It is because of the constitutional uncertainty that we have had such an escalation in tension throughout Northern Ireland.
What are the tensions? Let us go over them. It has been a very bad month indeed. We have had a whole series of attacks on the security forces. When I spoke here on 24th June, I illustrated that the IRA took great pleasure in killing Catholic RUC men. The very next day, a former member of the RUC—a young Catholic called Murphy—was murdered in brutal circumstances in a hotel in Belfast. We had that. Then we had the bombs, as has already been mentioned by the noble Earl. There were bombs in Newry, Portadown, Magherafelt and Newtownards, and one was defused this morning in the City of Belfast. All of those activities by the IRA create fear and tension not only within the unionist community but in the law-abiding Catholic and nationalist community in Northern Ireland.
Some people have attached a good deal more importance to another event than it probably merits, but the President of Ireland and the leader of one of the major political parties from Northern Ireland, John Hume, met Gerry Adams. Some people may think that that has no importance, but in the Protestant psychology, those two people met as spokesmen for the IRA who carried out all the bombings and murders of many of their blood relations. That did nothing to ease the tension in Northern Ireland.
Worst of all, was the document that was leaked by Kevin McNamara which set out how he saw the political future of Northern Ireland progressing. When I read that document I was absolutely amazed that such a document could have emerged from a person who is a member of the British Labour Party. I sit where I do because it is the Opposition Bench in this House, the Labour Bench in the House. But I hesitate to think what would have happened if there had been a Labour Government after the last election and that type of idea was floating around. It would undoubtedly have led to massive bloodshed in Northern Ireland. That again is one of the reasons that the Unionist Party and the Protestants feel so insecure.
On top of that, the Taoiseach, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, told a meeting of Lobby journalists in Ireland that, if the British Government did not get together with them to solve the Northern Ireland problem, he would call in President Clinton. I think that was a cheek and an impertinence. What would President Clinton do in relation to Northern Ireland? Would he send in American troops, as he sent them in to murder innocent civilians in Somalia? Or would he stand back wringing his hands, saying "No, no, I can't send them into Northern Ireland because I refuse to send them into Bosnia"? Can one imagine the fears that were aroused by the alleged threat? I suggest that the Prime Minister of the Republic should go to President Clinton and let President Clinton bear

1665
some of the responsibility for the financing and upkeep of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Then we find that yesterday there was another meeting of the Anglo-Irish conference. Four days before 12th July, when tensions are mounting in Northern Ireland, the Irish Foreign Minister, Dick Spring, yesterday gave an interview to the Guardian which he repeated yesterday evening on television. As I see it, I have or I had good relations with the labour and trade union movement in the Republic and this country. I was very hopeful when the new coalition government were elected in the south, when Dick Spring became Foreign Minister with responsibility for Northern Ireland. I believed that he came into the situation without any civil war baggage like Fine Gael and Fianna Fail. However, it appears that I was sadly misled, if we are to believe what was said yesterday by the Foreign Minister of the Republic.
What is the reason for the insecurity? I repeat—though I may not receive much support in this House —that the reason that there is such insecurity now is the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement. That agreement was organised behind the backs of all the political parties in Northern Ireland, particularly the Unionist Party, which was excluded. What put us in that position? I am sure I shall find support from some of my noble friends in the House. There are 17 Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland constituencies. During the course of debates they frequently complain about the inadequacy of the way in which Northern Ireland business is conducted in the House of Commons. They complain that they are allowed only 90 minutes for a debate and that the debates take place at night. In this House, we have registered those complaints on many occasions. The British Government then take note of those complaints and say, "Well, if all these MPs are complaining about inadequacy, we should set up a Select Committee".
Personally, I believe that there should be a Select Committee to handle Northern Ireland business in the absence of a Stormont. The ideal solution would be for there to be a Stormont but in its absence there should be a Select Committee. But what happens when the British Government put forward that idea? Four of those MPs, the members of the SDLP, go to Dublin and say to Dublin, "No, no, you must object. You have the right to object under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Tell them that you are not going to have a Select Committee because that is taking people down the integration path." So democracy is denied because of the authority given to the Irish Government under the aegis of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement. It would appear to me that, although the SDLP complains about the unfortunate way that government business is conducted, it is prepared to put up with it rather than have a Select Committee that would be able to deal with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
So what should the Government do? I would advocate that the Government, irrespective of objection from Dublin or the minority party (the SDLP) in Northern Ireland, set up a Select Committee in the absence of a Stormont. I should love to see a
1666
Stormont brought back again. I happen to have been one of the members of the Executive that was there in 1974. I know from personal experience that the Executive could have continued to govern Northern Ireland had it not been for the Council of Ireland proposals. The people in Northern Ireland, unionist and nationalist alike, at that time would have accepted, albeit reluctantly, the power sharing Executive. The Council of Ireland proposals led to the general strike and killed it.
The present talks were begun by Peter Brooke. They were much too ambitious. Who thought up the notion of strands 1, 2 and 3 and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed? That threw on people in this House and outside it the responsibility for trying to end in those talks the conflict that has existed in Ireland for 400 or 500 years. The talks were much too ambitious and were not guaranteed success.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who has many contacts in Northern Ireland, will agree that: it would have been relatively easy in strand 1 of those talks to find agreement. In fact, the talks were 80 per cent. of the way down the road towards finding agreement between the unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland in relation to the governance of Northern Ireland. Then the SDLP said, "No, you cannot have total agreement there until you have got into strand 2." That was the Council of Ireland, brought back from 1974. The unionists said, "We don't want that; we rejected it in 1974." Someone then said, "Ah, we cannot agree to strand 1 unless you agree with us on strand 2." That means that there is no hope of any progress in the talks.
I believe that every effort must be concentrated on bringing about a devolved government in Northern Ireland. After such a power sharing, executive has existed for a period of time, one can then start to talk about stage two and stage three. We must riot try to deal with them all at once; otherwise the whole object is defeated.
In that period the Protestant community in Northern Ireland will need reassurance. It is a frightened community: it needs to be reassured. Giving reassurance to that community will perhaps take their gunmen out of existence. In the vacuum of uncertainty and insecurity the thugs and murderers are emerging from under the stones in Northern Ireland. There is a very dangerous situation. There are two communities—a unionist community and a nationalist community. At the moment there is an air of triumphalism in the nationalist community. The SDLP, supported by the Irish Government, believe that, with the authority of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement, they can push the unionist community in Northern Ireland into a corner, as has happened with the Moslems in Sarejevo.
I hope that sufficient consideration will be given to the very dangerous situation that exists. I advocate that, if the Government believe that it is right in the interests of bringing reconciliation to the communities of Northern Ireland, they should set up a Select Committee in defiance of any objections they may receive from the Government of Ireland.
1.6 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, it is a long time since I listened to a speech with every single word of which I agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, pointed to the immediate dangers in Northern Ireland. In my view he is absolutely correct. He gave us the background to that situation and drew attention to the agreement of 1985. In my view, that agreement has been responsible for nearly all the evils that have come about since. We have probably been set back by about 15 years as a result. I wrote to the Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, three months before the agreement was signed, imploring her not to pursue what was purported to be the intended agreement. My reason was that none of the things that she expected from the agreement—increased security or anything else—would come. I also advised her that the number of people murdered in Northern Ireland would increase from then on. That, indeed, has been the case.
That is now water under the bridge. As the noble Lord said, there is now a sense of triumphalism, which is quite beyond all bounds, in the SDLP and in Dublin. Unless our Government make the situation clear and tell Dublin to get out of the way, we are in for serious trouble. I had not intended to refer to security today because I spoke at some length on the subject only three weeks ago. The noble Earl the Minister then described my view as grim. Unfortunately, in the few weeks since then, nothing has happened to make me wish to withdraw one word of what I said. I believe that the situation can be contained and improved but very firm action is required by the Government to remove the notion in Dublin and in the SDLP that they are winning and can push the unionists, Protestants, or whoever, almost into the sea.
I must come back to the Northern Ireland Act, which is today's business. I confirm, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, that the great majority of people in Northern Ireland wish for devolution. He is right to say that they must get rid of stages two and three and settle the immediate problem of Northern Ireland—devolution. We know that the Secretary of State is doing his utmost to work in that direction. But we also know that it will take a long time to make progress. The leader of the SDLP has declared that he is not interested in devolution. Therefore we must continue with direct rule. I support the Motion that is before us. I am pleased to be able to advise the House that opinion polls have consistently shown that the continuation of direct rule is regarded as the least unpopular option with the majority of people in both sections of the community.
I wish to acknowledge the signal service to Northern Ireland which has been performed by successive Secretaries of State and their teams of Ministers. They have had to grapple with many problems of which they may not have had previous knowledge. Very often Minsters have had two departments to look after, as has the noble Earl, Lord Arran. They also have the Whips of this House and another place summoning them at inconvenient times. They have suffered considerable disruption to family life and we are indebted to them for their efforts. If
1668
they have not achieved as much as they would have wished, it has not always been their fault. There are and have been political advisers, briefers and minders resident in the Northern Ireland Office and I would not wish to speak of them in the same terms. It is only right to express thanks to those Ministers who have come over to Northern Ireland and done their best for us before I attempt to mention some of the defects in direct rule and make some suggestions for improvements which I hope will be constructive. Some Ministers are better than others but that does not detract from my remarks.
The basic problem in Northern Ireland is that we only have fragments of democracy. We have 17 Members of Parliament elected to another place. However, the legislation for Northern Ireland continues to be dealt with by Order in Council, as was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. That means that Northern Ireland Members of Parliament have more influence on what goes on in Didcot than in Ballymena. That is a continuing disgrace which should be corrected without delay. We have had 20 years of direct rule but nothing has been done about the glaring defect in democracy.
At the other end of the spectrum we have our district councils where councillors have responsibility for clearing rubbish and library boards and have a small input into planning. Between the district councillors and our MPs we have no democratically elected input into government. Everything else is the responsibility of the departments in Belfast, which are themselves responsible to the Ministers who assist the Secretary of State. But it is difficult for Ministers, who change quite often, to get a grip on their departments. That is not surprising as sometimes departments are reluctant to be gripped.
It is not surprising that Northern Ireland has become a bureaucratic state and that bureaucracy continues to draw funds and power to itself. There is no effective way of calling civil servants to account for their actions and decisions apart from the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee. There has grown up a proliferation of agencies and quangos over which the public and local politicians in particular have no influence. The members appointed to agencies and quangos are appointed by the Minister of the department concerned. That means that they are chosen by civil servants. It is more than a passing thought that many of those members are chosen for their ability to accept the status quo and not to rock the boat.
On the economic front, industry faces a bewildering array of bodies and regulators—IEB, LEDU, IRTU, FEC, EOC, T&EA, the Northern Ireland Economic Council. I doubt that if I gave your Lordships the full names of those bodies, your Lordships would be any the wiser.
In the past week I have made soundings quite widely and must advise the House that there are strong feelings within the business community that bureaucracy does not hear what it is being told. Departments go through the consultation process as they are required to do. Consultative papers are issued with bewildering speed and do not provide time for

1669
carefully thought-out responses. That can make it easier for departments to ignore replies because they may not be as detailed as the original proposals and in their view the arguments are not well set out.
The effectiveness of direct rule would be greatly improved if there was a genuine partnership between the departments, industry and business. There should be much more informal discussion before departmental views are set in concrete. There should be a follow-up to written responses with further discussion. That must be a two-way process with departments prepared to accept that they do not know all the answers and business and industry must put their best foot forward to assist. That will take some time and will not be easy. In 20 years we have lost almost a generation of people who would otherwise be involved. We need to pull forward younger people who are capable and able but who, under existing circumstances, do not consider it worth their while to talk to departments. We can have a new beginning and a great deal can flow from it.
I wish to include the trade unions, whose opinions are important and valuable. In Northern Ireland we have been fortunate over the past 25 years; our trade unions have worked unceasingly to keep sectarian conflict from the shop floor. Their success has been almost 100 per cent. and employers feel a strong sense of partnership with the trade unions in many matters.
There is no need for any new agencies, quangos or any formal procedures. If there was a serious effort on behalf of government departments, the situation economically and with the business community could be much improved. I know that it can work. It used to work in the past when I was active in these matters. Before direct rule informal discussions between civil servants, politicians and people from industry or business were common—often one to one, sometimes in informal groups of two or three or half a dozen. They were frank, open discussions based on mutual respect. If decisions were taken against one's point of view, at least one understood the reasons for it.
Important to industry and the economy in Northern Ireland are the two development agencies, the IDB (Industrial Development Board) and the LEDU (the Local Enterprise Development Unit). They have achieved much over the past 20 years to strengthen the industrial base in Northern Ireland. However, around three years ago the strategy for the IDB was reset. It was reset at a time when government policy was as dry as dry can be. The new strategy sounds fine in theory. It is basically to improve the competitiveness of companies. But the problem is one of implementation. How does one define "competitiveness"? How do we link steps which companies can take to increase competitiveness?
Equally, translating textbook concepts of market failure to the infinite complexities of the real world poses great difficulties. I have quoted almost verbatim from the report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, Economic Strategy in Northern Ireland. The words ring true to me and to everyone I talk with in the industry. The present strategy is just not practicable. I believe that steps are being taken to work out some indices of competitiveness but that will
1670
only make the complexity worse. I can do no more than urge that the IDB be authorised to consult closely with the Northern Ireland Economic Council, which can be relied upon to give sensible and practical advice. It should also consult the other representative organisations.
I wish to turn to three matters of great importance to industry in Northern Ireland. Problems have arisen as a direct result of the communication gap about which I have been speaking. Northern Ireland Electricity has just been privatised; the sale was described as successful. It produced £700 million for the Treasury. However, industry remains in a state of shock at the new electricity tariffs which came into effect on 1st April. Those were introduced without notice or explanation. There are around 30 large users in Northern Ireland who take more than one megawatt. Their businesses are extremely important to Northern Ireland for the wealth that they generate as well as the number in direct employment. They are required to pay increases varying from 22 per cent. to 58 per cent. higher than prior to 1st April. Industrial users below the one megawatt level are required to pay an increase of 15 per cent. Increases of that order are serious to any business. But some will have to decide whether or not they can afford to continue to manufacture in Northern Ireland.
In recent weeks many of us have spent a great deal of time trying to discover how these large increases could have come about. We may be naive but it had been put about that the object of privatisation was to provide competition, improve efficiency and bring benefits to the consumer. The present structure and arrangements for transferring costs within the electricity power system are extremely complicated, and this is not the place to go into them, but it seems extraordinary that such a small regional electricity system should be quite so complicated.
The Government have devised a number of complicated formulae which will control the charges and transfer of charges. The regulator has been handed these formulae and has been charged with ensuring their compliance. Major users have met the regulator who has endeavoured to explain his terms of reference. The regulator has engaged international consultants, Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett, requesting them to recommend ways in which competition and efficiency might lead to lower charges for electricity. At present all the facts are not available. The Government have released no information on the terms of sale of the generating stations, but from the information available it is clear that the Government did not just sell the assets of the generating stations; they sold guaranteed cash streams to the new owners sufficient to fund borrowed money and generate profits based on the costs of operating the stations pre-privatisation and whether or not they actually dispatch power. All they have to do is to make capacity available. All costs are fixed for the expected life of the generating units except for fuel used. Since the sale of these stations the new owners have reduced labour costs; they have improved maintenance and appear very happy with their purchases. It does not

1671
seem that any cost reductions will pass through to the user for the life of these contracts, some of which extend as far as 2020.
The rules for the transmission and distribution business of NIE permit NIE to pass through all fixed costs from the generators plus its own costs, and 75 per cent. of those will be permitted an annual increase of 3.5 per cent. above the retail prices index. The high proportion of fixed costs means that if the total load should fall unit prices will increase.
How much are these new rates above the average in Great Britain? Last week an analysis was made of the load patterns of 24 large users in Northern Ireland above the 1 megawatt level. These load patterns were repriced on the tariff of one of the more expensive regions in Great Britain —the south west region—whose tariffs on the whole are about 5 per cent. above the average on this side of the water. It transpires that these 24 large users will pay on average 33 per cent. more for their electricity in Northern Ireland than they would in Devon or Cornwall. That is the reason for the state of shock. I have with me a copy of this analysis.
All manner of reasons have been given for this difference. The system is small; it is dependent on oil fuel; it has got to find money to pay for interconnectors, and lots more. But 30 per cent. and more above GB rates is quite outrageous and no reason has yet been given which can justify the difference. From the information available one can only conclude that the overriding objective of government in selling off the Northern Ireland electricity system has been to provide cash for the Treasury without regard to the economy of Northern Ireland or the interests of customers there. I invite the Government to present information to show that that is not the case.
I must acknowledge that the Secretary of State has set out a trust fund of approximately £12 million which will be used to cap the increases that I have mentioned to 9 per cent. this year. I understand that it is the intention to assist with two-thirds of this sum in the second year and one-third in the third year. I ask the Minister: is the amount of the trust fund sufficient to make such payments?
The news is widely welcomed that a 250 megawatt intercorinector with Scottish Power is expected to be in place in 1997, but it does not appear that there will be any benefit to the user arising from competition or lower prices from Scottish Power via the interconnector until at least the year 2012. I wonder whether that is correct and why contracts should have been set up with so little regard to the users. Already there are rumours of large companies planning to relocate outside Northern Ireland. These new charges are a very serious threat to continuing development of the manufacturing industry and they also cast doubt on the ethics of government decisions today. I have only touched on the fringe of this very complex subject but it seems that industry is trapped to remain at a substantial disadvantage in Northern Ireland.
There are two other privatisation proposals pending which are causing widespread concern,
1672
particularly after the privatisation that I have just mentioned. Belfast Harbour is a trust port administered by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners under Deed of Trust for the benefit of importers and exporters in the city of Belfast and Northern Ireland generally. It has been consistently profitable; all profits have each year been reinvested in new development. This year development costing between £40 million and £50 million is in hand. Years ago, when I was a commissioner, auditors from the audit office who visit trust ports each year told me that they regarded Belfast as the best run port in the UK. No one has ever described Belfast port as inefficient. However, enabling legislation is now in place which allows the commissioners two years in which to express a view about privatisation, at the end of which the Government may decide to privatise Belfast Harbour with the authority of a negative resolution. This legislation is similar to that in place for trust ports in Great Britain except that the decision to privatise must be made by affirmative resolution for GB ports. I suggest that it is quite disgraceful to discriminate against this single port in Northern Ireland by making it subject to a negative resolution.
It has now been announced that if the port is privatised 100 per cent. of the proceeds will go to the Treasury. The assets of Belfast Port which have been built up over 100 years are, according to the original trust Act, in trust for the rate payers of Belfast, and certainly are not the property of government. Belfast Port, like other ports, has benefited greatly by European regional development funds. This has been above the 50 per cent. level but EC grants to private companies, which Belfast Port would be if it were privatised, are limited to 50 per cent. However, the other two trust ports in Northern Ireland, Londonderry and Warrenpoint, are below the size limit for privatisation and they will remain eligible for higher grants.
It is of interest that the Republic of Ireland has recently decided to reorganise ports under state ownership which will entitle all ports in the Republic of Ireland to the highest rate of grant aid from the EC. Belfast Harbour is at present run by a balanced Board of Commissioners appointed by the Minister of the Department of Economic Development. What sense does it make to privatise it and put it at a disadvantage compared with all other major ports in Ireland and thus handicap industry and commerce throughout Northern Ireland? The Government presently have power to do that by negative resolution.
I now turn to Belfast International Airport. The Northern Ireland Office has proposed that Northern Ireland Airports Limited, which runs Belfast International Airport, should be privatised by trade sale. Belfast International Airport is of strategic importance to business and industrial life in the Province, and all interested bodies—the CBI, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and so on —are alarmed at the prospect of a trade sale which means that ownership and direction will pass outside Northern Ireland.
There are additional complicating factors. Northern Ireland Airports shares the main runways

