Sitting of 21 January 1994

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

  Northern Ireland
  9.35 am
  Mr. James Couchman: I beg to move,
  That this House welcomes and supports the insistent demand of ilstthe people of all traditions in Northern Ireland for peace, properly attained; and asserts its abhorrence and rejection of all violence, from whatever quarter, perpetrated in place of democratic persuasion.
  It is a considerable honour for me to open the debate, and I shall say a little more about that in a moment.
  During the morning of 15 December last year, I sat in the plenary session of the British-Irish parliamentary body in Church house. Most of those present allowed their thoughts to wander to events that were unfolding in Downing street a few hundred yards away. While we were discussing items of importance and interest to Members of this House and to Deputies and Senators from the Irish Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, Mr. Reynolds, were signing an historic agreement—a joint declaration for peace agreed by the British and Irish Governments. Soon after midday, they made public the result of deliberations and careful negotiations stretching back to February 1992.
  A lunch at the Irish embassy for members of the British-Irish parliamentary body was followed in the afternoon by my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on the joint declaration. During an hour and a half's questioning, my right hon. Friend received support from Members in almost all parts of the House and answered questions from 46 right hon. and hon. Members.
  It was a good occasion and there was an optimism in the atmosphere that here at last was an initiative which might lead to an end of terror, murder and brutality in Northern Ireland, 25 years on from the civil rights marches of the late 1960s.
  At the end of the statement and a further announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, you, Madam Speaker, drew the ballot for today's private Members' motions and, for only the second time in more than 10 years, my name was drawn. What is more, I was drawn in pole position.
  It is a rare honour for a Back-Bench Member to be allowed to set the day's business for the House. I toyed with the issues presently exercising my constituents and decided that, having just completed many days of debate on the Gracious Speech and on the Budget, most of the contentious, topical issues had already been amply covered. Unlike the occasion when I was able to initiate a Friday debate on the iniquities of the Property Services Agency, no burning local issue was exercising the good folk of Gillingham, and I was briefly at a loss as to what my subject for today should be.
  After a few minutes' thought, the prevailing optimism about the joint declaration reasserted itself and it occurred
  1156
  to me that today, five weeks on from the Downing street meeting, might be a suitable occasion for the House to debate the joint declaration and the current political situation in Northern Ireland in the immediate aftermath of that initiative. I reasoned that everyone would have had a chance to read properly the whole of the 12-paragraph statement and to understand its carefully crafted sentences, a chance to recognise the balance between the assurances to the loyalist community and to those who aspire to and yearn for a united Ireland achieved by peaceful means.
  Five weeks should be long enough for a thorough analysis of what is on offer and I believed, naively perhaps, that it should be long enough for the leaders of Sinn Fein to convince the leaders of the IRA to announce a permanent cessation of violence so that the brief period of decontamination or quarantine before Sinn Fein is allowed to take part in exploratory talks might commence. Hence today's debate.
  I am particularly honoured that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will intervene in the debate. I am also delighted that so many right hon. and hon. Members from the Province are in their seats on a Friday.
  In the days following 15 December, many column inches in the press were devoted to the initiative. The principal tenor of the articles matched the mood of hope and optimism in the House on that memorable day. We also read of the chaos and disruption brought to public transport by bomb alerts on commuter networks and the underground. As there had been several bombs in recent days, police had no option but to take such alerts seriously, especially as they followed the pattern of previous Christmases, when the IRA sought to cause maximum disruption before announcing a three-day halt to its terrorist activity.
  Before Christmas, there was speculation that the IRA might announce a longer, even permanent, cessation of violence to gain its place at the conference table at the earliest possible moment. In the event, the godfathers of terror proposed only their now customary three-day halt. Their cynicism was swiftly underlined by the murder of a young soldier, Guardsman Daniel Blinco, who was on patrol at Crossmaglen on 30 December. He was killed by an IRA sniper team that was known to have murdered nine members of the security forces in 16 months.
  Two days before Guardsman Blinco's murder, a large meeting of republicans, including Sinn Fein representatives and parole prisoners, at Loughmacrory, County Tyrone, had indicated that the joint declaration fell short of the concession that they wanted to halt the violence. At that meeting, Sinn Fein, in the form of South Armagh Councillor Jim McAllister, started the spurious call for clarification. He is quoted as saying:
  "I think the overall view is that the document has a long way to go before it becomes a peace initiative. There is incredulity that we are being told we cannot have clarification. As the document stands, the general feeling is that it would be insufficient to produce an IRA ceasefire."
  Since that republican meeting, the violence has continued. New year's day saw a dozen incendiary bombs start fires in shops and businesses in Belfast, causing millions of pounds' worth of damage and putting 200 jobs at risk. As if to match the IRA's renewed assault, the Ulster Freedom Fighters announced that they would respond militarily in 1994. The omens for the new year were not good.

  1157
  On Tuesday 11 January, at least two attacks on the security forces were reported. A bomb secreted in the chassis of a vehicle that had been used in an IRA mortar attack blew up within a security base in South Armagh, badly injuring two soldiers. On the same day, two policemen and a policewomen were wounded by a bomb thrown at their vehicle as it patrolled the Short Strand area of Belfast. The following day, an unarmed military policewoman was shot twice and seriously injured as the IRA ambushed a joint police and military patrol in the New Lodge area of Belfast. The only slight consolation about that attack was that two arrests were made and a weapon was recovered.
  Although the loyalist gunmen appear to have been more subdued during that period, a 21-year-old Catholic was shot by UFF terrorists on 6 January in the Lenadoon area of Belfast. However, the Ulster Volunteer Force has suggested that it will abjure violence if all sides accept the joint declaration as a way forward to peace.
  Against a back ground of continuing violence since Christmas, some of the euphoria has dissipated. Some of the optimism has given way to realism and even some of the hope has moderated. What has brought that about? I suggest that it is not solely the brutality of defiant terrorism but also the smokescreen put up by the so-called political wing of the republican movement, Sinn Fein. The clarification issue mentioned by Councillor McAllister has been taken up by Sinn Fein's President, Mr. Adams, who has milked it for all it is worth. Adams's demand for clarification is clearly a demand for negotiation without having to order his friends of the IRA to give up the campaign of violence. His first reported reaction to the joint declaration was a demand for direct and unconditional dialogue with the British and Irish Governments.
  It is suggested that the areas that Adams considers need clarification are, first, how the constitutional guarantee for the will of the majority will work in Northern Ireland and how the people of Ireland will exercise the right to self determination. Secondly, he demands that the British Government become a persuader in favour of a united Ireland. The third area in which he demands clarification—or rather concession—is on the question of amnesty for republican prisoners.
  In his statement on 15 December, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to great lengths to explain precisely what was involved in the safeguards for the majority wish in Northern Ireland and how referendums, north and south of the border, might be conducted to fulfil the paragraph on self determination. The body of his statement did not touch on amnesty for prisoners, but my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and I pressed my right hon. Friend on the question of amnesty.
  It is worth putting on the record again the questions and answers in the Official Report. I asked my right hon. Friend to reassure the House that
  "no commitment—explicit or implicit—has been made for any form of amnesty for those who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes in Northern Ireland, and that the judicial process will pursue, with utmost diligence, those who have continued with their crimes of violence in recent weeks".
  My hon. Friend replied:
  "I can give my hon. Friend that absolute commitment."—[Official Report, 15 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 1083–84.]
  1158
  My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, whom I am delighted to see in his place this morning, asked whether my right hon. Friend's definition of a cessation of violence included
  "the handing over of at least some weapons and explosives and will he assure the House that convicted murderers in Northern Ireland will serve the whole of their sentences".
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was unequivocal in his response. He said:
  "I can certainly confirm that not only do I not have any notion in my mind of amnesty, but there is no suggestion of a reduction in sentences awarded by the courts. That is a matter for the courts and not something in which I wish to to interfere. Were there to be an end to violence, the crimes that are currently being investigated would still be the subject of investigation in the future—that is the way our criminal justice system operates and it will continue to operate on that basis."—[Official Report, 15 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 1089–90.]
  He then commented on the surrender of arms.
  Mr. Frank Field: Is not the hon. Gentleman being a little unfair to the Government? We heard many statements that the Government would not talk, directly or indirectly, to the IRA and Sinn Fein on those matters. In the event, they had to come to the House and say that they were talking to the IRA. Will not those matters be part of the debate, should the next stage of the peace negotiations take place? Our role today should be not to nail people to certain positions that they have or have had in the past, but to encourage people to approach the problem with a much more open mind than in the past.
  Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point, but I am offering my opinions on what should happen, particularly on amnesty, and praying in aid the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 15 December, which he has repeated in the intervening weeks.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: In the hon. Gentleman's quotation of the Prime Minister's answer, the Prime Minister said that the courts would decide. Will he reflect on the fact that, within the Northern Ireland system, the review procedure is independent of the courts' decisions? That system has been operating for a considerable time and decides on the termination or length of sentences that people might serve. We should all look carefully at those mechanisms when we discuss this matter, rather than use pejorative and arbitrary terms such as "amnesty".
  Mr. Couchman: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that he will wish to enlarge on that point when he contributes to the debate.
  Mr. David Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for quoting the answer that I received when I raised the issue. In view of what has just been said, does my hon. Friend accept that some hon. Members and many people in the country believe that murder is murder and cannot be excused in the name of politics? If the Government are minded to weaken on that point, some of us will not support such a weakening.
  Mr. Couchman: I take my hon. Friend's words seriously, and wish to say more about the question of amnesty, which I think will make abundantly clear my position on that vexed subject.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: When the hon. Gentleman gives further detail of his view on amnesty, will

  1159
  he comment on the detailed statement by the former Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, Dr. Garret Fitzgerald, who said that in July 1985 he had entered into an agreement with Mrs. Thatcher? The British Government had agreed that, if there was a cessation of violence or a major reduction in violence, there would be an early release of prisoners. Does the hon. Gentleman make a distinction between that and an amnesty?
  Mr. Couchman: My belief in murder as murder remains absolute. Those who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes in Northern Ireland should continue to serve their sentences without early release.
  Mr. Mallon: The Shankill butchers have had early release under review.
  Mr. Couchman: I shall come to the very issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised in his sedentary intervention.
  My right hon. Friend's continuing rejection of Sinn Fein's demands for an amnesty for republican prisoners will be welcomed by every hon. Member who believes in law and order. The prisoners under discussion are not prisoners of war or detainees. Those who have been convicted or who are on remand in custody are in prison because they have been convicted of committing, or are strongly suspected of committing, the most appalling crimes of brutality. Those crimes are often committed against men, women and children who are wholly innocent of any involvement in the conflict and are bystanders who have simply got in the way of thugs bent on violence in the pursuit of who knows what.
  Such crimes have been committed in Northern Ireland, here in London, throughout Great Britain and on the continent of Europe. Who would contemplate awarding an amnesty for the Balcombe street gang who were responsible for at least six murders in the 1970s? Who could contemplate an amnesty for the Harrods bombers, Paul Kavanagh and Gilbert McNamee, who were convicted of killing six people outside Harrods 10 years ago? Who could contemplate an amnesty for Patrick Magee, who was responsible for the murder of four people at the Grand hotel in Brighton during the Conservative party conference in 1984?
  We must remember that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The loyalist terrorists currently imprisoned include such psychopaths as the Shankill butchers, Robert Bates, Sam McAllister and William Moore who, with their eight accomplices, were sentenced to 42 life sentences for the torture, murder and mutilation of 19 people, often for purely sectarian reasons. Who could offer amnesty to such men or to Michael Stone, the Milltown cemetery murderer? There are presently more than 1,500 men and women serving sentences in Ulster gaols for terror-related offences, and a further 350 are on remand. There are a small number of terrorists serving their sentences in mainland prisons.
  To allow an amnesty for those prisoners would be a grotesque insult to the memory of the 3,000 people who have died during the troubles and to the many more who have been maimed or injured mentally by the actions of those terrorists who have been so careless of the impact of their murderous attacks. My right hon. Friend has not been helped by the reported words of the Taoiseach in a BBC interview on 19 December. Mr. Reynolds suggested that the future of terrorist prisoners would be part of any negotiations flowing from the joint declaration. That was
  1160
  not the only apparently unhelpful intervention from Dublin over the demand for clarification from Sinn Fein. There should be no question of any amnesty for those who have committed the most heinous crimes during the past 25 years.
  Sinn Fein's demands for clarification are but a smokescreen. The joint declaration is admirably clear. My right hon. Friend's statement on 15 December was equally clear, and his answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and me could have left no one in any doubt about amnesty. It is difficult to understand why the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who has done so much for the peace initiative, should urge clarification on the two Governments, as he is reported to have done. I also find it difficult to understand why the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, asks for clarification when the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), has made it clear that such a move would constitute negotiation before the abandonment of violence.
  It seems curious that the Taoiseach should have been willing to offer the demanded clarification in a speech on 10 January. In an article in the Evening Standard,Lord Callaghan, who had much to do with the troubles in the early days, has also urged clarification of genuine points of misunderstanding. I am not convinced that there is any need for such clarification.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a speech yesterday related to the declaration that could therefore be considered to be an elaboration of what has taken place. A well-developed speech was made by the Irish Prime Minister that seemed to be an explanation of the declaration. Might it not be relevant for such a process to continue and even for the Prime Minister to participate in that process? It would not be negotiation, but it would be a further explanation of what has already been put forward.
  Mr. Couchman: I shall leave my right hon. and learned Friend to comment on the speech that he made last night. No doubt he will also have something to say about the words offered by the Irish Prime Minister last night.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again and apologise for making yet another intervention.
  The hon. Gentleman complains about the search for clarification and about recommendations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and others to give that clarification before peace or negotiations have been established. However, he has spent the major part of his speech clarifying for the Government his position on something that may or may not take place as part of the negotiating process. Is there not an irony in his position? Not only is the hon. Gentleman clarifying or attempting to clarify a position for the Government but he is placing a marker on something that may arise in the negotiations. Is there not an irony in that?
  Mr. Couchman: I think that I was unwise to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I am not convinced of the need for such clarification. I am convinced that Sinn Fein, in the form of Mr. Adams, is playing a devious and divisive game in trying to enter negotiations having yielded nothing in the way of a ceasefire. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my

  1161
  right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State are right to have none of it. Mr. Adams should order a total cessation of IRA violence—I have no doubt that he has the power to do so. We could then let three months elapse, after which time Mr. Adams can have ample clarification in properly constituted talks, not held under the shadow of the bomb and the bullet.
  Mr. Adams has suggested that the IRA is prepared to fight for another 25 years unless his demands for clarification are met. If the IRA's response is to reject the present offer, there must be an uneqivocal follow-up to the joint declaration, and all possible action on both sides of the border must be taken to eradicate once and for all the terrorist threat from the IRA.
  The loopholes in the Irish extradition law that have been contentious between the countries for so long must be closed. The co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana must become ever closer, particularly over intelligence matters. The efforts of both security forces to police the border must be intensified. Banning Sinn Fein in the north and the Republic must be considered. In the context of putting pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA, I am perplexed as to why the Dublin Government have chosen this moment to lift the 20-year ban on the broadcasting of interviews with Sinn Fein and paramilitary groups. That seems to be an untimely pandering to terrorists. The two Governments have set out their peace initiative and it is essential that they act in concert in all that they do to bring it to fruition.
  The House does not need me to spell out how great is the prize for peace in Northern Ireland. On the day before the Downing street joint declaration, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced the public expenditure allocations for 1994–95 to 1996–97 and defined the Governments three public expenditure priorities for Northern Ireland as, first, defeating terrorism, with an allocation for law and order of £931 million—he regretted the need for this enormous budget when, in a peaceful and stable society, much of it could be devoted to other important social and economic programmes—secondly, to strengthen the economy, to which £455 million would be allocated—and how much greater would be the strengthening of the economy were a lasting peace to be established? There is no doubt that Northern Ireland would once again become a good place for inward investment if peace were established. His third priority was targeting social need, with extra funds under various budget heads. The total budget is £7·39 billion, a substantial part of which is spent on problems associated with the troubles.
  Peace would undoubtedly allow the distribution of public resources on a different basis from the present one —a basis that would give a more positive impetus to increasing prosperity throughout the community. But the real improvement would be the enhanced attractiveness of Northern Ireland as a place for the private sector to locate, as a place for the most able youngsters, many of whom take their skills elsewhere, to carve out their careers and as a place for tourists to enjoy their holidays in the most breathtaking countryside. The committee of the British-Irish parliamentary body, on which I sit, sees immense advantages for tourism if only peace prevailed.
  1162
  It would be impudent of me, as a south-east England Member, to lecture those who know Northern Ireland so much better than I. I have taken an interest in the Province since I entered the House in 1983, partly because I represent a garrison town from which soldiers regularly serve in Northern Ireland, partly because of my many Irish friends from north and south of the border and partly because every hon. Member, whichever constituency he or she represents, should take a close interest in the tragedy that has beset a part of the United Kingdom for a quarter of a century—almost half my lifetime and twice as long as the two great wars of the 20th century, the Korean war, the Falklands conflict and the Gulf war added together.
  I am not an expert on Irish history, but sometimes I think that there has been too much regard for the past and too little thought given to the future. I have returned from visits to Ireland deeply saddened that two traditions of the same religion could have led to so much strife and enmity. Even as the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are drawn closer together through our common membership of the European Union, so would I hope and pray that the declaration of 15 December 1993 might act as a basis for people of all persuasions, north and south of the border, to come together to work for peace.
  I reiterate that it has been a great honour for me to initiate our debate this morning. I hope that I have not detained the House too long.
  10.3 am
  Mr. James Molyneaux: The whole House, all Northern Ireland Members and hon. Members who represent constituencies on this side of the water and every law-abiding citizen of the United Kingdom are deeply indebted to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) for providing us with this opportunity to take stock of the situation in Northern Ireland. We are especially indebted to him for his comprehensive chronological survey of the situation and, although it may be slightly different from what we would like it to be, we on this Bench pay tribute to the hon. Member.
  The hon. Member for Gillingham noted the good attendance of Northern Ireland Members today and he will be gratified by the attendance of Members representing constituents in Great Britain, including three Northern Ireland Ministers and a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be something of an expert on attendances in the House, and it is the only point on which I seek to involve you: today's attendance compares favourably with the attendance on any normal Friday.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Or on any day.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Yes, or on any day. The cameras do what they are not supposed to do: pan around the Chamber to show the lack of interest in, for example, Welsh affairs and, yes, Scottish affairs, legislation on the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board and all such enlightening proceedings. I pay tribute to all hon. Members present who are proof that Northern Ireland is not a forgotten place.
  The Sinn Fein-IRA buzzword at the moment is clarification. One Oxford dictionary meaning is:
  "to make a liquid free from impurities."
  Many IRA criminals will have experience of the illegal production of poteen. They should not need clarification of a simple matter in which the only remaining impurity is

  1163
  their criminality and conscience. The Government cannot enable them to remove that impurity—they must do so themselves; they can simply stop murdering people. They seem to lack the courage to take that crucial decision. First, they said that they needed time to contact the various elements in their band of brothers, but we saw evidence in the "Cook Report" that one Mr. Martin McGuinness can apparently order the murder of a soldier or, when he considers it beneficial to the cause, the execution of an alleged defector. Those who saw that programme waited for a detailed account of the informer's trial. What counsel "learned in the law" appeared for the defence? Was there a jury, because Sinn Fein condemns the Diplock system and it would be unthinkable not to have a jury? Did the accused have any right of appeal?
  In the absence of proof of such safeguards, why, for example, does one body that I can think of, but there are many others—Amnesty International—keep silent, as Sinn Fein wheels out that apparatus when an IRA man gets his elbow grazed? Denied, as we all are, the evidence of torture and the execution of even their own, we must conclude that one Mr. McGuinness is so much in control of the organisation that he can order the taking of life within minutes. Is not it strange that he needs five or six weeks to contact and consult those whom he unashamedly claims to lead?
  Just as that ploy is seen to be rather less than convincing after all this time, the leadership of Sinn Fein-IRA invent another device. They need to evaluate and weigh the pros and cons. They say, if you please, that they have to take time to make a balanced judgment. Of course, they have taken that line before when they have had to consider their future strategy—for example, in 1967 when one of their godfathers, in a case of mistaken identity, confided in a friend of mine:
  "We shall have to restart our campaign before our people are demoralised by the British welfare state."
  When prominent people assured us that peace could be achieved within a week and proclaimed peace before Christmas, we did not believe a word of it; but many innocent souls did and they were rewarded by Mr. Adams publicly thanking the thousands who marched and prayed in support of the IRA's campaign for peace. Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness long ago stopped blushing when they proclaim themselves to be men of peace, but they and all associated with them will never be forgiven by the thousands whom they betrayed and misled.
  That disillusionment would have been greatly lessened had Mr. Adams even suspended the murder campaign while he and his so-called "army council" were studying and reviewing the situation. Instead, they issued a pre-Christmas statement, no doubt "using the recognised code word", wherever that is supposed to come from, as they have done over 20 years, wishing the people a happy Christmas, and adding, "You won't be murdered until Boxing day." One never ceases to be amazed by the gullibility of people who are otherwise intelligent. Some in the ranks of the chattering classes are now being sucked into whining about clarification, not realising that that is the only tactic that can rescue the IRA from the condemnation of world opinion. That is the operation on which they are presently engaged.
  It is curious how little notice has been taken of an utterly unprincipled departure from what for decades has been the basic demand of "Brits out", summarised in the translation of Sinn Fein into the English language as "Ourselves
  1164
  alone". The mumbo-jumbo of recent months has cleverly concealed the conversion to acceptance that a British withdrawal would not suit Sinn Fein-IRA at all. They used to refer to Ulster as Britain's last colony, and asserted that they were determined and would succeed in driving out the British Army. They forgot that when Britain withdrew from a colony, it did so in response to the demands of the majority, or the greater number of the native population. On the day of ceremonial departure, Britain transferred all authority to that majority, but never to a neighbouring state.
  I might be tempting the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to ask us how that stands in regard to the Bill that he presented yesterday to terminate British jurisdiction in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Tony Benn: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that we terminated our jurisdiction of Palestine, are handing over Hong Kong to China and that we conceded to a white minority in Rhodesia at the time of the universal declaration of independence. This is a more complex matter than perhaps he allows.
  Mr. Molyneaux: The simple question for the right hon. Gentleman and those who share his view remains: By "Brits out now", do they mean now, at the end of the year or—as it is in the minds of the modernised IRA—phased over a period of 11 years? The full horror of that scenario has only recently struck the IRA. A British withdrawal would leave it in an independent Ulster, not a united Ireland. It may even have crossed its mind that the ethnic cleansing that republicans have practised all along the United Kingdom frontier could suddenly become a two-edged sword. I will not go any further than that for obvious reasons. We now have the supreme irony of the IRA murdering British soldiers of the British Army, which the IRA would require to enforce phased joint authority and eventually Irish unity on British citizens of Northern Ireland. Where now stands the principled idealistic freedom fighters of Irish republican mythology? Where now stands their moral courage?
  The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have rightly refused to set a deadline for an IRA response. Having provided the IRA with an opportunity to cease its criminal activity—if by some miraculous chance it were so minded—Her Majesty's Government do not need to set a date for acceptance of the offer. Could I suggest that Ministers urgently consult their French and German counterparts in regard to the techniques that they used so efficiently in stamping out their indigenous terrorists? Both those Governments have great respect for our Foreign Secretary. They know that he has the right ideas, as evidenced when he was Home Secretary. At that time, he declared that there was no point in talking to the IRA, and that they just had to be extirpated. Being a man of sound judgment and high principles, the Foreign Secretary will not have changed his views in the interval.
  The Government as a whole will be equally determined to do everything in their power to protect the citizens from the resumption of terrorism. If more powers are needed, no responsible Member of the House can refuse to grant the necessary authority. In that respect, the Secretary of State is to be commended for his vigorous approach to security. In his speech last evening, he said:
  "If the violence continues, the work of opposing it will of course continue with the utmost vigour. We shall work to ensure that the law is strong enough to counter these criminal