1673
and flight control with the MoD at Aldergrove, which remains the principal military air facility in Northern Ireland. It is vital therefore for security and other reasons that Northern Ireland Airports remains in co-operative and friendly hands. I can claim some knowledge of the security problem at Aldergrove having served 16 years on the board in the early stages of development of the airport.
I understand the reasons for opting for a trade sale following reports made by the consultants Hambros and Touche Ross sometime ago. It appeared that the consultants were not confident that the profits then being generated would support a public flotation. Since then there have been management changes, profits have much improved and management is determined to maintain and improve the present level of profits. I am confident that investigation will show that it is now practicable to privatise the airport by means of public offer within Northern Ireland, subject to the necessary legal constraints in connection with security and the MoD operation. Incidentally, guidelines issued to the Treasury on privatisation urged them not to make up their minds too soon because situations can change.
I have spoken on these three matters of very great importance to all who live and work in Northern Ireland, but it seems that the interests of the Northern Ireland economy have not been of high priority. That is one of the weaknesses of direct rule. Schemes such as these may be approved by Ministers who are not in possession of all the facts. These schemes or plots will have been thought up and implemented by the permanent residents of the Northern Ireland Office and other departments. That such things can and do happen emphasises the importance of the open discussion and partnership of which I spoke earlier.
Many have taken heart from what the Prime Minister said last Thursday. He was speaking in connection with an extraordinary proposal for joint sovereignty in Northern Ireland made by Mr. McNamara. The Prime Minister said that the Union is vital for all parts of the United Kingdom and has the democratic approval of the people of Northern Ireland. He also said that the Conservative and Unionist Party stand four square behind the union. The way in which the privatisation of NIE has been arranged and the plans for the other two privatisations do not line up with the Prime Minister's statement.
I am sorry to have taken up so much time, but in the view of business people in Northern Ireland, these affairs, which noble Lords might consider to be the nuts and bolts of the economy, are considered to be of very great importance. In the past seven days I have made soundings among leading people in business and industry and I have been overwhelmed by the strong feelings—nearly all to do with the lack of communication. I was showered with papers and briefings on all kinds of subjects with which there is not time to deal today.
In conclusion, I have been affected, as have all others, by the recent bombing and the efforts of the security forces in finding bombs. I know of the courage and disregard for personal safety of the police
1674
in clearing people out of the way when there have been quite inadequate bomb warnings. It has been quite remarkable. The work of the bomb disposal teams, who are on duty 24 hours a day—and have been for 25 years—is also remarkable. I believe that they have managed to make safe 3.000 to 4,000 bombs of all sorts and sizes. Their courage is indeed remarkable and we owe a lot to them. I wish to support the Motion.
1.35 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I was especially interested in the concise, informative and practical introduction of this order by the Minister. He dealt with a number of issues which I feel are deserving of some attention. I have also listened with considerable interest to the speeches of my noble friend Lord Fitt and the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, raised a number of challenging issues which I am sure will continue for some time to have the attention of this House.
In passing, I shall refer to one matter mentioned by both my noble friend Lord Fitt and the noble Lord, Lord Cooke—that is to say, the proposed devolved Northern Ireland Assembly. I was surprised to hear my noble friend saying that he would like to see it set up immediately. From memory, I believe that he was a member of two assemblies. There were more attempts to set up assemblies. I agree that an opportunity should be given to the people of Northern Ireland to deal with those matters which require action. That can be read in more detail in another submission I made that opinion is not available at the present time to bring about that assembly in any democratic fashion. My noble friend and I can have a discussion about that outside the House.
After a debate on this order lasting two and a half hours in another place on 24th June, the renewal of this order was made without a Division. Therefore, my remarks will be brief. Since the legislation was debated 12 months ago, we have had publication of the Opsahl Commission report on Northern Ireland. It is entitled A Citizen's Inquiry. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library by the Commission.
My submission to the Commission was among about 554 written submissions made by about 3,000 people. I feel that it is relevant to this debate that I outline five of the points which I expressed to the Commission. I believe that they are particularly relevant to what has already been debated in this House.
The first is that the hopes for the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 have clearly not been fulfilled. Secondly, the major reason for the failure and the lack of complete success for the subsequent talks was the total rejection of the agreement by the unionists. In my view, that was due in part to the exclusion of the unionist Members of Parliament from the Anglo-Irish preparation talks. No responsible or self-respecting Welshman, Scotsman or Englishman would have allowed those talks to take place without being involved in them. It was a disgrace. However, that happened and we are trying to rectify the position as it exists today.

1675
There was also the failure of the Government effectively to deal with the disputed claims of the republic over Northern Ireland and Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. The third point that I made to the Commission was that there must be a commitment from all the Northern Ireland constitutional parties that they will participate fully in any agreed settlement. It cannot be done piecemeal.
My fourth point was that I believe that Northern Ireland's immediate future can best be served by a continuation and democratic reform of direct rule. In my submission, I also included my belief that there should be a resumption of the "talks" on agreed principles, and that Articles 2 and 3 should be at the top of the agenda. They should be given a priority place, together with a major reform of the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. An international agreement is in place and any future discussions must be firmly based on change and on the agreement being made more generally acceptable.
My fifth point was that future talks should include provision for a three-year strategic programme for Northern Ireland for good government, covering security, economic development, social need and a Bill of Rights. I am concerned and depressed because all the talks are about international affairs and all the definitions relate to international law which is beyond the understanding of the ordinary people in Northern Ireland. I feel that that is completely wrong. We should be discussing the bringing together of people. Even if the border were removed tomorrow, it is the people of Ireland both North and South —and particularly the people of Northern Ireland—who must learn to live together. That can be achieved only by friendship and agreement.
I make this speech following the discussion that has already taken place on this order and with a view to clearing the decks for a new round of talks. I invite the Minister to consider the verbal exchanges that took place in another place on 1st July, as reported at col. 1090 of Hansard. Perhaps I may paraphrase a question that was raised during Northern Ireland Questions. It was said that the first paragraph of the Anglo-Irish Agreement does not spell out that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, and that as long as the South of Ireland insists on its legal claims over Northern Ireland, there will be a question over Northern Ireland's constitutional position. Those points were put to Sir Patrick Mayhew. I shall now quote from his reply. The Secretary of State said:
"The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is correct. One of the reasons why I believe that it would be helpful to have a successor to the Anglo-Irish Agreement is that it would provide an opportunity to express, by agreement, an unambiguous statement of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. I have said previously that I consider that those two articles in the Irish Constitution are unhelpful to the process in which all participants in the talks last year were engaged".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/93; col. 1090.]
I hang the rest of my remarks on that logical and reasoned reply. I invite the Minister to consider drawing to the attention of the Secretary of State the views expressed in this debate and the support for his efforts to establish a suitable framework for a new
1676
round of talks. The framework should include the following: first, a suitable redefinition and clarification of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement; and secondly, the provision of a British-Northern Ireland-Republic Committee, appointed from the elected parliamentary representatives of Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic, to consult and deliberate on economic, social and cross-border matters of mutual interest and for the common good. Finally, the fiscal implications of all proposed provisions and measures should be fully explored and publicly presented before legislative changes are undertaken. I believe that this is the bottom line of all the ideological, philosophical and academic aspects to the statements (both public and private) that have been floating around. With those remarks, I support the order.
1.44 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, this is an "interim period extension" order and those words describe, in a nutshell, all that is worst about the system of government in Northern Ireland. First, an interim period extension after 19 long years is rather a contradiction in terms. The dictionary definition of "interim" includes "for the time being", "temporary" and "provisional". However, that system must provide for the most uncertain government in the world—an ideal breeding ground for subversion.
Secondly, enough has been said in another place about the unsatisfactory nature of this largely undemocratic system of government. All parties in your Lordships' House and in another place are, I believe, uncomfortable with these frequent Orders in Council.
It is not necessary to dwell on the order for too long. After all, it comes before us every year. But it is worthwhile looking forward to see whether it is reasonable to believe that the system of government could be changed. Accepting the inadequacy of what we have, only two options are left. The first is devolution to an assembly or whatever; the second is fuller integration with the remainder of the United Kingdom. Devolution must be the favoured option and, indeed, the Government would seem to prefer that. However, it can come about only with the participation of the SDLP and Unionist parties and then by the assembly, or whatever, showing that in practical terms it would be responsible enough to have serious powers devolved to it. Those two areas are where we have had serious problems over the past 20 years.
The participation of all parties in a system of government in Northern Ireland is just not possible at present, in my view, regardless of how optimistically one views "the talks". I do not believe that John Hume and the SDLP have any intention, regardless of the formula, of taking part in devolved power sharing in Northern Ireland. There are two reasons. First, John Hume wishes to see a united Ireland, and he is permitted that wish. He says that that should come about only through the democratic wishes of the majority. As we all know, if that is ever to happen (which is doubtful), it is a long way down the road.

1677
However, he feels that between now and then he can achieve a united Ireland through other means. Why else would he be talking to Sinn Fein which has an Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other? It is a view held by many people, including commentators in the Irish press in Dublin, that Mr. Hume does not wish to see power sharing within the Province alone.
The second reason is the Anglo-Irish Agreement. John Hume's closeness to the Irish Government leads him to believe that he holds more power through them than he would have by contributing to a locally elected forum. In addition, he believes that he is closer to a united Ireland than ever.
I believe that Mr. Reynolds should disillusion him and should tell him the truth about what is possible. He should stop kidding him. The South does not want the North in its present state, with horrific terrorism, racketeering and immense cost to its rather shaky economy. The message must be clear, "Stop fooling around and pretending that you are some great statesman, Mr. Hume. If you are, go back to your community and sort things out with your fellow countrymen. You cannot do it from the outside".
The second stumbling block is that a successful democracy is bound to be a healthy one. Indeed, that is the key to a community operating as a well ordered and soundly structured society. It is like a pyramid, similar in structure to a traditional village community, with the working people at the base, then the business and professional people, and further up, the controllers and representatives of higher authority. In Northern Ireland, that system has broken down, and the longer it goes on, the more irretrievable it is.
The people at the base, especially those in Belfast and Londonderry, would do anything to change what is going on. I refer, for example, to the peace people and all those involved in cross-community groups. But where are the middle strata? They have largely opted out of politics arid security. They cannot be found supporting the peace people, yet they are the educated ones—doctors. teachers, accountants, business managers and prosperous farmers. They have the education, the man-management skills, the large resources, and homes outside the worst trouble spots. They should be influential. They can lead by example and influence those whom they manage and whose welfare is largely their responsibility. That middle stratum is vital in supporting and producing representatives—in our case MPs—and in influencing them in the requirements of society at grass roots, business and every other level.
Sadly, such people seem to take very little part in this vital role outside their own professions. Like many others, I have admiration for their determination, which has kept businesses going over the past 23 years of the troubles. However, as they are dependent upon the community for their success and prosperity, do they not have a larger responsibility to lead and support it? Non-involvement has led to an unhealthy, fractured society. The representatives in public life can react only to the emotion and referenda that we seem to have daily in the local press. They have little or no
1678
power, even at council level, and that is said to be the reason for the lack of talented people becoming involved.
The Secretary of State, in a speech to the Institute of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool on 23rd April talked about giving authority and accountability to the people. He said:
"This in itself would have the benign effect of encouraging citizens of calibre to come forward into public life in greater numbers than at present and from quarters, such as the business world, inadequately represented at the moment".
But which comes first—more power, or more responsible people? Is it the chicken or the egg? But if the chicken is dead or impractical, there can be no egg.
I see the problem, for much of which the Government, in retaining this form of direct rule, are responsible. However, it is no good that section of the population sitting back doing very little. It has been said, "For evil to prevail, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing." The question has to be asked: how can a responsible Westminster Government devolve significant powers to a community which does not seem to have the social responsibility to manage those powers? If the answer is that they cannot, as it may be, can my noble friend the Minister explain what the Government intend to do to encourage those people to take part? In addition, if the answer is no to devolution, that leaves full or closer integration and a stable base for a number of years, not just one at a time. The most important change must be to accountability and responsibility. For a start we should have a Commons Select Committee and Bills instead of Orders in Council.
The benefits of a stable base for, say, a period of five to 10 years before review, would be increased responsibility and encouragement of the middle stratum to take part. Also, the SDLP might take part in normal politics rather than run to Dublin the whole time. The Unionists would be less frightened of possible betrayal and of the SDLP achieving its aim by undemocratic means. The most important point is that the terrorists would find that they had nothing, on either side, to fight to achieve or to defend in the short term.
No doubt my noble friend the Minister will wish to say that that solution does not have universal support. That reply is largely redundant: nothing will have total support. However, the Government use that argument only when it suits them. They did not use it for the Anglo-Irish Agreement or for the privatisation of many industries.
I support the Motion for the time being only. In the meantime, the Government must make a move towards providing a stable, no-nonsense base from which to work for the future and for devolving power to the Province.
1.55 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may preface my remarks by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on his magnificent contribution. It was all the more telling because he has never been a unionist of any kind. Secondly, I assure the Minister, whom outside the Chamber I would call my noble friend. that nothing I am about to say should be taken as a

1679
criticism of him or of the present Secretary of State, who is doing no more than follow the path marked out over the decades by successive British governments.
It has been some time since I have spoken in one of these debates. I was only provoked into doing so by a remark from the Government Front Bench on 29th June. I was supporting an amendment to what we know informally as the Maastricht Bill. It was an amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, which sought to identify how much of our cohesion money would go to countries which made territorial claims upon the United Kingdom, its colonies or other possessions. In doing so, I expressed astonishment that a treaty which (among other things) sought to encourage friendship and co-operation among the different nations and peoples of the community, did nothing to discourage such inherently unfriendly claims. Later, I intervened to point out that (in the case of Ireland, even though not yet in the case of Spain) such claims could only encourage the terrorists to maintain and even, perhaps, intensify their efforts.
In reply, the Minister (I acknowledge he was merely speaking to his brief) said that the new clause, if implemented would highlight unnecessarily and in an unwanted and unhelpful manner certain problems. What an extraordinary reaction, if one looks at it objectively, and yet how typical of the British establishment's attitude towards the Republic of Ireland.
Any British government would have criticised Chancellor Kohl sharply had he not abandoned Germany's claim to the western provinces of Poland. The British Government have no hesitation in condemning Spain's claims to Gibraltar and the Argentine's claim to the Falklands. In the latter case, a recent dignified and impressive statement by the eight Falkland Islands councillors, rejecting the Argentine's offer of friendship until such time as it renounced its territorial claim, is worth quoting. The eight councillors wrote to the Argentine Foreign Minister, Dr. di Tella, on 28th April 1993. Among other things they said:
"these assurances offer little comfort while your country's claim to our home and our homeland remains outstanding … It is Argentina's continuing territorial claim which contaminates"—
that is a good word—
"what should be a normal and natural relationship between neighbours".
To that I would add only, hear, hear!
Yet the British Government's praiseworthy resolution, and adherence to principles of normal, civilised intercourse between nations, evaporates as soon as Ireland is mentioned. One is forced to conclude that if many of Northern Ireland's problems are the fault of successive governments in the Republic for demanding constantly that the goalposts be moved to the disadvantage of the unionist majority, even more at fault are successive British governments for encouraging those demands by failing to resist them and acquiescing in almost everything and criticising practically nothing that emanates from the Republic. That has had consequences both farcical and disastrous. First of all, farcical. In 1982, an order was
1680
rushed through Parliament liberalising the law relating to homosexual behaviour between consenting adult males in Northern Ireland. The then Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, warned the House that unless the change was implemented speedily the United Kingdom would be a pariah among nations, and pilloried at the bar of world opinion for being the last nation in Europe to make such conduct not criminal in a part of the Kingdom.
Yet, over 10½ years later, only just the other day did we read that the Republic has at last liberalised its own laws. Did the United Kingdom ever criticise the Republic in public or in private over its failure to abandon what the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, had effectively described as illiberal, reactionary outmoded laws? Your Lordships can be certain that they did not.
Next, the disastrous consequences. It is accurate to say—the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, more or less confirmed it in his remarks—that the Sunningdale Agreement, providing for the setting up of a power-sharing executive, was going extremely well until Irish Government representatives asked for a Council of Ireland, essentially as a bargaining counter, not expecting for one moment that the request would be granted. However, the British Government, desperately anxious to please as always, immediately granted the request, producing the inevitably disastrous reaction among unionists which destroyed the experiment.
If negotiator A constantly bends over backwards to placate negotiator B, that is bound in time to provoke two reactions in negotiator B. The first is a certain contempt, even if it is well concealed. The second is a suspicion, perhaps well-founded, that he is being patronised by negotiator A. After all, if one party to negotiations always defers to the other party, there are only four possible reasons for him doing so.
The first is when the other party is militarily powerful and aggressive, such as Communist China vis-à-vis Hong Kong. We can rule that one out. The second reason is when other parties are unpredictable people from strange and exotic civilisations, such as 19th century explorers, missionaries and traders might have encountered in their travels. But the Irish form part of our common European civilisation, so we can rule that one out too. The third reason is when you suspect that the other party is mentally unbalanced. Despite saloon-bar clichés about mad Irishmen, we can rule that one out as well. Finally, we have the situation where nervous parents are dealing with an aggressive and bloody-minded adolescent. Terrified of a violent outburst they tiptoe around deferring to his or her every whim. This, I fear, is much nearer the mark.
Ever since 1918 the British Establishment has subconsciously imagined that the Irish are going through a difficult adolescent phase which will not last indefinitely, and that provided they are treated with kid gloves and given hand-outs from time to time they will eventually relent and return gratefully to the fold. If that analysis were ever true, which I doubt, it certainly has not been true for 30 years or more. The Irish are fully grown men and women and they have no intention ever of returning to the British fold.

1681
Therefore, constantly to make allowances for them, and constantly to lean over backwards to avoid any possibility of giving offence, is not an act of kindness but an insult, in that it implies that they are immature. Mature men and women are not worried about being spoken to courteously but frankly and are more than capable of accepting criticism where it is due.
On my rare visits to the South of Ireland on holiday I always find that most people I meet are friendly, helpful and generous, with the rare gift of being able to enjoy themselves hugely in a relaxed and unmenacing fashion. We could do with more of that over here. If they have a particular vice—and most nations and peoples do; certainly the Welsh, English and Scots—it is a tendency, not universal but widespread, to lapse from time to time into a self-pitying sentimentality. The excessively emollient British Establishment attitude does nothing to help them to cure themselves of that vice. Unfortunately, it reinforces it.
That self-pitying sentimentality is particularly unfortunate and inappropriate where Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution are concerned, since every visit to the South confirms my strong impression, and that of many others, that the Irish grow more and more different from the British—not better or worse, just different—every year that goes by, in particular since they joined the EC. In practice as opposed to theory they would never be prepared to alter their laws, habits, lifestyles, loyalties, culture and general preferences to the extent necessary to accommodate one million unionists. The result of the EC referendum in Northern Ireland, where despite what was effectively the promise of massive bribes to vote "yes", confirms that. Thirty-one per cent. of the electorate were prepared to put their traditional way of life above mere financial gain and they must be greatly admired for so doing.
So the refusal to abandon territorial claims without wholly unacceptable strings attached is not only inherently unfriendly and inconsistent with the objective of increasing friendship between peoples of different countries of the EC, but it also bears no relationship to what the great mass of people in the South now want in their heart of hearts. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough reminded us of that.
The British should try to abandon their habits of generations and start treating the Irish as adults—as, for example, they treat the Danes or the Norwegians; people who numerically are each about equal to the Irish—instead of subconsciously treating them as difficult and aggressive adolescents to be constantly humoured and pandered to. In turn, the Irish should not wait for this change in attitude, which may take some time, but should of their own free will unilaterally and unreservedly renounce their territorial claim, thereby demonstrating their maturity and that their protestations of good will towards all the peoples of the United Kingdom are sincere and wholehearted.
2.5 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, this has been a notable debate on a depressing subject. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1993 is a sad point in the parliamentary calendar of Northern Ireland business, as we contemplate a temporary measure which has persisted for a generation. We all know that it is no way for Northern Ireland. to be governed. Northern Ireland should be governed by its people and that is what we should address our minds to, as we are today.
I thank and congratulate noble Lords who have spoken. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who in their own ways made most impressive contributions. I agreed with a great deal of what they said. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, but disagreed with a great deal.
I believe that in Northern Ireland three strong and dangerously incompatible sets of forces are operating simultaneously. First, the political parties which represent the two communities are so stuck in their history, traditions and sectarian positions that they believe even now that it is better to play to the gallery of fear and prejudice than to take the risks which are essential for peace and progress. That tendency is exacerbated by the second set of forces, which are the increasingly deadly activities of terrorists of both persuasions. They are now terrifying the civilian population with their reckless escalation of tit-for-tat violence. It must be apparent to anyone who spends time in Northern Ireland—and some noble Lords live there—that in recent months the climate of fear has intensified. Many ordinary people who display exactly the stoicism referred to by the Minister in his eloquent introduction are now seriously rattled by the continuing and growing level of bombing and shooting.
In the twisted logic of the terrorist it has become a capital offence simply to worship at a different church or to be a member of a different community. It is no longer that one has taken part actively in leadership or terrorist activities. It is not simply a matter of terrorism and counter-terrorism; the war is spreading to totally innocent members of the community. believe that we should all remember that the loyalist paramilitaries are now every bit as menacing as the Provisional IRA.
I have noticed how in Italy over the years, with the Mafia, one sees political terrorism and economic terrorism intermingling. I should like to say how much we have supported the Government's efforts to try to stop the encroachment of terrorism into the economic sphere.
The first force is the political parties. The second is the paramilitaries. Finally, and most hopefully in my view, are the ordinary people of the Province. They have a strong and overwhelming wish—over 80 per cent. in a Gallup poll last week—for peace and for some movement forward. It is heartening that the ordinary people of Northern Ireland are beginning to find a voice. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that too many people have relapsed

1683
into private lives and have not felt that they could, in that terrible atmosphere, grapple with public responsibility. That is a true observation. Nevertheless, it is true also that there is a growing popular sentiment which says that talks must be resumed and that progress has to be made. The 500 plus submissions to the Opsahl Commission to which the noble Lord, Lord Blease, referred are a promising measurement of that.
The situation is that the terrorists are increasingly threatening on both sides. The leaderships of sectarian political parties are too stuck in their own stereotypes to make any break with the past and the general population seems to be yearning for leadership, yet it is becoming increasingly insecure about the level of violence. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, there is a spreading crisis of confidence.
In that situation it is for the British Government to be firm and creative. I wish that the British Government would call together for talks the four constitutional parties and put proposals directly to those talks. I hope that they will do that, not jointly with the Irish Government but in consultation with them. I say in parenthesis that I hope that we do not decide to be too beastly to the leadership of the Republic of Ireland. I believe that in Mr. Spring as Foreign Minister and in Mary Robinson as President we now have rational post-civil war leadership of the Republic of a quality and openness that we have not been fortunate to see for a long time. Whatever errors they may have made in their press relations, we are fortunate to be dealing with people of the highest calibre who can make a contribution. It is worth reminding ourselves that Mr. Spring said that Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution—and they are a major problem and a great source of insecurity—are not cast in bronze. The issue about Articles 2 and 3 must be soluble.
If it is known—and it is known—that in certain circumstances the Irish Government are prepared to resile from those articles and to cast them as a long-term aspiration rather than an immediate territorial claim, and if it is known that it is very important for the security of the unionist population to know that that will happen, it cannot be beyond the ingenuity of the British Government under their creative chairmanship to make quite certain that rather than becoming a precondition of resumed talks they become an implicit condition. That is a soluble problem and in many ways it is for the British Government to solve it.
The view from these Benches corresponds rather closely with those put forward by other noble Lords in the debate. We believe that the future of Northern Ireland depends essentially on not thinking of sovereignty as a matter which rests primarily with the United Kingdom or primarily with the Republic of Ireland. We should think of it as sovereignty resting primarily with the people of Northern Ireland responsible for governing themselves within the United Kingdom. Therefore, we are looking for devolution and for power sharing.
1684
There are some other rather urgent areas for the Government's attention that I hope they will address. It was not helpful for the former Minister of the armed forces, Mr. Archie Hamilton, to talk about 25 per cent. troop reductions in Northern Ireland. That cannot be a helpful contribution at this time of great insecurity. Of course, he is now a Back-Bencher and he can say what he wants, but I hope that in winding up the debate the noble Earl will address himself specifically to that possibility—a fear that was started by someone with Mr. Hamilton's seniority.
Secondly, and related to that, I hope that the Government will address what seems to be a real problem in the co-ordination of intelligence in Northern Ireland. That applies to the mainland as well as Northern Ireland itself.
The right honourable Sir Edward Heath referred to the inadequacy of intelligence co-ordination. If we are to have policemen and soldiers of the calibre that we have in Northern Ireland they can only be effective if there is integrated and consistently good intelligence coming forward to them. There is much evidence of a lack of co-ordination, of cross-agency competition and of a lack of clarity about who is in charge of giving them the vital information upon which they depend.
Thirdly, I believe that the Government would be well advised to take seriously the results of the recent survey concerning the social and economic conditions of the Catholic nationalists and minority community. I concede that the Government and others, including many voluntary agencies, have made great efforts to raise the standard of living and the life chances of the Catholic community. However, it is still lagging seriously behind that of the majority community.
As other speakers have urged, I hope that the Government will address themselves directly to the deep and genuine insecurity of the unionists. For that reason, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, with whom I work very closely on such matters, I must say that I do not believe that Mr. NcNamara's proposal for joint sovereignty was in any way helpful at the present juncture; indeed, I think that it has contributed to the insecurity which is the greatest problem in the Province.
In conclusion, what we are looking for from these Benches is rapid progress towards the people of Northern Ireland governing themselves in the context of genuine power sharing and genuine devolution with the introduction of a Bill of Rights to back that up and protect the rights of individuals in the minority community. In short, what we need in Northern Ireland—and this bears on the wise remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough—is involvement instead of indifference; we need responsibility instead of rhetoric; and we need a greater degree of participation instead of the passive opting out of which we have seen too much.
2.16 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, your Lordships will be pleased to he assured that I shall be brief. Sadly, we agree that the 1974 Act which imposed the machinery of direct rule upon Northern Ireland must be renewed for another 12 months. When we debated the identical

1685
order 12 months ago, there were grounds for believing that we could begin to contemplate the coming of the day when the Northern Ireland Act 1974 would no longer have to be renewed. Of course, I accept that my noble friends Lord Blease and Lord Fitt did not fully share that optimism. Both of them have a thorough understanding of the mood in Northern Ireland.
But by today the spirit of optimism of the past few years has drained away and been replaced by a degree of pessimism. I cannot go back to the passing of the 1974 Act, but I can recall the mood since about 1987. I believe that the pessimism about the political prospects is greater today than it has been for many a year.
My bleak assessment is based on the following evidence. First, the fact that the Government have been unable to persuade the political parties within Northern Ireland to reopen talks. That suggests very clearly to me that the present leaders of the parties may be prisoners of their past. There is no evidence that I can see of any significant political movement towards the centre. Indeed, the Community Relations Council in the July issue of its magazine refers to the "political stagnation" in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, the local government elections last May —with a turnout across the Province of about 55 per cent.—showed that ordinary people were solid in their allegiance to the republican and the unionist cause and indeed that they had hardened in their loyalties to their faith. Sinn Fein and Dr. Paisley's Unionist Party, reversed their electoral decline. Obviously both camps are firmly opposed to compromise. They have been opposed to the kind of political compromise which London and Dublin have been seeking for some years past.
Thirdly, there is the significant finding of the Opsahl Commission—it is based on evidence which it collected from about 3,000 people—that one must establish parity of esteem in what it called "the legal sense" between the two communities. Unfortunately the commission did not offer a model as regards the structures for achieving that. I believe that that concept requires a leap of imagination on behalf of politicians and policy makers which may be absent.
On top of all that, as we have heard this morning, the level of terrorism and its dreadful consequences is not declining. As the Minister has said, the security forces have achieved some significant successes during the year. The Minister picked out one or two of those for special comment. He rightly paid tribute to the courage and skills of members of the security forces. We on these Benches wish to be associated with his tribute. But there is nevertheless a widespread perception that campaigns of violence are becoming a permanent feature of the Northern Ireland landscape.
The Minister's speech was rather thin on the current political background. I do not say that as a criticism of the Minister, as I believe that that is bound to be the case. If my assessment of the position is fundamentally flawed, the Minister will no doubt quickly correct me when he replies to the debate. Indeed I would he delighted if he could be more positive about the political developments which the Government believe are possible and are durable.
1686
We do not want to maintain direct rule for one day longer than is absolutely necessary. Northern Ireland is a highly literate society. It is a remarkable paradox that a society which equipped itself with an education system and a university has to live under legislation which can be produced, amended and cancelled by a stroke of the Minister's pen and without arty proper parliamentary scrutiny.
To sum up, I would say that, while we support the renewal for 12 months of direct rule. I deeply regret that the political momentum towards a settlement which had slowly been building up since about 1983 appears to have been halted. However, I pray and hope that it has not been reversed.
2.22 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, once again I am grateful to your Lordships for the valuable contributions made to the debate today. I shall reply to as many points as possible within what I hope I may refer to as the sensitivity of time. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is not in the Chamber at present but I wish to comment on his remarks because similar points were made by other speakers, too.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made a number of illuminating observations about insecurity in the Protestant community. I am sure all noble Lords will have reflected carefully on what he said. The noble Lord made a particular point that was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and upon which I wish to comment. The noble Lord indicated that constitutional uncertainty fed fears in the community and helped to explain the levels of violence. However, as recently as last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State stated in another place that an overriding objective of the Government in the talks is to secure unambiguous agreement on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured by that and will accept that it is a substantial reason for developing political dialogue.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, also suggested that three-stranded talks were over-ambitious. I can appreciate why he may feel that way but at the same time it has been recognised by both governments and the Northern Ireland parties that if a comprehensive settlement is to be achieved, it must recognise all the relevant relationships —hence the structure for talks that was agreed in the previous Secretary of State's Statement of 26th March, 1991.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, made a number of adverse comments about the administration of government under direct rule, and referred to the democratic deficit which currently exists. We certainly recognise that the structures of government may not be regarded as ideal. It is very much an objective of ours to return greater authority and responsibility to Northern Ireland's own elected representatives. To achieve that we believe the way forward lies through the political talks, which hold out the prospect of devising new arrangements which would command support throughout the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, then raised the question of the trust fund to limit tariff increases this

1687
year. I have nothing to add to the statement made in another place on 8th July this year by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
As regards the Scottish interconnector, NIE took a commercial decision to proceed with the interconnector, which it considered to be the best available option for meeting the capacity shortfall around the middle of the decade. The advantages which NIE recognised that the interconnector offered include the ending of the isolation of the Northern Ireland electricity system, improved fuel diversity and additional capacity to meet peak demands. As regards price levels, the life of the interconnector is likely to be more than 30 years and, assuming that a pool can be established to allow full supply competition, it will be for the regulator to determine prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, also raised the question of the enabling legislation for the privatisation of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. I would explain that Northern Ireland Orders in Council are made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, which Act enables Parliament to deal, by Order in Council, with those legislative matters in the transferred field which in circumstances other than direct rule would be dealt with by a devolved administration in Northern Ireland. The ports order is classed as primary legislation in the transferred category. Such legislation is still drafted in terms of Northern Ireland assembly procedure rather than parliamentary procedure. That assembly-based legislation is, in effect, stepped down by the 1974 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, also asked about the decision to privatise Belfast Airport by trade sale. I can advise him that the consultation period for legislation introducing the privatisation of Belfast Airport has been extended by a short period and comments are still being submitted to the DoE for discussion. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the arguments for a trade sale or public flotation until all comments on the draft order have had the Environment Minister's serious consideration. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, will be aware that the issue of the method of sale was raised in another place last week when an undertaking was given by the Minister that there would be a thorough examination of both options before a final decision was reached.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, reported the comments of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place last week. I shall not add to what he said. However I take note of the issues which he believes the talks should address. One of the advantages of the talks process is that it allows the participants to raise issues affecting all the key relationships—within Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic and between the two governments.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough made some interesting comments about the difficulties of returning greater responsibility to Northern Ireland's elected representatives. If my noble friend will allow, I should like to reflect on what he said. However, I am aware that my right honourable friend is strongly of
1688
the view that there is much potential talent at political level in Northern Ireland and that were greater powers to be returned, that talent would respond accordingly.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Cheltenham, made some interesting points during his speech. As regards force levels, I believe that he knows that they are kept under continual review.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. He is covering an enormous amount of ground and I would not want to rub his nose in it, but he conflated the names of two noble Lords—myself and the noble Lord, Lord Cooke.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I apologise.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I believe that the result was an honour to both noble Lords.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope that we can return to total sanity on this matter.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, was concerned about force levels. Of course we keep these under review all the time. That also applies to the importance of intelligence which is handled with coherence and great care again at all times.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, suggested that the Government should put ideas to the Northern Ireland parties. I can confirm for him that the Government are currently developing a scheme, or sketch map, to give directions and focus to new talks. The Government are happy to discuss their ideas for a scheme with all the participants before it is finalised. However, as the noble Lord suggested, it will be a British paper.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord PrysDavies, had to leave; he gave me notice of that. However, I say to him, and to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that naturally we should all feel happier if, following the conclusion of the talks last November, the various parties had by now found their way back to the negotiating table. But I do not believe that noble Lords would be right to be pessimistic. Both the British and Irish Governments continue to believe that the objectives of the process remain valid and achievable and at the intergovernmental conference restated their determination to continue to make every effort to achieve those objectives through direct discussions with and negotiations between all parties concerned. As noble Lords are aware, the British Government are in contact with the participants from the previous talks and intend through further private consultation to go on developing common ground, thus making progress towards further dialogue. We are firmly of the view that that is what the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland would wish and both Governments will continue to use their best endeavours to bring further dialogue about.
In conclusion, I can only echo the hope expressed by many today that it will not be much longer before the present temporary arrangements for handling Northern Ireland affairs can be put to an end. The Government believe that the best chance of achieving new arrangements lies in dialogues between the main

1689
constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
Your Lordships may be assured that we are working with steady determination to promote further talks to establish a new beginning in respect of the three key relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the two Governments. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1993
2.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th May be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army Act 1955 and Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the basis for the disciplinary arrangements of the three services. The concept of annual parliamentary approval of the special legal position of the service personnel, subject as they are to the constraints of military discipline as well as to the rule of civil law, is a long-established one in British constitutional practice. As your Lordships also know, every five years the service disciplinary system is reviewed in depth, and an Armed Forces Act is passed making such amendments to those systems as are considered necessary. The last time such an Act was passed was in July 1991. As your Lordships will recall, the Select Committee in another place which considered the Armed Forces Bill made a number of recommendations in its report published in April 1991. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to refer to a couple of those recommendations and to report progress.
The Select Committee made two recommendations in particular about the employment of young people in the armed forces. The first recommendation was that the Ministry of Defence should examine the terms of enlistment for under 18 year-olds to make it easier for them to leave, if they wished to do so. There is no evidence to show that there is widespread dissatisfaction among under 18 year-olds either about their terms of service or the advice they receive on their rights to claim discharge. I should emphasise that any extension of a minor's rights to leave would cause unacceptable manning difficulties for the services. Nevertheless, in the light of the committee's views, the services have reviewed their position.
The Navy already had provision to allow discretion to discharge under-18 year-olds who find they are unable to settle to service life. The other two services have now adopted a similar provision. These arrangements are in addition to the statutory rights of discharge. I can assure your Lordships that the recruiting staff are meticulous in ensuring that recruits and their parents or guardians fully understand the
1690
commitment being entered into; and, of course, recruits under the age of 18 require their parents' or guardians' written consent to enlist, and all receive a "Notice Paper" which states their terms of enlistment and the earliest date at which they can leave. In addition to this, there is a leaflet given to all new recruits, entitled Your Rights and Responsibilities, which has now been amended to include a note on the right to claim discharge; this leaflet was re-issued last autumn.
The second matter to which the Committee referred was ethnic monitoring. We announced in May 1992 in another place the decision to introduce in-service ethnic monitoring. I know that a number of your Lordships have, over the years, expressed an interest in the subject. That will involve the distribution of ethnic monitoring questionnaires to all serving personnel and the analysis of these questionnaires will follow.
We intend to begin the ethnic origin survey later this year. It is disappointing that, despite the efforts made to encourage their recruitment, the ethnic minorities still only represent about 1 per cent. of all recruits. I think it is important to emphasise that the services remain fully committed to the idea of increasing recruitment from the ethnic minorities. However, it is equally true that it is likely to take many years of sustained effort before we see any significant increase.
The services have a range of measures in place to achieve this aim, including: increased use of recruiters from ethnic minorities; better representation of ethnic minority service personnel in recruiting literature; special training for recruiters; procluction of bro-chures in ethnic minority languages to target parents; and development of contacts with the appropriate communities.
We can do a great deal in this area, but nevertheless there is probably no substitute for example. The best proof of the good intentions of the services that a full career with satisfying promotion opportunities is available will be when we see more and more senior officers coming from the ethnic minorities as a result of careers recruitment.
I remind your Lordships that the services are fully integrated organisations and that we do not tolerate: discrimination. In view of complaints from your Lordships in this area, I emphasise that all Ministers and all senior officers and officials are wholly committed to the idea that any complaint of racial abuse or discrimination will be thoroughly investigated. If it is substantiated, appropriate action will be taken against the perpetrators.
There is another matter to which I should address myself, although we discussed it at the same time last year during the debate on the order. That is homosexuality. Your Lordships will recall that the Select Committee acknowledged that the Armed Forces should not be required to accept homosexuals, but recommended that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should no longer constitute an offence under service law. I told your Lordships last year that that recommendation had been accepted. This change in the law means that a serviceman who