  1165
  conspiracies, that the police have the necessary resources in terms of manpower, equipment and military support, and that co-operation between the two jurisdictions is as creative and pro-active as possible."
  We would all support those words. The Irish Government also joined in making the offer to Sinn Fein-IRA. They, too, appeared to believe in peace by Christmas. They, too, feel badly betrayed, and I shall not embarrass them by making security demands of them in public. They know where their duty lies as a sovereign nation with pride in its international standing.
  Nor is there any deadline with regard to political progress. During his pre-Christmas visit to Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister discussed the way ahead with party leaders. He agreed on the desirability of pressing ahead with the restoration of accountable democracy. He, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have accelerated the process. Nationally, the news industry has ignored all that—perhaps in some cases suppressed it—but the fact is that the Minister of State has been patiently proceeding with bilateral discussions since early September last year. I do not complain about the lack of media interest. We are all the more likely to make real progress if we are relieved of the need to compete in sound bites. But, for the sake of accuracy and their professional reputations, journalists might refrain from using inaccurate phrases such as "talks being in abeyance" for the past year.
  Ideally, in our drive for the restoration of accountable democracy, we should aim to make progress on three fronts—first, Westminster, which is responsible for the good Government of the entire United Kingdom; secondly, Stormont as a location for sound administrative democracy; and thirdly, local democracy in the ranks of councillors freshly elected less than a year ago. But, as we operate in the real world, we may not find it possible to progress at the same speed on all those fronts. However, progress must be made where progress is possible. We must not be stalled by those who decline to move with the times. We should not ignore the stimulus contained in this week's Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which applies to Northern Ireland and bears the name of the Secretary of State. The powers to repeal and amend in the first four clauses could provide a solid launching pad for a campaign to open doors and gates that have remained closed for far too long.
  10.18 am
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). It will be fair to say that many people who have been following events since 15 December have been struck and impressed by the manner in which he has analysed the joint declaration and responded to it. It is a privilege to follow him in this debate.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) was successful in the ballot and that he chose this motion. These Friday morning debates on Northern Ireland have provided a valuable opportunity to explore issues related to the Province. Today, we have the additional bonus that the debate is taking place in the shadow of the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last night, in which he positively restated the position as he sees it in the light of the joint declaration.
  1166
  I am intrigued by accusations that last night my right hon. and learned Friend was indulging in clarification. I do not mean to suggest for one moment that anything he says could be boring, but we have heard what he said last night before and he was merely restating a well-definded position, which was first stated in the House on 15 December. Virtually every phrase in his speech can be found on the floppy disks of the word processors in the Northern Ireland Office which contain the texts of his previous speeches. It is advancing rather far to say that it was a clarification; it was a restatement of a well-defined position.
  About five weeks have passed since the joint declaration. Sufficient time has elapsed and sufficient developments have taken place since then for it to be worth while to take stock of where we stand. From that point of view, I warmly welcome the speech by the Secretary of State last night. A number of its salient features are well worth bearing in mind. First, he once again reminded his audience that the joint statement is not a settlement in itself but the framework through which peace may be found and that it is very much to be seen as complementing and underpinning the talks process. That is always worth repeating, because I have encountered a mistaken belief in many comments in the media and from constituents that the joint declaration was a settlement, which would or would not be signed and achieve the desired objective. It is a means rather than an end.
  I was glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend quote again the words of Cardinal Daly:
  "The Declaration excludes no-one and predetermines no single political or constitutional future. Nothing is excluded except the use of violence for political ends."
  At this stage in the proceedings one must be wary of becoming too bogged down in conditional debates about what may or may not be on the agenda in the event that Sinn Fein-IRA declare an end to violence and serious talks start.
  In his speech last night to the Trinity College Dublin dining club, my right hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the fact that the joint declaration was a balanced document with reassurances to the two traditions within Northern Ireland. I noted with interest the question of the hon. Member for Newry—I am sorry; I cannot remember the constituency—
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: There are certainly doubts about it at present. It used to be known as Newry and Armagh, but who knows what the future holds?
  Mr. Hunter: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. His question yesterday afternoon demonstrated an awareness that the Government's presentation had been insensitive to nationalist feelings. I deeply regret the fact that he has formed that opinion because I am sure that it was not the Government's intention or that of any hon. Member who has spoken publicly on the joint declaration.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the subject as I welcome an opportunity to compliment the Secretary of State on his remarks last night on the matter that I raised yesterday. I said that in every public utterance by the Prime Minister on the subject there has not been one iota of recognition that within Northern Ireland and the nationalist community there are people who do not support violence and whose sensitivities and views have to be

  1167
  taken into account. I ask all hon. Members and the Government to examine every statement made by the Prime Minister and refute what I have said.
  Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation, which I am sure will be borne in mind.
  The joint declaration certainly contains assurances to the nationalist tradition within Northern Ireland. I believe that it also contains the assurances that Unionists can look to and expect. I have never concealed the fact that I regard myself as a staunch Unionist and I am satisfied that the document is sufficiently balanced to protect what, as a Unionist, albeit an English one, I regard as very precious indeed: the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The document is balanced and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State can be congratulated for reminding us forcefully of its balanced nature.
  Last night, my right hon. and learned Friend also spoke of the "golden threads" in the joint declaration: agreement and self determination. With those words he can be seen to echo the theme of the speech by the Prime Minister of the Republic on 10 January—when Mr. Reynolds said that there was no room for "coercion" in any new settlements that may emerge.
  As for reactions to the joint declaration in the past five weeks, I do not believe that there are any real grounds for optimism, in the light of the available evidence, that Sinn Fein-IRA will renounce violence. That is deeply to be regretted. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham summarised that matter, so I need not go into it in depth, but the search for clarification is a will-o'-the-wisp—a game of diplomacy, which is being pursued to blur the joint declaration and to initiate meaningful negotiations before the rejection of violence.
  Perhaps insufficient attention has been paid to the six principles that Mr. Adams pronounced in an interview with The Sunday Tribune at the beginning of January. That interview with the editor, Mr. Vincent Browne, could not encourage one to believe that a positive response from Sinn Fein-IRA was likely. I must highlight the sentence in the article in which Mr. Adams says:
  "The six counties cannot have a right to self determination, that is a matter for the Irish people as a whole".
  It is regrettable that that remains his position.
  The violence has continued and I therefore do not believe that one can look ahead with great optimism—
  Mr. Barry Porter: To follow on from the intervention by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), from the way in which my hon. Friend is talking one would think that Sinn Fein-IRA represented the nationalist community. It does not. Is not it time that people were reminded that it has little electoral support in the Province and even less in the Republic? There are some people here and in the Republic who are not enthusiastic about the use of violence and indeed rightly condemn it. We should be reminded of that time and again.
  Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which reminds us of the argument that is often put forward by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who has tried to draw a parallel between Mr. Adams and the Sinn Fein/IRA movement and past colonial situations. The great difference and the fundamental flaw in the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that Gerry Adams is not a prime minister or
  1168
  president-in-waiting of a united Ireland; nor is Sinn Fein/IRA like the African National Congress—a political party waiting to take over the reins of power. The parallel does not exist. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) reminded us, only a very small minority of extreme republicans adhere to violence.
  There is no value in indulging in any Dublin-bashing at this time. Nevertheless, the speech of 10 January by the Prime Minister of the Republic has commanded much attention. In one or two respects, it did not help. As we have already referred to questions that were asked yesterday, I shall, if I may, expand on mine, which I tried to get over amid a lot of noise just before questions to the Prime Minister started.
  In the speech of 10 January, three or four enigmatic lines have attracted insufficient attention. The Prime Minister of the Republic said:
  "It is important to note that the requirement for the consent of a majority is related by the Declaration to the constitutional issue. It does not mean that all forms of political progress or other decisions are subject … to a similar block."
  It greatly disturbed me to read those lines. They strike me as hard to reconcile with other aspects of the joint declaration.
  Mr. John Hume: Is the hon. Gentleman telling me and the House that people who represent less than 2 per cent. of the United Kingdom should be able to dictate to Government what their policy is on everything?
  Mr. Hunter: I think that the hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely.
  Mr. Hume: No; the hon. Gentleman missed the point that the Irish Prime Minister was making.
  Mr. Hunter: I am delighted with the clarification. Let us continue the debate afterwards. It is certainly not my understanding of the words that I have just quoted, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can meet in due course and he can explain why I have failed to understand what the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland was trying to say.
  The other observation that I must make about the speech of 10 January is about the use of the concept of persuasion and persuading. In the joint declaration, the word "persuade" or the words "to be a persuader" or "persuasion" are not used. The declaration speaks in terms of encouraging, facilitating and enabling an agreement. There is a subtle difference between being a persuader to an agreement and encouraging, facilitating and enabling a decision. The former suggests directing towards a certain conclusion, whereas the joint declaration perceives no predetermined conclusion whatever.
  As for the way forward, I hope that the talks that have taken place, especially between the Minister of State and the constitutional parties, will advance and that something approaching the three-stranded process which was explored a few months ago can be resumed. It is important that the process is not halted by the continued refusal of Sinn Fein/IRA to accept a ceasefire, to accept peace and to renounce violence. I look forward to a meaningful dialogue round the table between the constitutional parties. In that respect, I have noted carefully what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said a few minutes ago. That dialogue is to be accompanied by the continued remorseless assault on terrorism from both sides of the traditional divide in Northern Ireland.
  10.33 am
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: In the past 25 years, I have had many traumatic experiences in relation to violence in the area in which I live. The one that touched me most happened when I visited the scene after an incident in my constituency at the very end of the year. It was the period of new year—a period of celebration and joy. When I arrived at Crossmaglen, the body of a young soldier was lying on the ground. It was covered with a blanket. I asked a number of people what his name was, and the thing that touched me most was that no one could tell me his name, not even those associated with him. There was a dead body lying in the street of my constituency, on a part of my country, but no one knew his name, and no one knew he had lost his life.
  That affected me deeply, and it affected the people of Crossmaglen deeply. They had read in their newspapers that morning a semantic argument from members of Sinn Fein and the IRA as to what words meant—what "agreement" was or was not, or what "self determination" was or was not—and yet, at the same time as they issued their new year's messages, a body lay there and we could not put a name on it.
  It is from that point of view that I want to address my words today. I address them to that section of the community from which I come in the north of Ireland—that section of the community which is represented by myself and my hon. Friends in the House. That section of the community has never supported violence or the type of coercion that is inherent in that which has motivated violence down through the years. It has accepted always the democratic right to work for its objectives and its aspirations through the political process, through any forum, be it in the House, in Northern Ireland or wherever it may be.
  For that reason, I sought to remind the House yesterday that there was another view, that it is the substantial view of nationalist people in the north of Ireland, and that it is held by much more than 65 per cent. of that population in political terms and much more in non-political terms. That view is that there is no place for violence in the solution to our problems; that we must solve them through the democratic political process, and that we must do so by peaceful means.
  It is from that starting point, and for that reason, that I wish to address my arguments directly to those who would contravene what I believe to be a legitimate political philosophy and a legitimate political approach. I shall refer to two subjects that cropped up in the debate and were mentioned yesterday.
  First, I can understand the obvious impatience with the delay in reaching a settlement and a solution to the problem as a result of the joint declaration that was made by the two Prime Ministers on 15 December. I can feel the frustration. I ask hon. Members, however, to remember that it took 18 months of negotiation and discussion for the four constitutional parties in the north of Ireland—or was it five?—the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party, to decide how to get to the negotiating table. That was with no guns, with none of the baggage that Sinn Fein and the IRA have and with none of the problems that may or may not arise in terms of the matters that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman).
  1170
  In the light of that, I would ask people to be patient and to realise that there will be no quick way of getting to the negotiating table in much more difficult circumstances. If it takes the constitutional parties 18 months to do it, please accept the fact that if the peace process is to work, as I hope and believe that it will, we have to exercise patience.
  Let us not succumb to a danger that I have heard so often—"Let us give them until such-and-such a date and then …" Then what, Mr. Deputy Speaker? That is what people should ponder very carefully indeed The "then what?" options are very limited and very dangerous and we have had them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) says, for 25 years. I make that point because it is valid and it is worth remembering the difficulties of the political process when one is trying to end what is a virtual war. It is something that we must all deal with sensitively.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the terms in which the expectation of peace were announced raised hope to levels where peace could not be delivered?
  Mr. Mallon: The desire for peace among all of us is and was such that we want, did want, and still want peace. If there was a little hyperbole in what any of us may have said, it may be forgiven in respect of that hope and desire to save lives and to create peace.
  The second point that requires clarification is the difference between the principle of consent in the definition of self determination, as contained in the joint declaration, and a veto over policy. That is a substantial difference. I hope that we have been dealing with the element of self determination and the consent which is inherent in that, deriving not only from the joint declaration, but from the circumstances and realities of Northern Ireland. One cannot have a change in the constitutional position without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. That is inherent in their position, in their numbers and in the geographical factors as well as in the joint declaration, and we abide by that.
  Does that mean that that same majority of Northern Ireland has a veto over British Government policy? Does it mean that that same majority has a veto over its relationship with the Republic of Ireland? Does that mean that that veto can aye or nay what the British Government may decide to do with or without the Irish Government? There is a clear distinction between that principle of consent in self determination and the implied or assumed veto over what decisions may be made by a sovereign Government. That should be cleared up carefully, and I believe that the hon. Member for Gillingham would accept that distinction and that it would be intolerable to have anything else.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I do not think that anyone would imagine that Ulster Unionists, Democratic Unionists, or SDLP Members, even when they are combined, would claim to have a veto over how the United Kingdom is governed or over British policy. The hon. Gentleman will remember a dramatic demonstration of that when the education order was passing through the House. The three Irish parties represented in the House voted unanimously against it and Her Majesty's Government defied our wishes and went ahead with it to such an extent that bishops of the Catholic Church sought a judicial review to reverse the decision. Surely that was an example of the fact that, in the

  1171
  end, as three minority parties in the House of Commons, we bow to the wishes of the greater number of Members of Parliament in the House.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for confirming that; but to take that on to a different plain, I repeat that there is a substantive and crucial difference between the element of consent in the joint declaration and the requirement to meet the political needs and desires of the majority of people of the north of Ireland on every other issue.
  Clarification has become almost a weasel word. I have heard it analysed as the difference between analysis and explanation. I shall leave the Secretary of State to speak about whatever clarification may or may not have meant in his fine speech last night. Those who have read the speech and do not seek further clarification or interpretation have not been reading the same speech as I have. I leave it to the Secretary of State to expand on that if he so wishes. Let those who can read, read.
  Mr. Frank Field: On the point of clarification, I have not had an opportunity before to say how important I think the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has been. However, I am puzzled in that, when the Downing street declaration became public, great emphasis was put on how similar it was to the Hume-Adams dialogue/agreement. Since then, Mr. Adams has said that he has had substantial difficulties in accepting the Downing street agreement. Would not it help the process of clarification if the Hume-Adams statement, agreement, document, whatever it is, were published so that some of us can consider the differences and draw our own conclusions, both in the name of clarification and in trying to speed the debate along?
  Mr. Mallon: I have referred to the fact that, on the issue of self determination, there is not a whisker between what is in the joint declaration and what is in the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall stand by that statement at all times. It is not for me to publish the Hume-Adams document; it is for the authors of the document to make it public. I am sure that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) would agree.
  Mr. Frank Field: Of course, I accept that it is not our property to do so, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would help our deliberations if it was published?
  [Hon. Members: "No."]
  Mr. Mallon: I will give way to anybody who would like to elaborate on that matter.
  Mr. Hunter: Would the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) clarify this point? If the Hume-Adams document is so similar to the joint declaration, why did Adams's six principles go so far from the joint declaration a fortnight or so later?
  Mr. Mallon: The publication of the Hume-Adams document is not a matter for me; but the truth and integrity of what is said about the means through which we are trying to get a resolution of the problem is a matter for me. The IRA and Sinn Fein tell us that that centres on the core issue of self determination which is defined in the joint declaration. I emphasise that there is not a whisker of difference between the definition in the joint declaration and what is contained in the document to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead referred.
  1172
  I shall go further than that and say that, in the joint statement issued after the meeting on 10 April between Mr. Hume and Mr. Adams, it became public and was clearly recognised that the problem could be resolved only by peaceful means, that it could be resolved only through agreement and, that the Irish people have the right to self determination—there is a difference of opinion on that—that it can be achieved only by agreement and, for that agreement to be viable, it must have the agreement of all the people and all the traditions in the island of Ireland. If that is not saying the same thing as that contained in the joint declaration, again we are not reading well.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: As I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument in relation to the issue of whether clarification should be given to the Provisional IRA on the Downing street declaration, does he view the prize of peace as being of sufficient importance that clarification, if necessary, should be given? If he feels that, although it is not his responsibility to clarify the Downing street declaration, will he give us his viewpoint in relation to whether there should be a publication of the Hume-Adams proposal? Should not there be clarification of that, and has not the hon. Gentleman got a view on that matter?
  Mr. Mallon: I have spent the past five minutes trying to provide clarification of that document. Let me repeat what I said in case there are any mistakes: in my view, there is not a whisker of difference between the factor of self determination in the document and the document that is now known as the joint declaration. I am providing the clarification, for which hon. Members have asked, as publicly as I can.
  Ms Kate Hoey: I appreciate that the document is not the hon. Gentleman's and he therefore cannot decide to publish it, but does he not understand that the fact that the document is not in the public domain is adding to the confusion about clarification? As it was the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party who had the discussions, who produced the document and who received the praise of everyone in this House in respect of the document—and rightly so—and for moving matters forward, why can we not see that document? What is so secret? If the document is not published, surely that will give more people ammunition to talk about confusion and misunderstanding. Will not the hon. Gentleman ask the leader of his party to publish the document, place it in the public domain and let us all see it?
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. Lady will recognise that I can give my opinion in terms of what I see on a piece of paper before me as I have done in terms of the document to which the hon. Lady referred and in relation to the joint declaration. I am giving my view and I stand by it. I stand by it because if people use the issue of self determination to kill other human beings, it is my duty to challenge it if that is the reason they give for taking away the lives of other human beings.
  Mr. Couchman: I hate to belabour the point, but there were two parties to the Hume-Adams document—the hon. Gentleman's party leader who is sitting beside him today, who presumably is not blocking publication of the document, and Adams and Sinn Fein. Is Sinn Fein blocking publication? Which part of Hume-Adams is blocking publication?
  Mr. Mallon: I can say which part of the process is assuring the House that if the IRA believes that the core element is self determination, but it is continuing to kill people because of that core element, that is spurious and cynical because there is no difference between what the IRA agreed in the other document and what is in the joint declaration. Surely that is the importance and the essence of it all.
  There are no valid grounds for misunderstanding or misrepresenting the purpose of the declaration as opposed to the text and interpretation. With regard to purpose, the declaration does not claim to be a solution to the Irish problem. If it did, it would rightly be condemned for failing to deal adequately with many aspects, including security and north-south structures. The declaration is not an attempt to provide a solution.
  However, the declaration opens the door very widely to a solution. It does that by recognising formally, and in a way without precedent in Anglo-Irish relationships, that the future of Ireland is to be decided and agreed by Irish people alone. British Cabinet papers of the past 30 years that were released recently show how matters have advanced in that regard in relation to what could not be obtained from the British Government even 30 years ago.
  If what the declaration states had been said early enough and often enough, we might not have these problems. There would probably not have been an IRA. Indeed, I have gone further and have said that, had that been stated in 1921 during negotiations, there would not have been a civil war on the island of Ireland. However, it has now been said. Let us now all recognise that it places the determination of the future of Ireland for the first time in the hands of the Irish people alone.
  The declaration is consistent with that principle and it leaves the shape of the future arrangements for the island of Ireland for negotiation between the Irish people themselves. It confines itself to the essential purpose of offering
  "the people of Ireland, North and South, the basis to agree that from now on their differences can be negotiated and resolved exclusively by peaceful, political means."
  That is a singular radical step and it could transform the situation in Ireland and open an entirely new political vista free from the straitjacket of violence. It is a challenge for every form of leadership on the island of Ireland, but especially for the leadership of the paramilitary organisations.
  The declaration goes further than ever before to offer a political alternative which paramilitaries can operate and acknowledge. It assumes that they resort to violence not from any psychological preference, but as a last resort in terms of their own particular logic. The declaration seeks explicitly to be the starting point for an alternative political approach which will be meaningful for all, as both aspirations are reflected in it with no qualifications or limitations save that which arises from the abiding reality of the other tradition in each case which neither side can wish away.
  The nationalists cannot wish away the Unionist people of the north of Ireland and they do not want to do that. Nor can they wish away the strength of the Unionist position in the north of Ireland even if they did want to do that. Unionists cannot wish away the substantial section of the population which is non-Unionist and nationalist and, I believe, they do not want to do that. Nor can they wish away our aspiration towards Irish unity, even if they did
  1174
  want to do that. That is the abiding reality we live with and, as we live with it, the declaration becomes crucially more important for all of us.
  Coming from the nationalist tradition, I am sure that there is no one within that nationalist tradition who will take upon himself lightly and justify the awesome decision to take people's lives, having for the first time had that clear understanding and recognition formally that it is for the Irish people to decide what the future of the island of Ireland may be.
  There are certain basic fundamentals to republicanism which I would like to measure against the joint declaration. Does the island of Britain still assert colonial rights over the island of Ireland—the basis of republican views? The declaration states:
  "The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self determination"
  alone, as of right without outside impediment. There is no economic or strategic selfish reason for Britain remaining in Northern Ireland. That tenet of republicanism surely cannot stand up.
  Are the British Government setting limits to what Parnell, a former Member of this House, called the "march of the nation"? In the declaration, the British Government formally accept that the right of self determination of the Irish people can be exercised
  "on the basis of consent freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland if that is their wish."
  The declaration also states that agreement among all the people living in Ireland
  "may, as of right, take the form of agreed structures for the island as a whole, including a united Ireland achieved by peaceful means".
  Does that tenet of republicanism stand up when it is put beside the declaration?
  Would the British Government thwart the process of agreement between the people living in Ireland? According to the joint declaration, the two Governments formally pledge
  "the role of the British Government will be to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of … agreement"
  between all the people of the island of Ireland. They
  "make a solemn pledge to promote co-operation at all levels"
  and to
  "create institutions and structures which, while respecting the diversity of the people of Ireland, would enable them to work together in all areas of common interest."
  There is nothing to say that the British Government will thwart the wishes of the Irish people.
  Is it that the declaration does not determine and advance what the new arrangements for the island might be? One of the ironies of what are euphemistically called community activists in Northern Ireland has been that the document has been criticised because the British Government do not decide what nationalists will have. Surely, if the British Government were to decide what the Irish people would have, it would be a contradiction of the self determination that the very same community activists have been demanding for so long. It is a contradiction of the very essence of self determination.
  The declaration also holds out prospects for a forum for peace and reconciliation to heal the divisions caused by violence over the past years. The persistent taint of atrocity has caused many people, particularly in the Republic of Ireland, to reject not just violent nationalism but nationalism itself. A border reinforced by public opinion in the south would be a formidably permanent one.