1691
engages in a homosexual act that is legal in civilian law will not be prosecuted under service law, but will nevertheless be administratively discharged, as the phrase goes. However, I should emphasise that that change will not prevent the prosecution under service law of a serviceman who has committed an otherwise legal homosexual act where the grounds for prosecution were, for example, that the act was to the prejudice of good order and discipline or military efficiency.
I further informed your Lordships last year that action would be taken to amend that part of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which relates to the armed forces. Unfortunately, a suitable legislative opportunity to make the appropriate amendment to the law has not yet presented itself. I stress that it is a situation that we intend to remedy as soon as the legislative programme allows. Such a lacuna is unsatisfactory. It is a piece of tidying up which I am sure your Lordships would encourage the Government to pursue as soon as possible. Nevertheless, any delay in amending the legislation does not affect agreement to the Select Committee's recommendations. Indeed, the services have taken action to follow the recommendations administratively until such time as the law is changed.
The Select Committee also recommended that service courts should ensure that sentencing is equitable between the sexes. That gives me an opportunity to tell your Lordships that sentencing guidance has indeed been amended in the wake of the Select Committee's recommendations and that other relevant regulations are being amended where appropriate.
There may be a number of other matters which noble Lords may wish to raise during the course of this short debate and, with your Lordships' permission, if given the opportunity to reply, I shall endeavour to address myself to them. In the first instance, that is all I want to say at this stage except for one matter. It is perhaps a truism in this House to pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the men and women who serve in our armed forces. Nevertheless, I believe it is important that all in this House should take the opportunity to do so.
It is all too easy to forget those people, particularly in Northern Ireland, and the risks that they run, for which they sometimes receive very little thanks or appreciation. I have no doubt that their very considerable professionalism and personal effectiveness is enhanced by the fair and equitable system of disciple that operates in the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. Morale is considerably heightened by that sense of equity and fairness in the administration of discipline. As your Lordships will know, that system is founded upon the three service discipline Acts. Therefore I feel that it is entirely appropriate that I should ask your Lordships' approval for the draft order laid before the House on 26th May. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th May be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Cranborne.)
2.44 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the subjects raised on these annual debates are extraordinarily unvarying and familiar. That is a reflection of the failure of the Government to respond quickly and adequately to the recommendations made in Parliament. There is, for example, the noble Viscount's statement that there has been no time for a very short, simple and popular measure to remove the disparity between civil and military law on the matter of homosexuality.
I cannot see why there has been no time for such a measure. I can think of other Bills presented to Parliament which have taken a lot longer and which have been much less desirable and far less popular. I recall the time we spent on the War Crimes Bill and the time that we are now spending on the Railways Bill.
It may be that the Government are not seeking popularity. There is much evidence for that. If they are not seeking popularity, they are being extraordinarily successful at the present time, so much so I gather that the vote of support for my party is now well in excess of the vote of support for the noble Viscount's party.
It is time we had a simple Bill on the question of homosexual law. It is a difficult subject. Though I have personal opinions I am tentative about them in that they are coloured by my active service both as a commissioned officer and in the ranks over 50 years ago. Nevertheless, it is my view that in relation to recruitment and keeping people in the Army, the test should be conduct and not orientation. Both homosexual and heterosexual conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline should be punished, even if it amounts to no more than fairly mild sexual harassment. If homosexuals and heterosexuals cannot observe that degree of self-discipline, they should not have joined the forces in the first place. Service life is unique in many respects and calls for unique standards of discipline, including self-discipline.
Another point arises where the Government's view has been quite unchanged, despite powerful arguments put on both sides. It concerns capital punishment. The Government's view is that the threat of capital punishment should remain. They make that statement acceptable by invariably adding that that threat never has been and never will be carried out. That is what we were told last year. When the noble Viscount replies he will probably say the same thing. It has always seemed to me that that attitude is both illogical and weak. If that threat is considered to be a useful and effective deterrent, then the Government must seriously uphold it. As they do not uphold the threat, there is more likelihood that it will be wholly ineffective.
I invite the noble Viscount, when he replies, to give us an example of a situation where the threat of capital punishment may be effective. Let him paint a scenario in which, in conditions of extreme stress, a serviceman's conduct might be changed by the prospect—which has been made utterly remote and improbable by official statements and regulations—of him facing a firing squad. I challenge him to paint that

1693
scenario. In my view the time is long past when the disparity between military and civil law on that point should be removed.
I wish to raise one further point concerning ethnic minorities and the need for their greater representation in the forces. I do not question the goodwill of the Government on that point. They have made genuine efforts. But how disappointing are the results. Why do we have to wait for a questionnaire which we were promised three years ago? We are told that the process will not start until the autumn. I do not understand the delay. Perhaps the Minister can explain that.
It is profoundly disappointing that only around 1 per cent. of our forces are recruited from ethnic minorities. Perhaps the noble Viscount can tell us what is the most senior level a person of ethnic background has reached in the Armed Forces. How many commissioned and non-commissioned officers are there? Of course, conscription would solve the problem. Nevertheless, when we see in the United States of America that the most powerful and senior military figure in the world is a black man, it makes one despair of the situation in this country. We need to continue to make the most enormous efforts in this field.
Those are the only points I wish to put to the noble Viscount. But the fact is that another 12 months have passed with very little improvement on any of the subjects that I have raised. The admiration of the British public for the forces has probably never been higher—and never better deserved—than it is now. We must support the order but we hope that the Government will have much better things to report next year when we come to consider it again.
2.50 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing the order, and I am also happy to join him in the tribute he rightly paid, as indeed we both paid the other day, to the performance of our Armed Forces. It is without doubt due to them that we are living in this country in a comparatively safe environment, although there are dangers on all sides. Nevertheless, we all appreciate, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, the efforts of the Armed Forces and the way they conduct their business.
We have no intention of opposing the order because if we were to do so the Armed Forces might, under the Bill of Rights, cease to exist. Therefore, what we are doing is exploring certain areas which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, have been explored in the past and on which there has been relatively little action. I would number four areas. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out, is the question of capital punishment. It is extraordinary that we still have in the Armed Forces discipline five matters which are apparently subject to the death penalty. They are: serious misconduct in action; obstructing operations; mutiny or incitement to mutiny; failure to suppress mutiny; and assisting the enemy. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, invited the
1694
noble Viscount to describe a scenario where one of these matters could be applied. I shall help the noble Viscount by describing one such scenario.
Let us suppose, as the noble Viscount has mentioned Northern Ireland, that an IRA sniper aims his rifle at a British soldier. If he hits the British soldier and the British soldier is killed, the IRA sniper, if he or she is apprehended and convicted by due process of law, will not suffer the death penalty. If, on the other hand, the British soldier, appreciating that a sniper has aimed his or her rifle at him, runs away, then that soldier under our present disciplinary procedures is liable for capital punishment. That cannot be in any conceivable logic right. It is about time that the Government took a grip and lined up the disciplinary procedures, particularly in terms of capital punishment, in our Armed Forces with civilian procedures. In other words, treason is the only crime which should carry capital punishment. That should be the case for the Armed Forces as well as for civilians.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, also brought up the question of homosexual activity in the Armed Forces. The noble Viscount was kind enough to say that the Government had paid attention to the report of the Select Committee in another place. The problem that I have, apart from the legislation problem to which I shall come in a moment, is that when I read what Mr. Hanley said in introducing the order in another place I find myself in something of a difficulty. Mr. Hanley said:
"The services continue to believe strongly that the special conditions of service life preclude acceptance of homosexuals and homosexual behaviour".—[Official Report,Commons, 21/6/93; col. 124.]
For the life of me I cannot see why, just because somebody is a homosexual—leaving aside whatever practices he or she may engage in—that is in any sense a question of military discipline and discharge. It is for the Government to say what they think about homosexual behaviour, but homosexuality in itself seems to me to be something which many people have. They may not engage in homosexual activity. While decriminalising homosexual activity and keeping it as a criminal offence from the point of view of the Armed Forces, that is a very odd proposition. That is what I understand the Minister said in another place. I very much hope that the noble Viscount will correct what the Minister said or enlighten me by saying that I am wrong in the matter.
If (as he said) the noble Viscount is worried that there is no legislative time for implementing the recommendations of the Select Committee on homosexuality', perhaps I may offer a suggestion. I am perfectly prepared to introduce in this House a Private Member's Bill or to encourage one of my noble friends to do so and at any time. If the Government were to say that they would support it, the Bill would go through the normal processes in your Lordships' House and then go to another place. Then the Government will decide there whether they wish to give it time. I make that offer in all sincerity and with the greatest degree of good will. It is a bit odd that we

1695
are told time and again as regards many recommendations that there is no legislative time. There is always legislative time available. I make that offer to the noble Viscount.
As regards ethnic monitoring, which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned, it is very disappointing that we have made so little progress. When the noble Viscount comes to reply, I hope very much that he will be able to tell us not just that we are sending out a questionnaire 18 months late, but that we are stepping up the recruitment of ethnic minorities into our Armed Forces. After all, traditionally, and in the loosest secular sense, in times of high unemployment there is high recruitment for the Armed Forces. That has always been the case. It is also the case that we are in a period of high unemployment and we are likely to continue to be so. Indeed, unemployment falls hardest on the ethnic minorities.
Therefore, it would be sensible and logical if the ethnic minorities were encouraged, in one way or another—it is for the Government to decide which way they do it—to join the Armed Forces. That would redress the imbalance which all noble Lords regret.
My last point concerns the role of women in the Armed Forces. I understand that they are now allowed and indeed encouraged to drive armoured personnel carriers in the front line, particularly in Northern Ireland. Are there to be any further changes in the role of women in the Armed Forces? If so, can the noble Viscount say what they are to be and how are those decisions arrived at? When the noble Viscount replies, I hope that he will be able to give us some information on that subject.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in saying that the Government have many questions to answer. There are difficulties and there have been difficulties. We seem to be debating the same questions over and over again, year after year. Nonetheless, that does not discourage me from giving a welcome to the Motion because I believe that our Armed Forces should be encouraged. If I have asked what I hope are some rather pertinent questions, that does not mean in any way that we not not appreciate the role that our Armed Forces play.
2.59 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for the tributes that they paid to our Armed Forces. The last thing that I would ever impute to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is the capacity not to ask pertinent questions. He has already proved that he is well able to do that.
Both noble Lords made a number of points which, with your Lordships' permission, I would like to address. I start with the question of legislation on homosexuality. Both noble Lords expressed a degree of disappointment on that point, which I share. There is no doubt at all that time can be found for legislation, but there is never enough time, as I am sure
1696
that both noble Lords know, for introducing all the legislation that is necessary for the Government's programme.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, to ponder what seems to me to be a fact—that what he was advocating is a bit of a will o'the wisp. He seemed to be advocating the idea that Her Majesty's Government should pursue instant popularity. That is something which we eschew most sternly, being convinced that over the lifetime of a Parliament there is no doubt that the longer-term view will commend itself to the electorate rather more perhaps than the short-term objectives of the noble Lord's party. I am content to await the verdict of the electorate at the next general election to see whether the electorate agrees with the noble Lord or with me.
I can advise both noble Lords, however, that we should very much like to find the time for the necessary legislation long before the next quinquennial Act is due. I take seriously the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, of using a Private Member's Bill in your Lordships' House. If he will allow me to do so, I should like to take that idea away and think about it. If it seems an expedient method of proceeding, perhaps I may take the liberty of advising him.
On the question of ethnic minorities, again I must confess to a very high degree of sympathy for the views expressed by both noble Lords. It has taken a great deal longer than I should have liked to introduce the new procedures. Nevertheless, I think that I can reassure both noble Lords that those procedures will be introduced and working before the end of this year. I am delighted to be able to say that that is finally happening. I regret the delay, but the fact that it is now happening at least gives something of the lie to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that no progress is made from year to year. Progress is sometimes a little like the mills of God. Nevertheless, we grind slowly on and progress is made.
Both noble Lords raised other pertinent points. I shall not weary the House with an account of the way in which we are trying to step up recruitment from the ethnic minorities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will accept that a very great deal is being done to enable people from the ethnic minorities to gain access to the Armed Forces. I gave some examples earlier. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would like at any time to see for himself some of the efforts that we are making, he will always be extremely welcome.
The question of the death penalty exercised both noble Lords. Superficially at least, I see that the services' view may seem a little antiquated. After all, the legislation governing the matter of high treason goes back as far as 1795. I have a copy of the relevant parts of the Act in front of me, but it would be unwise if I were to weary your Lordships too much with a trip down memory lane.
The noble Lord was right when he said that the last Armed Forces Bill passed in 1991 made no change to the powers of courts martial to pass a death sentence. I have to emphasise—from what he said, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is well aware of this—that while

1697
the death penalty is retained it is a non-mandatory sentence. The policy is that such sentences should never be carried out in peacetime. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was correct to suggest that that would be part of my answer. The fact that he predicted it does not make it any the less true.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was right to say that if the death penalty were applied it would apply only to five of the most serious offences which he enumerated. In wartime, such acts are likely not just to jeopardise national security but to put at risk the lives of other servicemen. There are a considerable number of safeguards governing the use of the death penalty. Your Lordships may like to reflect upon the fact that the nearest civil criminal offence of that nature—I suggest that it is entirely comparable with the five offences enumerated by the noble Lord, Lord Williams—is an act of high treason for which the death penalty is still mandatory in this country.
It is fair to say that in wartime, with all the unpredictable strains that apply, it is reasonable that the death penalty should remain in service law. Despite the pleas of both noble Lords, we have no plans to change that position.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but so far as I know, unless anything has happened while I have been in the Chamber, we are not at war. We are at peace. The Minister said that the intention was that the death penalty should not be exercised for any of the offences I enumerated during peacetime. Would it not be sensible, therefore, to eliminate the death penalty? If we do get into a war, I should be the first to join with the Minister in saying disciplinary measures of that form might well be required.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his acknowledgment that different circumstances apply in wartime. However, I am sorry that he feels that the assurance I have given him, that the policy in peacetime as it is, is insufficient. It would he inconceivable for such a sentence to he carried out in peacetime. I should have thought that it was an entirely reasonable provision for military legislation which, by its very nature, anticipates states of war being possible. Defence, after all, is an insurance against war, and, sadly, when war breaks out, it is up to the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the country is defended. It is consistent with the nature of the Ministry of Defence for the situation to be as it is. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I find ourselves disagreeing over the matter.
The noble Lord asked me to comment about the position of women in the Armed Forces. A great deal has happened on that front, despite the suspicions of both noble Lords that that is not so. The mills may have been grinding rather faster there than in other areas. Combat roles in service ships and aircraft have been opened to women in the Navy. The exception, of course, is submarines, where the lack of privacy for men and women makes the introduction of women a little difficult. Nevertheless, there are now over 700 women in the Navy serving at sea.
1698
As regards the Army, the Women's Royal Army Corps was disbanded on 1st April 1992. Women are now integrated with their employing corps. The Army is developing proposals for the introduction of gender-free physical testing. I am pleased to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is not in the Charnbeir to pull me up on military expressions, which is her wont in your Lordships' House. Physical capacity rather than the sex of the applicant will determine suitability for a particular specialisation.
As regards the Royal Air Force, women are now employed in almost all branches and on virtually all tasks without significant restriction. Your Lordships will be aware of the recent publicity attendant upon the qualification of fast jet pilots, who are women, for the first time in the history of the Royal Air Force.
That is all I wish to say in response to the points made by both noble Lords. I express my gratitude to them for the commendable comments which they made about the Armed Forces and for the support that they have given to the order. I associate myself emphatically with those sentiments. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to give the order the fair wind which I believe it deserves.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993
3.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 26th May be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am pleased to introduce today the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993 under which £8.4 million is available in 1993–94 for decommissioning grants for fishermen. The scheme will help to reduce fishing effort and to fulfil our EC obligations.
Why do we need to reduce fishing effort? Scientific advice is that several fish stocks in UK waters are severely depleted and that all stocks are vulnerable. Technical conservation measures—for example, rules on mesh sizes and measures such as total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas, which we currently have in place—are not of themselves sufficient to protect the fish and allow the stocks to be replenished. The only sure way to conserve this important resource and thus to assure the long-term future of the industry is to have less fishing. The industry itself accepts that there are too many boats chasing too few fish but there is no incentive for the individual fisherman voluntarily to limit his fishing effort; he wants a guarantee that this action is being taken collectively.
That is why governments throughout the world have taken responsibility for the conservation of fish stocks for the good of their fishing industries. That is why the European Community has agreed multi-annual guidance programmes (MAGPs) with targets for capacity reductions and limiting effort which all member states must achieve by end of 1996. And that