  1175
  Let me send clearly a message to the IRA and Sinn Fein. They have done more damage to the cause of Irish unity in the past 25 years, through their violence, than any other single factor. Let me assure them that they have gone a long way to creating within the Republic of Ireland a partitionist point of view which, in many ways, has become anti-national and anti-nationalist. If the IRA and Sinn Fein want partition to continue, they are going exactly the right way about it. That message must go out to them very loud and clear. I, as a nationalist and as a republican in the true sense of the word, want to take this opportunity of again saying that to them, straight from the Floor of the House.
  We have debated self determination at length, but I make one basic observation about it. The vast majority of people in Ireland, north and south, Unionists and nationalists, self determined long ago that there should not be violence on the island of Ireland. Who is standing in the way of that right to self determination? It is those who are carrying out violence. We have the right as Irish people, north and south, to determine that our problems cannot be solved through violence. Yet those people who make issues of self determination are the people who are negating the right that the Irish people have already taken on that issue, that violence should not be the way in which we pursue our objectives.
  I am conscious of the time, but I make one further point. We have heard about confirmation, elaboration and interpretation, but I finish by asking for clarification, or asking others to clarify. In this case, I do not request the Government for clarification. I shall ask the leaders of Sinn Fein and the IRA now to have the courage to give three elements of clarification to their supporters, voters, members and activists. First, I ask them to be honest enough publicly to say to them, "Violence will never achieve the objective of a united Ireland." They must say that to them. If they have the courage of their convictions and the integrity of leadership, they must spell out the reality that we can never unite people by killing them and that Irish unity will never be achieved by violence. I ask the leaders of the IRA and Sinn Fein to make that public declaration to their own members, not to the rest of the people of Ireland who already believe it. That is what leadership is about.
  Secondly, I ask them to tell their own membership, supporters and voters that, in essence, they have agreed to the principle of self determination for the Irish people, with the consent of the majority of the people of the north of Ireland. That is another piece of honesty which I should like to see instilled. Also, I ask them to explain and clarify that self determination without that principle of consent is not self determination but coercion. There is a little bit of clarification, interpretation and elaboration which might help the situation.
  Thirdly—and this is very important—I ask them, as with the role that my hon. Friends and I have chosen, to become the persuaders of those who do not agree with Irish unity and do not want it. The logic is that if I accept the principle of consent in self determination, my role as a nationalist is to persuade those who are not that their future would be better in a country which was unified in whatever form that unification might take. That is the role of nationalists if we wish to pursue the noble objective of creating Irish unity.
  Will Sinn Fein and the IRA join us in becoming the persuaders, through the political process, through peaceful
  1176
  means, through persuasion and through every form of political action that will not and cannot entertain or include violent action against anyone on the island of Ireland?
  Mr. Barry Porter: How long would the hon. Gentleman give Sinn Fein and its supporters to weigh up his very wise words?
  Mr. Mallon: I do not put time scales on the matter. Time scales have no place in politics. I made my position clear when I said that it took the constitutional parties 18 months to get started, even to get to the table, never mind obtain any type of agreement.
  I make my point about persuasion. There are those within the process who have said to me, "But that is a pipedream; you will never get Unionists to agree to any form of Irish unity."
  I finish with two very pertinent quotations. The first is:
  "There is no one in the world who will be more pleased to see an absolute unity in Ireland than I would."
  I do not want to enter into the game of "Who said that?", but it is relevant. It was Sir Edward Carson, a former Member of this House, in January 1921. The second quotation is:
  "In this island we cannot live always separated from one another. We are too small to be apart or for the border to be there for all time. The change will not come in my time but it will come."
  I will not enter into the business of saying, "Who said that?", but it was James Craig, Lord Craigavon, the first Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Persuasion can, will and must work.
  11.8 am
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): It might be for the convenience of the House if I now make what I hope will be a reasonably brief intervention to offer a Government view of the issues that have been addressed to eloquently so far. The motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) invites the House to assert
  "its abhorrence and rejection of all violence, from whatever quarter, perpetrated in place of democratic persuasion."
  We have just listened to a devastating examination of the claim of the IRA and Sinn Fein to justify the perpetration of violence in the circumstances that apply now, after the joint declaration by the two Governments. We listened to a penetrating examination of those claims by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members—indeed, all who have spoken in the debate so far. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend not only on his choice of subject but on his most careful and, if I might say so, perceptive and moving speech.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the meeting of the British-Irish interparliamentary body, which he was attending when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach signed the declaration in Downing street on 15 December. I was to have answered questions before that body that morning and was looking forward to it, but I had to withdraw at the last moment in order to be present at Downing street. I regret that, and perhaps there will be another occasion when I can attend that body. But I entirely agree with my hon. Friend when he describes the declaration signed that day as an historic agreement—it patently is—which offers a real opportunity to see an end to the inexcusable violence which has so marred the image of Northern Ireland.

  1177
  My hon. Friend described the joint declaration as a declaration for peace. That is exactly right. It is profoundly for peace and profoundly against violence. Peace—not peace at whatever price, but peace properly attained—and an agreed political settlement are the Government's twin objectives in Northern Ireland. Each of the objectives supports the other, and we share them with the Irish Government.
  To my mind, the motion's reference to the "insistent demand" of the people accurately captures the present mood for peace that is so apparent in Northern Ireland today. Violence leads nowhere; in a democracy, it is wrong, inexcusable and always revolting. Last year, 84 human beings were killed in Northern Ireland alone—murdered. All of them were killed by terrorists; none by the police or Army. Hundreds more were injured. We do not and will not forget in particular Tim Parry or Jonathan Ball, the children of Warrington, or the victims of Shankill or Greysteel. They and the other victims were not mere statistics. Sometimes, we give the impression that we treat them as mere statistics as we compare one year with another, but we do not mean to do so. They are not mere statistics; they are flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone.
  People demand that the violence stop now. There is a great yearning everywhere to hear that the days of the bomb and the bullet are over for good, and that those who wish to seek political change in Northern Ireland—and why should they not?—will now follow the democratic path, and only the democratic path.
  The joint declaration sets out in full public view a clear framework for peace provided by both Governments. As my hon. Friend said, it is not a settlement in itself. It is a framework in which a settlement can be achieved, and it removes any doubt that violence can somehow be justified. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and the leader of his party have made that abundantly clear. On 4 January, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said:
  "past reasons given by the republican movement for armed struggle no longer exist."
  The declaration is clear for all to see. As the Taoiseach said last night, it is not open to renegotiation.
  Let me make it clear that the declaration places nobody's interests at risk. It represents the shared view of the two Governments on how to pursue peace, stability and reconciliation through agreement. It represents a balanced statement of the constitutional principles and political realities that safeguard the vital interests of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland—and I stress the word all. The words of Cardinal Daly have already been cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). Cardinal Daly said:
  "The Declaration excludes no-one and pre-determines no single political or constitutional future. Nothing is excluded except the use of violence for political ends".
  That is precisely what the two Governments intended.
  In the past, the use of violence in one form or another on many sides has led to much of the pain and division that we see today. This is a cause of real and general regret. Today, both Governments and most people believe that the way to break this vicious circle is to stick rigorously to the principles of agreement, consent and democracy. The declaration is founded on those principles. I suggest that its most important characteristic is its balance.
  1178
  For those who support the Union, the declaration offers real reassurance. In it, the Prime Minister reaffirms the constitutional guarantee and declares that the British Government will uphold the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the specific issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland. The wishes of the people of Northern Ireland on this point are and will remain decisive for the reason given by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh—self determination that is not based on consent is not self determination at all; it is coercion
  Elsewhere in the declaration, the Taoiseach states:
  "It would be wrong to attempt to impose a united Ireland, in the absence of the freely-given consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland",
  and he accepts, on behalf of the Irish Government,
  "that the democratic right of self determination by the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
  In the event of an overall political settlement, the Irish Government undertake to put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland. The declaration therefore offers the key reassurance to the people of Northern Ireland that their future lies in their own hands.
  Today, I reiterate that while Northern Ireland, by its own volition, remains part of the United Kingdom, all its people can continue to count on the whole-hearted commitment of the British Government to upholding them in that status, with all the entitlements and obligations that that entails.
  On the other side of the coin, to those who hope to see a sovereign and united Ireland, the declaration gives reassurance that their aspirations, when pursued by peaceful means, are fully legitimate. Reassuring those who are encouraged to believe that the British Government have narrow, colonial or strategic ambitions in Northern Ireland, the declaration says that, on the contrary, they have no selfish strategic or economic interest there. Our primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland established by agreement among all the people who live there.
  Accordingly, no single outcome to the process of agreement is ruled out in advance. Nor will any be ruled out in the event. We accept a binding obligation to introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to any measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland. That is for the people living in Ireland freely to determine without external impediment. But, equally, the outcome cannot be predetermined.
  The declaration commits us to encourage, facilitate and enable all the people living in Ireland to achieve agreement—not agreement of a particular character, but simply agreement—through a process of dialogue and co-operation based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland. The declaration provides explicit recognition of the aspirations of both the main traditions. Above all, it emphasises the need for agreement and consent, and for devising a stable future.
  It specifically asserts:
  "The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland as a whole, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish".

  1179
  Both Governments will stick by the declaration. We have laboured to produce it for many months, and it is going to stand.
  We want to know, together with millions of people around the world to say nothing of these islands, whether all those who are now engaged in violence will recognise that there is clear encouragement to end the violence, and to open the way to political dialogue. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly pointed out that talk of clarification is but a smokescreen to distract attention from that crucial question.
  The House should know that the Prime Minister has today placed in the Library a letter, unsigned but written on Mr. Adams's headed notepaper, together with the reply which was issued yesterday. The letter talks of clarification of the joint declaration, but does not give particulars of anything that needs to be clarified. Instead, it seeks to reopen issues for negotiation by pointing back to a position that was attributed to the Irish Government in June last year.
  Mr. Benn: Would I be wrong in thinking that all of the correspondence with Sinn Fein that the Secretary of State published during last year was, in effect, the British Government seeking clarification from them about what might be done? Is the word clarification quite such a problem when, in fact, we are discussing talks about talks? Is not that a very familiar procedure in any peacemaking process?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I dealt with that matter at Question Time yesterday. It is perfectly true to say that during the exchanges which were carried out through the channel of communication in the years going back to 1990, the Government did clarify their thinking and sought clarification in return. That is a very different position from that which applies today when, after many months of discussion, the two Governments have made a declaration which sets out constitutional principles and the political realities which govern—in their view—the future of Northern Ireland.
  If that document, which has been fashioned after consultation on a wide scale, were to be glossed, or if it were to have interpretations placed upon it, it begins to unravel. It is then induced that the process inevitably becomes one of negotiation when clarification, thus defined, is entered into at the request of an outside party. That is why both Governments have said that they do not propose to do that.
  Mr. Benn: This is the core of the current argument, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State. If the Downing street declaration was, as he said, a framework and not a solution—the means by which a solution could be achieved—is it unreasonable to suppose that the framework should be fully understood before it is entered into by those who are parties in the matter? I am trying to assist, and not to obstruct, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. Will the statement, "This is the declaration and there will be no explanation—take it or leave it" increase the prospect for a positive response which everybody in the House would like?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course, everybody hopes for —indeed demands—a positive response. However, the document is substantial and sets out a framework for peace in a way which makes it clear that only the absence or the
  1180
  giving up of violence is required before there would begin a process of exploratory talks. Those talks would begin within some three months, within which three separate factors can be discussed. I will come to those in a moment. I suggest that that is when clarification could be appropriate.
  That would be the time when it would be possible to clarify what is to be done to ensure that Sinn Fein may enter into the political process. That is a way in which clarification can be obtained of the consequences of giving up violence. However, it is violence alone that prevents that from happening at the moment. The first stage of the route to participation in politics is already as clear as it possibly could be, and it is that stage which it should take now. I do not want there to be any doubt about it. We cannot add to, take away from, gloss or interpret that text. We shall not clarify it, because it speaks for itself and, so far as we are concerned, it will continue to do so.
  So I say to Sinn Fein and its leaders address the issue that counts. They should heed the overwhelming desire among the people of both traditions of Ireland, north and south, to see an end to terrorism. If they call for it to end now and for good—they claim they want to—then, once their good faith is plain, we will engage in exploratory dialogue within three months. We will not negotiate before they have disclaimed violence.
  It is already in the public domain what the purpose of that explanatory dialogue would be. It has been there since my statement of 29 November, and there is nothing new in it. It would be threefold: to explore the basis upon which Sinn Fein would come to be admitted to an inclusive political talks process, to which the British Government are committed, but without anticipating negotiations within that process; to exchange views on how Sinn Fein would be able, over a period, to play the same part as the current constitutional parties in the public life of Northern Ireland; and to examine the practical consequences of the ending of violence.
  It is in this exploratory dialogue that clarification, as I have said, could be appropriate—not clarification of the joint declaration but of the three processes. It is significant, when testing whether the claims that clarification of the declaration is needed are bona fide, that I am aware that there is no specific particular of which clarification has yet been sought.
  The first stage of the route into political dialogue lies straight and clear before Sinn Fein. It cannot be made more clear, and that is the route Sinn Fein should take if it truly wishes to represent, in political dialogue rather than by violence, those who have voted for it.
  As has been said in the debate, if the violence were to end, it would create a new era for Northern Ireland, an era in which opportunities which have been denied it for the past 20 years again become available. It is difficult to put a limit on the possibilities if violence were to end. Paramilitary violence has cast such a cloud—a pall would be a better word—over Northern Ireland.
  It is only in response to that violence that troops are on the streets of Northern Ireland in such numbers. It is the response to violence in Northern Ireland that requires gallant young men and women to accept the risk that their lives may be taken in an instant by less than heroic villains, who take over people's houses and who treat them with ruthless cruelty. They hit and then run, and they sully disgustingly the cause of Irish nationalism. It is to enable the forces of law and order to combat violence that

  1181
  Parliament renews our very necessary emergency legislation. However, were violence to come to an end for good, the need for all of those measures and for other responses to violence would also end.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham rightly attached much importance to whether there should be an amnesty as some settlement price or inducement to bring violence to an end. Whatever happens, the rule of law must be upheld. So I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on the subject. There must be no misunderstanding. There are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom.
  Terrorist crime, both past and future, will continue to be vigorously investigated by the police with the aim of bringing the perpetrators to justice. That must be so. There is at present no let-up in this, and there will be none. Those convicted after due process of law must expect to serve their sentences according to law. One vital feature of any peaceful and civilised society is respect for the rule of law, which means the consistent application of the legal process to all its members without partiality. There can be no compromise on this.
  I turn lastly to the consequences for building on the progress already made in the talks process, if violence comes to an end.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State think that a useful step in the peace process might well be to lift the broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein, as the Government of the Irish Republic have done, and, as a gesture towards negotiations, to lift the exclusion order against the president of Sinn Fein to enable him to travel to London to put his views and perhaps further the peace process?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: If Sinn Fein announces that it no longer justifies the use of violence and turns away from terrorism, there will be no need for special legislation that spares the people of the United Kingdom the humiliation, indignity and gall of not only suffering terrorist attacks but seeing the perpetrators of those attacks justify them, with their words broadcast into every sitting room in the land. That could go. As I made clear yesterday, the Government's position is that the justification for introducing that legislation in 1988 is no less strong today than it was then.
  Mr. Benn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken greatly as a lawyer about the rule of law and so on. If Mr. Adams is guilty of an offence, why is not he taken before the courts and convicted? If he is not guilty of an offence, why is not he allowed as a member of the United Kingdom—which the Secretary of State proclaims as a democratic country—to travel to any part of the United Kingdom? The denial of civil liberties in Britain is the price that we are paying for the policy that has been pursued.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if each of those matters derogates from the rule of law. But each of those matters is a factor by reason of the will of Parliament. Exclusion orders have been made available by Parliament in the emergency legislation in response to the need to counter terrorism. That is the first instance. The broadcasting legislation is also the will of Parliament.
  1182
  Those matters derive solely from terrorist attacks in this democracy. If the terrorist campaign ceases and a party ceases to justify terrorism, the need for those matters falls.
  I was speaking about the political talks and the talks process. I believe that we can build rapidly on the progress that has already been made. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) spoke of the progress that had been made. I am grateful for the words that he used in that regard. The declaration complements and underpins the talks process. We are determined for our part that the talks process covering all three strands should be carried forward intensively, and with additional focus and direction which we will be minded to provide. The need to develop political consensus in Northern Ireland and to create institutions that command support from both sides of the community, within a stable framework of wider relationships, grows ever more urgent.
  I have long thought it unsatisfactory that the Secretary of State should hold so many of the reins of power in Northern Ireland. I have said so almost from the beginning of my term of office. I judge that there is growing impatience within the community at the lack of arrangements that would increase local accountability and give Northern Ireland's own political representatives a greater say in the running of the Province's affairs. That is what strand one of the talks is about.
  There is also, I believe, increasing recognition of the interests which all the people of Ireland, north and south, have in common. And so, where it is to their mutual advantage, it makes good sense to work closely together and to have arrangements that make this possible. That is the substance of strand two. Finally, there are important issues that only the two Governments can address. They are doing that now, at official level, in strand three.
  The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach stated on 29 October last year that the two Governments would work together on a framework to carry the process forward. I attach great imortance to developing a clear understanding with the Irish Government. For that reason, I very much welcome the Taoiseach's call on 10 January for
  "an early restart to the wider talks process, in order to pursue agreement".
  The contribution of the Irish Government is vital if we are to achieve a comprehensive agreement covering all three strands.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the previous maxim stated in the March agreement, which was the basis of the previous talks process, that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, be the basis of the new talks process?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: It was a sensible maxim to adopt at that stage. Whether it will apply to the future talks will be a matter for all those who participate in them.
  I am convinced that the talks process, involving the two Governments and the main Northern Ireland parties in Northern Ireland, and based on a broad agenda, offers the best hope of achieving an agreed, durable and comprehensive settlement. The talks process must therefore press forward with all urgency, based on the statement of 26 March 1991. I continue to agree with the view of the independent chairman, Sir Ninian Stephen, that the objectives of the process remain valid and achievable.
  There can be no question of allowing the momentum to drop. There is a momentum for agreement; a hunger for the dignity and responsibility of deciding and governing local affairs; a determination to work together throughout the

  1183
  whole island. The people of Northern Ireland want peace and agreement: the joint declaration provides the framework in which this can be achieved. The talks process offers the way forward. Sinn Fein can join in, or stay out, but it cannot stop the process. It has only one rational choice.
  11.36 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: On 15 December my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, speaking on behalf of the Labour party, enthusiastically welcomed the joint declaration as an important first step in the peace process which will lead to a new political settlement. But it is just that—a first step. The declaration represents a framework for peace in Ireland. We hope that it will provide the basis for a just and lasting political settlement for the people of Ireland.
  The declaration contained the first official recognition by a British Government of the right to self-determination of the Irish people as a whole—a right to be exercised. with the consent of the people of Ireland north and south, freely and concurrently given. In his speech today, the Secretary of State made it clear that he agreed with the Taoiseach's assertion that, under the declaration, the nationalist people of Northern Ireland have had their existing rights of self determination, which they share with the rest of the people of Ireland, formally recognised.
  The expression of the right to self determination was not imposed on the Irish people by the British Government. The majority of the Irish people, through their elected parliament and with the agreement of the elected constitutional northern nationalists, have chosen to declare that a united Ireland requires the consent of a majority in the north of Ireland. The two traditions within Ireland can never be united by coercion. So the only way forward must be through peaceful negotiation and dialogue.
  We welcome last night's clarification—or, if the Secretary of State prefers, "elucidation", "illumination", "promotion of a more full understanding"—of the declaration by the Government. Last night, reading the Secretary of State's speech, I thought that he came perilously close to becoming a persuader. However, it was a good speech and an important one, as indeed was that of the Taoiseach.
  In his speech, the Secretary of State made it clear that no outcome of any talks is precluded other than a united Ireland achieved through coercion and that, equally, no outcome of any talks is predetermined. All other constitutional possibilities and institutional arrangements are, in principle, open to discussion: they are for anybody to put on the agenda.
  The Labour party is happy that the Government have confirmed that this is so, because that confronts Sinn Fein and the IRA with a stark choice. They must either openly reveal whether it is their policy to continue to seek the coerced unification of Ireland, or they must abandon violence, enter constitutional dialogue and seek to persuade the Unionists of the merits of Irish unity through peaceful, practical and co-operative politics.
  Thus, the Downing street declaration is entirely consistent with Labour's declared policy and that is why we have supported it. We wish to see the unification of Ireland by consent and we oppose any general veto on political progress being given to any political party or
  1184
  community, other than the right of a majority to veto a united Ireland within the north and the expulsion of Northern Ireland from the Union.
  Last night, the Secretary of State asserted that the talks process requires
  "ideally, the involvement of the two Governments and the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland committed to the democratic process."
  While we welcome the Government's reassertion that no single, constitutional political party can veto the talks process, may I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that he did not mean to imply that the Irish Government could conceivably be excluded from any constitutional talks on the future of Northern Ireland?
  The joint declaration reiterates the Anglo-Irish Agreement by making it clear that "as of right" Irish unity would be implemented if a majority so wished—just what we have always sought to support in the House. In the absence of consent for Irish unification, we have frequently expressed our wish to encourage all constitutional parties in Ireland, north and south, to agree institutional arrangements that will enable them to live together in peace and prosperity. That can also be part of the dialogue.
  The declaration commits both states to foster agreement leading to
  "a new political framework founded on consent and encompassing arrangements within Northern Ireland, for the whole island, and between these islands".
  The British Government have also committed themselves to reaching an agreement that will
  "embrace the totality of relationships".
  Those statements recognise what should be plain to all and what the Secretary of State reiterated last night: that there can be no lasting resolution of the conflict in and over Northern Ireland which does not address all the relevant relationships, internal and external, north and south, east and west, between parties in Northern Ireland, between the Republic and Northern Ireland and between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  It follows from that, from the declaration and from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that there are three important matters. First, the Government have said, and the Secretary of State said today, that they still adhere to the three-strand structure of talks agreed in March 1991. Secondly, any attempt to decouple one strand of the talks from the others could be a recipe for failure. Thirdly, the principle holds good that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, because these three strands are inextricably intermingled and if one is pulled out the rest will unravel. Any abandonment or equivocation on those matters will only arouse the deepest suspicions.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it the official Opposition's view that Dublin should have a real say in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland? That matter was once relevant to stage one of the talks that ceased.
  Mr. McNamara: The Opposition's attitude is that one cannot have agreement on strand one which would be acceptable to all in Northern Ireland unless there is a considerable Irish dimension within it.
  The Secretary of State signalled last night and said today that he intended to seek a resumption of the round table inter-party talks. While we welcome such a development, we should like the Government to clarify —if I am allowed to use that word—that they do not intend

  1185
  to give focus and direction solely to strand one of the talks. We must never forget that it is equally vital to secure progress on strands two and three.
  Last night, the Secretary of State asserted:
  "there can be no going back to a system which has the allegiance of, and is operated by, only one part of the community."
  We welcome the fact that the Government now appear to preclude any simple majoritarian approach to the establishment of a devolved Government for Northern Ireland under strand one.
  In the debate and in his speech last night, the Secretary of State spoke about the need for local political institutions and about giving power back to local assemblies and councils. There may be an argument for that, but I caution the Secretary of State to remember the history of Northern Ireland and the fact that it was precisely in those areas that much of the discrimination and unhappiness that led to the civil rights movement had their origin. If any powers are to be given back, it must be done in a way that will prevent the possibility of the abuse of any of those powers at local level.
  It is of particular importance to bear in mind the carryings on of some local authorities in Northern Ireland. It would be a brave man who would be prepared to return powers to some of those councils.
  I realise that it can be argued that the very absence of powers may make people operate in that way because they lack the ability to take responsible, authoritative decisions. There may be some substance in that argument, but I repeat that when the councils had power to make important decisions, many of them used those powers arbitrarily in the interests of only one group. One must look carefully at any proposals for returning power to local authorities without adequate safeguards.
  The Secretary of State will have noted from my reply to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that we think that it is wrong to try to get one internal settlement in Northern Ireland which does not have the full support of all the parties and which lacks a substantial Irish dimension.
  In a letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the question of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, the Secretary of State said that it had been agreed in the talks on strand one that such a Committee should be established. That may or may not be so, although if it is correct it would seem to be contrary to the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. More importantly, there has been a constant drip of comments on what has or has not been agreed earlier in strand one. It is important to have some understanding of what was or was not agreed, because there are conflicting statements from the different parties. I realise that it is important that the parties negotiate as much as possible in confidence, knowing that statements that they make will not be immediately relayed to the enemy or its supporters —sometimes one is not certain which is which—but statements made since the Brooke talks on the basis of what the Secretary of State said about Sir Ninian Stephen suggest that the information should be more widely distributed.
  We welcome the fact that the Government have also fully understood the stark realities of the existence of the two national communities, which look to their respective nation states for protection and the institutional expression
  1186
  of their identities. That is particularly important given the Prime Minister's gloss on paragraph 9 of the declaration in the Newsletter of 4 January. The relevant paragraph says that the two Governments will work to create through agreement
  "institutions and structures which, while respecting the diversity of the people of Ireland, would enable them to work together in all areas of common interest."
  The Prime Minister said that that was simply
  "two countries sharing a border on an island"
  looking
  "for ways to work together that made sense to both."
  The message that such language conveyed was that a future Irish dimension would be minor and almost derisory. There should be no preconceived and narrow perception of the future of north-south institutions. Part and parcel of the apparent narrowing down of the agenda by such matters as the Prime Minister's minimalist interpretation of paragraph 9 of the declaration have caused people to ask for precise clarification. So we welcome again the point made clearly by the Secretary of State yesterday evening that there were no inhibititions or preconceived solutions whatever and that any matter could be discussed.
  The onus is now on Sinn Fein to respond to the declaration and the clarification that has been given by both Irish and British Governments. Like the British Government, we are and will remain steadfastly committed to encouraging, facilitating and enabling agreement among the people of Ireland through a process of dialogue and co-operation based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland.
  The challenge is now for Sinn Fein and the IRA to enter that dialogue and seek that co-operation, based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland, which means ending the violence.
  11.51 pm
  Mr. Tom King: The theme on which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) ended his speech has echoed through the debate. It is the absolute justification for my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) having chosen this subject for debate today. It has enabled the House to speak clearly on the matter and, in the case of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), to ask direct questions that must now be addressed by the Sinn Fein leadership. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made clear, no amount of wriggling or trying to find ways to avoid addressing those questions will last. Sinn Fein must now say whether it is prepared to accept the challenge.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh gave a moving description of the murder of a soldier in his constituency. As he described that event, I reflected that what had also shocked the people of Crossmaglen was their knowledge that, whatever excuses had been made for violence in the past, they no longer existed. That death was an outrageous act. Such murders are always outrageous, but that one was even more outrageous because there was simply no excuse for it.
  I believe that the possibility of peace still exists. I agree with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that there was an unhelpful over-optimism at the start of the process. That is often followed by over-pessimism that the opportunity no longer exists. Clearly, difficult questions must be addressed by the

  1187
  leadership of Sinn Fein. It must admit that the path on which it set out is not only a dead end but is increasingly recognised as hostile and positively damaging to the cause of nationalism. It is an obstacle to achieving a united Ireland, not a way of advancing it. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made that point clear.
  Another obstacle that has worried me greatly since the publication of the joint declaration is the approach of the media to the subject. The enterprise is a difficult one which needs careful handling, leadership and quiet discussion and I worry that the media's handling of it will not be helpful. I listen to the ever-active Mr. Peter Snow, the persistent Mr. John Humphrys and Sue MacGregor trying to drive people to make statements and corner them on various issues.
  It will take considerable leadership of Sinn Fein to deal with some of the issues. Bringing the subjects out into the open, shining a blinding light on them and calling for categorical statements is seriously inimical to the chance of quiet discussion and persuasion that is necessary. I hope that my comments will be taken in an entirely constructive spirit. Newspapers do not have anything like the force and power on this subject as on others. However, when the principal protagonists are challenged on such issues in front of television cameras it raises real difficulties. Every hon. Member listening to me knows the difficulty of facing such interviews. We all wish the peace process well and I hope that the media's responsibility will be recognised in those quarters where it matters.
  Today, and in an excellent speech last night, my right hon. and learned Friend echoed the phrase that was used when I was Secretary of Northern Ireland, when we first received approaches, which go back to before 1990. It was said that we did not really mean what we said about the principle of consent in the Anglo-Irish Agreement because there was a secret, strategic reason why Northern Ireland had to remain part of the United Kingdom. That argument went back to the U-boats and Winston Churchill—indeed, some people still thought that it had something to do with the first world war. It illustrated the awful time warp in which some people in the republican movement live. People still thought that there was a secret agenda.
  Hon. Members may have seen Mr. Adams's recent comments following the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. He said that we were hearing the language of Lloyd George all over again. I do not think that many hon. Members live on the speeches of Mr. Lloyd George, as they feel that the world has moved on in some respects, but for some people in Ireland it has not. Such views are still very much part of their mythology.
  Lloyd George wrote an interesting letter, dated 29 May 1916, to Sir Edward Carson when it was proposed to implement the 1914 legislation. It stated:
  "My dear Carson,
  I enclose Greer's draft propositions.
  We must make it clear that at the end of the provisional period"—
  when the 26 counties would have home rule and the six counties of Ulster would be excluded—
  "Ulster does not, whether she wills it or not, merge in the rest of Ireland."
  Lloyd George's comments made it clear that, regardless of the views of its people, there were reasons why Ulster should remain part of the United Kingdom.
  I first made the statement that there was no selfish strategic or economic reason that could override the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. It is
  1188
  due to the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland that it is proud to be part of the United Kingdom —we welcome and value that.
  Some people in Sinn Fein are still in a time warp. They believe that we need desperately to keep trade routes open from America to allow corn to come in. They have not heard that Great Britain is now a food and grain exporting country and that, unlike in 1916, the port of Liverpool is no longer regarded as the vital link for the nation's commerce and trade—Southampton, Felixstowe and a few other ports would say that time has moved on. Air travel may have made some small contribution to the change in the position.
  "Prisoners of the past" was the phrase that echoed through my right hon. and learned Friend's speech. Sinn Fein must realise that the situation has changed. We are in 1994; 1916 or 1921 are not being fought all over again.
  Mr. Mallon: The right hon. Gentleman's reference to Lloyd George prompts me to remind him that there were also two documents during those negotiations—one for Collins and one for Griffith.
  Mr. King: Not those negotiations—they were a little earlier. I noted an amusing commentary that the letter to Carson is signed, "Ever sincerely, D. Lloyd George". Sir Edward Carson may have greeted that with certain reservations.
  People still seem to believe that we are in the Lloyd George era, but the situation now depends on democratic choice. As the Taoiseach said in his excellent speech last night, no fairer statement of the nationalist ideals could have been made in the Anglo-Irish declaration. As we said in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, although it seems to have taken a little time to sink in, and as we have repeated in the declaration, the future of the people of Northern Ireland is a matter for their consent.
  As the Taoiseach said last night, partition may be considered by many to have been wrong, but that wrong, if that is how it is seen, will not be righted by another wrong of coercion. Under the principle of self determination and the generally accepted principles of the United Nations, any transfer of sovereignty must have the consent of those concerned. The idea that sovereignty can be transferred against the wishes of those concerned is clearly unacceptable.
  That is why the Taoiseach was right to say to those who wish to achieve Irish unity that there is no short cut to agreement and consent. I respected his comment last night that the agreement must be freely entered into. He added that the agreement might involve an united Ireland, but he accepted that any other form of agreement might be reached between the north and south of Ireland. That is precisely the point. Those who believe in self-determination and in the principle of consent must accept whatever the people wish to achieve.
  The challenge, as the House has said with impressive clarity, is that the declaration offers the best opportunity for the cessation of violence that has arisen certainly in the past 20 years, but Sinn Fein finds itself in a catch-22 situation. It has become wedded to violence to achieve its objective, yet the perpetration of that violence is now counterproductive to the objective that it seeks to achieve. With all the history and suffering for its own communities, as it would see it, with the legacy of tragedy, with the number of boys behind the wire, and with whatever

  1189
  mythologies exist, it is not easy for Sinn Fein to recognise that that road is leading nowhere, that times have moved on and that there is now an agreement.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made the point extremely well. The democratic voice of those in the island of Ireland who pursue the cause of nationalism —the cause which they claim to support—has spoken and has determined the way in which that cause will be pursued: either now, as very much a significant minority, Sinn Fein decides to use the force of coercion and continue its path, or it accepts the democratic route. The question then is, can it accept the challenge of argument? Every act of violence is an admission that it does not believe that it can achieve its aims by persuasion. That is the challenge that it faces. Each atrocity that is committed, each further death, is further confirmation of lack of confidence among members of Sinn Fein in their ability as Irishmen to persuade other Irishmen of their cause. The House has spelt out the matter clearly. We stand absolutely together across the Chamber—in the parties and among the overwhelming majority of those who speak for the people of Northern Ireland—in saying that the opportunity is there. The question is whether Sinn Fein will release the island of Ireland from the pall of violence from which it suffers and give it a chance to enjoy the future that it deserves.
  12.16 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I agree that the debate should be set against the background of the historical perspective. There was a debate in the House of Commons in November—November 1641. I looked at the record and it said:
  "Monday in the House of Commons they received letters from Ireland, intimating that theire troubles are so great, that they have scarce time … to write … the Rebells doe much increase and presse hard towards Dublin"
  and that they
  "expect Armes and supply from … England, France and Spaine."
  A letter was sent to ask what the trouble was about. It was, of course, the time of Charles I. The rebels sent a remonstrance, because they were not allowed to worship as they wished. The Government of the day—presumably the then Secretary of State—answered that
  "if they would lay down their Armes and repaire to theire owne dwellings, they should have pardon and that they would bee a meanes to the Parliament for the satisfaction of theire demandes."
  I am not for going over every atrocity and every horror of Hamar Greenwood and Lloyd George and the rest, but the House of Commons must discuss this in a proper, historical context, because Sinn Fein is a relatively new body. The Fenians were not there all the time. The one consistent element throughout that period is that Britain has governed Ireland, or a part of Ireland. The only contribution that I want to make to the debate—it is not without importance—is that there is a deep British interest in peace in Ireland, apart from the interests of the Irish people themselves. The war, and it is a war, between the British Army and the Irish Republican Army, however small and unrepresentative it may be, is costly in lives, money and the civil liberties of the British people.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: No; I am going to continue my argument. The hon. Lady will have to listen. I have no doubt that she will be called.
  I feel that the British people have scarcely been brought into the argument, even by the Government. We have been told about the discussions between the constitutional parties, and there have been the so-called Hume-Adams talks. There have been contacts or exchanges with Sinn Fein. But the British interest has hardly been mentioned.
  I feel very strongly about the denial of my civil liberties. I was in the Jubilee Room on Monday when at my suggestion Mr. Hartley, the chairperson of Sinn Fein, presented his version of the exchanges. The room was crowded with television units—Americans, Australians, Swedes and the French—including one from Radio Telefis Eireann. I knew that British television units would be committing a criminal offence if they broadcast the words of a Belfast councillor about an exchange with the British Government.
  I felt that my rights were being taken away, as I do when I enter the House and see people being searched. It is about security—
  Lady Olga Maitland rose—
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to speak. I intend to make my speech because I am entitled to do so.
  I invited Mr. Adams to come here to present his side of the peace argument. I announced it in the House after meeting the Speaker. There was a debate—the Secretary of State was present—during which I referred to the visit. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew that the Home Secretary had already banned Mr. Adams, he did not mention it during that debate.
  I want to bring the denial of our rights into the argument. Where have we got to? I agree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the importance of the Downing street declaration ; the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) emphasised that importance. For the first time, we are saying that the United Kingdom Government are not committed to the Union because a part of the United Kingdom could leave it, with the consent of that Government. That is a very important change and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater made much of it, saying that it was no longer a case of trade and Liverpool, U-boats and so forth and that we must get up to date.
  If we—the British people—do not have an interest in maintaining the Union, why do we maintain it? Is it simply to protect the people whom we drew out of Ireland and placed in a partitioned state? Why are we there? My argument is that once a United Kingdom Government have solemnly announced that we have no interest in the Union —something that a former Secretary of State with great knowledge of the matter has emphasized—there is no going back.
  Mr. King indicated dissent.
  Mr. Benn: Well, that is what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that it was for the people in the North to decide whether the Union continued. I listened to his speech and it was important. I therefore think that it would be sensible to jump back from the day-to-day argument for a moment and consider the true position, which I understand is that the British Government would like to get

  1191
  out of Northern Ireland. That is my conviction. I may be wrong, but I was a member of the Cabinet for 11 years, and when I used to speak to my colleagues about the matter they always said, "Of course we agree with you, but we can't say it."
  Sir Patrick Mayhew indicated dissent.
  Mr. Benn: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I am saying that the cost of the war and the failure of the military enterprise must influence present Cabinet members, as it influenced members of past Cabinets.
  Mr. King: I should not like there to be any misunderstanding over what I said about a very important matter. I made it absolutely clear that the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the joint declaration make it clear that it would be wrong to override the wish of the people of Northern Ireland if they wanted a different outcome.
  I also made it clear—the right hon. Member may not have heard me—that I have always hoped that Northern Ireland would remain a part of the United Kingdom by virtue of the wishes of its people.
  Mr. Benn: I am not disputing what the right hon. Gentleman said. He would like the Union to continue, but the Government whom he supports have said—
  Mr. King indicated dissent.
  Mr. Benn: That was the meaning of the Downing street declaration. That is why the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is so angry about it. He says that we have subcontracted the future of that part of the United Kingdom to a mere part. The hon. Member also thinks that we have subcontracted it to Dublin, but I shall not go into that.
  We are in a new situation. Although it may be embarrassing for the Secretary of State, I am emphasising the importance of the Downing street declaration. Secondly, I do not think that Dublin has any interest in taking over Northern Ireland. The bogey of the greedy Dail waiting to grab those angry Protestants is a complete illusion. The last thing that Dublin wants, with its own problems, is to take on the hon. Member for Antrim, North and others. The bogey created by the loyalists is, therefore, imaginary.
  Thirdly, I think that it has penetrated into the minds of Sinn Fein, and certainly those of other nationalists, that they cannot force the north into the south without the consent of the people of the north.
  Mr. Mallon: The right hon. Gentleman has always said that.
  Mr. Benn: I have always said it, but if one puts the three ingredients together, that the British Government do not care—I shall put it like that—what happens because they are prepared to subcontract the decision, that Dublin does not want to take it over and that the nationalists could not cope, the bits of the jigsaw puzzle are there but someone is obstinately refusing to put them together.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Independence.
  Mr. Benn: I am determined not to be another British politician with an answer to the problems. I am speaking about the British involvement.
  The United States has lost all interest in the policy because, whatever may have been the position in the past,
  1192
  President Clinton is not interested in British troops remaining in the north, whereas Bush and Reagan saw them as NATO troops.
  The other part of the jigsaw puzzle that has to be considered is that not only is Sinn Fein in a difficulty about whether to say yes or no because it has to persuade the IRA—Adams could say, "No fighting !" and the fighting could go on—but the Government are in a difficulty. That difficulty is that, in spite of all the trumpeting about "If it is turned down we shall have all those terrible penal ways of dealing with it", they did not work. We have had those policies since 1969.
  I have listened to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, the Secretary of State as he then was, warning that terrorism would be rooted out. It did not work. The policies did not work. So if there are people in the House who think, "Aha, when Sinn Fein turns this down we will get them; we will return to internment without trial and put Adams in gaol", they should realise that it will not work. Not only will it not work, but world opinion will be very much more angered by an increase of the measures that have been attempted.
  What I am saying is simple. I am saying that the elements of a settlement are there. It is no good saying, "You cannot have clarification". The word "clarification" has suddenly jumped out of the dictionary and acquired an importance that I have never attributed to it before.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: They clarified Maastricht.
  Mr. Benn: I am speaking about "talks about talks". Every time there is a settlement there are talks about talks. Just before the Vietnam war ended, there was a huge step-up of a military bombardment by the Americans. Anyone who knows anything about trade union negotiations or the military knows that that goes on; people take positions.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgwater when he said that the media do not help by pinning everyone into a corner when acutally they are all more flexible than they make out. The Secretary of State is much more flexible than sometimes he makes out or than others make him out to be.
  If one wants to end the fighting, one has to talk. I heard Churchill say from the Dispatch Box, "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war." Those are elementary lessons. Every possible opportunity must be taken to remove misunderstanding.
  The ban on the President of Sinn Fein is a great mistake from the Government's point of view. The ban on broadcasting is not only an outrage for my civil liberties but also an absurdity as one can sit in Belfast and listen to Gerry Adams broadcasting from Dublin now.
  Mr. Skinner: They all listen to him.
  Mr. Benn: Of course, and he is quite happy.
  My solution, which I put to Sinn Fein the other day, would be that if Gerry Adams joined Equity he could broadcast and they could say "actor's voice" on the television screen. What nonsense it is to deny us the right to hear from one of the participants who are being pleaded to come to the table.
  We should reconsider what contribution we could make. Yesterday I introduced a Bill into the House. It will not be debated because presentation Bills earn no time. I do

  1193
  not apologise for the fact that it is the fourth time that I have put before the House the idea that one element of a settlement should be a statement by the British Government that they will terminate their jurisdiction in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Molyneaux: When?
  Mr. Benn: The date in the Bill is 31 December 1999, the end of the century, which is about as long a time as the Chinese had to discuss the future of Hong Kong.
  The Bill would have a number of important consequences. It would remove the one continuing element of conflict in Ireland, which is that it has been controlled by the British for hundreds of years. It would recognise that there is a growing demand for peace. It would build on the Hume-Adams talks. It would recognise what is implicit —I have tried to make it explicit—in the Downing street declaration, that there is no British interest or British commitment to the future of the Union, that British sovereignty and military presence have been totally unsuccessful over hundreds of years in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and there is no reason for believing that it would be any better now. It points out that our civil liabilities have been lost by our presence there and that the peace dividend in Northern Ireland and in the whole island of Ireland is probably—pro rata—the greatest in the world and greater than the cold war, because both the Republic and the north are highly militarised states. I welcomed the Taoiseach's reference to demilitarisation because I saw it as the peace dividend.
  People in Britain have for a long time favoured withdrawal from Northern Ireland. I was on a train a while back and three young lads came up to me so I asked them what they did. They said that they were soldiers so we had a chat. I asked them where they had been and they replied Northern Ireland. I asked them what it was like and they said awful, but that if they were Irish we would be in the IRA. I was absolutely staggered. I did not approach them. They approached me and they clearly saw the troubles as a military conflict. They could understand. It cannot be pleasant for the soldiers there to be shot at. The young corpse in Crossmaglen, mentioned by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, was a tragedy and a waste. People have asked why was he there and why was he shot?
  A certain anxiety has been expressed about articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. If we want to increase the prospect of the Dail considering again its claim on the north, we should make it clear that we have no claim ourselves, because there would have to be a new constitution. If Irish unity came, by no stretch of the imagination could it mean the reabsorption of the north into a constitution which was devised for the Republic.
  I say all this with sincerity and I hope that the House will accept that such an indication of British intention on a fixed date would create the most favourable atmosphere for peaceful talks, because a British withdrawal is not the same as coercing the north into the south. It is a separate and parallel issue. I believe therefore that it would be right for the British Government to do what they have done on many occasions and indicate, not just that they have no commitment of their own to our interest, but that they are prepared and indeed determined to extricate themselves from the Irish sovereignty question. If that were done Even
  1194
  in six years' time—the date does not matter, but the determination does—it would contribute immensely to the prospect of a peace which could be durable rather than merely a renewal, under a new name, of a conflict that cannot be won under the present constitutional provisions.
  12.23 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would not expect me to go down the road that he has been following. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I welcome the fact that he takes the view of the Downing street agreement that I and many other people have taken. It was unfortunate of him to quote 1641, because if he had any knowledge of 1641 he would have known that the basic targets for genocide were the Protestant colonisers in the north. That is what sparked off the rebellion of 1641 and that has continued to this day. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) mentioned the fact that the genocide of Protestant people is continuing along the border of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I want to make a little progress.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield referred to the people who were drawn out of Ireland into a partitioned state. The people of Northern Ireland were never drawn out of other parts of Ireland. They were there already. I find it very disconcerting and alarming that some people inside and outside the House seem to think that the presence of British troops keeps Northern Ireland within the Union. The people of Northern Ireland have made that decision. If every member of our Army were taken out of Northern Ireland, that would not change the views of the people one iota.
  However, announcing a date for the withdrawal of the British Army would be a signal to the IRA to step up its campaign with even more intensive vigour. Who would then protect the right-thinking citizens of both religious communities in Northern Ireland?
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that there is much hypocrisy in Dublin. Members of Dail Eireann do not want people from the north of Ireland to come to an all-Ireland Parliament. That would spoil their little game. However, that is not an argument for Unionists to sell their heritage and to enter such a position. It is a pity that Members of Dail Eireann are not honest about that matter and do not state publicly that they have no interest in getting Northern Ireland into their grasp.
  The old controversies are resurrected today in Northern Ireland. It is noticeable that there was no mention in the Downing street declaration of articles 2 and 3. There is a question of consent, but, as I said when I questioned the Prime Minister in the House after the declaration was signed, the question of consent does not relate to articles 2 and 3. Those articles deal with a territorial claim which has not been faced up to and is not being faced up to by Her Majesty's Government.
  The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) was right to refer to the catalogue of IRA crimes that have been committed since the Downing street declaration. The list of those crimes, which was published recently in the press, is staggering. IRA violence occurred on 15 December, 16 December, 19 December, 20 December, 27 December, 29 December, 30 December, 31 December, 1 January, 3 January, 6 January, 7 January, 10 January, 11 January, 12

  1195
  January, 13 January, 19 January and 20 January. However, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield would have Gerry Adams on the box telling us that that was all in the process of peace. That is not peace.
  I received a very sad letter from the widow of one of the latest victims, a prominent business man, of IRA violence. She wrote to me, saying:
  "As the wife of one of the last victims of the IRA killings I, through the press, have appreciated what you have said. I do not want peace on the IRA's terms. I think history has proved that the IRA keep increasing their demands. Deep down, we all want peace, but not on the enemy's terms. While they were talking peace, at the same time they planned my husband's murder and carried it out."
  There is a heartfelt cry from a person who has experienced what violence is doing and will continue to do.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) talked about the constitutional parties taking a long time to get to the conference table, and a long time at the conference table before the axe was brought down on it by the Dublin Government insisting on having an Anglo-Irish conference. But as the time was spent by constitutional politicans trying to get the talks going, their people outside were not engaged in killing. They were not advocating continuing violence to kill people. That is the difference. This time, the IRA is talking peace while its soldiers—so-called—are committing murders. How long must the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland tolerate that?
  The Prime Minister says that he has a little more patience. I read today in the press that Mr. Adams says that it will be April before they get their consultations going. After those consultations, they have to consider, and then Gerry Adams has to consider whether he can go to the IRA, whether he can get up in the morning and take off his political hat and say, "Now, Gerry, I am talking to you as an IRA man." That is the folly. The Government are pursuing a course and saying—I have heard it repeatedly—"It is over to the IRA." If we are going to put the IRA into the driving seat and give them the initiative, what is going to happen to the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland?
  It is all very well for the Secretary of State to make speeches such as he made last night, but the interesting thing is that he quoted two people: a cardinal and the leader of the SDLP. Those two men advocate that their constituents or religious membership could not join the security forces. We loyalist people are told by the Secretary of State that we should heed them, but the cardinal is on record in an article in the Belfast Telegraph as saying, "I will not call on Roman Catholics to join the security forces." The SDLP's policy on that matter is the same; it will not call on its constituents to join the security forces.
  When I was at Downing street, I faced the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on that matter before the Prime Minister, and he had to admit that that was his policy. Yet the Secretary of State thinks that the loyalist people of Northern Ireland will somehow be convinced because he quotes sources that have made no contribution to trying to defend all sections of the community against violence from whatever source. But, for the vast majority of the security forces, who come from the loyalist community—not all of them, because I have Roman Catholic constituents who are in the security forces—it is a big sacrifice. They cannot go home, their parents have to visit them 50 miles from where they live, and they cannot visit their grandmothers or grandfathers when they take ill. I salute them. Of course, they are prime targets for IRA violence. The Secretary of
  1196
  State should be careful when he calls to his aid those who have not made any contribution to defending the rights of all individuals in Northern Ireland by becoming members of security forces.
  Let us look at the Downing street declaration. What was its purpose? Why do we have the Downing street declaration? We have a Downing street declaration because the Hume-Adams talks took place, and those talks were the womb from which the declaration came. In fact, it has been suggested that the first draft of what the southern Government should put to Her Majesty's Government was made out of a draft from the Hume-Adams talks. It is interesting that today hon. Members asked why could we not see the Hume-Adams document. Why can we not see it? Why is it hidden? Why is it concealed? The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that there was no difference between documents on the subject of the right of self determination. I am glad about what the hon. Gentleman said—it will make my business in Northern Ireland a lot easier—when he confirmed vigorously the view that the document advocates self determination for all the people of Ireland.
  We are told that the northern people must give consent. I put this to the House today. What if we went to Gibraltar and said to the people of the rock, "We will have a referendum on your future, but it will have to run concurrently with a referendum throughout the whole of Spain. The votes cast in Spain will have nothing to do with what we will abide by, but we will still have a concurrent referendum"? I wonder what the people of the rock would think about such an outrageous proposal.
  What if we went to the Falklands and said, "We will give you a referendum on your future, but at the same time we must have a referendum in Argentina. Of course, the votes of the Argentinean people do not really count but we must still run in tandem with them"? What would the people think? Yet the loyalist people of Northern Ireland are supposed to be happy. They are supposed to accept that this gives them what they want.
  I said to the Prime Minister in Hillsborough house, "Perhaps the Government are determined that the final situation will be decided by the people of Northern Ireland, but they were not consulted about the Anglo-Irish agreement." As for my party, I was not consulted about the Downing street declaration. I want to make it perfectly clear—because I hear all sorts of rumours that all the constitutional parties were brought in and consulted about the Downing street declaration—that I was not consulted. I told the Prime Minister that we have legislation which can come in with a stroke of a pen. It is called Northern Ireland border poll legislation and has two questions: "Do you want Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom? Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom"? I told the Prime Minister, "Actions speak louder than words. You can allay the fears of the people of Northern Ireland by having an immediate border poll."
  The Prime Minister said that that was not the right question. I said that I had got the message. That was supposed to be the question which the people of Northern Ireland were to be allowed to answer. I asked when, because I do not believe that, when it comes to those issues, they will have the opportunity of giving the answer to the right question. They could give that answer today and the Prime Minister can prove that he will allow the people of Northern Ireland to decide their own destiny.