1699
is why in February 1992 the Government announced a package of conservation measures aimed at reducing fishing effort. The package includes changes to the licensing regime, the £25 million decommissioning scheme and days at sea restrictions.
One way of achieving less fishing is of course to have fewer vessels and that is the objective of the decommissioning scheme. It has the potential to reduce the UK fleet by about 10,000 to 12,000 tonnes and to make a contribution towards our MAGP target of at least 5 per cent.
The purpose of this statutory instrument is to set out the rules for the payment of decommissioning grant. Eligibility for grant is restricted to registered fishing vessels which are more than 10 metres; more than 10 years of age; are seaworthy; have a valid fishing licence which has not been downgraded since 27th February 1992 (the date of the ministerial announcement); were acquired before 27th February 1992; and spent at least 100 days on fishing trips in each of 1991 and 1992 (to ensure that only active fishing vessels are decommissioned). The level of grant is to be determined through tendering with bids ranked according to pound sterling per vessel capacity unit (VCU). That will enable us to take out the greatest capacity for the available funds. The owners of eligible vessels must be prepared to scrap and de-register their vessel and surrender all its licences by 1st March 1994. That way we have a tightly controlled scheme.
Those are the eligibility rules which will apply for 1993–94. Next year they may be changed in the light of the experience of this year's scheme, so as to provide for the best targeting of funds.
Under the 1993–94 scheme £8.4 million is available and £25 million is available in total. A press announcement inviting applications under the scheme was made on 26th May 1993. The closing date for applications is now the end of July. My honourable friend the Minister of State announced on Wednesday this extension to the 9th July deadline to allow fishermen to reflect further and apply if they wish.
I believe that this scheme, as part of the package of conservation measures I have mentioned, will be effective. It offers those fishermen who meet the eligibility criteria and who wish to leave the industry an excellent opportunity to do so. It will help reduce pressure on scarce fish stocks and contribute significantly towards meeting our EC targets for reducing capacity.
I should like to say a few words about the other main element of the package, the days-at-sea restrictions. The fishing industry has expressed doubts about these restrictions and we are fully aware that some sectors of industry do have ideas on alternative solutions or concerns about the detail of the days at sea rules. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my honourable friend the Minister of State have been listening to the industry's views and as a result of its representations the Minister of State announced on Wednesday a postponement of the days at sea restrictions until 1st January 1994. That will give us the opportunity to
1700
consult fully with the industry about their concerns and to hear its ideas on tackling conservation. However, I must emphasise that effort controls remain a key element in meeting our MAGP targets and in ensuring that we make the best use of the £25 million available for decommissioning. We cannot remove vessels from the fleet and allow other vessels to fish harder. That would not give us value for money; nor would it be in the long-term interests of the fishing industry.
We hope that the industry will take the opportunity of the postponement to put forward constructive views and suggestions so that by the end of September we have its firm views and can take those into account in time for the final days-at-sea arrangements to apply from the beginning of next year. We shall listen carefully to what is said.
It gives me pleasure to commend for your approval this instrument which, together with the postponement of days at sea, shows the Government's commitment to help the industry and to listen to its anxieties and ideas about all aspects of the policy.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, has he remembered the advice of Sub-Committee D to the European Communities Committee that, although £25 million is helpful, it is not sufficient to resolve the problem of too many ships chasing too few fish?
Earl Howe: My Lords, indeed, Ministers bear that advice strongly in mind. As my noble friend will no doubt realise, budgetary restraints in the current year will prevent us from instituting a larger scheme. But I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding the House of that advice and of the committee's work, which was of great value. I commend the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th May be approved. [32nd Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Earl Howe.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the way in which he introduced the scheme. He explained the background to it and described in clear detail the content of the scheme. I am sure that there is no dispute in your Lordships' House about the underlying reality which the noble Earl described as too many boats chasing too few fish. I believe that that is the most succinct way in which it can be described.
We have noticed the destruction of the Canadian east coast cod fishing industry in which 25,000 jobs have been lost because of a failure to engage in adequate conservation policies. We are extremely conscious that it is a particularly traditional industry with a very strong community base. Therefore, we are conscious that the social aspects of cutting back are particularly severe in an industry of this kind. I think that they deserve special attention.
I believe that the main problem was implicit in the noble Earl's remarks; namely, the need to combine a cut in capacity with a reduction in effort. Both are undoubtedly needed. But, in our view, the key to

1701
conserving fish is to give priority to limiting the total capacity of the fishing fleet rather than to fishing effort (by placing restrictions on all vessels in the fishing fleet). But one has to do both. It is a matter of balancing the two. In our judgment, the Government are not putting nearly enough emphasis on decommissioning as the method of reducing the capacity. I believe that their policies concentrate excessively on curtailing the fishing effort.
The present decommissioning scheme of £25 million over three years, with £8 million plus for this year, is even poorer than the one that was originally promised, which was to span over a period of two years. I believe that. I carry the noble Earl who intervened a short while ago along with me when I say that it involves so small a sum of money as to be without serious significance and is quite inadequate to meet the scale of the problem and the challenge that we face.
Therefore, from these Benches we advocate a more meaningful decommissioning scheme which will be matched by a social retraining programme for local communities that are specially affected by the harmful consequences of decommissioning. I refer, for example, to the unemployment that occurs, very often with no prospect of alternative jobs. There are also special problems associated with employment in the fishing industry, where share fishers who are not employees have no rights of redundancy and, therefore, decommissioning in financial terms will do nothing for them.
By refusing to receive 70 per cent. European Community grants for decommissioning, it appears that the UK is forfeiting a large amount of money. The figures that I have seen show that the United Kingdom (a country with a large fishing industry) has received 58.3 million ecu through the common fisheries policy; whereas equivalent countries, such as France and Spain, have received, respectively, 165.9 and 168.9 million ecu. I should be grateful if the noble Earl can explain why we have done so poorly in that respect.
On the face of it, some people may say that the scrapping involved in decommissioning is itself a rather wasteful policy. But clearly that is not the reality of the situation. If the vessels due to be decommissioned were in any way to survive and were sold off, that would lower the cost of buying fishing boats and encourage other countries' fishing industries to increase their activities, thus only transferring the problem elsewhere.
I do not underestimate the difficulties facing the Government. I am rather conscious that I am a late Friday afternoon layman on the subject. My experience of the fishing industry is confined to going down from Monifieth to Arbroath to buy my smokies. The memorable period when I played a modest part in the first shaping of the common fisheries policy when I was commissioner in Brussels left me with a very chastened feeling about the immense complications and problems of dealing with the fishing industry. Apart from the problems of stocks, it consists of communities that are basically very vigilant and watchful not only about what other countries receive
1702
(which they do not receive) but also about what their immediate neighbours receive under any policy. It is not an easy problem.
In trying to bring about a peaceful and gradual reduction in the scale and size of the industry. we very much welcome the news given by the noble Earl that the period before a final decision is taken about the particular days-at-sea method of reducing effort is to be extended until the end of the year. I believe that all of us in your Lordships' House hope that the Government will make a serious and earnest effort to examine closely the various alternatives that are being put out from various quarters in the fishing industry to see whether at the end of the day there cannot be an agreement on the best form of reducing effort. From these Benches I must reiterate that we believe that the Government have allowed the financial pressures on them to result in a decommissioning policy that is quite inadequate to the scale of the problem that has to be dealt with.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, with the leave of the House, will my noble friend ensure that, with the execution of these important rules, the evident effect of which will be the saving of fish stocks, these fish stocks that are saved will not be fished out by our European competitors who do not follow the sarne rules as ourselves?
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we on these Benches are also grateful for the explanation of the order which the noble Earl has given the House. We are equally aware that in the outstanding report on the common fisheries policy prepared by your Lordships' Select Committee, on the European Communities, the proposed £25 million over three years 'which is embodied in the scheme was regarded by the committee and us as a totally inadequate response to the magnitude of the problem. Although it is accompanied by restrictions on days at sea, even taken together we are not particularly sanguine that much success is likely to attend this effort, although of course we wish it well.
That enables me to ask the noble Earl the first of a number of questions on the order; namely, how much of the £25 million in the order will come from European Community sources? If the first tranche of £8.4 million is not taken up, will there be a carry-over of that sum to the following two years? I think the industry will appreciate the extension of the closing date for applications to 31st July as there will be arrangements for days at sea which are to apply now from 1st January 1994. Are there to be any geographical preferences within the scheme to take account of variations in the numbers of eligible vessels; for example, Scotland? If the tender method incorporated in the order results in an imbalance of decommissioning by areas, will this be taken into account when drafting rules for years two and three?
In another place on 7th July the honourable friend of the noble Earl, the Minister of State, said:
"My Scottish Office colleagues and I will shortly meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/7/93; col. 420.]
They are to meet to discuss the general question of fishing. Will the noble Earl say where responsibility will lie under this scheme for decommissioning in

1703
Scotland, particularly as regards the share of the sum of money available? Will it be weighted in any way to take account of the size, tonnage and catch, demersal and pelargic, of the Scottish fleet? Payments for decommissioning by the tender process, which the noble Earl has described, are to be by bids ranked according to tonnes of weight per vessel capacity unit; that is, the largest catching capacity. Is there any evidence—I do not object to the principle behind the scheme—that such vessels usually catch most fish? Will the noble Earl also say what provision there is in the decommissioning scheme for sharing the proceeds with crew members, especially where share fishing schemes prevail?
Without prejudice to the scheme and negotiations about days at sea regulations, we on this side of the House must express particular concern about the state of the industry at this time and the relationships between Her Majesty's Government and fishermen in all parts of the United Kingdom. We are aware of the announcement by the Ministry of Agriculture following the Fisheries Council meeting on 24th and 25th June. How urgently will the improved system of control and enforcement decided then be pursued in other member states? When will Her Majesty's Government see the text of the regulations giving effect to these decisions? Will they be discussed by Ministers at the meetings which they are to hold with fishermen's organisations in the United Kingdom?
As we see it, no peace is likely until United Kingdom fishermen are convinced that conservation measures are being even-handedly and strictly applied throughout the entire European Community. As I said at the outset, we are not convinced that the present scheme set out in the order is sufficient. However, we accept it gratefully, and I hope graciously, as a first step.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I welcome the agreement expressed by noble Lords on the need for greater conservation of fish stocks, a need which is acknowledged by the fishing industry itself. I am also pleased that the decommissioning scheme is welcomed as part of a package of measures to reduce pressure on the stocks and help meet EC targets for capacity and effort reductions. Decommissioning must be part of a package which includes effort controls. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, acknowledged, on its own it cannot be the solution to the problem of diminishing stocks.
That brings me to one of the main anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that the scheme is too little, too late. It has to be seen as just one, although a key, element in our overall policy to reduce fishing effort and in the context of the Government's expenditure on fisheries—£18 million on research and £20 million on fisheries protection per year. The figure of £25 million is a significant sum, given the criticisms by the PAC that the 1983 scheme gave poor value for money, that some vessels rejoined the fleet simply to
1704
claim grant, and that the scheme was inflexible and had no specific objectives. Furthermore, the scheme did not enable us to meet our MAGP targets. We had to think carefully in drawing up a new, effective scheme that would address the criticisms. We had to fight hard for the £25 million. Unfortunately, I see no prospect of that sum being increased in the foreseeable future.
It has been requested that all the £25 million should be made available this year or spread over two years. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, raised that issue. The present multi-annual guidance programmes are segmented and they run until the end of 1996. Spreading the decommissioning scheme over three years gives us a better chance of targeting the scheme in subsequent years towards meeting the targets set for each segment of the fleet.
Anxiety has naturally been expressed, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, about fishermen who lose their jobs and the effects on the fishing community. Inevitably, reduction of the fleet will mean fewer jobs, and I have every sympathy for fishermen and their families. However, unless fishing effort is reduced stocks will simply collapse and the jobs of all fishermen will be at risk.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, asked about decommissioning in other member states. All member states with fishing fleets bar Ireland and the UK operated decommissioning schemes during the period of the previous MAGP (1987–1991) at a total estimated cost of about 150 million ecu. However, a recent report by the EC Court of Auditors criticised that expenditure for providing poor value for money. The UK's previous decommissioning scheme was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee on similar grounds. Therefore, we thought it wiser to spend more time designing a scheme which will provide a real contribution to decreasing overall fishing effort and thus help to conserve fish.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, mentioned that the Commission will contribute to the cost of the scheme. They suggested, therefore, that the Government could afford to spend more. It is misleading to talk as though the Community has its own funds. Whatever the Community pays will come from the Community budget to which we contribute. The rules are such that the UK taxpayer has to find a large proportion of the EC contribution. In any case, whether the funding is from the EC or the UK, we must ensure that it will offer value for money.
It is true that the UK has received less than other member states. That is partly because we have deliberately spent less on decommissioning. We have also spent less on construction and modernisation grants. That seems quite reasonable, I suggest, given the problem of excess capacity.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked about the geographical balance of targeting the decommissioning scheme. We cannot prejudge the response to the scheme. As I have said, it is estimated that the available funds will take out about 5 per cent. to 6 per cent.—10,000 tonnes to 12,000 tonnes—of existing capacity. In the first year the scheme is open to all

1705
vessels over 10 metres meeting the eligibility conditions. However, in future years it may be targeted further to enable the UK to meet its EC objectives for reducing capacity as those have been set according to fleet segments.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam raised a point about what I broadly classify as the level playing field—if one can use such a term in connection with fisheries. I remind my noble friend, as I am sure he knows, that the UK has a major stake in EC fish stocks. We are very concerned to ensure that fisheries legislation is enforced in our waters as well as in the remainder of the EC. It is therefore very good news that at the June Fisheries Council, agreement was reached in principle on a new control regulation which will be of immense importance in ensuring that the Community rules are enforced to the same standard by all member states. Final discussions on the new regulation to clear up some outstanding legal points are due to take place next week; and the regulation should come into force in January of next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, asked about fisheries-dependent areas. The Edinburgh Council agreed that fisheries-dependent areas could qualify for support under EC structural funds. The Highlands and Islands of Scotland will, of course, qualify for maximum support under Objective 1. Other areas can qualify for Objective 5 or similar support. I realise the importance of fishing to certain areas. I believe that those anxieties can best be addressed through those mechanisms.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked a specific question about whether the budget for 1993–94—£8.4 million—could be carried over until the next financial year if there were spare funds at the end of the current year. The answer to that is no.
I do not believe that the package of conservation measures discriminates against UK fishermen. I detected a note of that sentiment in what my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam said. All member states are obliged to meet their agreed EC targets for reducing fleet capacity and controlling their overall efforts. Even those member states proposing to achieve their targets by decommissioning alone will be obliged to monitor fishing effort to ensure that it does not increase. The Commission is keeping a close watch on progress and we are supporting it in that.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, criticised the Government's days at sea policy. My honourable friend the Minister of State stated that he would listen carefully to the industry's suggestions between now and the end of September. Any proposal that the industry makes will, however, need to be judged against the following three criteria. Does it help to conserve the fish stocks? Does it contribute to the achievement of our MAGP targets and shall we be able to demonstrate that to the Commission? Does it meet our concern that expenditure on decommissioning should not be undermined by increased effort elsewhere in the fleet? The Government are ready to examine any proposals that satisfy those requirements.
It gives me pleasure to commend for your Lordships' approval this instrument which is designed
1706
to give those fishermen who wish to stop fishing the opportunity of a sympathetic way out, while contributing to the necessary reductions in fishing effort which will give our industry a viable future. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lloyd's of London
3.40 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the current arrangements for the regulation of Lloyd's of London are satisfactory.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since the Government have made no effort to initiate a debate in your Lordships' House on what has happened in recent years in Lloyd's, and what ought to happen in the future, I felt it was my duty to do so instead. I am aware that in doing so through the medium of an Unstarred Question considerable limitations are placed on all of us but on me in particular because I can speak only this once. I must, therefore, apologise to the Minister that she will have to carry the full burden of dealing with any complications and technicalities that arise in the debate. I shall not be allowed to help out by coming back a second time. I shall refer to that later, but it does not mean that this is the only time I hope to debate the matter.
My purpose today is not to examine individual cases of which I have no direct knowledge but instead to consider regulation in general. Perhaps I ought to say at this point, because it appears to he a rather sensitive area, that I at least have no direct involvement with Lloyd's 'whatever; nor, so far as I know, has anyone with whom I am connected. That is my negative declaration of interest.
In considering regulation in general, it is my view that the system of self regulation under the Lloyd's Act 1982 has failed. It is also hard to believe that the proposed changes, following the reports of the task force and the Morse working party, do more than scratch the surface. Nothing essential has changed.
While it contains useful measures, I do not believe that the proposed business plan will work. There has been no suggestion that there will be a root and branch investigation and vetting of all names agencies, of all syndicates or of the behaviour of working members. In so far as there have been serious conflicts of interest —and there is no shortage of allegations on that—they seem to continue. It is hard to see how the new arrangements will prevent a recurrence in the future.
Therefore, above all, what we need from Lloyd's is a formal statement that the conflict of interest problem will be addressed and the highest priority given to exposing and removing such conflicts. By "we" I do not merely mean names —I have pointed out that I am not one. Nor do I merely mean those directly connected with Lloyd's. When. I say that we require a formal statement by "we" I mean all of us who are concerned with the probity of our financial institutions.
When your Lordships debated the Financial Services Act 1986, we on this side warned that the Lloyd's exemption under Section 42 would lead to disaster. Perhaps I may read to your Lordships the wording of that section of the Act because in my judgment that is precisely the cause of things going wrong. It states:
"The Society of Lloyd's and persons permitted by the Council of Lloyd's to act as underwriting agents at Lloyd's are exempted persons as respects investment business carried on in connection with or for the purpose of insurance business at Lloyd's".
That is precisely the mistake that underlies all the subsequent troubles. It is also of interest that that sentence fully recognises that what happens at Lloyd's is not simply or even overwhelmingly insurance and reinsurance; it is an investment business.
As I said, we divided the House on that matter. Our warnings were rejected by the Government but I have to say, to my regret and the regret of my noble friends, we have been proved right. Therefore, what is required urgently is new legislation to remove the exemption of Lloyd's from the Financial Services Act and to give clear cut roles to the DTI, in regard to overseeing insurance and reinsurance, and to the Treasury on the investment side.
I should also be interested to know—I do not know whether noble Lords or the noble Baroness can help me—the weight that can be attached to the approval by the Governor of the Bank of England to the appointment of what are called "nominated members" to the council. Can we be told who those people are and what they do? More to the point, what have they done in the past and, in particular, more recently in the past few years?
It also seems to me that we need an answer to the question of what went wrong. I find it hard to believe that it was a matter of bad luck. Obviously, in any risk-taking business there is bad luck but I do not believe that that was the essence of what happened. It seems that much more of what we observe was due a great deal to poor judgment and professional incompetence. In addition, as we are all aware, there have been allegations of all manner of corrupt practices and fraud. Many of those involve legal proceedings and are, or have been, before the courts. Other noble Lords may refer in general to such matters in the debate. My concern is that we have heard little or nothing from the Government on that aspect of the matter despite, as I said, the public interest in maintaining the integrity of our financial institutions and the public image of the City of London.
I turn briefly to some specific problems and questions. There are the so-called "open years", from which the losses are still not determined. There are also more recent years involving large losses which are difficult to quantify or predict. I understand that much of the difficulty in all those cases has to do with decisions in the United States court. The consequence is that it makes it impossible for names to estimate the extent of their exposure or make any kind of rational decision for the future.
It is not altogether clear how Lloyd's themselves
1708
propose to deal with the problem of non-payment and whether existing reserves, including extra reserves, can cover the liability. I should guess—again, I look forward to hearing what noble Lords have to say—that all the openness and unfinished business will act as a deterrent to the entry of new names, including the entry of corporate capital, which is given a certain degree of emphasis in the business plan, assuming that it will be proceeded with. In other words, it seems to me, as someone completely from the outside, that what I understand is to be called "NewCo" could go bust. As someone who recognises the importance of our financial institutions, I feel that if that were to happen it would be little short of disastrous, not just for Lloyd's but for the City in general.
What I and, I am sure, other noble Lords would like to know is what the Government think about this situation and whether they have anything to propose. I ask the noble Baroness whether, purely for precautionary purposes, the Government's own experts have made an analysis of the scale of the problem and whether they have at least examined a worst case scenario.
In general, the remarks that I have just made relate to the burden carried by existing names. That is a topic which I am sure other noble Lords will address. The central question that I ask is: to the extent that the funds of those names are exhausted, how are the losses to be paid for?
I referred to the problem of litigation and, in particular, to the allegations of negligence. As I said, I do not feel able to discuss that issue in detail. However, there is an important and logical point to be made. If the powers that be admit that all is not right with Lloyd's and that they intend to make changes, they would appear to be adding support to those who are claiming negligence or worse. Moreover, it may be that one reason why the root and branch reforms for which I call appear not to be in prospect is the fear that recognition by Lloyd's of the need for stronger action will be prayed in aid by those who are suing.
In terms of Lloyd's proposed new detailed internal arrangements, I have not discussed the introduction of corporate membership. It does not seem to be a bad idea. However, I am doubtful about the future of unlimited liability. The market could work without that. Above all, there is a great need for more transparency in the future. Names need to be better informed of the nature of the risks that they run and of the position of the people with whom they are dealing. There needs to be a properly formulated procedure for dealing with conflicts of interest.
I have sought to explain that there is a public interest in what happened at Lloyd's and what may happen in the future. Damage has been done to the way in which the City of London is perceived, especially by foreigners. Anyone who doubts that fact should read the overseas press. In my judgment the Government cannot sit idly by. I have called into question Lloyd's exemption and self-regulation. I reiterate that I do not believe that a new Lloyd's Act is required. The correct move is to add Lloyd's back into the Financial Services Act. In addition, the Treasury and the DTI need to play a bigger role; I