  1197
  What has taken place is a tragedy, but it is better seen from a statement made by the Taoiseach on 10 January. He made a very interesting speech which dealt with the matter of consent. He said that the people of the south of Ireland —or the people of Ireland, for whom he took himself to be the spokesman—have agreed in Parliament that such and such a thing should happen. He went on that it was important to note that the requirement for the consent of a majority is related by the declaration to the constitutional issue. It does not mean that all forms of political progress or other decisions by the two Governments are subject to a similar block. That was mentioned today by the chairman of the Tory Back-Bench Northern Ireland committee, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh tried to argue that that related to matters of legislation which dealt with administration. However, the Taoiseach made it clear. He said that home rule had been blocked in any form, that all-Ireland institutions had been blocked, that the deal on equality and advancement of nationalists within Northern Ireland had been blocked and that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was, to a considerable extent, frustrated.
  The Taoiseach was talking about all-Ireland institutions, the type of institutions which the Opposition spokesman talked about today. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's forthright and clear statement from the Opposition Front Bench that any institutions in Northern Ireland which deal with the internal affairs of Northern Ireland must have an Irish dimension. He spelled that out clearly and that is exactly what the declaration is about.
  The Secretary of State has made that clear and has sent all hon. Members a letter on the subject. That letter makes it clear that the declaration complements and underpins the talks process; the declaration reinforces the firm foundation for future political development; the joint declaration represents a sound platform for the talks process. So the present talks process is on the basis of the Downing street declaration. There is talk about a prerequisite, but we have one now: the precondition of the talks process is that one must accept the Downing street declaration because that is the platform, the foundation and what will underpin the talks process. My party rejects the Downing street declaration.
  It may interest the House to know that The Lurgan Mail announced on Saturday last:
  "The Ulster Unionist Party does not support the Downing Street Declaration, party workers in Craigavon have been told. They were given this clarification at a party meeting in Brownlow House, Lurgan, attended by leader James Molyneaux. A statement released after the meeting said:
  'Those who accuse us of supporting the Declaration have a duty to explain why they are uttering deliberate falsehoods.'"
  A lot of people have made claims. The Government have claimed loudly that the Unionist party is on board. Members of the Unionist party made it clear that they were on board and that there was no sell-out whatever. One member said that the declaration was green, but that when one looked at the map, no principle of Unionism had been conceded.
  The Democratic Unionist party was attacked for not being in favour of the declaration. So it would be wise for the House to know who is for the declaration and who is against it.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I have consistently made my position clear. We sit on this side of the House because our party does not support the Government. It is for the hon. Gentleman to decide why he sits on the Government side and whether he supports the Government. All Opposition parties sit on Madam Speaker's left. That is the constitutional position. I have made it abundantly clear at all times that I reserve the right to dissent from any action or policy of the Government.
  I made it clear during all stages of the consultations that I would not put my name to any document. I reserve that position and will continue to do so. My formula has always been—it goes back even to 22 July—that so long as Her Majesty's Government of the day are governing in the best interests of the United Kingdom in general and Northern Ireland in particular, we will not terminate the life of the Parliament prematurely. We have never varied from that.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That is an interesting statement from the right hon. Gentleman. He said that the declaration was a comparatively safe document and that it could not possibly be a sell-out. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said:
  "It is not necessary to oppose it. It is a pleasant contrast with the Anglo-Irish Agreement."
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) gave the declaration a guarded welcome. He said:
  "There is no threat to Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom."
  The right hon. Member for Strangford said:
  "For us as Unionists there are disappointments but also some things which we welcome."
  Chris McGimpsey said:
  "There are certain aspects of the document which are valuable. It is a positive document."
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr.Maginnis) said:
  "We have given tentative approval to the agreement."
  If that is not in some way supporting the agreement, I do not know what is.
  I make a simple point to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I sit on the Unionist side of the House and I have always done so. When the Unionists changed over, I sat on that side of the House. I wonder whether we should have Cross Benches in the House. If we did, I could take up a different position. I came to the House as an independent Unionist. In similar circumstances, other Independent Unionists, including Johnston of Ballykilbeg, did likewise—I am in good company —
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I will not give way because time is short.
  Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman sat on this side of the House when Labour was in Government.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I crossed over with the Unionists, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, because there was an incident to which I shall not refer now.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I shall put another quotation on the record. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) told the Sunday Express on 2 January that if the Government did not
  "move to stop the continuing IRA campaign they will be seen to have gone back on what they have agreed with the largest political party in Northern Ireland, the Unionist Party, and they will no longer have them on board."

  1199
  How on earth, if the Unionist party does not support the agreement, could it be "on board"? Hon. Members should go and look up the quotation.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The people of Northern Ireland know exactly what is happening. An officer of one of the branches of the Unionist party wrote a long communication in the Official Unionist newspaper the other morning. It stated clearly that he had news for the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He had not found one member of the Official Unionist party who accepted the party line of the leadership and of Unionist Members of Parliament. That is what he said in the letter. If they want an argument they should have it with their own people.
  I am glad that two national British newspapers took the view that I take about this declaration. On the day after the declaration, The Daily Telegraph said:
  "The Declaration treats the British only as custodians of Northern Ireland, licensed by democratic mandate. The view that Northern Irishmen and women are British as the people of Surrey or South Yorkshire are British becomes no longer sustainable. This is unlikely to worry political opinion in mainland Britain but it would be naive to deny that it will trouble many Ulster Unionists, even beyond the ranks of the fanatics and paramilitaries"
  That newspaper, which supports the Tory party, says that the United Kingdom Government are only the custodians of Northern Ireland, licensed by democratic mandate. Is that full United Kingdom citizenship?
  In an editorial on 21 December, The Times stated that when the Prime Minister was challenged to reconcile the "strong Unionist rhetoric" used during his election campaign
  "with the neutral language of last week's declaration, he has described his Unionist conviction with great precision as a 'personal right'. Though he himself believes in the Union, he does not appear to regard it as a cornerstone of British national identity or of the Conservative tradition. Should the majority in Northern Ireland wish to leave the United Kingdom, he will happily facilitate reunification. Thus the prime minsiter has distanced himself still further from the waning Tory Unionism of Bonar Law, Randolph Churchill and Enoch Powell. An article of party faith has become a clear matter of private conscience … But no nation should tamper carelessly with its deepest roots. In its challenge to old ideas of Britishness, Mr. Major's initiative has implications far beyond the steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone."
  Those are not the words of some Democratic Unionist politician: they are the words of The Times. These are the serious issues which the House must address when examining the declaration.
  We were told that this is what we have to build upon. That is very strange. What was negotiated between the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and me and the Government in the talks about talks all seems to have changed. First, those talks were for a specific purpose—to find a replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, an alternative to it. That has been completely forgotten and no Minister says that today. It has completely vanished.
  Strand one had to do with Northern Ireland politicians alone and the British Government finding an agreeable system for the administration and government of Northern Ireland. The Dublin Government wanted to be included in strand one. The first proposal put to us was that they should be included, but we said on no account should they be there because the internal affairs of Northern Ireland are matters for Her Majesty's Government, this United Kingdom Parliament and the people of Northern Ireland alone. So Dublin was rightly excluded from strand one. Strand two was about the relationship that the new administration which was agreed to by the constitutional parties in
  1200
  Northern Ireland would adopt with the Dublin Government. Now, that, too, has been forgotten. Strand three was about the relationships between the two Governments. The goalposts have been moved.
  The Secretary of State said that he did not know whether the principle that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed still stood. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), said that it must stand. May I give the Secretary of State the news that the talks and everything that was agreed in them are finished? Nobody told the Government more vehemently than I did that if they pulled down the shutters on the talks, the talks would be over and the Government would have to start again. When the Government resumed the second talks, the then Secretary of State was careful to say that they were new talks.
  So all the background is wiped out. Given that foundation of sand, my party is not prepared to sit down and talk under those auspices. The response has been that there is now a difference between the Irish and British Governments. There was supposed to be a document to bring unity, but the Irish Government believe that the declaration should be clarified and have proceeded to give that clarification. Every speech that the Taoiseach makes is an attempt to clarify. Brian Lenihan, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Dail, has been having face-to-face encounters with IRA-Sinn Fein and says that he is clarifying the situation. The hon. Member for Foyle went to Downing street and, when he left, said that he was going back to have further meetings with the IRA.
  It is very well for the Government to say that there is no clarification. We heard statements from them before that they had no links, channels or talks with the IRA and we found out that those affirmations were unfounded. The people of Northern Ireland are asking what is really happening.
  We are told that there will be a "get tough" attitude to the IRA if it does not agree to the declaration. Why did not Governments get tough long ago? Why did not they save us the orphans and widows? The ordinary people of Northern Ireland say that the Government will make more concessions and continue down the slippery slope.
  If the House really believes that the people of Northern Ireland have a right to a final say, the legislation exists and the House can give them the opportunity to have that say. They did it in the days of the Sunningdale agreement and the nationalists boycotted it. They never attended the Stormont Assembly. I am amused when the leader of the SDLP tells the House that his party will go along with what the sovereign Parliament does. This sovereign Parliament set up an assembly to produce a plan for the government of Northern Ireland and they boycotted that assembly and did their best to bring it down. In the end, it was brought down by the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
  The people of Northern Ireland need a tangible assurance. If they do not receive it, the words of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley will be true; it is a two-edged sword. We have to face that reality. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland know exactly what is happening there. Therefore, the best thing for the Government to do is to say that, as the declaration states that the people of Northern Ireland must give consent, let us have a border poll to see what the people feel. That could be the starting point for a series of talks to deal with a form of government of Northern Ireland in which the Dublin Government can have no say.

  1201
  Why should the Dublin Government dictate to the people of Northern Ireland about what sort of Government they should have? If there is agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland, should not the Dublin Government be happy with that agreement? Why must they interfere and why should they demand their sort of Irish dimension?
  The document is about a united Ireland and is in the context of a united Ireland. The question before the people is: do you want to go into a united Ireland? How can that be facilitated? The Taoiseach has made it clear by saying, "You will have absolutely no say on the institutions that straddle the border—we will decide, the British Government will decide and the institutions will be set up. You will have no say." That will lead to more trouble and more problems.
  I trust that the House will learn from the experiences of history. I was amused when I was told by the Secretary of State that I should trust the word of the Taoiseach. It is not much consolation for a Unionist to be told to put his faith in the Taoiseach's word. The Secretary of State should remember that every treaty that Dublin has made with this Parliament and its Governments has been torn up. What about the treaty of 1920, the ports and the arrangement that was taken away in 1937 by the new constitution? What about the claim over Northern Ireland that the Dail Eireann refused? The treaty making Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom and would remain so was ratified. The international border was agreed and the legislation was signed. The Dail Eireann agreed it, this Parliament agreed it and the Stormont Parliament agreed it; they all signed it and it was taken to the League of Nations where it was lodged. But De Valera tore it up and introduced his new 1937 constitution.
  I reminded Irish Ministers of those events at the talks and asked them how they could expect a Unionist to trust them. We are then told that we should trust the Taoiseach's word. I do not want my United Kingdom citizenship to rest on the word of the Prime Minister of a Government who claim jurisdiction over the part of the United Kingdom in which I live, which is what we are being told to do.
  I trust that we in Northern Ireland will have an opportunity of dealing with the subject at the polls. I trust that the other parties will see the wisdom of that. Once that is settled, we can begin to build, not on the sinking sands of the Downing street declaration, but on the firm rock of a democratic vote in which everyone has a say in what they want to do in future and in where their citizenship lies.
  1.4 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) for the further opportunity to discuss the problems and needs of the people of Northern Ireland. As we all know, their most compelling need is an end to the sickening violence, the manic and serial killings there, and I hope very much that today's debate will make some contribution to hastening the pursuit of peace. That hope is shared by the vast majority of people on this side of the water and overwhelmingly, too. I believe, by the people of Ireland, north and south alike. With Arafat shaking hands with Rabin and Mandela smiling at de Klerk, many people are daring to hope new hopes for the people of Northern Ireland. Let us pray that they can soon be realised.
  1202
  My purpose today is briefly to focus on an issue that unites people of all persuasions in Northern Ireland. It is one that affects, among some 200,000 other disabled people, the innocent victims of violence there. They will spend the rest of their lives trying to cope with severe and long-term disability, yet the law as it stands permits unfair discrimination against them, not only in employment policies but in housing, education, transport and all other public and private services.
  Northern Ireland's Members of Parliament, without exception, gave strong and persistent support to the Bill that I drafted—the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill —to make such discrimination unlawful throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, it was the unanimity of their support that prompted me, when the Bill's progress was blocked for the second time by the Government on 26 February 1992, to draft a more limited version of the Bill applicable solely to Northern Ireland in an effort at least to secure its benefits for disabled people there.
  It was totally unreasonable and manifestly unfair for the Government to have delayed the application to Northern Ireland of a Bill supported by all its Members of Parliament and which applied solely to their constituents. To obstruct this more limited measure in the only Parliament that can legislate for the disabled people of Northern Ireland, when all their parliamentary representatives want to see it enacted, is both constitutionally and morally indefensible.
  It calls sharply into question the sincerity of the Government's repetitive insistence that the only certain way for Northern Ireland's Members of Parliament to achieve meaningful progress for their communities is to unite. One Secretary of State after another has given the impression that, if only they would act together, there is nothing they cannot achieve for the betterment of the people they were sent here to represent. The Secretary of State has given that impression, but its validity has to be judged by his attitude to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (Northern Ireland) Bill.
  It may help the House for me to recall some of the background to the drafting of this more limited Bill and its First Reading in the House on 16 June 1993. The story is not a happy one for Britain's 6·5 million disabled people. Nor is it a creditable one to the Government; but it needs to be told for there to be full understanding of the unanimous decision by Northern Ireland's Members of Parliament to back the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (Northern Ireland) Bill.
  By last June, my original Bill, for the United Kingdom as a whole, had been subjected, over the previous 18 months, to every procedural device available for obstructing its progress. On Second Reading on 31 January 1992, it was talked out by Robert Hayward, who lost his seat at the ensuing election and, more recently, the Christchurch by-election. He apologised for his behaviour after the debate in a personal statement to the House, but his action ended all hope of my Bill becoming law in that parliamentary Session.
  To keep the Bill before Parliament, I arranged for it to be introduced in another place by Baroness Lockwood and by 4 November 1992 it had completed all its stages there. When it came back to the House, a further Second Reading was timed for 26 February 1993 to coincide with the debate on a motion calling for its enactment in the following terms:

  1203
  "This House believes that anti-discrimination legislation is necessary to ensure equality of opportunity for people with disabilities; and calls for the early enactment of specific provisions relating to public transport and other public and private services, employment and housing."
  Notwithstanding the approval of that motion by the House, the Government again used a procedural device to block the Bill. So for a second time, and after seven hours of debate on its provisions, this House was prevented from giving it a Second Reading.
  Lord Renton, the Prime Minister's predecessor as Conservative Member of Parliament for Huntingdon, said in the Third Reading debate on the Bill in another place that he found it strange as well as wrong that unfair discrimination against disabled people was not already unlawful. He thought it extraordinary and not very creditable that Parliament had not already legislated and said that, after all the thought that had been given to the Bill in the House of Lords, he did not believe that many hours of discussion would be necessary in the House of Commons.
  The Government's tactics in the House made it clear, however, that they had no intention of responding to Lord Renton's plea. The Government's principal reason for blocking the Bill, for the United Kingdom as a whole, was said to be cost. When the Prime Minister and I met to discuss the Bill, he said that any action to end discrimination must proceed "without cost implications". In other words, we could afford civil rights for everyone else, but not for disabled people. They and their organisations found that deeply offensive, just as they resented the criticism that my Bill did not "sit comfortably with the Government's policy on deregulation".
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman continues—I realise that he wants to sketch in the background—I must point out that we are dealing with current developments in Northern Ireland. Although passing reference to previous events is in order, the right hon. Gentleman is going into considerable detail. I ask him to bear that in mind.
  Mr. Morris: I am trying to put into context the Bill's importance to the victims of violence in Northern Ireland, but I shall abbreviate my look at the past. What needs emphasising is the sustained blocking of the Bill and what has been said in justification of what has been done. As I said at the outset, my concern is for more than 200,000 disabled people in Northern Ireland today, including many innocent victims of violence.
  I was told also by the Prime Minister that the Bill did not "sit comfortably with the Government's policy on deregulation". Nor does the Equal Opportunities Commission, and the Commission for Racial Equality. Nor does the Fair Employment Act for Northern Ireland. The Government's third criticism—and I want to be fair by explaining their attitude to the Bill—was that discrimination against disabled people is best dealt with by piecemeal change. But that view is rejected by many employers in Northern Ireland, as it is totally rejected by many employers in Great Britain. They argue that the Government are trying to divide the indivisible, that one cannot improve the employment opportunities of disabled people without looking at their transport problems and securing training for them on the same basis as other people. One employer told me recently that piecemeal change would be a total waste of time and money.
  1204
  That is the story—some will think the shabby story—behind the blocking of my Bill for the United Kingdom as a whole and my decision to draft a Bill applicable solely to Northern Ireland. Before giving his approval to the blocking of that more limited Bill on 2 July 1993, did the Secretary of State fight the corner of Northern Ireland's Members of Parliament and the disabled people they represent in discussions about the Bill within the Government? Did he talk about his decision to approve the blocking of the Bill to Disability Action in Northern Ireland? He is aware that I myself met them in Belfast to discuss my Bill, as the guest speaker at their last annual general meeting in June 1993, and that its members were as one in wanting the Bill to succeed.
  If he has not so far done so, will the Secretary of State now meet Disability Action—the Northern Ireland Council on Disability—to discuss the Bill? I hope very much that he will discuss the Bill with them soon and then act to give some validity to ministerial statements about the gains to be won when Northern Ireland Members of Parliament work together. He will have a clear opportunity to do so when my good and hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) reintroduces the original Bill to help disabled people in the United Kingdom as a whole for which, happily, he has won a place in the private Members' ballot.
  Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assist the progress of that Bill so that it secures a Second Reading? If not, will the Government stop telling—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I tried to warn the right hon. Gentleman gently that he was straying rather far from the terms of the motion. I must now tell him that he is going far beyond what we are discussing, which is issues of violence and peace. I must therefore ask him to return more closely to the motion under consideration.
  Mr. Morris: I am very near to my conclusion and addressing myself to the problems—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Whether the right hon. Gentleman has reached, or is getting near to, a conclusion is not the point. He must address himself to the terms of the motion.
  Mr. Morris: As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, the motion refers to violence and peace. I was seeking to ensure that the voice of Northern Ireland's victims of violence was heard in this debate and that the legislation they seek will be looked at more sympathetically by the Government.
  Britain used to lead the world in legislation for disabled people. Now we lag behind. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that the issue that I have raised is a very important one for some of the most needful people in Northern Ireland. He will be praised, I believe, by both communities if he can respond positively to the plea I have made on their behalf.
  1.17 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: The House could be forgiven for wondering why an Englishman with no personal links with either part of the island of Ireland takes a close interest in these matters. Indeed, some hon. Members might even question the sanity of this particular Englishman in wishing to join the debate when surrounded by so many experts on such a difficult subject.

  1205
  Let me explain why I take an interest. First, because my predecessor as the Member for Spelthorne, then Sir Humphrey Atkins, was a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Working alongside him as the candidate while he was the Member of Parliament taught me a great deal about the tragedy and bravery of the Province and about the opportunities and frustrations facing politicians of all types on both sides of the water. My experience as a candidate aroused my interest and concern. It made me determined to try to do a little to help.
  The second reason why I became interested and concerned was because the Province is part of my country. It is not a colony, but an integral part of my country until its people choose otherwise. Together with all Members of the House, I believe that I share some little responsibility for trying to ensure the security and the safety of my fellow countrymen, whichever tradition they come from.
  That interest in the Province has led, in my six years in the House, to an ever-closer involvement with Northern Ireland issues and with the politicians in Dublin. It has resulted in my now being a member of the British-Irish interparliamentary body and a member of its political and security committee.
  With that type of involvement, I have always felt it right and proper for me to think through a clear and consistent approach to those matters, and to think through exactly what I seek to contribute and to achieve. Let me, therefore, put on the record the conclusions that I have reached when I have thought along those lines.
  Here is my approach to the issues of Northern Ireland. First, I believe that I have to try to understand the reality of Northern Ireland—the reality as distinct from the political rhetoric, not only of the north, but of the south. The second part of my approach is to ensure that I always work within that reality rather than the rhetoric, and to try to avoid being seduced by the siren voices that claim that concessions lead to peace and, at the moment, to try to avoid the siren voices that say that clarification leads to peace—it does not.
  The third part of the approach that I have always tried to bring to bear is to try to avoid at all costs any policies, any initiatives and any deals that fall outside the reality, as I see it, because history—history is always mentioned on such occasions—teaches me the awful lesson that any policies, initiatives or deals that fall outside the reality make matters worse in the end and lead to more violence.
  Using that approach, let me try to explain what I have been trying to achieve in my own small way. First, I have tried to put something of a brake on any over-enthusiastic searches for undeliverable solutions, because of those awful lessions of history, if we go too fast down an unsustainable route.
  Secondly, through the British-Irish interparliamentary body I have tried to help to foster a greater understanding in the south of the island of Ireland of an English persepective as distinct from the Northern Ireland perspective. The more I have got to know Dublin politicians, the more I have realised how important it is that they are told of the English perspective as well as the Northern Irish perspective.
  Let me explain the way in which I have tried to apply that approach and those objectives to the issues raised by the joint declaration.
  1206
  Although I—and I am sure everyone else—welcome the goals of the joint declaration, and although I commend the spirit behind it, and although I am delighted that the world has now been shown that both democratically elected Governments can agree on a peaceful future, which I believe is one of the things that the IRA finds difficult to swallow, I said, when I was with my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) at the meeting of the British-Irish interparliamentary body on the day that the joint declaration was announced, that I feared that it would run into the sand. I said, "I pray that it will not, but I fear that it will." I said that then because I could sense something of a fatal flaw behind the thinking that led to the joint declaration. I sensed that the joint declaration was based on an assumption that the members of the IRA are reasonable people who will agree to allow the people of the Province to choose their own future democratically.
  The joint declaration seems to assume that the IRA members are people who will accept continued imprisonment of their demonic members and it seems to be based on the assumption that the IRA would bow to pressure from the Dublin Government, which I believe it abhors almost as much as our Government in London. The sickening truth, as it appears to me, is that the IRA members are not reasonable people. They are psychopathic murderers driven by a blind hatred, not by sweet reason.
  As well as that flaw in the assumption of the joint declaration about the state of mind of the IRA, it bothers me that some realities are being overlooked in the general debate. In my short speech, I have time to highlight only four of those realities which concern me. First, it strikes me that there are some who forget that the desire for peace in Northern Ireland is most certainly not the same as the desire for unity. It is blindingly clear to me, as, I am sure it is to all hon. Members, that almost everybody in the Province wants peace. However, it is equally clear that the majority do not want a united Ireland and that that majority, judging from my experience of visits, includes more than a few Roman Catholics.
  I maintain that it is essential that Her Majesty's Government remain neutral on the question of a united Ireland. If they do not, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is right, we shall be washing our hands of the future of the Province. The Government must remain neutral if there is to be a decision, if the people of the Province are to make their minds up in a free manner and it is not for us to bring any pressure whatever on them.
  Secondly, I sense that some people forget the reality that the understandable demands of the nationalists in the north to be Irish implies a similar right for the Unionists in the north to remain British. If we forget that, any deal that we seek to strike will not stick and will be doomed to failure. Any way forward must square that circle.
  The third reality is that some people seem to be forgetting that before we can have any sort of agreement, it is necessary to define what we mean by an acceptable majority for change. As I see it in the Province at the moment, we have a majority of 60–40 or 55–45—I do not know exactly; I bow to expert internal judgments. Clearly, there is a majority at the moment for a union with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I shall try not to hold up the hon. Gentleman. When he considers the sectarian head count in Northern Ireland, will

  1207
  he be careful not to use that as the basis for counting those who favour the Union? Earlier in his speech, he got it right, but he is going down the wrong road now.
  Mr. Wilshire: I hope that I am not. I certainly accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman and, earlier, I tried to say that I did not use the sectarian head count in a simplistic way. The point that I seek to make is that however one makes up the majority and from whatever tradition those people come, it is clear to me at least that there is a majority for the Union. It concerns me that some people seem to forget that, if the current majority for the continuation of the Union does not bring peace, why in heaven's name should anybody assume that a 51–49 per cent. support for a united Ireland from whatever tradition slightly in the other direction, should be any more peaceful than the majority we have at the moment? Until we can define what is meant by an acceptable majority, I fear that any deal will run into the sand.
  The final reality which people seem to forget is that geography and history, on their own, do not justify a united Ireland. Everyone who listens to a debate like this is aware of how much history figures in debates about the future of the island of Ireland. If geography and history alone were to justify the definition of sovereignty, Spain would argue that it should take over Portugal, and Norway would be sucked into Sweden because the lessons of history certainly point in that direction. A simplistic view of an atlas would suggest that geography argues the same thing.
  Simplistic arguments about the history of Ireland and about how the island looks in an atlas worry me when they are used to justify a united Ireland, irrespective of the social and political realities. That is not the basis for a united sovereign state. The only basis that any of us should recognise is when two different traditions realise that they have a future together because they share more than what separates them, based on the present and the future and not on the atlas and history book.
  I realise that what I call realities other people may call contentious and quarrelsome nonsense. I equally recognise that such realities, or whatever we choose to call them, represent formidible obstacles to peace. I would be foolish if I did not also realise that, by raising those points, I open myself to the accusation that I sound negative. However, I do not believe that I am.
  I raise those points because, like everyone else, I am desperate for peace. However, I believe that peace at any price is no peace at all. If we ignore the realities, we will make matters worse. I also raise those points because I know from experience that many people inside and outside this place share my worries and feelings. It is up to someone to stand up and spell them out during a debate of this kind.
  Having said all that, I applaud the work of both Governments. I am acutely aware of, and amazed by, the bravery of many politicians and Ministers on both sides of the water. As they continue to search for a peace that will stick, I plead with them: please do not do deals that will run into the sand; please do not do deals that ignore the realities; please do not negotiate and clarify things with terrorists; please do not redefine murder as an excusable political tactic and, above all, please do not abandon the wonderful people of Ireland, both north and south of the border.
  Several hon. Members rose— —
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the debate continues, may I point out that several hon. Members still wish to make contributions. We have only about one hour left. If hon. Members would make shorter speeches than they might otherwise wish, hopefully all hon. Members who want to take part will be able to do so.
  1.33 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: This is an appropriate time to have this debate and I am grateful for the opportunity, five weeks after the Downing street declaration, to be able to contribute to it.
  What is happening in relation to the declaration is now becoming clear. Indeed, the IRA's attitude is becoming exceedingly clear. Its attitude does not fall in line with the prediction by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) who suggested that he could bring peace to the Province in seven days. Nor does it fall into line with the prediction of the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic who predicted that that could happen by Christmas. The peculiar thing was that the Taoiseach said that he would not sign a declaration which did not give him confidence that he could fulfil that promise.
  Before I talk about the IRA, its reaction and the dangers, I cannot ignore the speech by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). One becomes not a little tired of the hon. Gentleman's constant harping in relation to my party's performance and its contribution to the constructive interests of Unionism in general and Northern Ireland in particular. Perhaps I should not have been surprised at the long rambling regurgitation of what we have all heard before—bland statements that there was no consultation for the hon. Gentleman's party in terms of what has been happening throughout the past year and a half to two years and particularly in recent times. If there was no consultation, I would be very interested to know exactly what he and his colleagues were doing at 10 Downing street on 24 November.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maginnis: I have much more to say, and then I will give way.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right for an hon. Member not to give way when he challenges the integrity of the hon. Member who has just spoken?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The rule of the House is that, unless the hon. Member concerned agrees to give way, he has the right to continue.
  Mr. Maginnis: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have many more connected points to make and then I most certainly will give way. I will be particularly interested to hear the answers.
  I get a little tired of the frightening speculation—it is frightening speculation—which appears not to be based on anything that I have read in the Downing street declaration, for example, but appears to have the European election interests of the hon. Member for Antrim, North at heart. The way in which the interests of Northern Ireland are subverted in the interests of the Democratic Unionist party's overwhelming need to top the poll on 9 June is somewhat disgusting. The hon. Gentleman has made no

  1209
  secret that that is what he intends to do, and it involves the usual sleight of hand when one connects two issues which are totally unrelated.
  The hon. Gentleman says that he will test the joint declaration. How? It will be by making his vote on 9 June a referendum on whether Ulster Unionists want to be sold out to a united Ireland. For far too long, such misleading and such misuse of the Unionist vote and of the Unionist strength in Northern Ireland has been an impediment to progress that would benefit all the people of Northern Ireland. It has been going on for years—we try to ignore it.
  For example, in 1970, the hon. Gentleman frequently attacked the new Ulster Defence Regiment—the "dad's army", he called it—and frequently called for the Ulster special constabulary to be brought back. I served in both organisations and I have tremendous respect for them. But it was a good idea to frighten the old and the bold in 1970 by shouting in favour of the Ulster special constabulary. Twenty years on, when the old and the bold have perhaps learnt how shallow that support is, it becomes the hon. Gentleman's job to shout in support of the UDR and to denigrate the Royal Irish Regiment. I do not know the Latin for it but if I can find out, I suggest that a slogan for the Democratic Unionist party might be "flogging dead horses".
  Until 9 June, we will have a tremendous contribution by the DUP to the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. The DUP will embark on yet another poster campaign and, by the look of what happened in Portadown on Monday, we will have one or two Free Presbyterian rallies in order to build the hon. Gentleman's vote on 9 June.
  The people of Northern Ireland are getting a little sick of rallies and posters. They want hard work, and they want their views represented directly and effectively to Government. They have seen the Third Force; it has come and gone, and it has done nothing for them. They have seen the leader of the DUP leading people with firearm certificates up a hill in the middle of the night, and it has done nothing for them. They have seen the Carson trail. They have seen the Ulster Resistance, of which the hon. Gentleman was nominally the leader until three poor fellows were caught trying to buy guns in Paris, then it turned out that he had not been a member of the Ulster Resistance for a few weeks. We have seen all those things come and go. They peculiarly coincided with elections in Northern Ireland.
  It is time that an hon. Member from Northern Ireland stood in the House and told the hon. Gentleman, "Stop using and abusing the Unionist people who have suffered too much without being exploited once again by a 'Save Ulster' campaign."
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) quoted part of an article from the Sunday Express.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not want to answer the rubbish that the hon. Gentleman is speaking. It is interesting that, after all those happenings, the same hon. Gentleman was glad to have a coalition with the Ulster Democratic Unionist party, to take the joint leadership from his leader and me and to stand at City hall. It was his party which expressed great worry about the European elections; it was not me. Members of his party said, "Paisley will be be grovelling for our transfer votes." I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party member had to get 40,000 of my
  1210
  votes to be elected. I remind him that in every European election in which I have stood, his party member gets in only on my election surplus. Therefore to say that I want that is completely wrong.
  I have put the alternative. Let us have a border poll. If we have a border poll, we will then have the European election. The hon. Gentleman is afraid that his party, having issued a manifesto which he signed and supported, went back on Maastricht and voted with the Government on that issue. That is what he is worried about.
  Mr. Maginnis: The last point has nothing to do with this and is not entirely accurate.
  Let me take up the point of a border poll. As an Ulster Unionist, I know the strength of support in Northern Ireland for the Union within the United Kingdom. I do not want Northern Ireland to be put up for sale every 10 years, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North would want. If the pro-Union vote is 80 per cent. on the first occasion and only 77 per cent. next time, everybody will say, "The desire for Northern Ireland to remain within the Union is not as strong as it was 10 years ago". The clamour will return to make more allowances for the alleged increase in support for a united Ireland.
  There is no increasing support for a united Ireland—that support is decreasing. I would not have raised the matter if the hon. Member for Antrim, North had not chosen his ground and attacked my party here today. Everything that the hon. Gentleman does undermines the credibility of Unionism in Northern Ireland.
  Ulster Unionism is justifiable, and is more justifiable than was demonstrated by the efforts of the hon. Member for Belfast, East. He decided that he would lead "Robinson's raiders", as they were called, down into the Protestant enclave of Clontibret in county Monaghan. As a result, the hon. Gentleman got lost, had to hitch ride in a Garda car and eventually had to pay £15,000 to the Irish Exchequer for the privilege of that ride. The hon. Gentleman was lost on that occasion, and he is still lost.
  Let me leave that matter, and move to the threat of the IRA. The IRA, along with Sinn Fein, made a decision at the end of December that they would reject the declaration as a basis for the peace process. However, their recognition of the weight of national and international opinion has left them with a dilemma. They want to be able to retain the myth that they have widespread support in a struggle against a colonial power, whereas we know that more than 70 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland want to remain within the Union. To this end, Sinn Fein and the IRA have tentatively agreed to announce a temporary ceasefire at an appropriate moment during the next couple of months. They are hopeful that such a move will place irresistible public pressure on the Irish Government to begin direct talks with Sinn Fein. However, they assume —I hope that they are right in their assumption—that the British Government will not meet them on the basis of such an interim ceasefire.
  After a few weeks, it is intended that the IRA will resume with a particularly intensive campaign, while Sinn Fein sits in Dublin expressing regret, but, at the same time, its complete understanding of the IRA's total frustration at what it will claim is the intransigence and provocation of the British Government and their military machine. We have heard all that garbage before and we will hear it again.
  Sinn Fein will have agreed to appear to distance itself from the IRA onslaught at that stage, and continue to

  1211
  protest its desire to pursue the peace process with the Irish Government. That is in expectation that the Republic will not dare to test public opinion at that stage by aborting any of the talks which have begun. After the Irish Cabinet's capitulation over section 31 of the Republic's broadcasting ban to allow Sinn Fein back on the air, one could hardly expect Dublin not to submit again.
  Listening to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) today, we get a glimpse of what the so-called Adams-Hume talks were about and what the proposals were. There, I am convinced, is the hidden agenda. It is about the gradual withdrawal of support by our own Government from the people of Northern Ireland over a period moving towards the end of the century. I might tell the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that the end of the century is not 31 December 1999. It is 31 December 2000.
  The Government do not have to reassure me today. I have heard their reassurances and I have to accept them. As I implied on 2 January in the Sunday Express, obviously, my party is monitoring and will continue carefully to monitor the extent to which the Government meet the commitment that they have given in the House. That is why we are here as an Opposition party. What I want to hear is that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are trying to ensure and obtain agreement from the Irish Government that they will not fall into the trap of the IRA's proposed tactics that I have just outlined.
  Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you want me to be brief. I wanted to talk both in hypothetical terms about what would need to be done if we were fortunate enough to move towards peace and about what would need to be done if the negative response that we anticipate were given. I will deal with the matter as briefly as possible.
  In any peace process pre-planning for not only disengagement but verification will be important. We must assume that there is a tremendous amount of information and military intelligence in the hands of special branch and the Foreign Office on exactly what weapons were brought to Ireland from Libya. As we understand it, Mr. Gaddafi has supplied that information. That has to be balanced against the weaponry that has been discovered, the ammunition that we know has been discharged and the explosives that have been used or captured in order to set our targets for verification. That is essential.
  We cannot travel towards some false dawn in which we believe that we shall have peace but find ourselves in the midst of another onslaught five, six or seven years down the road when the IRA has reorganised. Verification must be about not only that weaponry and ammunition which is presently in hides somewhere in the Irish Republic; it must be about how we ensure that no further shipments from eastern Europe or wherever get into Ireland. That is a matter of grave concern to us.
  Other matters of equal concern include what we will do with the 20,000 or 30,000 people who, if peace breaks out tomorrow, will be redundant—to put it bluntly? We have had violence within the Province for 25 years. Even if it goes away, there will be a vacuum for many years to come. There will be a space to be filled by evil men. Even if they are not involved in political violence, they will be involved in drugs and racketeering. We all know how the Mafia began. Therefore, there must be no reduction whatever in the level of home-based security services. We must carefully monitor the extent to which regular battalions are
  1212
  taken out of Northern Ireland. My party will want to have its say in that area because we want to influence how the Government tackle that problem.
  Difficulties will flow from the ultimate loss of 30,000 jobs some years hence, and there will be a knock-on effect on the economy. All those matters must be thought about now if we hope to move towards peace. I hope that I am wrong, but I believe that the IRA has no intention of moving in that direction. That makes it important to maintain the present security force capability in Northern Ireland in every respect. That relates to regular troops, the maintenance of our police services and the use of special forces. All those will be absolutely necessary, but there is more than that.
  As the Irish Republic signed the joint declaration along with Her Majesty's Government, it has an obligation that has not been fulfilled to its full extent in the past. In his speech last night, the Secretary of State alluded to the extent to which border security was deficient. There must now be consultation between the British and Irish Governments about the areas along the frontier where the greatest threat occurs.
  South Armagh has seen one sniper attack after another. Although I do not predict where the snipers are domiciled, we know that they mount their attacks from south of the frontier and retreat there after the killings. A great deal more is required in terms of the Irish Republic's obligation in that area. Of course, there are other areas. There is the Dublin bomb team that operates out of the midlands and primes the mortars that are brought across into Northern Ireland. That matter has to be followed up more effectively.
  Dr. Joe Hendron: The hon. Gentleman speaks about the border separating Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland. When going to Dublin or crossing the border, one sees many soldiers along different parts of the border. Those soldiers would not be there if there were peace, if the IRA declared a total cessation of violence. Does he agree that the border has become an IRA border?
  Mr. Maginnis: Unfortunately, that is so. In terrorist warfare as distinct from conventional warfare, a border such as ours will be dominated by an organisation such as the IRA when there is no effective security with a high degree of co-operation on both sides.
  The Government must indicate to constitutional politicians how they will prepare for either eventuality. I hope that those in Northern Ireland who call themselves Unionists but who act in a selfish way against the general interest of Unionism will rethink their position and realise that, for purely electoral purposes, they cannot for ever hold to ransom people who have endured so much.
  1.59 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: In concentrating on the joint declaration relating to Northern Ireland, a debate so ably initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), we must not fail to condemn the evil men of violence on both sides of the sectarian divide, whose murderous campaigns have lead to the death and maiming of so many totally innocent men, women and children.
  Let us also be clear about placing the blame for the conflict that has so divided the people of Northern Ireland. Some, while claiming to be loyalist, have sunk to the

  1213
  republican terrorists' level. But although the hand of Ulster may be red, the hands of the IRA and their apologists in Sinn Fein are steeped in the blood of so many victims—a blood-red stain that can never be removed by pious platitudes, joint declarations or hypocritical messages of regret. Indeed, it can never be removed until those responsible are identified, apprehended, tried and sentenced for crimes of such grotesque barbarity that they have turned the stomachs of the world.
  We have heard too many words and noble statements from the Front Benches of both sides of the House. Noble words are all too often used to mask ignoble deeds, and 10 years' service in this House lead me to suspect that that position might have arisen in connection with Northern Ireland.
  Even in agreeing the joint declaration with his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, the Prime Minister has sent a clear message to the IRA terrorists. Ministers have sought, through weasel words in their statements, to portray themselves as defenders of the Union while endorsing the signing of the declaration—a Trojan horse that heralds the death of the Union and may prove the downfall and break-up of our nation.
  The message that the Government's actions have sent clearly and unmistakably is that the IRA has succeeded in one of its most fundamental aims: it has brought about a position in which the Government are now presiding over the dissolution of the Union and are prepared to negotiate with overseas Governments about the future of British citizens. We have only to compare our Government's attitude to, and neutrality on, the Union's future with the attitude of the Irish Government who, in articles 2 and 3, make perfectly clear their territorial claim to Ulster.
  I am sorry to introduce a discordant note to the debate, but I believe that the declaration was a fundamental political error in the principles that it espoused and particularly in the clear message that the spaces between its lines sent to the terrorists. Far from feeling that they have failed, they will now feel that they are making good progress and that the wages of their evil are not the political death which they and their aspirations deserve but the realisation of their dreams—a united Ireland.
  Ministers have talked about respecting the views of the majority of the people of Ulster and said that they see no prospect of that majority seeking to secede from the Union. Much has been made in this debate of the right to self-determination. That may be the case today, but, for so many years, the people of the Province have borne the brunt of terrorist atrocity after terrorist atrocity. When, in the coming months and years, they inevitably gradually realise that the Government's commitment to the Union is but grudging, that the Government see the Province's problems as a burden which they are forced reluctantly to bear for historical reasons, that, although they are members of the Union, they will never be brought fully within it, and that the cost of their presence within it is resented in some quarters of the United Kingdom, their views will turn.
  I have no crystal ball and I cannot accurately predict how the break-up of the Union may be brought about. However, the signing of the joint declaration, both in terms of its words and its coded message to the terrorists, has
  1214
  commenced a process that will lead irrevocably to a united Ireland unless the Government change their views, and do so quickly, robustly and publicly.
  We can be certain of one thing: moves towards a united Ireland will not solve the troubles of the Province. They will not bring an end to the bloodshed. In their resentment at such a move—and what many of us consider to be such a betrayal—it is inevitable that the loyalist terrorists will, in turn, increase their violence. The signatories to the joint declaration will have condemned the people of Northern Ireland to further decades of bloodshed. There is only one way for peaceful change in Northern Ireland—to defeat the terrorists on their own terms.
  We in the House cannot abandon the people of Northern Ireland to the fate of being ruled by terrorism, any more than we can abandon any other part of the United Kingdom. We must take the opposite course and fully incorporate Northern Ireland within the Union as soon as possible. Only then will we in the House be sending to the IRA the clear message that the armed struggle has failed.
  2.7 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I thank the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) for initiating the debate and express my support for the motion.
  The Downing street declaration was certainly given a warmer reception than the so-called Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. I never thought that the 1985 agreement provided the basis for a peaceful settlement because it lacked the necessary grass-roots support and was essentially an agreement between two Governments. A just and lasting peace requires the support of the people as well as the support of Governments.
  I was pleasantly surprised at the comparatively warm reception that the Downing street declaration received last month. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and his party for at least giving the declaration serious consideration—I recognise that that probably required a degree of political courage on their part. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) for the courage that he has displayed in his attempts to find a peaceful solution.
  Unfortunately, Sinn Fein's attitude is still unclear, but I appeal to it to abandon violence and take the opportunity to become involved in democratic discussions. I also hope that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will think again. I can well understand that he and his party are far from satisfied with some aspects of the declaration, but it at least provides a basis for discussion. Surely, it is helpful for opponents to sit round a table to discuss their differences in an effort to end the bloodshed.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North is not alone in finding some aspects of the declaration unpalatable. I am not happy about the definition of self determination in the declaration. I cannot accept the double standards of the British Government, who grant a degree of determination to the people of the Province of Northern Ireland while denying any degree of self determination to the people of Scotland who constitute an entire nation. The British Government should admit that Britain was wrong to partition Ireland, and that the resultant creation of Northern Ireland inevitably produced a gerrymandered, unstable entity—politically, economically and militarily. Whether we like it or not, the division of Ireland is a fact and sometimes it is not easy for today's politicians to undo the

  1215
  mistakes of 70 years ago. Let us learn from past mistakes, but let us look to the future now instead of merely living in the past.
  There is nothing wrong—indeed, in my opinion there is much that is laudable—in having an aspiration or a vision of a united Ireland where people of different religions, cultures and traditions live together in peace and harmony with mutual respect for each other's beliefs, but it is a political problem or, dare I say, a political challenge, to turn that vision into reality.
  I welcome the reference in the declaration to the right of self determination for the people of the entire island of Ireland, but I have reservations, to say the least, about the declaration's split definition of that right. I can well understand the difficulty of many Irish people in accepting the definition. It could be argued, however, that it is possible to stand by the right of self determination for the people of Ireland as a whole, while saying that it would be politically unwise to assert or exercise that right at this time without the consent of both parts of Ireland.
  Politicians and parties can compromise without abadoning their principles, and it is on that basis that I appeal to all parties to enter discussions on the basis of the declaration.
  The Government are needlessly getting themselves into an entrenched position on clarification of the declaration. As I said yesterday at Question Time, they cannot on the one hand say, "We believe in open government" but on the other say, "We do not believe in clarification".
  There is a big difference between clarification, negotiation or renegotiation, and certain parts of the declaration are ambiguous and require genuine clarification. I appeal to the Secretary of State to think again on that point.
  The declaration is not a settlement but a framework for further progress. I therefore endorse the appeal to all parties to take this opportunity of a place at the negotiating table. Time is running out. More than 3,000 people have lost their lives in the bloody conflict over the past quarter of a century and many more lost their lives in the longer conflict that lasted on for many centuries before that. Surely now is the time to try to find a peaceful and just settlement in the interests of all the people of Ireland, north and south. Whatever their differing beliefs and traditions, they are all human beings with human rights, including the right to live together in peace and harmony.
  2.12 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: We have heard two speeches from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland —one last night and another this morning. This morning's included a lengthy discussion of the question of amnesty, in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman repeated the formal position. I have no time to make my argument in detail, but I was not reassured by what he said. He knows that law and practice are flexible on the issue of early release, which has been used in the past. It is not encouraging that, despite being invited on a number of occasions directly to address the question of early release, the Government have failed to do so.
  That is particularly significant in view of one of the misleading and mischievous statements that have been made by Garret Fitzgerald, which was repeated by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I find it interesting to read the five pages that Garret Fitzgerald
  1216
  devoted in his memoirs to the meeting with Lady Thatcher in Milan, in which he alleges that an agreement was reached. A similar description of that meeting appears in Lady Thatcher's memoirs. The two discriptions are consistent—but wholly inconsistent with the view that there has been no agreement on early release.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding—it never occurred to me that there were grounds for any. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a discretionary power exists to release on licence those who are serving life sentences. That will operate in precisely the same way and without any special dispensation being made by reference to the cessation of violence. As to determinate sentences, the hon. Gentleman knows that there is no similar provision.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the Secretary of State for saying that, because it is a clearer statement than we have had so far. I am glad to hear it and it has been worth while.
  While we are on the topic, it might be a good idea to look at the practice in England and Wales. It might be a good idea to assimilate it with that of Northern Ireland, or—I shall not recommend one over the other—to a common standard, because the problem is common and there are prisoners on both sides of the Irish sea. There should be common treatment in that respect, too.
  In his speech last night, the Secretary of State said two things that I want to touch on. On page 20 of his speech, he referred to a willingness to strengthen the law with regard to terrorism and give the police the resources that they need. We have heard statements like that before. I can remember a similar one last year shortly after the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary had publicly called for greater powers. I know that the RUC is still keen to see certain changes introduced, but they are stuck somewhere; whether in the Home Office or the Northern Ireland Office we do not know. Let us clear that logjam and get them introduced.
  Again in his speech last night, the Secretary of State referred to the continuing talks process. I am glad that he referred to continuing the present process rather than referring to some new grand round-table extravaganza. I noticed that he mentioned Her Majesty's Government making proposals to give focus and direction. We welcome that. I recall that, some 14 or 15 months ago during the inter-party talks of October or November 1992, we sought such a statement of Government policy and proposals. We urged the Government to get off the fence and put their cards on the table. We have been disappointed that, during that period, the Government have not done so. For long periods last year, it was frustrating to try to understand why there were occasional hints about proposals that would give focus and direction to the talks, but nothing ever happened.
  Of course, we now know the reason: for much of last year, indeed even now, the Government have been playing footsie under the table with the Provos. I understand the reasons why they started to do that, but they were naive in rushing into it in terms of their response to the February message and in their response to the Hume-Adams initiative. I hope that we will get past that. As we do, I hope that the Secretary of State will appreciate the extent to which the Government's actions on both fronts has weakened public confidence in Northern Ireland.