1709
hasten to add, which may disappoint some people, not as part of the social security system but as regulators or overseers of regulators.
There is a possible need for a new, fully independent investigation. As I understand it, the Morse working party did not do that. There may have been a full study done in-house. If so, I am unaware of it. Perhaps the noble Baroness is aware whether or not Lloyd's has done a full research study on what happened. I fail to see how a new business plan can have a proper basis unless there has been a full study on what went wrong by an independent person—by which I mean someone who has absolutely no connection with Lloyd's, past, present or future.
I have covered the points that I wished to raise. I look forward to the individual contributions to the debate and to the Minister's replies to my questions.
3.53 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for initiating this short debate on the current regulation arrangements of Lloyd's of London. I am sure that all those present this afternoon listened with interest to the noble Lord and that we will all wish to comment on what he said. I must begin by declaring an interest in that riot only am I a name at Lloyd's, but I was also a director of an underwriting agency until my retirement last year.
In the past I have defended the Committee and Council of Lloyd's in your Lordships' House in their endeavours to come to terms with the Lloyd's Act 1982, which includes provisions for self-regulation within the market.. For those noble Lords who were not present or around in 1982, the Private Bill had its Second Reading in your Lordships' House on April Fools' Day and came into effect in January 1983. Since that time the Council of Lloyd's has used everything in its power to try to improve the running of the Lloyd's insurance market by passing endless by-laws under the provisions of the Act. In fact, I thought that they were doing such a good job that when the Financial Services Act, to which the noble Lord referred, came along, I, together with many others, saw no reason to think that Lloyd's should be included within its regulatory powers like the rest of the City of London's financial institutions.
After all, the Lloyd's private Act had not had time to prove itself. However, since 1986 a lot of events have overwhelmed the international insurance market and especially Lloyd's, with its particular type of investor; namely, the unlimited liability member. Natural and manmade catastrophes followed one after the other through 1988, 1989 and 1990, all of which have recently been coming home to roost as insurance claims. On top of this, a small number of syndicates starting laying off risks among themselves. That went round in circles and subsequently became known as the spiral. This greedy and irresponsible experiment by some underwriters has led to more than 4,000 unfortunate underwriting members of Lloyd's ending up in what can only be described as a financial slaughterhouse.
1710
We must now ask the question: could some of this irresponsible underwriting have been avoided in the market if there had been an entirely independent regulatory body? Since all the bad news has come to light, the Council of Lloyd's has put together separate market and regulatory boards of its own. But the regulatory boards still have four out of 15 members who are working professionals from within the market. I do not query their honesty and integrity. But however good they may be, there is the question of the conflict of interest creeping into any dispute. The market board should be run in the main by the insurance professionals who work within the market; but serious consideration should be given to the setting up of an entirely independent regulatory board which might even require amending the existing Lloyd's Act 1982.
In conclusion, I believe that this approach would lead to a return of confidence within the rnarket which will, in its turn, attract new capital, both individual and corporate, as proposed in the recently produced business plan, so that Lloyd's can continue into the future as a major invisible export earner and a leader in world-wide insurance.
3.58 p.m.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, very rarely do I take up your Lordships' time, because I discovered long ago that there are always at least a dozen people in the Chamber who know very much more about a subject than I do. However, my self-restraint has let me down on this occasion and I hope that it does not let your Lordships down at the same time. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for raising this subject at this most opportune time. I agree with him that it is surprising that it has not been raised before. I agree with 95 per cent. of his comments and conclusions; but I shall come on to those in a moment.
I have not a negative interest to declare; I have a positive interest to declare in that I am a name at Lloyd's. I am fortunately not a major koser—no more than you would expect in a recessionary period. I suffer my loss as I expect to do. It is not a major loss. I have a son who is in the medium category but riot a substantial loser.
Lloyd's is privileged to have its own Act and it has abused that privilege. It has, in my experience, been inefficient throughout, negligent very largely, criminally negligent on occasions, and fraud has been perpetrated in a number of known cases.
In retrospect, they clearly ought not to have had their own Act; they ought to have been brought under the Financial Services Act which came in at a later date. I do not agree with the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I believe that moving to that now would upset the apple cart and it would be too dangerous. Remarks have been made about the business plan and its chances of success. It would damage any possible chances of success if we started trying to change the regulatory regime. That does not mean that I should not like to see one or two changes in the Act. My noble friend who has just spoken mentioned that. I believe that one or two changes are

1711
essential and it is probably now best that they are done internally, much as we all distrust the past leadership of Lloyd's.
The point has already been made that we are not sole traders, but investors. We have not been protected. Only now is the new regime acknowledging that state of affairs, by implication only, and no formal apology has been made. But I believe that their thoughts, ideas and interpretation of philosophy have now changed and acknowledge that the outside names are investors and not traders and that they are not being properly advised.
I have been asked time and time again why I do not resign. I am a businessman. All my working life I have been a banker and an industrialist, and I do not know very much about the detailed workings of Lloyd's. I certainly know nothing about underwriting. But I have been fighting Lloyd's ever since Sasse because I recognised at that point, many years ago, the troubles they were in, the malpractices which were involved and the lack of control at the top which is at the root of all their troubles.
Their inefficiency beggars belief. To start with, they invariably—and until recently I believe, legitimately —over-traded. In my interpretation that means that premium limits were regularly exceeded and there was always a good excuse as to why they were exceeded. There is no point in having regulations if they are not adhered to.
Years ago I asked for my exposure. No answer was forthcoming and the reason for that is perfectly obvious: they were not capable of giving it. Until recently scientific risk evaluation has been absolutely nil. I imagine that it has improved now. I do not want to resign but to push Lloyd's back into the position of being the flagship that it was and something of which we were all proud.
In all this I am not criticising the new regime. I take my hat off to it. I believe that they are very brave men to undertake what they have. It is problematical whether they will succeed. I do not have total confidence in the business plan but, at last, and for the first time, somebody is taking control. As I said, I take my hat off to them for doing so.
I have a number of suggestions for the board, and I use the word "board" advisedly and on purpose—the committee. It too recognises the need for change. In the introduction to their Business Plan summary, they say,
"We must manage the Society in a new and more directive way".
That is using the word "directive" for the first time. That is right and it was needed long ago—otherwise this crisis will not be circumvented.
My first suggestion is that non-executive directors must he in the majority; otherwise, they will not be able to wield the rod that is needed so badly to get rid of the rotten apples, and so forth. Furthermore, it is beyond belief that someone facing litigation should occupy a very senior position on the committee. Can it be that that person was put there by working names? I have been asked on a number of occasions whether that is the way the City behaves. I have said, "No, the
1712
City does not normally behave like that. That is Lloyd's being a law unto itself". That sort of thing must end; and that is one of the reasons why the Act must be changed or someway round it must be found. If non-executive directors were in the majority, that situation would not be allowed to pertain for long.
It is right and proper that I should put on the record the fact that I warned the gentleman concerned that I would make these remarks in your Lordships' House today. That same gentleman might like to know that his office, which is one of the biggest at Lloyd's, is under heavy criticism from certain quarters among his active colleagues for its inefficiency and other misdemeanours.
My second suggestion relates to corporate investment. That means investment with limited liability. The rest of us do not have limited liability and, in equity, that cannot be allowed to continue. The introduction this year of compulsory high-level stop-loss should do that; but it must be acknowledged that that is the end of unlimited liability —or is it merely shuffling risks around the market, as has happened so often in the past?
Thirdly, agents have a dual role. They are shareholders and investment managers paid by us, the outsiders; yet many have exposed their names to their total wealth and more. Is that not criminal negligence? It is certainly negligence and, in my view, it is more than that. No regulator would have allowed that situation to have occurred. A regulator would have intervened long before. I suggest that, for the next decade at least, subject to any court variations, 20 per cent. of the salaries and pensions of the worst offenders should be devoted to the Hardship Fund for those they have abused. There should be a lesser percentage for less guilty brethren. I am sure that the ingenuity of the leadership of Lloyd's could find a way to make that legally possible.
Fourthly, any prudent risk-taker caps his liability. That should be obligatory. We should be able to say good-bye to open-ended commitments. The extraordinary US court awards would then be of no effect. In parenthesis, the United States will rue the day if Congress continues to refuse to cap court awards.
Fifthly, I should like to talk to your Lordships for a minute (if you can spare the time) about the dangers of asbestosis. The dangers have been known since 1924. Industrial working regulations were issued in 1931. But reaction at Lloyd's only began in 1974 when Sturge divested itself of all its liabilities. One up for them. But full awareness only struck the market in 1981. On 10th November of that year a committee member of Lloyd's chaired a meeting explaining the position to the panel of auditors—and yet those agents and auditors never warned names in the period up to 1988, and even then, they did so only in muffled terms. One might say that that is perhaps understandable because there would have been a major capital withdrawal from the market if they had. It might be understandable, but it is surely criminally negligent.
Stupendous damage has been done. Some of the water has flowed under the bridge. The rest must be ring-fenced. The new board is trying to do that, and I

1713
hope that it will succeed. It has to find a way to protect itself from the type of exaggerated awards that are current in the courts today. I am sorry that much of that is being copied in this country. I warn the Lloyd's committee, having learnt the lessons of asbestosis, against involvement in pollution, tobacco and professional indemnity business. Those are traps into which it may well fall if it is not careful.
Sixthly, I urge the committee to steer clear of such risks in America until the American courts regain some sense of balance and until exposure is capped. I wrote recently in Lloyd's magazine as an outsider that profits were the name of the game, not turnover or even market share. Lloyd's has to manage the business downwards. Managing the business downwards is the most difficult thing one can do; but, nevertheless, it is essential that it does that. Then, if one is efficient and cost competitive one can re-enter the market when the time is right.
Lastly, I fear that old habits are still entrenched in Lloyd's. That is why it must get down to sorting out the place and getting rid of a large number of people. I put forward a scheme to the committee about a year ago designed to assist some names who want to retire when their open years are closed. I would have understood if I had been told in answer that the scheme was not philosophically acceptable or technically feasible. I did not receive that answer. What I did receive was buck passing. The corporation said that it was not its business to establish syndicates. That is untrue, incidentally, because it has already established Centre-Write. Try the underwriting agents. The answer from them was that it was not on because it was not profitable. What does one do when one is faced with that attitude when they should be trying to help some of their members who have been fleeced?
It is essential that the new management in which I have confidence—I believe that it will do its best—goes through Lloyd's like a dose of salts and applies a rod of iron, because I want to see Lloyd's back on its pinnacle as one of this country's biggest earners of foreign exchange. I wish the new team every success with its first—believe it or not, it is its first—business plan.
In conclusion, I should like to say a word to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I hope that his attention will be drawn to these remarks. There are a great many unhappy people out there. There are many people who have been badly advised, ill-treated and fleeced. Some of them are meeting procedural difficulties in pursuing their litigation aims. I recognise, as do other noble Lords, that it is not practical to ask for a change of the law or even a change of rules; but where there is the option of discretion, I hope that the judicial authorities will exercise that discretion in favour of those people so that even if they do not come away richer—as some of them undoubtedly will not, because, apart from the rights and wrongs of the matter, there is a limited sum of money vailable—they will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that their case has been in front of a judge.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I suspect that I am the only insider in the Lloyd's market to speak today so perhaps I may start by declaring my positive interest. I was for 40 years an insurance broker with the same international company. For most of that time I was a passive underwriter; what is known as a working name at Lloyd's. My underwriting life was from 1954 until the end of the 1988 account.
My personal philosophy on underwriting was by no means typical of most Lloyd's names. Briefly, it seemed to me that as a young man I always needed a lot of money and should take chances. The older I became, the greater was my earned income. Eventually my school fees became less and the less I needed to put my earned income at risk from underwriting. Unlike most other names at Lloyd's, throughout my life I maintained a low profile, minimum lines and just two syndicates.
I am told today that the average number of syndicates for a name at Lloyd's is 16. Even granted that each of those 16 has a minimum line, the aggregation must today expose an average underwriter to significantly more loss—and, indeed, to significantly more profit—than it exposed me.
I have another view of Lloyd's, which again is uncommon. As an employer I was anxious that my employees should resign from underwriting at or about the time of their retirement. It seemed to me wrong that they should put their pensions at risk from underwriting fortunes; that was unless they had private wealth of their own. Having explained my background and my views, I leave it to your Lordships to decide whether what I wish to say about Lloyd's and regulation at Lloyd's is impartial or prejudiced.
Today's Question undoubtedly arises as a result of the losses. But I wonder whether it is as widely known as it ought to be that these losses are not just Lloyd's-wide; they are certainly UK-market-wide and internationally-wide in various areas, although not wholly across the international underwriting scene. Perhaps the worst affected country of any from the losses at which we are now looking is Scandinavia: that is Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Certainly the UK has been hurt and as much as Lloyd's names have been hurt, so also have insurance companies. Companies which spring to mind immediately are the, Municipal and Mutual, the Orion and the English and, American, which have all folded during the past couple of years.
If one looks at the commercial scene one finds that. a number of companies headed by the Prudential have pulled out of commercial insurance altogether and retired to life insurance and personal lines. If one looks at the reinsurance scene one finds endless companies which have pulled out of either all reinsurance or part reinsurance. Usually in the case of part reinsurance they have pulled out of treaty; certainly they have pulled out of excess loss. Therefore, the losses are not just problems at Lloyd's. As a result of Lloyd's unique system, it has received press coverage to a far greater degree than has beer given to companies.

1715
Why have we had these losses? There are basically four reasons. I wish briefly to go through them because it is fair and I should like to represent to your Lordships that at least three out of the four have little bearing on regulatory problems. The first reason was that we went through a long period of sustained low rates based on sustained profits. We have been through a period of an almost continuous oversupply of underwriters around the world. It is a fact that in the 1980s those in the London market, whether Lloyd's or the insurance companies, could no longer control the rates which they required in a way that they could when I first entered the market in the 1950s and 1960s. So they had to follow the rates down or get out of underwriting altogether.
The second reason is that we have been through a period which seems, thank goodness, to be over, in which there was a significantly greater than average number of catastrophes. That has been very difficult for everyone—Lloyd's, companies in the UK and abroad. Everyone has suffered from that far greater than usual incidence of catastrophes.
The third problem arises for anyone who underwrites business from America and there is the problem of the American courts to which my noble friend referred earlier. In the United States the social system and jurisdiction of that country has come to the conclusion that insurers have deep pockets which are there to be used for the nation's needs. That is based on the assumption that the insurers will get back their money in due course in any event. That is not the insurance on which I was brought up which was based on the principle of fortuity. Nevertheless, we have had to put up with the fact that those underwriters who accepted USA liability business have found that the policies which they underwrote in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s which had no claims, because the claim that was originally submitted was regarded as being excluded, in the United States' courts is now found to be included; and of course, no reserves were set for problems of that nature.
All underwriters—British and American—have been caught by that. I do not regard them as negligent. Your Lordships may ask why a British underwriter underwrites in the United States if there are those problems. If one wishes to underwrite—and I hope to show your Lordships later on how important underwriting is to the economy of the country—you must underwrite in the United States. Until recently it contained over 50 per cent. of the world's premium income, and it is still between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent.
Those are the first three reasons for losses. The fourth reason is quite clearly that there have been some had underwriters and agents giving bad advice. I am in no position to say whether those bad underwriters and agents have been negligent and I have no doubt that when the court cases come to fruition, those matters will be sorted out. But, yes, there certainly has been some bad underwriting. However, the reason that we are looking at such a
1716
disaster today is because of a combination of all those four reasons. That has caused our problems. Only the last reason has regulatory implications.
As has already been mentioned—and I thank my noble friends for the positive way in which they spoke about Lloyd's—there is now a new Lloyd's team as from 1st January 1993. With that team comes a major culture change. That change is simply that today's leaders accept that they must manage the marketplace whereas yesterday's leaders only saw themselves as administering it. That is a big, big difference. I am extremely hopeful that it will make a major change for the future of Lloyd's, whether it be policyholders, names or staff.
As we have heard, the first thing that the new management did was to create a split. It set up two new boards—one for market affairs and one for regulation. For the regulatory board an outsider was brought in to be chairman who had nothing to do with Lloyd's—Brian Garraway. He had no previous connection whatever with Lloyd's. With respect, I do not believe that the fact that there is a minority of Lloyd's participants on that regulatory body will in any way influence its decisions because they are in the minority. It seems to me that there should be one or two people available who can tell the regulators what goes on. Therefore, I should have thought that it is a good thing to have a minority of players on the regulatory board to inform those who are not players at Lloyd's.
That board sets standards and minimum qualifications, and is looking at people to ensure that they are fit and proper. It is monitoring activity against bylaws and codes. Again, I am not sure how widely it is known that a number of bylaws and codes have been in practice for some time now.
On the market board side, we have seen continuous activity to increase the training and minimum standards required to bring in underwriters and others with responsibility. The regulatory board and the new market board are now just seven months old. I put it to your Lordships that they need time before we try to judge them.
Finally, I suggest that it is in everyone's interests that Lloyd's overcomes its current problems. I believe very strongly that it is in names' interests, because a bankrupt Lloyd's will be unable to give them the help which they currently seek with the losses that they have.
I have much experience of watching companies and concerns in the insurance world that have called in the liquidators and where, 25 years later, the claims are still coming in. Indeed, I do not yet know of a single concern that has wound itself up in the insurance company world that has actually been able to put in place at the beginning sufficient money to pay for claims received at the end of the procedure. Therefore, without doubt, a Lloyd's that was wound up by its membership would cause that membership far more trouble than a Lloyd's that was ongoing, continuing and—it is to be hoped—making some profits and, therefore, had money to help those members with their problems.