  1217
  There is still a need for the Secretary of State to address the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) put to him last December, when he asked what the Secretary of State was going to do to give our constituents renewed confidence in the integrity of Government and the direction of Government policy.
  There is still a need to rebuild the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not have time to go into detail, but it is my view that the Downing street declaration —understandably, I do not regard it as a balanced document—which is a response to the Hume-Adams-Reynolds initiative, is a diversion. It has distracted energy from the right way forward; the continuation and intensification of the dialogue in which we have been engaged. I believe that that declaration, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has said, will not receive a positive response from the Provisional IRA.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) posed certain questions to the republican movement about whether it was really interested in providing unity and consent. Of course, it is not. From its inception, the IRA has been interested only in coercion. It does not care about the views of the greater number of the people of Northern Ireland who wish to be part of the United Kingdom and who consider themselves British. It is concerned with the expulsion of those people from Northern Ireland. It is interesting that, on the rare occasions when the Provos let their guard slip on the matter, one hears references to the analogy of Algeria and the pieds noirs there. Anyone who has discussed such matters with republicans will find that once one probes a little bit, that idea is there. People who regard themselves as British will have no part in the Ireland that the IRA will have created; indeed, they will not even be on the island if it has its way.
  That is the reality and we should not disguise the fact. That reality will be acted out, or there will be a propaganda overlay. All this business about clarification is no more than propaganda. It is no more than an attempt by the IRA to divert blame from itself, partly because it fears the reaction in its own areas if it is seen to turn down the offer of peace, and the possibility of peace, but also so that it can maintain its connections and the relationship that it has established with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and with the Irish Prime Minister.
  There is another consideration. The Provos have fought what they say is a long war—they have been at it for 25 years—and are quite prepared to wait for another two years when they think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will be in a position to give them all that they want on a plate. His statements at the Dispatch Box today will have reinforced that belief. They are quite prepared to wait for what they think will be a Labour Administration. Even if there is a Labour Government I think that they will be disappointed, but I do not think that that hope should be offered to them. The actions and statements of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North on the matter are reprehensible.
  None the less, the Downing street declaration is a diversion. I hope that the Secretary of State's speech last night shows that we are getting away from it and back to
  1218
  the more sensible approach of trying to press forward and deal with the real issue, which is remedying the democratic deficit.
  The Secretary of State said today that the people of Northern Ireland will be supported by the Government while they remain part of the United Kingdom and will have all the entitlements of citizenship. No, we do not have those entitlements. We do not have any form of useful local democracy or administration; we do not have any real say in decisions taken locally which affect us; and we do not even have any real say in this House where, in terms of the legislative procedures adopted, we are second-class Members and second-class citizens in Northern Ireland. That must be remedied.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) expound the distinctions between consent in constitutional matters, not having a veto on policy and all the rest. That was interesting. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is not right that a party with four Members of Parliament—a party that represents such a small fraction of the United Kingdom electorate—should have a veto on restoring accountable democracy in Northern Ireland and proper procedures in this House. I hope that as we proceed we shall not hear the phrase, "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". It may have served a purpose, but it has had its day and I do not see it serving a purpose in the future.
  The hon. Member for Foyle is very fond of European comparisons. There is a lot of advantage in such comparisons and we could learn a great deal from the way in which the peoples of western Europe have resolved their problems on the basis of mutual respect and an absence of territorial claims. If we study closely the procedures of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, we can learn a great deal. Through the human dimension, developed since the Vienna conference of 1989 and reflected in the charter of Paris in 1990, a lot of work has been done to try to stipulate what should be the rights of national and ethnic minorities. We should adopt those standards. They have the advantage that they are not framed merely for our conditions but are the principles that the countries of Europe should apply. I notice that, for Finland, the CSCE talks not merely about having no territorial claims but about refraining from advancing any such claims and from hostile political propaganda.
  I am told that the Taoiseach, Mr. Reynolds, made another speech last night. I did not hear it and I have not read it, but a journalist told me this morning that in it he expounded his views on national self determination in terms of international law. Our reaction is, "Good!" I am glad that the Taoiseach is paying some respect to international law. I only wish that he would adopt it and bring his constitution and Government practice wholly into accord with it.
  2.23 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: This debate is timely. Today's newspapers reported that Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams said yesterday that he would not rule out the prospect of a ceasefire. That is welcome news. However, we must not judge members of Sinn Fein-IRA by their words—I judge them by their deeds. I have a permanent reminder of exactly what they stand for—a piece of shrapnel which I picked up after a housing estate

  1219
  in Dungannon had been mortar-bombed only a few weeks ago. I therefore need to be far more persuaded of the commitment of the Sinn Fein-IRA to peace.
  My acquaintance with them last Monday, observing the Sinn Fein-IRA meeting sponsored by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), in the Jubilee Room here in the Houses of Parliament, did not persuade me that their remarks were at all sincere. That entire press conference was another cynical attempt to divert from the real issue. The message that everyone wants to hear is a date. When will they end their violence? A serious reference to that might have given Gerry Adams's remarks yesterday more validity.
  As it was, the meeting left a deeply unpleasant memory for me. It was simply, as far as I could see, a cheap propaganda ploy—delaying tactics. The national chairperson, Tom Hartley—looking more like a bank manager than a man who sponsors terrorism—with an attractive escort, Joan O'Connar, gave an unreal impression of being there to discuss everything but the hidden catalogue of human misery that they have inflicted, causing more than 3,000 deaths. Last year, 84 people were killed and many more were maimed.
  Never once did those people respond to my call to end violence. It was as if my intervention had never happened. I could have been reciting the telephone directory for all the response that they gave. Never once did they apologise for the grief and unhappiness that they have caused. They were utterly detached and unmoved. It was all so remote. They could have been people living on another planet, unconnected with the trail of terrorism that they have left behind. I wonder how much they want peace. If they did want it, they are perfectly capable, in their own brutal terms, of making their more extreme followers fall into line, as was shown by the 72-hour Christmas truce. Their sheer detachment was harrowing. It was clinical and polished. They praised the Hume-Adams document, but, when asked, "When will it be published?" they said, "We will do it at a date that suits us." Their vocabulary was littered with words such as "lying", "ridiculous refusal of the British Government", "bogus accounts", accusations that the British Government "falsified versions of exchanges" and allegations of "British Government
  1220
  duplicity". Further words—"demilitarisation", "a withdrawal by the British"—by Mr. Hartley did not send signals of serious intent to promote any interest in ceasing violence.
  The call by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield for "terminating British jurisdiction in Northern Ireland"—by 31 December 1999, as he detailed earlier this morning—did nothing to promote an illusion of a desire to end violence. It was more a case of surrendering to violence and terrorism. I found it nauseating to watch him, together with the hon. Member for Islington, North, sponsoring such a meeting. Neither of them cared a rap for the majority will of the people in Ulster.
  How could those people hold a meeting in the very Parliament which the IRA have tried so hard to destroy? We were just 50 ft from the spot where Airey Neave was killed in his car coming up the car park ramp. Our walls bear tribute to colleagues here in Parliament who became victims of the IRA, such as Ian Gow and Sir Anthony Berry.
  The press conference was slick and odious. As for the document that Sinn Fein produced, claiming their own version of contacts with the British Government, I can only say that those who have studied it tell me that it is full of lies, innuendoes and deceit. In these difficult times, it is essential that we are guided by our heads and not by our hearts. We must be careful where we are treading and we must be under no illusions about the nature of the people with whom we are dealing.
  2.29 pm
  Dr. Joe Hendron: Looking at the clock Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask whether we finish this debate at 2.30 pm?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes.
  Dr. Hendron: That gives me half a minute, but thank you for calling me.
  The Downing street declaration should be supported by all those who are seeking peace in Northern Ireland. We have had power-sharing assemblies, conventions and all sorts of initiatives over the years, but at this stage, the: people of Northern Ireland are crying out for peace. I am aware of the hypocrisy of the Provos, but—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  A1 (M) (Service Stations)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to my constituents in Letchworth, Baldock, Ashwell, and especially Radwell. The objectors are led by somebody who normally says "Yes Minister"—Sir Humphrey Appleby, played by the actor Nigel Hawthorne. On this occasion, Nigel Hawthorne is saying, "No Minister" to the proposal for a motorway service area. In leading the objectors, he has said of the fight against the proposal:
  "We're dealing with the big guns here and we're just the little people. It is Agincourt, if you like … We're trying to save a wheat field".
  The purpose of the debate is to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to do two things. The first is to explain the policy of de-regulation in the planning of motorway service areas, which has made that planning application possible and made the appeal necessary, and to reassure local residents such as Mrs. Meredith-Hardy in my constituency, a lifelong Conservative party member who said:
  "Local people blame the Government for legislation that the Developers (speculators) loose on all of us."
  Secondly, we seek assurances in the light of recent press comment that the Department of Transport and the Government have taken no action and will not take any action that would in any way pre-judge or undermine the absolute independence of the planning process, while the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment is awaited. Can the Minister confirm what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has informed me in writing, that it is essential that the Minister is impartial in the process and that all the arguments put forward by the objectors in my constituency, by the appellants and by the district council will be carefully considered before a final decision is made?
  In considering the case, I shall set the scene. Within days of being elected, I was approached by the objectors, including Nigel Hawthorne and Mrs. Meredith-Hardy, who expressed strong objection to the proposal for a motorway services area. Certainly, at that stage, there was general agreement on the policy of deregulating motorway service areas. That was not being criticised. The site was the reason for the objection.
  The site which has been put forward for the scheme is two miles from existing services—a Little Chef and a Happy Eater, with hotel accommodation—which could be developed as a motorway service area without any difficulty. The proposed site is a virgin site, on top of a hill, in open countryside, designated to be of scenic value and close to the small village of Radwell—with its lake and historic buildings—and to one of the most beautiful villages in north Hertfordshire, Ashwell, which has a high proportion of listed properties, and is known for its medieval history, for its springs and for its general beauty.
  The objectors' second point was that there would be a huge increase in traffic through the villages to accommodate nearly 7,000 vehicles a day using that motorway services area. The next point was quite curious. Apparently, a water bore hole was necessary to service the new area. The extraction of excessive water could put Radwell's lake and the River Ivel at risk.
  1222
  The objectors also said that there would be noise at a level that they had never experienced before. Ambient noise in such a rural setting is obviously different from that which would occur from the manoeuvring of 7,000 vehicles through a nearby 12-acre site. The objectors were also concerned about floodlighting which could mean that Radwell might no longer have a night time. They were also concerned about pollution and the loss of countryside.
  I have lived in north Hertfordshire for 13 years and I know the area well. In fact, my children and I feed the ducks on Radwell lake. After listening to the objectors, and having visited the site, I was so concerned that I took the matter up with the former Minister for Roads and Traffic, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle). He sent me a reply in which he said:
  "The Department … continues to be consulted by local planning authorities about proposals affecting roads for which it is responsible, and the Radwell service area scheme was therefore referred by North Herts District Council for comment. The Department responded on 3 November, directing the Council to refuse planning permission on the grounds that the proposal would be incompatible with plans to improve the A1 and A1(M)."
  As one might imagine, that reply was met with great excitement, joy and pleasure in Radwell and the surrounding villages and towns. It seemed that the scheme was not going to proceed. Nigel Hawthorne wrote to me saying:
  "Sir Humphrey would have been extraordinarily proud of the style of writing, but I think I have managed to deduce the content."
  He want on to praise the Minister at length.
  Shortly after that, there was another encouraging sign when the director of planning at North Hertfordshire district council wrote to me explaining the strong objections from all quarters. He said that he would recommend the refusal of the scheme at the planning committee on 27 January 1993. However, before that recommendation could be considered by the committee, it was pre-empted when the appellants appealed to the Minister in the Department of the Environment and the objectors had to prepare for a public inquiry.
  At that stage, the objectors were buoyant because they felt that they had the support of the Department of Transport, the county council, North Hertfordshire district council, every parish council and the thousands of people who had signed the petition and who had written letters of objection. However, shortly before the planning inquiry in June, the Department of Transport withdrew its objections and the county council decided not to appear.
  Hopes that the matter was a formality and that it would be disposed of easily were dashed. Local residents realised that they had a fight on their hands. Throughout the period, I have made strong representations on behalf of the objectors to Ministers and to councils, as has the local Conservative councillor Mr. Andrew Young.
  The inquiry took five days and the inspector is currently completing his report. On 18 January 1993, in reply to my parliamentary question, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment confirmed that the Secretary of State's decision on the planning application is due in April.
  The inquiry cost local residents £35,000 in objecting to the scheme. On each day, more than 100 residents attended the inquiry, 25 on horseback. I believe they did that to highlight the rural nature of the area. At the end of the inquiry, local residents were feeling buoyant, having again expressed the objections which I have outlined.

  1223
  In October 1993, the Department of Transport became somewhat more popular when it became apparent that it was reviewing its national trunk roads programme, and it was hoped that the improvement of the Al (M) might not be accomplished quite as speedily as had been thought and that that might help even more. So it was, with the objectors in quite a buoyant mood, that, on 7 January this year, The Times published an article, which is the immediate reason why I asked for this Adjournment debate, which stated:
  "Motorists who have to endure long motorway journeys without a break will be relieved by yesterday's announcement that 24 new service areas are to be built."
  Above that article was a map showing the A1(M), Radwell and Letchworth. It went on to quote the views of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the improvements that would be provided for drivers.
  One can imagine how that news was received in Radwell, Baldock and Ashwell, where people felt that all the work of protest was in vain and that the public inquiry was a waste of time and money. Some residents were so annoyed and depressed that they put their homes on the market because they did not want to be near such a development.
  The Department's press release does not give a ground for the comment in The Times that those service areas are to go ahead. Having read the press release and received answers from both relevant Ministers, it is clear to me that the point of the Department of Transport in the press release was that there was considerable enthusiasm in the private sector to accept the challenge of providing new motorway services and that many schemes have been proposed, four of which had received planning permission, not that the sites which were subject to the planning process would necessarily be chosen for that purpose. That opinion is proved by a detailed examination of the press release. It shows that three of the sites referred to on the M6 near Stone are mutually exclusive and that two of them on the M40 are the same, so it could not be the case that the Department was prejudging the issue and saying that all sites would go ahead.
  Anxiety in north Hertfordshire is such that, none-the-less, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make the position absolutely clear to people in north Hertfordshire who wish to read his comments. My constituents who are Conservative supporters and who genuinely welcome the deregulation of the planning of motorway service areas might need reassurance on the Government's policy.
  There are two reasons for deregulating. First, we do not have enough motorway service areas to provide the ability to rest so that drivers are not drowsy and overstrained. Secondly, there is the risk, which has been highlighted by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, of drivers pulling over to the hard shoulder, in desperation, to relieve themselves. If that risk is not met, there could be accidents or even disasters, particularly with children.
  Although I recognise the need for motorway service areas and for the policy, the site is wrong. I am not sure whether the southern end of the A1, with its substantial provision of Little Chefs, Happy Eaters and so on, is necessarily the type of area at which the policy was aimed. My constituent Nigel Hawthorne put it in his own way and said, "No, Minister." I agree.
  2.43 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this issue in the House today and on his persistent, ever-courteous and thoroughly effective representations to me, my predecessor and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I am grateful for the opportunity to put the record straight, and I shall now seek to do that.
  We know that people are increasingly using our motorways, whether it is for freight transport, business and commerce or increasingly for leisure and pleasure. Motorway service areas are an essential part of our transport infrastructure. They make an important contribution to safety on United Kingdom motorways, a record of which we are rightly proud. Our motorways are our safest roads, and our roads are the safest in Europe.
  Currently, there are 47 motorway service areas in England. Virtually all are at locations that were originally selected by my Department. Under arrangements that applied until 1992, they were provided at intervals of roughly 30 miles—about half an hour's driving time at normal motorway speeds. The Department of Transport sought the planning clearance for their development and acquired the necessary land, usually by compulsory purchase. Sites were then offered to private sector operators who were invited to bid for the right to build an MSA and operate it under a 50-year lease from the Department.
  Under those arrangements therefore, the Department directly controlled the location of MSAs. It also controlled, through conditions in MSA leases, a list of specified facilities that the operator was required to provide, ranging from the number of car and lorry parking spaces to the hours during which food and drink had to be available. I emphasise that none of the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State bear any relation to, or have introduced, the question of "deregulating planning", which was the phrase used by my hon. Friend.
  By the late 1980s, however, the system was becoming bogged down in a series of lengthy public inquiries provoked sometimes by environmental groups and by concerns about MSA proposals and objections to the associated compulsory purchase orders. That seriously delayed the delivery of the Department's MSA programme and it led to widespread public criticism of the fact that several motorways—notably, the M25 and the M40—had to be opened before adequate services were available. My hon. Friend will recall that, over the past few months, my Department and I have come under severe criticism for the lack of sufficient rest areas on the motorways. We always planned motorway service areas, for example, on the M40. They were denied to us because of the lengthy planning processes and the legitimate objections of people on many grounds, including environmental grounds.
  As my hon. Friend recognises, there is increasing need for those service areas. He referred to the sort of incidents that can occur on our motorways. I can confirm that that happens. Indeed, only this morning I was on the M4 driving towards Reading and was interested to see a large light brown Mercedes, the number of which escapes me, with a gentleman half-way up the bank behind a shrub. That example exonerates the policy and I shall not continue with it.
  We had to come to terms with the growing pressure from prospective operators of MSAs. They were confident

  1225
  that they could provide for the public need more efficiently and effectively than the Department. They could also save the taxpayer a great deal of money—each of the MSAs costs about £10 million to £15 million to build. We committed ourselves in the citizens charter to seeking ways of providing more services more quickly.
  During 1992, the Department undertook an extensive public consultation. We sought the views of the motoring public, as well as those of the operators and developers, on the way forward. The responses that we received demonstrated wide support for the principle of deregulation of MSAs, not the planning procedures. At the same time, it was clear that certain of the minimum facilities required under the lease were regarded as valuable and were widely appreciated. The consensus among those consulted was that any deregulated policy should incorporate safeguards to guarantee that the features were preserved.
  The new policy on MSA provision, which was developed in the light of the consultation responses, was announced by my right hon. Friend in August 1992. Under the new arrangements, it is for the private sector, rather than my Department, to identify sites for new MSAs, to secure ordinary planning permission and to acquire the land.
  At the same time, the minimum permissible distance between MSAs has been reduced from about 30 miles to about 15 miles. One might ask why there are any regulations at all regarding the distance. The answer is simple. The first reason is the safety of access roads and slip roads, and the second, of course, is the commercial interest of the people who are going to have to develop the land. There is a continued guarantee that fuel, free parking, lavatories and facilities for disabled people will be available for 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
  The new arrangements will accelerate the provision by tackling some of the main causes of delays which were experienced under the old system. There will no longer be compulsory purchase orders for new MSAs, and less regulation of facilities should give developers greater flexibility to draw up proposals that are acceptable to local authorities and to others.
  We heard some of the fears of the constituents of my hon. Friend today. I heard in Reading that local people are concerned at the proposal to develop an MSA on the M4. They were worried about the height of buildings, but that is not a matter for me. It is a planning consideration for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  As well as accelerating the provision of services on motorways where none exists, the new policy will increase customer choice. Standards of MSAs have improved substantially, and I am happy to acknowledge the achievement of their operators in that respect. I am convinced that the best way of sustaining that improvement is by increased competition. The reduction in the minimum spacing between MSAs from 30 miles to 15 miles and the greater flexibility of the new policy will give operators every incentive to provide the facilities which motorists want. My hon. Friend and his constituents would acknowledge that MSAs have come a long way from the rather drab and dour places we remember from the early days of the 1960s and 1970s.
  1226
  Since August 1992, my Department has been notified of a total of 28 planning applications for new private sector MSAs. Planning permission has since been granted for five of those applications, construction is to begin shortly at two of those. Planning applications for the remaining 23 are still under consideration. Preliminary inquiries have been made to the Department for about a dozen further schemes for which planning applications have yet to be submitted. Those are encouraging results and demonstrate the firm interest that the private sector is taking in that section of the market.
  I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he highlighted a press release from the Department of Transport. He pointed out that the release did not at any stage say that those proposals were going to be built. My hon. Friend drew attention to the first paragraph, which referred to 24 new schemes being in the pipeline, of which four had been granted planning permission.
  It was the level of response from the private sector to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred in that press release. The fact that his remarks were so widely reported illustrates the public interest in the subject. Less helpful was the fact that some of those reports provoked unnecessary concens among people, including my hon. Friend and his constituents, who were potentially affected by the particular MSA proposals. I am glad to be able to put the record straight today.
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would tell his constituent, Mrs. Meredith-Hardy, that I hope that it will be clear that private MSA proposals will be subject to planning procedures directly comparable with those that apply to schemes promoted in the past by the Department. No developer will be able to take his proposals forward unless and until he has first sought planning permission from the local planning authority which is responsible for the area. In the event of his application being refused, the promoter of an MSA—like the promoter of any other development—has the right of appeal.
  My Department still needs to satisfy itself that access can be provided to a proposed MSA which is acceptable in safety and traffic management terms. We will also respond to inquiries from a developer or from planning authorities on whether a proposed development would qualify for signs from the motorway. In addition to all the normal planning procedures, we must consider two additional constraints—access and the question of signing from a motorway. So there is no question of the Department riding roughshod over the plannings procedures. I much regret that certain of the reports that I have seen gave the impression that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had somehow decided unilaterally that some 20 MSA schemes would now go ahead. Those reports are misleading.
  I hope that Radwell lake will continue to entertain my hon. Friend and his family and that the ducks will continue to thrive. I know how much people in the countryside—I count myself as a country dweller—recognise and treasure such experiences.
  I know that the matter has caused particular concern to some of my hon. Friend's constituents, who argued against the proposal at Radwell on the A 1 (M) when it was the subject of a public inquiry last year. They are understandably alarmed at any suggestion that the views

  1227
  that they expressed then should be overruled before the inspector appointed by the Department of the Environment has even submitted his report.
  Bernard has told me—confidentially, of course—that Sir Humphrey means to have a word with one or two of his friends when lunching at the Athenaeum next week. We do not want any misunderstandings. This may be Sir Humphrey's Agincourt. I have no intention that it should be my Waterloo, whether on horseback or not.
  The Department originally objected to the Radwell scheme because it conflicted with proposed improvements to the A1. Refinement of our plans for the road later allowed that objection to be removed. The local planning authority nevertheless refused planning permission, for reasons of its own. The developer appealed against that refusal, and it was that which led to last year's public inquiry.
  Let me be quite clear that the Department has not identified a specific need for an MSA at Radwell. That is not our role. Our earlier objection was based solely on technical considerations. It is because those technical points have been overcome, rather than because we wish positively to recommend Radwell as a suitable MSA site, that our objection has been withdrawn.
  My hon. Friend has suggested that existing services near Radwell could adequately service the A1(M) and that
  1228
  a new development is therefore unnecessary. As I understand it, those existing services do not meet the minimum standards for MSAs signposted from the motorway, but it is open to the operator there to propose uprating his site to meet those requirements. Were he to do so, we would consider his site for signing, just as we have considered the current proposal. The inspector at the public inquiry will, I am sure, have been forcefully reminded of the presence of the existing services, and he will no doubt wish to take account of them when he submits his report.
  If the developer of the new site is, nevertheless, successful in his appeal, we would expect to agree suitable access arrangements. Provided that the site meets the minimum standards that I described earlier, we would also expect to provide signs from the A1(M). But we have not attempted, and will not attempt, to influence whether permission is granted in the first place. That remains firmly and clearly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will take a decision in the light of the evidence before him. I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will be reassured by that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Forward: Civil Service Catering
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has identified a prospective purchaser for Forward: Civil Service Catering.