1717
It is in the City's interest that Lloyd's should continue trading. There are currently about 60,000 jobs in the City dependent upon Lloyd's. It is in the London insurance companies' interest that Lloyd's should continue to trade. I say that because each one of them will agree that Lloyd's is actually the hub that allows the Lloyd's brokers to bring in the business, a far higher percentage of which goes to the insurance companies than goes into Lloyd's. Finally, it is in the interests of the country, because of the importance of our invisible earnings arising out of the commercial insurance market.
I wish that I had the 1992 figures with me, but they have not yet been released. Therefore, the 1991 figures must suffice. They are as follows: £1.9 billion from the insurance companies; £0.5 billion from Lloyd's; and £0.9 billion from the Lloyd's insurance brokers, making a total of £3.3 billion earned by the insurance market for the country's balance of trade in 1991. Much has happened at Lloyd's; indeed, an enormous sea change has taken place. Please, give it a chance to work.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken thus far have advised the House as to the reason for them taking part in the debate. I shall do likewise. My reason for doing so is because during 1985 to 1987 I sat where my noble friend the Minister is currently sitting. I had to respond to many of the questions that were put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which have today been similarly put by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Chelmsford underlined the importance of Lloyd's in his concluding remarks. Therefore, I need not repeat it. However, I should merely like to underline the fact that Lloyd's must he made to work. It has an international reputation; it is a big earner and a big employer. Now is not the time to suggest that another organisation be created. I believe—and I shall return to the point later—that Lloyd's is capable of managing its affairs to meet the end described by my noble friend.
My noble friend Lord Lindsey and Abingdon said that he wanted an independent regulatory body, while my noble friend Lord Harrowby said that the 1982 Act should be scrapped.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, I did not say that the Act should be scrapped; I said that there may be parts of it—for example, with regard to the board being able to veto certain directors—which should be capable of being amended. However, for the reason that I gave, I certainly do not think that it should be scrapped.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I thought that he said that it was wrong that Lloyd's should have had its own Act. However, I entirely accept what he says.
I quote from the report of Sir Patrick Neill:
"Shortly after the 1982 Act received the Royal Assent, a series of scandals came to light which showed the imperative need for such powers",
1718
and so on. In that very splendid report, which admittedly was set against the background of the Financial Services Act, he described what changes he thought should be made.
Sir Patrick came to the conclusion that Lloyd's was capable of managing its own affairs and of being its own regulatory body. He set down 70-odd recommendations. When your Lordships debated that report in January 1987, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said —I paraphrase his comments—that he knew that when Lloyd's was exempted from the Financial Services Act it would not work. I am sorry that the Liberal Democrat Benches are empty this afternoon. I am equally sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, does not seem to have much support behind him. However the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches, said on the contrary he was happy that Lloyd's should act as its own self-regulatory body.
The Government reached that view also and held to that view. But in that debate my noble friend Lord Kimball, who I believe—if memory serves me right —was then the chairman of the disciplinary and complaints committee of Lloyd's, assured the House that already a number of the recommendations had been put in place and that the others would be dealt with. I do not know whether or not they have all been put in place. Certainly the events of the past two or three years give rise to some doubt that they have all been put in place.
I do not believe for one moment that it is a failure of the regulatory system that has brought about the unhappy situation in Lloyd's today and any loss of confidence that Lloyd's is suffering in the international scene. I believe that all this took place against the background that my noble friend Lord Chelmsford described and against the background of a lot of loose money tumbling over in 1986, 1987 and 1988 in all sorts of areas. Then the going got a bit tough, as has been said. However, human nature and natural greed overcame professionalism and proper management. I believe my noble friend Lord Harrowby said that that situation revealed inadequacy and an element of negligence. I will not disagree with him on that.
One then has to ask oneself what was being done to rein in the membership of Lloyd's. It has been suggested that the ruling body—the board—was inadequate and may still be inadequate. It may be that the culture was wrong arid that it was a cosy club which thought that if it administered itself, everything would be all right. The culture may have to change but that does not mean there should be a new regulatory body. Where is a new regulatory body to come from? In 1987 the noble Lord. Lord Williams of Elvel., wanted an SEC kind of arrangement. Surely he does not want that today—or does he? Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, cannot answer for him and is denied another opportunity to speak today. However, we shall hear from him again on this matter.
Should the regulatory body be taken away from Lloyd's? Where will it be put—in the DTI? ft should certainly not be put in the Treasury. I am sure about that. The responsibility which is enshrined in the 1982 Act and which was put in place by Lloyd's in a series

1719
of bylaws against the recommendations in Patrick Neill's report—all noble Lords applauded that report at the time, and I doubt whether any have any reason to change their opinion today—must be reconsidered. Perhaps a new arrangement might be satisfactory.
It is not for me to talk about why names enter the business with unlimited liability. I would not do so even if I could. That is a matter of the contract arrangements they made. I do not find it inequitable. They enter voluntarily. I shall say no more about that. If Lloyd's wants to change those arrangements, either to defend people through capping or by attracting new money, whether corporate or private, that is a matter for the Lloyd's board to sell to the people it wants to attract into that market-place.
I am desperately sorry for people who have suffered as a result of the greediness which overshadowed prudence and professionalism and led us to this sorry state. However, I do not believe, as the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, implies, that a new regulatory authority need be set up. Nor do I believe that we need a new Act. Do we need another inquiry? Matters which may come before the courts could provide such an inquiry.
I should like to echo what my noble friend Lord Chelmsford said. Let the new culture—of which he has knowledge and I do not—which is evident in the new team which is planned have a chance. Let us stand behind that new culture to restore the confidence of the world in what is and always has been of importance to London as a world financial centre.
4.36 p.m.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for initiating this timely debate. I must declare an interest, being a name at Lloyd's.
Insurance is a unique business in which the principle of good faith is paramount. When a party comes "on risk" he is entitled to know the nature and extent of that risk. Should any material information be withheld—even by mistake—he is entitled to repudiate that contract. That is the law.
As it is simply not practical to carry out the degree of "due diligence" normally undertaken in commercial transactions, the insurer—the man who takes on the risk —also takes on the word of the insured. As stated in a case in 1869:
"the law demands a higher standard of good faith between the parties, and there is no class of documents as to which the strictest good faith is more rigidly required than in policies of assurance".
I hope that your Lordships will bear those words in mind when I recount just a few of the facts which have emerged since 1982. In 1982 the Lloyd's Act granted the Council of Lloyd's the status of self-regulation and legal immunity from suit. As your Lordships have heard, that is a privilege unequalled in the world of commerce. A grave responsibility accompanies that privilege: the responsibility of good faith which goes with unlimited liability.
One would have thought that names could sleep easily because that status also included a duty of care. The Chairman of Lloyd's himself said so in answer to
1720
a question at a recent annual general meeting. At that meeting almost the entire council was present on the platform, including the corporation solicitor. There was not a single dissenting voice. I have in my hand a verbatim transcript of that exchange:
"Question: Does the Committee/Council owe a duty of care to its members?
"Well, the answer is of course yes. The Council of Lloyd's does have a Duty of Care. Due care to see that the society is properly regulated. It does not have a duty to underwrite on behalf of its members etc. etc. The answer to the question is that for regulation [purposes] we have a Duty of Care".
There was some understandable confusion, because Lloyd's had already instructed its lawyers to plead in court that it owed no such thing.
Far from sleeping easily, investors had unknowingly signed away all the legal rights and protections which are afforded those who invest in, say, the stock market. Parliament awarded Lloyd's the right of self-regulation after a number of meetings at which Members of Parliament were told that only Lloyd's knew how to regulate the market. Financial reports and accounts to support their argument showed that all was well. In fact, no less than 142 syndicate accounts should have remained open as the losses from asbestosis and pollution were so large as to be unquantifiable—and that was in 1981.
Auditors' letters to Lloyd's asked for instructions. The committee insisted that all accounts were to be closed. The Lloyd's Bill was going through Parliament at that time. The closing and signing off of the accounts was achieved by a device called rolling the losses forward, thereby passing solvency at a stroke.
Many years later, following overwhelming evidence of negligence by the underwriters—I believe that it was referred to by my noble friend Lord Harrowby —Lloyd's wrote to all names imploring them to settle their differences outside court. Some stuck to their guns and continued the action. The settlement in their favour was some £116 million. Those members who heeded Lloyd's found themselves not only time barred but liable to the full extent of their losses. I ought to add that I was not among that party.
The Council of Lloyd's has powers to investigate agencies. One particular report was so damning that it might well have persuaded Parliament that Lloyd's should have outside regulators. However, unfortunately that report was not allowed to be shown to the names during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament. Names had to go to the High Court to obtain a copy; but by then it was too late and the damage had been done. Those suffering names made a further application to the High Court to obtain vital documents that were stored by Lloyd's in a warehouse outside London. Within hours of the judge ordering their release, the papers were destroyed by fire. To the best of my knowledge, Lloyd's made no attempt whatsoever to investigate or to assist the names in their pursuit of the facts.
Those affairs clearly demonstrate, to me at least, the breathtaking incompetence of the Lloyd's regulators. I would be doing my fellow names a disservice if I did not say that I believe that it is sometimes worse than mere incompetence. It is the greatest pity that the intelligence available to the

1721
market on asbestosis and pollution was not disseminated to the affected names, just as Lloyd's went on a recruitment drive in the early 1980s when members' agents scoured Canada, America and Australia signing up names.
My informants tell me that American members, perhaps less shy than others, are invoking the RICO Act—the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. My own judgment, as I told them, is that such action is misconceived. Should they win, the errors and omission underwriters would apply to the courts to have their contracts set aside. The successful plaintiffs would therefore be unable to collect any of their damages.
A consequence of self-regulation and non-accountability is the violation of the law of agency. That states that an agent must at all times act in the best interests of his principal. Not so at Lloyd's, my Lords. When a conflict of interest arises between a name and Lloyd's the agent betrays the name. In one case bank guarantees were called despite the clearest evidence—I speak of Lloyd's own evidence—of false accounting.
I have copies of names' correspondence with the regulators of the market going back to 1985 in which were detailed and verifiable complaints. In particular, premiums were written on their behalf and in their name of between two, three and four times the limit that they agreed in writing with their agent. Furthermore—I believe that it is absolutely ludicrous —names were put on syndicates, insuring other syndicates that they were on, thereby paying management fees twice over for the same risk.
The council has had every opportunity over many years to put its house in order. Legal immunity has left names with no redress. Lloyd's defence is that it can do its job only if it does not have to look over its own shoulder. How do other professionals manage it? Stockbrokers, bank managers, lawyers, accountants, all handle clients' accounts.
In conclusion, I believe that the only way that disputes of this nature can be settled is, unfortunately, through the courts. Every man and woman in this country should have access to law if they feel that they have been wronged. Those of a vexatious nature are always weeded out. I fervently hope that the courts will expedite those cases of the many, many names who have been driven to penury by their misplaced trust in an institution which was once upon a time held in such high esteem. I believe that it is now up to Parliament to look again at the 1982 Lloyd's Act which has so shamelessly been exploited at the expense of the society's members.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House will be much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for initiating this sensitive debate. The pity of it is that we are discussing it late on a Friday afternoon, because the matter ought ideally to be debated before a full House of Parliament. There are those who are not only names at Lloyd's, but are involved in the whole international and national working of finance generally.
1722
I declare a very bygone interest, as one who began working in Lloyd's in 1948 in a fascinating building in Leadenhall Street. I shall not comment on the new building because it is not germane to the subject of the debate, but noble Lords will draw their own conclusions as to its architectural niceties or otherwise. However, that is irrelevant.
I was a working name at Lloyd's between 1956 and 1963. Many noble Lords will remember the three hurricanes, Betsy, Carol and Hazel, and I think I am right in saying that the losses were spread more over the market than the present losses. Even allowing for inflation since those days, the amount of the losses was probably not as great but most names—and it was mainly inside names in those days, there were relatively few outside names—like myself, were working names. Many of us felt as bitter as the names do now. However, I do not believe that at that time Lloyd's itself could be held largely responsible for the losses. It so happened that they hit the marine market which was then, as probably now, the one which makes the most profit. The Maryland coast was badly hit, shipping was badly hit and enormous losses were sustained. However, that is water under the bridge., if I may use that expression.
Of course, when one becomes a name at Lloyd's one knows that one is taking a certain amount of risk. Whether all agents are as competent as each other is another matter. An inside name has the advantage, or at least some advantage of knowing how the market works. At the time when I became a name, it was obligatory for anyone working in Lloyd's., in whatever capacity, to have worked there for five years before there was any question of their becoming a name, so that by that time they had some knowledge, even as a junior, of how Lloyd's worked.
Those who saw the recent "Panorama" programme on Lloyd's will have been shaken by the examples Many of those who are names at Lloyd's are relatively wealthy, but one's heart goes out to the pharmacist from Evesham in Worcestershire and the elderly lady who was secretary to a distinguished gentleman in the City. As a reward for the service which she gave to the company, in all good faith he made her a name at Lloyd's. Of course, both names faced the rnost enormous losses. Whether Lloyd's itself can be held largely responsible for that is a matter of individual judgment. In the present situation the outside names are in the majority.
There have been allegations (I do not know whether one can refer to insider dealing) that inside names have been given advantageous terms. They are allegations. As I do not work at Lloyd's, I am not in a position to comment. My knowledge comes from what I have heard, read and to some extent seen.
As other noble Lords have said, the organisation that has been set up within Lloyd's must be given time to work. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth put his finger right on the pulse. If Lloyd's is to lose its regulation, to whom will it turn? I do not believe that any government department will take on because departments have enough problems on their hands as it is without having to handle Lloyd's. It would be a major tragedy if Lloyd's were to go under. At the

1723
moment it is the subject of intense criticism, some of it brought on itself, as noble Lords must face. But Lloyd's has been going for 300 years. It was originally a coffee house and the term "A1 at Lloyd's" still, I hope, holds.
We live in a world of national and international turbulence. Nobody could foresee Piper Alpha. Nobody can foresee hurricanes in Florida or off the coast of the Shetlands or disasters anywhere else. Lloyd's can hardly be held responsible. But agents must warn those whom they are persuading to become members that such things happen. Some people assume that nothing can go wrong with Lloyd's. Of course, things can and do go wrong everywhere. It is to be hoped that the new organisation within Lloyd's will make it quite clear that the agents concerned must make quite sure that incoming names are aware of that. Obviously, this is not a very enthusiastic time for new names to come forward. We must face the fact that even in 1993 another hurricane or oil spill may occur. The risk is ongoing.
This debate has served to bring Lloyd's into the limelight. We must all hope that one of the greatest financial institutions in the world, which has been responsible for an enormous amount of foreign currency and export earnings, can ride the present storm.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, first I must declare an interest as a victim of Lloyd's. I am a longstanding victim who has been a member since 1964 and who, after taking into account every cheque received, is now hugely out of pocket as a result of that membership. Lloyd's problems are both longstanding and of relevance to the future of Lloyd's. The crucial question, which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to whom we are grateful for having raised the matter, is whether the current arrangements for the supervision of Lloyd's are satisfactory. I, for one, do not expect the Minister to give an answer when she replies to the debate. I hope that today we shall be opening a wider debate outside the House that will enable the Government to come to a balanced view on what can and should be done.
There are four main causes of the Lloyd's disaster. I shall first list them and then give examples of each. The first was a coincidence of external factors over which Lloyd's can reasonably claim to have had relatively little control; secondly, there was serious professional incompetence; thirdly, there was negligence bordering on fraud; and, fourthly, there was a widespread failure of moral standards which has sullied the reputation of the City of London for a generation.
There are four external factors. First, the personal tax regime in Britain has always made membership of Lloyd's particularly attractive to high income individuals. With top marginal income tax rates of over 90 per cent., the Inland Revenue was in effect underwriting over 90 per cent. of any losses. In addition, there were certain tax free possibilities of capital gain. Rightly, in my view, loopholes in the
1724
capital gains tax provisions were closed and, even more rightly, the top rates of tax were slashed from 98 per cent. in 1979–80 to 40 per cent. in 1988.
I should point out that that was a lucky break for the Government. Noble Lords may have seen a recent Written Answer indicating the total of £880 million of tax repaid in respect of underwriting losses over the five years since 1988 and £386 million tax repaid in 1992–93. I imagine that the figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 will be at least double that. At 80 per cent. marginal tax rates there would have been an extra £1 billion or so on the PSBR. None the less, in recent years Lloyd's has been an extremely unprofitable enterprise for the ordinary British taxpayer.
Secondly, there has been the most unusual coincidence of both natural and man-made disasters over the past few years —hurricanes, earthquakes, oil spillages and fires. Thirdly, the American courts have gone quite mad. Fuelled by the pernicious system of contingency fees for lawyers, American juries have been handing out mega and punitive damages in cases where British insurers, by the standards of the British law of contract, could have repudiated liability. How long Lloyd's should continue to pay for awards which would be repugnant to British standards of justice is a serious issue which has not yet been addressed. One can only hope that the slaughter of American insurance companies and the consequential impossibility of obtaining cover at reasonable rates for many of the risks which must be covered by insurance for an advanced society to operate properly will stimulate the American Congress to take action.
Fourthly, there was a huge increase in insurance capacity which resulted in Lloyd's being forced out of its traditional direct insurance markets into reinsurance, which is far more difficult to assess. Certainly, Lloyd's has proved that it was not up to the task, and that brings me directly to my next main point, which is incompetence.
It is deplorable that until recently no professional qualifications were required to be either an underwriter or a broker at Lloyd's. Even now many old hands are still operating who are hopelessly inadequate both intellectually and professionally. Lloyd's recently arranged for a group of parliamentarians—of which I was one—to visit the market. I spent some time in one of the boxes and was fascinated by the sophistication of the methods used to assess risks. I can only say that I believe that those methods are well beyond the capabilities of many of those whom I know personally to be working in Lloyd's, who are much better at the traditional method of writing their names on the slip based on the "quality" of earlier names on it.
There was, I suppose, an early warning of the incompetence in the affair of computer leasing. That goes back to the 1970s. Enterprising Americans purchased computers with bank borrowings to lease to users. Banks were rightly concerned that the computers could become obsolete. Astonishingly, Lloyd's were prepared to insure the computers against technological advance with predictable and considerable financial loss.