  Mr. Nelson
  A number of offers were received from prospective purchasers on 17 January. I have considered these offers in consultation with KPMG Corporate Finance, the financial advisers to the privatisation, as a result of which detailed negotiations are under way with Sutcliffe Catering Group Ltd., a subsidiary of Granada Group plc, with the intention of reaching final agreement for an early completion of the sale to Sutcliffe of the business of Forward: Civil Service Catering.

  Uncollected Tax
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax remained uncollected at the end of each fiscal year since 1978–79; and how much was written off in each of those years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amount of tax remaining uncollected at the end of the fiscal year and the amount of tax written off since 1978–79 are as follows:

  Year

  Amount remaining uncollected at end of year in £ millions

  Amount written off in each year in £ millions

  1979

  847·3

  60·3

  1980

  986·7

  73·0

  1981

  1,653·6

  82·5

  1982

  1,691·5

  133·6

  1983

  2,052·5

  146·0

  1984

  2,553·3

  195·3

  1985

  3,210·1

  229·1

  1986

  3,273·3

  299·8

  1987

  3,841·0

  333·3

  1988

  3,990·5

  629·2

  1989

  3,979·8

  530·9

  1990

  4,323·4

  568·8

  1991

  4,185·6

  883·9

  1992

  3,740·2

  1,694·2

  The amount of tax uncollected represents the amount of tax which was not collected during each year but which was available to be collected.

  Tax Fraud
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many investigations were carried out for tax fraud in each year since 1978–79; and what was the success rate of those investigations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Inland Revenue investigations into possible or actual tax fraud, and the percentage of those investigations which resulted in monetary settlements or recoveries of tax, are shown in the table.
  844

  Year

  Number of investigations

  Percentage success rate

  1985–86

  70,446

  92·0

  1986–87

  67,798

  92·0

  1987–88

  67,752

  92·0

  1988–89

  71,085

  91·0

  1989–90

  76,738

  92·0

  1990–91

  81,277

  92·0

  1991–92

  81,333

  91·0

  1992–93

  75,649

  91·0

  Comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the percentage of gross earnings going in(a) income tax, (b) national insurance contributions, (c) VAT, (d) other indirect taxes and (e) local taxes, of (i) a single person, (ii) a married couple who are both working and (iii) a married couple with two children on (1) 50 per cent., (2) 75 per cent., (3) 100 per cent., (4) 150 per cent., (5) 200 per cent., (6) 500 per cent. and (7) 1,000 per cent. of average earnings in each year since 1978–79 including estimates for 1994–95.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 19 January 1994 for the latest estimates of the burden of direct and indirect taxes for the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. For earlier years I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 15 December 1992,Official Report, columns 120–26; to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 17 December 1991, Official Report, columns 121–24 and on 8 January 1990, Official Report, columns 558–64 and to the information placed in the House of Commons Library as noted in the answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 13 April 1989, Official Report, column 624.

  Mortgages
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of 2 November 1993,Official Report, column 115, to take into account changes in the mortgage rate and further changes to the rate of relief announced in the autumn Budget, giving (a) numbers in receipt of MIRAS, (b) the average amount received and (c) the total cost (i) for 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96, by income range as defined in the original question.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates based on the conventional assumption that mortgage interest rates remain at their current levels are in the tables.

  Mortgage interest relief by range of total income1:

  Range of total income1 (lower limit)

  Number of single people or married couples benefiting from mortgage interest relief

  Average mortgage interest relief

  Cost of mortgage interest relief

  £

  thousands

  £

  £ million

  1994–95

  0

  840

  290

  250

  845

  Range of total income1 (lower limit)

  Number of single people or married couples benefiting from mortgage interest relief

  Average mortgage interest relief

  Cost of mortgage interest relief

  5,000

  1,050

  260

  270

  10,000

  2,080

  310

  650

  15,000

  2,230

  350

  770

  20,000

  1,440

  370

  530

  25,000

  890

  380

  340

  30,000

  780

  390

  310

  40,000

  690

  400

  280

  Total

  10,000

  340

  3,400

  1995–96

  0

  830

  220

  180

  5,000

  940

  200

  190

  10,000

  1,870

  250

  470

  15,000

  2,130

  290

  610

  20,000

  1,600

  300

  480

  25,000

  920

  320

  290

  30,000

  950

  320

  300

  40,000

  860

  330

  280

  Total

  10,100

  280

  2,800

  1Total income of husband for married couples

  Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each scheme operated by his Department under which loans are available, the objectives of the scheme, the number of unrecovered loans, the total value of unrecovered loans, the average number of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990, the average value of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990 and the annual cost of recovering loans.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury operates no such schemes.

  Carbon Dioxide Energy Tax
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will discuss with the European Commission the relationship in fiscal terms of implementation of the carbon dioxide energy tax as proposed by the European Commission White Paper on employment to the yield of VAT on household fuel; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  A Commission proposal for a tax on carbon/energy has been under discussion for some time, and was considered most recently at the ECOFIN Council in December 1993. The Government have made it clear that the United Kingdom does not need a carbon/energy tax to fulfil our obligation on CO2 emissions under the United Nations convention on climate change, and could not agree to an EC-wide tax as proposed by the Commission.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a regional breakdown of the revenue forgone from relief for private medical insurance premiums in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) of 6 December,Official Report,
  846
  column 16, regarding the cost of tax relief on private medical insurance, how many people are in receipt of tax relief for private medical insurance in each region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No information is available on the regional breakdown of the 350,000 people claiming tax relief on private medical insurance for those aged 60 or more each year since relief was first granted in 1990–91. Similarly, there is no information on the regional breakdown on the cost of the relief.

  Mr. Brian Charrington
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances all charges relating to the importation and possession of illegal drugs were withdrawn on 28 January 1993 against Mr. Brian Charrington.

  Sir John Cope
  Mr. Brian Charrington was arrested after consultation with the police and full consideration of the available evidence by lawyers acting for Customs and Excise. When additional evidence was forthcoming, further legal advice was sought. At this stage, it was concluded that there was no longer a realistic prospect of securing a conviction and the charges were withdrawn.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been convicted of drug offences where evidence was given on behalf of the prosecution by Mr. Brian Charrington.

  Sir John Cope
  Brian Charrington has never given evidence to support a prosecution by Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been convicted of drug offences where assistance in the Customs and Excise investigation and detection was given by Brian Charrington.

  Sir John Cope
  It is not the policy of Customs and Excise to disclose sources of information. In the circumstances, I can neither confirm nor deny whether Brian Charrington has given assistance to Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Ministers signed public immunity certificates in relation to Brian Charrington; and if he will make a statement as to the circumstances requiring such immunity.

  Sir John Cope
  No public immunity certificates have been signed by Ministers in relation to Brian Charrington.

  Cocaine Seizure
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were arrested following the interception early in 1992 by Customs and Excise of ingots stored in a warehouse in Stoke on Trent of 95 per cent. pure Colombian cocaine.

  Sir John Cope
  Twenty-six persons were arrested by Customs and Excise and police during the investigation that followed the discovery of 907 kg of cocaine concealed in a consignment of lead ingots imported from Venezuela.
  847

  Mr. Joseph Kasser
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Ministers signed public immunity certificates in relation to the case which led to the conviction of Joseph Kasser at Newcastle Crown court in January; and if he will make a statement as to the circumstances requiring such immunity.

  Sir John Cope
  No public immunity certificates were signed by Ministers in this case.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Gerry Adams
  Dame Angela Rumbold
  To ask the Prime Minister if a response has yet been made to the letter he received from Mr. Gerry Adams dated 7 January; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I received an unsigned letter on Mr. Adams's headed notepaper, dated 7 January 1994., last week. I have placed in the Library a copy of that letter and of a reply from my private secretary which was sent on 20 January. Mr. Adams seeks to open issues for renegotiation by pointing back to a position which he asserts the Irish Government put forward in June last year.

  The joint declaration of 15 December was the result of many months of discussion between the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. It is a fair and balanced statement of constitutional principles and political realities, which safeguard the interests and aspirations of both sides of the community. As the Taoiseach and I have made clear, there can be no question of renegotiation of the joint declaration.

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the implications of the Government"s "Back to Basics" policy for his office during 1994.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the scope and effectiveness of his "Back to Basics" social policy.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what working definition of "back to basics" he uses; and what he has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  The Prime Minister
  "Back to basics" is intended to ensure that Government policies are based firmly on the common sense values of the British people and, in particular, that they encourage individual responsibility. The "back to basics" policy is especially important in such areas as education, law and order, and the provision of public services, but it applies across a range of other Government policies as well.

  Paymaster-General
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the Departments to which the Paymaster-General has been attached since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  The Departments to which the Paymaster-General has been attached are listed.
  848
  Date and Department to which responsible

  April 1976 to May 1979

  Department of Education and Science

  May 1979 to January 1981

  None

  January 1981 to September 1981

  None

  September 1981 to June 1983

  None

  June 1983 to September 1984

  Not applicable: post vacant

  September 1984 to September 1985

  None

  September 1985 to June 1987

  Department of Employment

  June 1987 to July 1989

  Her Majesty's Treasury1 2

  July 1989 to July 1990

  Her Majesty's Treasury1

  July 1990 to November 1990

  Her Majesty's Treasury1

  November 1990 to April 1992

  Northern Ireland Office

  April 1992 to date

  Her Majesty's Treasury1

  Note: Except where noted, responsibility for Customs and Excise held by other Treasury Ministers.

  1 Included responsibility for Customs and Excise.

  2 Responsibility for Customs and Excise passed to the Economic Secretary in 1988.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the procedures which apply in(a) the United Kingdom Parliament and (b) the European Parliament on the ratification of the Uruguay round of the GATT.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government intend to present a White Paper to Parliament on the results of the Uruguay round later this year. The agreements will also be laid before Parliament, as with other international agreements. The European Community decision approving the results of the round will also be subject to United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. The European Parliament is likely to be consulted, but the procedure used will depend on the treaty provisions which apply.

  Habitats
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends that all Secretaries of State should have a duty to comply with the requirements of the European Union directive 92/43 EEC on the conservation of natural habitats of wild fauna and flora; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Secretaries of State will have duties, both general and specific, as appropriate and commensurate with the requirements of the directive.
  849

  International Year of the Family
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking to encourage and promote the International Year of the Family.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on 6 December 1993,Official Report, columns 29–30.

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal Democrats

  Independent/ Not known

  Barnsley

  46

  50

  15

  3

  Doncaster

  101

  62

  23

  6

  Rotherham

  46

  52

  62

  38

  Sheffield

  101

  112

  52

  84

  Humberside

  153

  73

  37

  49

  North Yorkshire

  233

  62

  93

  29

  West Yorkshire

  572

  397

  220

  163

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993(a) the cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 "Competing for Quality" programme with the efficiency unit in the Cabinet Office. Much of the information requested in the question will, once it has been finalised, be published in aggregate form in the "Citizen's Charter Second Report". On an individual contract basis, much of the information is commercially confidential.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of legal aid provided to persons accused of(a) fraud and (b) theft exceeding £100,000 in each year since 1980.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information sought is not available in the form requested. It is not possible to identify individual cases involving fraud or theft exceeding £100,000. Information on legal aid expenditure by type of offence is only available for the last six years, and is set out for the more serious cases of theft and fraud prosecuted in the higher courts. It is not possible to break down legal aid expenditure in magistrates courts by type of offence.

  Theft (theft and obtaining by deception)

  Fraud (fraud and forgery)

  £

  £

  1988–89

  19,839,017

  6,597,099

  1989–90

  23,660,073

  8,021,737

  1990–91

  26,149,491

  13,477,167

  850

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the political balance of magistrates in(a) Barnsley, (b) Doncaster, (c) Rotherham, (d) Sheffield, (e) Humberside, (f) North Yorkshire and (g) West Yorkshire.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The political balance of magistrates in Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Sheffield, Humberside, North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire on the latest information available is as follows:

  Theft (theft and obtaining by deception)

  Fraud (fraud and forgery)

  £

  £

  1991–92

  28,982,870

  16,778,569

  1992–93

  32,490,267

  28,961,611

  Lord of the Manor
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the current statutory rights of holders of the title of lord of the manor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No rights are conferred by statute on any person holding the title of lord of the manor. Although certain pre-existing rights and liabilities were preserved by the Law of Property Act 1922, the nature of those rights and liabilities will depend in each case on the particular customs of the manor in question.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages (London)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average wage of(a) a male and (b) a female working in London for each year from 1975.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is published in tables 110 and 113 of the new earnings survey part E reports for each of the years requested. Copies of these can be found in the Library.

  EC Training Programmes
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total budgets of the European Commission's training programmes of(a) CEDEFOP, (b) COMETT, (c) DELTA, (d) EUROTECNET, (e) FORCE, (f) IRIS, (g) PETRA and (h) TEMPUS in each year since

  851
  their establishment; and what proportion of each was granted to (i) the northern region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It would require disproportionate time and cost to collect the information on the total budgets of the various training programmes mentioned in each year since their establishment.

  It is not possible to calculate accurately what proportion of those programmes was allocated to the United Kingdom, or to individual regions in the United Kingdom.

  Where available for the programmes listed, total budgets for the preceding three years are provided in the table>:

  Total budget (Million ECU)

  Programme name

  1991

  1992

  1993

  CEDEFOP

  10·350

  10·800

  12·850

  COMETT

  41·750

  55·100

  40·500

  DELTA

  0·900

  0·120

  —

  EUROTECHNET

  2·300

  1·250

  0·967

  FORCE

  13·850

  17·500

  20·300

  IRIS

  0·500

  0·500

  —

  PETRA

  21·100

  26·500

  30·700

  Total funding for the TEMPUS programme in the period 1990 to 1993 was 192 million ecu.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total budget awarded under the European social fund to the European Commission's vocational training initiatives of(a) EUROFORM, (b) HORIZON and (c) NOW in each year since their establishment; and what was the total budget of each awarded to (i) the northern region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total budget from the European social fund—ESF—for EUROFORM is £218 million, for HORIZON £211 million and for NOW £109 million. These are global amounts allocated by the European Commission for the period 1991 to 1993.

  The allocation in Great Britain for each initiative is £25·5 million for EUROFORM, £20 million for HORIZON and £6·3 million for NOW. The figures given relate to Great Britain. The ESF in Northern Ireland is administered separately by the Department of Economic Development.

  The grants awarded to projects in the northern region amount to £920,519 for EUROFORM, £1,119,442 for HORIZON and £697,505 for NOW.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer given to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 7 December,Official Report, column 212, if he will give a breakdown for the same periods as in that question of the total numbers of temporary and permanent vacancies for each region by industrial classification as employed by his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 21 January 1994:
  852
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the numbers of vacancies notified from April 1987, broken down by region, industrial classification and whether temporary or permanent.
  I am sorry I am unable to supply information in the form requested. Prior to April 1992, information was not collected in a way which fitted in with the sub-divisions which you are interested in. From April 1992 onwards, it has been collected but it is not collated in a way which fits your requirements. I am afraid it could only be provided at a disproportionate cost as a large number of separate returns are involved.
  You may like to know that information about the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) of vacancies notified to Jobcentres, covering the period April 1987 to February 1992, is held on the National On-Line Manpower Information System (NOMIS). Information for vacancies in each region by SIC is available, but it cannot be further broken down to distinguish between temporary and permanent vacancies. Information can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons library.
  Similar information can be provided by the Employment Service in respect of the period from April 1992 onwards. If you would like to have this please let me know.
  I hope this is helpful.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Population Projects
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government have for(a) mobilising additional resources and (b) involving new donor agencies in this country and in other member states in the European Union to increase official development assistance on population projects.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are continuing to encourage the mobilisation of additional resources for population in all appropriate international fora, including the European Community. We are making full use of the preparatory process for the international conference on population and development—taking place in Cairo in September 19942014;to encourage greater commitment to population issues.

  We are working with the European Commission to increase the support of other member states of the Community for population activities. We would greatly welcome the involvement of more United Kingdom non-governmental organisations in family planning and reproductive health programmes.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have for encouraging other member states in the European Union to start funding family planning and related projects as part of their development and co-operation budgets.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are playing a leading role in pressing for concrete action to result from the 1992 EC resolution on population. Officials participate in regular expert meetings in Brussels to strengthen co-operation among member states and the Commission. We are also helping the Commission to organise a seminar for EC member states and senior Commission officials on 28 February.
  853

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will quantify the cost of the factors which led to an increase in the cost of cars for Ministers in her Department since 1990–91.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the second paragraph of the reply given on 20 January by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry).

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes she intends to make to the compensation arrangements for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Soames
  I am proposing to modity the BSE compensation arrangments from 1 April 1994. At present under the BSE Compensation Order 1990, the amount of compensation paid for an animal which is compulsorily slaughtered because it is suspected of having BSE is subject to a ceiling based on an average market price, calculated each month from actual market prices of commecial grade. Friesian cows and heifers in milk and in calf sold in specified markets. With an increasing proportion of older cattle being slaughtered as BSE suspects, we now need to reflect this in the calculation of the compensation price. I will, therefore, be consulting interested organisations on the proposed new arrangements whereby the price of older cattle being sold for slaughter rather than for breeding would be included in the calculation of the compensation ceiling.

  We propose to continue the arrangement whereby in the case of a slaughtered animal not confirmed for BSE the compensation paid would be subject to an enhanced ceiling. The new method of calculation would still result in a compensation price higher than the price the farmer would get for a dairy cow sold for meat so that farmers would not be discouraged from reporting all suspect BSE cases.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Cones Hotline
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many calls have been received by the traffic cones hotline to date; and what action his Department has taken in response to those calls.

  Mr. Key
  Since its introduction in June 1992 until 15 January 1994, 383 calls registered as formal inquiries have been received by the cones hotline. Inquiries which cannot be answered immediately have been followed up by the regional office responsible for the particular road scheme; and written replies have been sent, or for recent inquiries are in the process of being sent, to each caller. Until recently, other calls received by the hotline have not been recorded, but they are currently running at two to three times the number of formal inquiries about specific road works.
  854

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial commitment the Government are prepared to make to the channel tunnel rail link project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government are prepared to provide substantial financial support to the channel tunnel rail link. The precise amount required will be determined by the competition for a private sector promoter which was announced on 11 November 1993.

  Transport Safety
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to which his Department sent, and from which it has received responses regarding the consultation paper on a new system for approving safety of railways and trams, together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My Department issued 59 copies of the consultation paper to transport operators, passenger transport executives, trade unions, and manufacturers and we received 15 responses. In addition, a further 25 inquiries were received leading to nine further representations. It is not our practice to identify those organisations or individuals who respond to consultation exercises.

  Noise Regulations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to which his Department sent, and from which it has received responses, regarding the consultation letter on noise insulation regulations for new railways and other guided systems, together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My Department issued 42 copies of the consultation paper to transport operators, PTEs, trade unions, the police, magistrates and the medical profession and we received 27 responses. It is not our practice to identify those organisations or individuals who respond to consultation exercises.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to which his Department sent, and from which his Department has received responses, regarding the consultation paper on a bus strategy for London, together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: In 1991 my Department issued some 2,500 copies of the consultation paper to: all London Members of Parliament; London local authorities; bus companies; trade unions; organisations representing business, freight transport operators, consumers, motorists, the disabled, public transport users; and individuals. We received 156 responses from organisations, and 49 responses from individuals. The consultation paper indicated that responses would be treated as public unless marked "confidential", and a list of those who had responded was deposited in the Library in July 1991.
  855

  RUCATSE Report
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the responses in relation to the current consultation on the report of the RUCATSE—runway capacity in the south-east—working group, will be made public; and whether a summary of the responses will be published.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: The individual responses to the consultation on the report of the RUCATSE working group will not be published by the Government, although it will, of course, be open to respondents to make public their responses if they wish to do so. When the Government make their own response to the consultation, they will make public a summary of the responses received.

  Beach Pollution
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps his Department is taking to discover the origin of oil which has recently polluted beaches in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire;

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to discover the exact nature and source of the pollution which has recently affected marine life and beaches at Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answers 20 January 1994]: A small area of oil pollution measuring 2 ft wide on Amroth beach, Carmarthen bay, was first reported to the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit on 3 January. On 4 January oil pollution in the form of tarry lumps covering four to five miles was reported at Pendine beach and the following day a "slick" two miles long and 4 yd wide was reported on the sea close to Pendine beach. The MPCU arranged for its aerial surveillance aircraft to be diverted to the area. No oil was reported at sea, and no vessels were seen in the area. MPCU has discussed the incident with Dyfed county council, who took action to clean the affected beaches. Despite prompt action to discover the source of the pollution, it has not proved possible to identify the cause.

EDUCATION

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children aged three and four years were in receipt of nursery education; and what percentage of the total number of children in that age group that constituted(a) in England and Wales and (b) in each education authority in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information about the provision of nursery education in maintained nursery and primary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1993 is shown in the table. Similar information for years 1980 to 1992 is published in statistical bulletins, copies of which are available in the Library. National results for January 1979 are shown in statistical bulletin 5/81. Information for each LEA in January 1979 is not readily available. Information on schools in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  856

  Pupils under five in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each Local Education Authority in England January 1993

  LEA

  Pupils in Nursery Schools and Nursery Classes1

  Percentage of population

  Camden

  1,073

  27

  Greenwich

  3,245

  48

  Hackney

  2,354

  39

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,521

  42

  Islington

  1,888

  40

  Kensington and Chelsea

  886

  30

  Lambeth

  2,456

  34

  Lewisham

  2,620

  38

  Southwark

  2,948

  42

  Tower Hamlets

  3,100

  53

  Wandsworth

  2,356

  39

  Westminster2

  1,145

  33

  Barking

  1,797

  40

  Barnet

  2,456

  30

  Bexley

  1,225

  20

  Brent

  2,527

  38

  Bromley

  172

  2

  Croydon

  1,431

  16

  Ealing

  3,323

  44

  Enfield

  1,693

  23

  Haringey

  2,670

  47

  Harrow

  955

  18

  Havering

  357

  6

  Hillingdon

  3,242

  48

  Hounslow

  2,425

  42

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,132

  33

  Merton

  2,677

  57

  Newham

  4,927

  64

  Redbridge

  1,104

  18

  Richmond upon Thames

  745

  18

  Sutton

  1,711

  36

  Waltham Forest

  2,584

  40

  Birmingham

  10,429

  35

  Coventry

  2,266

  26

  Dudley

  2,951

  37

  Sandwell

  4,681

  57

  Solihull

  1,802

  35

  Walsall

  4,309

  60

  Wolverhampton

  3,780

  54

  Knowsley

  2,556

  51

  Liverpool

  6,181

  48

  St. Helens

  1,655

  36

  Sefton

  2,470

  32

  Wirral

  2,285

  25

  Bolton

  3,058

  40

  Bury

  1,505

  30

  Manchester

  7,531

  57

  Oldham

  2,473

  38

  Rochdale

  2,049

  33

  Salford

  3,411

  54

  Stockport

  1,885

  25

  Tameside

  2,499

  39

  Trafford

  1,988

  35

  