1725
I turn to negligence, of which again we had an early warning at Lloyd's. Many noble Lords will remember the unsavoury Savonita affair. It related to a reinsurance claim on a cargo of mainly Fiat cars carried in 1974 from Italy in a ship called the "Savonita". Part of the cargo was damaged at sea by fire. The Italian insurance company (part of the Fiat group controlled by the Agnelli family) had as their broker at Lloyd's a firm controlled by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Mr. Pearson, as he then was, became suspicious. It later emerged that some of the supposedly damaged cars were being resold in mint condition at near mint prices. Mr. Pearson refrained from pressing the claim on behalf of his client and, having obtained leading counsel's opinion on what he should do in relation to the fraud, reported the matter to the then chairman of Lloyd's. The net result was that Lloyd's did nothing about Mr. Pearson's submission. The business was transferred to Willis Faber who ultimately collected 96 per cent. of the claim for the Agnelli company.
Despite considerable pressure against him from the then Tory establishment this scandal was fully exposed on 23rd March 1978 in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Jonathan Aitken. Interestingly, the Minister of the then Labour Government who replied to the debate and who rejected the allegations made by Mr. Aitken was the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. At that time the Whitehall establishment was also protecting Lloyd's from exposure. I recommend noble Lords to look at that debate. Subsequently, the case led to the setting up of the Fisher Inquiry. The Savonita affair reflects nothing but credit on my noble friend Lord Pearson and nothing but discredit on the Lloyd's establishment at the time which, if it was not condoning fraud, was seeking to sweep it under the table.
A far more recent and significant case of negligence, or worse, is the cause of the growth of Lloyd's capacity by more than 70 per cent. from 1985 to 1988. The insiders knew the state of world insurance and of the fierce competition which had driven premiums far below what was prudent. Yet they deliberately pulled more and more people and capital into the market, assuring names that the market was turning at last. The then immediate past chairman of Lloyd's, Sir Peter Green, wrote to his names in September 1984:
"A number of years have now passed since we have been able to offer our Names an opportunity to increase their shares. The Underwriters report that rates are now hardening in all sections of our business and in some areas to a very significant extent … I believe that you should most seriously consider increasing your share from 1st January 1985".
Where was all the money to go? The LMX spiral was one answer—round and round incestuously, growing like a cancer. Another answer was in underwriting risks at premiums which should never have seen the light of day. So if the market for all this new capital was not there, what was it for? Why was it needed? Well, we have found out.
By 1982 it was evident to many in the management of Lloyd's, and to very many agents, that the environmental and health claims from America—pollution and asbestosis—showed every sign of turning from a row of molehills into a range of
1726
mountains as long and high as the Rockies. It was said last year that all the insurance money in the world is too little to pay for cleaning up America. No doubt there were those insiders, back in the early and mid-eighties, to whom it did not look quite so drastic. But most must have realised that if Lloyd's could broaden and deepen substantially its capital base it would have a better chance of riding out the fearful storm to come.
We still have to learn why the warnings of impending disaster over pollution and asbestosis, circulating in the Committee of Lloyd's; in 1982, were not passed on to all names. We still have to discover whether the warnings were received or understoocl by a host of auditors who sanctioned reinsurance-to-close year after year.
However, the crucial point is that Lloyd's capacity was expanded between 1985 and 1988, riot because the business existed to justify it—not even the agencies argued that —but because of their horrendous overhang from the past. Names, although made aware of their limitless liability for risks underwritten in their name, were enticed with the promise of greater profits, but wilfully kept in the dark about the true historic nature of those risks.
Was this a policy which the agencies pursued independently, all having come to the conclusion about the need to expand their capital base to avoid bankruptcy? Or was it a much wider conspiracy—of silence—starting at the top?
I now turn to the most distressing of all four causes of the Lloyd's disaster—the widespread lack of integrity. I shall focus on only one issue, the widespread practice and use of baby syndicates— technically known as preferential underwriting—to syphon off the best risks for a few favoured names. Typically, they would have under 50 names and often fewer than a dozen. They have been illegal since 1983 when a by-law was passed to require any syndicate to have at least 100 names.
I checked on the 1980 Lloyd's syndicate lists, a year when the baby syndicates were at their height, to see which of the high and mighty in the Lloyd's establishment were members of them. Two of the five most recent chairmen of Lloyd's were on them—Sir Peter Green and Mr. David Coleridge. Mr. Stephen Merrell, now a deputy chairman of Lloyd's, was also on one list.
Although they have only been banned since 1983, let us be quite clear that the baby syndicates are, and always have been, conceptually dishonest. There was never any excuse for them. They were of course one of the reasons why insiders did better than outside names, as is highlighted in Sir David Walker's report. And yet the baby syndicate ethos is still justified by many who still work in the market, sornetimes with little shame. I myself received a letter from a Lloyd's members' agent (not my own) dated 15th September 1992, commenting on the Walker report:
"It is well known that Working Names have an average capacity substantially below that of Non-Working Names and, indeed, taking 1992 as an example. 45 per cent. of Workers write £150,000 or less, whereas only 5 per cent. of Non-Workers have limits this small, the Workers of course being of relatively small capital worth".

1727
I have no reason, or confidence, to believe that, given half a chance, some of the Lloyd's insiders would not be up to their old tricks or new varieties of them. At present they are like the three-card fraudsters on Oxford Street who pack up into a side street when the police are around and return when the coast is clear. What we need is to make sure that the coast is never again clear.
I have heard nothing but good of the new regulator, Mr. Brian Garraway, a former deputy chairman of BAT, who, with no previous links with Lloyd's, arrived in January of this year as chairman of the Lloyd's Regulatory Board. This board was set up under the Morse Report. The fact is he reports to the Council of Lloyd's. In my view he should report either to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or to the Governor of the Bank of England. That is for discussion.
Finally, I want to deal with a most important aspect of the new business plan—corporate capital—the part which involves its introduction. Lloyd's was faced with a choice. It could attempt to save the many individual names who face personal ruin or it could attempt to save Lloyd's as an institution. Understandably, especially as the careers of those involved depend on Lloyd's, it has given priority to the latter and the vehicle chosen is corporate capital.
There is a market for such capital and I believe Lloyd's will be successful in raising the required capital to keep it afloat. A number of brokerage houses and investment bankers are working on schemes to invest in Lloyd's. Such schemes are typically tax efficient structures, located offshore, and attractive to international capital.
As I understand it, a scheme would raise an amount of capital—say × million pounds. It would invest that in the short-term capital market earning 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. on its capital. In addition it would be possible to underwrite two times ×x million pounds in Lloyd's premium. I believe that for capital to be attracted the returns will need to be around 15 per cent. Hence the Lloyd's return on premium needs to be around 4 per cent.; that is to say, two times 4 per cent. plus, say, 7 per cent. on the capital invested which equals 15 per cent. If the premium returns are in the region of 10 per cent., as Lloyd's has hinted, such vehicles will return 25 per cent. plus to their shareholders. That return will suck in international capital and quickly restore capacity. But the rates on Lloyd's market will become more fiercely competitive and be held down.
These corporate schemes will be ring-fenced so that they have no liability for prior Lloyd's losses. The net impact will be that they will serve new corporate investors and Lloyd's intermediaries and brokers. They can only be negative for existing names, as they will supply capacity to the commodity business which is reinsurance. In effect, traditional names are being abandoned and, albeit in a different form, the strategy is once again to bring in new capital to save the institution.
So what is Lloyd's doing to help? It is offering Greek gifts. First, it is doing all in its power to prevent
1728
names going bankrupt. I believe that it would be better for many names if they did become bankrupt. At least then they could start life again instead of being left in bond servitude for life like the victims of money lenders in India. Secondly, Lloyd's is reducing, in many cases by as much as a half, the cash that is being demanded this year. Like the skilful blackmailer, the calls are being adjusted to what the victim will bear rather than driving him to the police or to suicide.
There is an overwhelming case for the ending of self-regulation. Even so, for most names it will be too late. For them, Lloyd's will have been a sad story, and for many, a personal tragedy.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I rise to speak last and am glad of that because, as I shall explain, I declare no positive interest in Lloyd's. I am not a name and never have been. I started my career in the City with unlimited liability on the Stock Exchange. Therefore, somewhat luckily perhaps, I was not tempted to Lloyd's. However, I do know a great many members of Lloyd's and a great many names. Many of them are ravaged. Indeed, there are two in my close family.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, should be very pleased with himself for stimulating what I think has been an excellent discussion from a very broad range of interests on this most desperately important subject. Without being personally involved, for the past six months I have been trying (in what spare time I have had) to understand the implications of the Lloyd's market and what has happened, and to discuss with various interested parties what could be done.
This matter is of national interest, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said. That view is shared to some extent by all of your Lordships who have spoken today. This debate is certainly in the individual interests not only of the 6,000 to 8,000 names whom I have been led to believe are very severely affected, but also of the 30,000 odd who make up the full complement of Lloyd's names.
I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time. I know that it is now late on a Friday evening and that this is but the first stab of your Lordships' House at being totally constructive in looking at regulations for this great institution and in discussing and looking at a way forward, which is something on which this House has a brilliant history.
I am sure that we all feel, with my noble friend Lord Chelmsford, that we need time to sort this out. We need to allow the new regime at Lloyd's and the new regulator the time to understand—as I have found it very difficult to understand—the full machinations at Lloyd's. I hope that there is time for that to happen.
I take the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there should be an inquiry by people totally unconnected with Lloyd's. Lloyd's has evolved over time as a very difficult market. As my noble friend Lord Harrowby said, it is difficult to gain information from within the market. He said that he looked to find the level of his exposure, but could not. Syndicates and groups of names who are having problems are finding it difficult to discover who is on

1729
which syndicate. So I am not sure that that will be easy. My noble friend Lord Marlesford asked whether we were confident that the old habits which die hard would not be continued within Lloyd's.
During the past few months a potential solution to the problem has been brought to my notice. Although I am not part of the group, I have been kept closely in touch with an extension of the Lloyd's business plan. I do not want to go into details now, but I can say that I believe it will be published and that the publication date is next Tuesday. It has been prepared by names and brokers who have experience of many of the things that have been discussed this afternoon. The solution has been proposed to the council, because, being an extension of the Lloyd's business plan, it is not something that the Council of Lloyd's can do itself. It is something that the members can do.
I have seen details that satisfy the requirement of all the players in this sorry saga. So it is with some hope, expectation and excitement that I announce this to your Lordships. The details will follow, because I do not want to refer to a small part of it and get it out of' proportion. There is some hope not just for the names who have been worst hit but for the managing agents and members agents. It may also give some relief to my noble friend the Minister.
I am in no way anticipating my noble friend's reply to the debate. I am looking forward to hearing what she has to say. The plan involves the current players in the Council of Lloyd's. I hope that there will be some relief for those names who have recently seen the 1990 results and have every reason to fear the 1991 results.
5.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for bringing this matter before the House. It is, as he said, some time since the issue was discussed here or in another place. Two facts need to be borne in mind. The first—on which many of your Lordships agree—is that Lloyd's is an important market place which has been commercially successful for many years, contributing considerably to our invisible exports; and, as my noble friend Lord Chelmsford pointed out, responsible for providing a great many jobs.
When trading difficulties arise, it is important to distinguish between what is a straightforward trading loss, whether or not subject to civil legal dispute, and what is a regulatory question.
The second point is that insurance regulation may he for the protection of two distinct parties; the policyholder on the one hand and the investor in the insurance undertaking on the other. Most of the comment that we have heard today relates to investor or underwriter protection rather than policyholder protection, although I shall return to the latter.
Every investor is now warned that investments can fall in value as well as increase. At Lloyd's every new underwriter or name is warned before he joins that insurance is a risk business and that he has personal unlimited liability for his insurance obligations. Several noble Lords have pointed out that unlimited
1730
liability is just that—unlimited. Every penny they possess is pledged to their insurance underwriting for the protection of the policyholder.
Lloyd's is a unique institution arid its self-regulatory regime has evolved specifically to deal with its particular features. operates a system of professional independent regulation with a strong practitioner input. The corporation of Lloyd's employs 200 staff dealing specifically with regulation. None of these employees may be names themselves. either as underwriters or as market practitioners.
There have been significant changes in the past decade in self-regulation at Lloyd's to improve the protection afforded names. This process is continuing. However, it is in the very nature of the insurance industry that problems take a long time to emerge and to resolve. Much of the underwriting giving rise to the losses emerging and being suffered by names today took place in the 1970s and before. For Lloyd's, as with other insurers, these problems have been compounded by the industry passing through the low point in its cycle between 1988 and 1992. As my noble friend Lord Lindsey and Abingdon said, low premium rates have coincided with an abnormally high level of catastrophes.
Lloyd's regulation encourages ethical standards of behaviour and not just obedience to the letter of the law. However, the Government recognise, as does the new management team at Lloyd's, that practice up to and during the early part of the 1980s fell short of what was required.
Much has changed since then. The Lloyd's Act 1982 revised the constitution of the society and a council was created to take over from the old committee of Lloyd's responsibility for regulation of the members of Lloyd's and all those businesses which operate within the market. A key aspect of the council was the introduction of outsiders to be nominated members whose role can best be approximated to that of a non-executive director. Since the council's inception and throughout the 1980s it undertook a massive overhaul of Lloyd's regulatory structure through the promulgation of new by-laws covering all aspects of the market's business.
A general review department was established to monitor the ability of agents and brokers to comply with the by-law requirements. It visits agents and brokers to assess the adequacy of their management, systems and p+ocedures. Investigation and discipline in cases of misconduct are handled through council committees with tripartite representation.
The information available to names has also been substantially improved. Better accounting arid auditing arrangements have increased the competition between agents. An ombudsman has been appointed to investigate complaints by names against their agents or the corporation. A names' interests committee keeps the complaints procedures under review.
The regulatory arrangements at Lloyd's have undergone constant evolution since 1982. In 1986 the Government set up a committee of inquiry into the regulatory requirements chaired by Sir Patrick Neill, QC. The inquiry was prompted by the wish to give

1731
names protection comparable with that proposed for other investors under the Financial Services Act. As my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth pointed out, the Neill Report made 70 recommendations which the Government asked the council to implement. The council did that and all the recommendations have been acted upon. The Neill committee of inquiry did not consider that external regulation would be any better.
One of the key recommendations was to increase the number of nominated members of the Council of Lloyd's. The appointment of those members, who have no other connection with the Lloyd's market, is subject to confirmation by the Governor of the Bank of England. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked who those people are. They are chosen for their independence of thought and experience of regulation; for example, the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board is a nominated member and I am in no doubt that those members play a major role in securing a strong independent input into self-regulation.
Combined with the external members who represent the names, they form a majority of the members of the council. To emphasise the point, independent and non-practising members make up the majority of the council.
Lloyd's has not left self-regulation with the Neill recommendations. In November 1990 the council appointed a task force chaired by Mr. David Rowland, then the chairman of Sedgwick, to review the workings of the market. The task force report published in January 1993 recommended reform of the market's governance through the separation of market development and regulatory tasks at council level by the setting up of separate market and regulatory boards. The task force also recommended the strengthening of names' rights. These included: the right to ongoing participation in a syndicate; the right to request the council to replace the managing agent of a syndicate; the right to approve major syndicate transactions; right of access to syndicate information and a right to regular meetings of names on a syndicate.
Sir Jeremy Morse, a nominated member of the council, was asked to chair a working party to carry forward the governance recommendations. It reported in June last year. He recommended slimming down the Council of Lloyd's to reflect its reduced role without affecting the majority nominated and external members had over insiders. The regulatory board comprises four insiders, four external and four nominated members together with the head of regulation and the solicitor to the corporation, neither of whom may be names. Sir Jeremy's recommendations were implemented on 1st January this year.
The Lloyd's business plan published in April this year, which many noble Lords mentioned and mostly with approval, advocates yet further moves to make regulation at Lloyd's more overtly independent. The regulatory board is developing plans for reshaping regulation at Lloyd's. The council's aim is to create a structure that replicates the operation of external
1732
regulation as closely as possible. That will be achieved by stripping out administrative functions undertaken by regulatory departments, to achieve greater clarity of purpose, and more intensive training of regulatory staff and adoption of new regulatory principles. There is a firm conviction of the need to tackle the problems.
Despite these extensive changes, names who have lost heavily are understandably suspicious of the circumstances of their losses. Lloyd's has responded to their grievances in a number of ways. It has used its by-law powers to create a system of independent loss reviews which investigate the causes of losses by individual syndicates and provide a report for the names on those syndicates. Each loss review has been led by a senior figure, typically a senior partner of a large accountancy practice or some other figure commanding authority. I believe that many names have welcomed that approach and found the reviews objective in their reporting.
Many names suffering losses on so-called LMX syndicates sought investigation into these alleging fraud. Lloyd's asked Sir David Walker, then chairman of the Securities and Investment Board, and a nominated member of the Council of Lloyd's, to investigate the allegations. No evidence of fraud was brought before Sir David's inquiry.
However, Sir David did find inadequate standards of professionalism care and diligence on the part of a number of members and managing agents. He also noted regulatory weaknesses at least with the benefit of hindsight. In particular, he was surprised that some managing agents had failed to monitor their aggregate risk exposure and that capital adequacy rules contained no element of risk weighting. The regulatory board has either implemented his recommendations or is working on those which are outstanding.
Sir David also analysed the complaint which was mentioned by several speakers today that insiders fare better than external names. He did not find any systematic or large-scale preference for working names. He also observed that, providing it was not immodest, a better performance of the investment of insiders was to be expected.
My department has a role to play in the regulation of Lloyd's, but it is directed at policyholder protection. It is concerned with general oversight of the market and with solvency. The Council of Lloyd's deposits annually with the Secretary of State a statutory statement of business done by members in the previous year. It must, and always does, demonstrate that members of Lloyd's both individually and taken together are solvent as defined in UK and European law. The purpose of those requirements is to ensure that Lloyd's can pay all valid claims from policyholders. It is not the Government's responsibility to become involved in the day-to-day administration of Lloyd's, or to intervene in individual disputes.
We have to be clear on what regulation can and cannot do. Several of the reinsurance contracts between Lloyd's syndicates have resulted in disputes between those who wrote them and their names and those who wrote the original business. Unfortunately,

1733
regulation cannot prevent losses arising from adverse developments in the market or from poor underwriting. The emergence of losses does not mean that there has been fraud or negligence; but, if there is a suspicion of that, evidence should be provided and passed to the relevant authorities.
I shall try briefly to reply to some of the specific points that noble Lord have raised during the course of the debate. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Harrowby that. I, for one, hope that he will not hesitate to let us hear him speak in future and that he will join us more regularly in debate. We benefited greatly from his contribution. He raised a point that was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. The Government are active in representing the interests of the British insurance industry in Washington, both in opinion forming and in the legislative process.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised the matter of introduction of corporate capital. The rules for introducing corporate capital are still being developed. They will seek to strike the proper balance between the interests of new capital providers and the mechanisms such as the central guarantee fund which ensure the solvency of names and the payment of all valid claims. The Government are working with regulators at Lloyd's to ensure that corporate capital providers are not subject to double regulation by both the DTI and Lloyd's. The Inland Revenue and Lloyd's are working on the appropriate tax regime for corporate capital.
While doubting the value that the DTI may bring to the issue —for which remarks I forgive him—my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth pointed out that regulatory shortcomings, as the reforms have shown, do not necessarily add up to regulatory failure. The
1734
noble Lord, Lord Peston, also asked me what aspects of the matter were being looked into. I believe that he referred to it as a "worst case scenario". My officials, in conjunction with those at Lloyd's, monitor its financial position regularly in the manner to be expected of prudential regulators.
I would say in reply to my noble friend Lord Alexander of Tunis that the events to which he referred occurred before the Neill committee of inquiry took place. That inquiry found no grounds for bringing self-regulation to an end. I do not believe that changing the legislation would do anything to help the present management of Lloyd's secure effective regulation in the meantime. What we have seen at Lloyd's is a decade and more of perpetual improvement. I was pleased that most noble Lords seemed to agree, particularly my noble friend Lord Renwick, that what is now needed is a period of stability. Those who call for new legislation to make regulation statutorily independent need to take a view on how long they believe this would take and what they think the impact of uncertainty caused by planning legislation would be on those currently charged with implementing the reforms recently recommended.
I am sure it will be felt that the contributions of your Lordships this afternoon have made a worthwhile input to the debate, which has certainly continued elsewhere for some time. I am sure that this is a subject to which we shall return. As my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, the new management at Lloyd's—and I am sure all others involved —will read Hansard with interest, and I would suggest it will be of value to them.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before six o'clock.

  NETHERLANDS—UK: FRAUD LAWS
  NETHERLANDS—UK: FRAUD LAWS
  DOMESTIC EMPLOYMENT: WORKING HOURS
  DOMESTIC EMPLOYMENT: WORKING HOURS
  CIVIL SERVICE: PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY
  CIVIL SERVICE: PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY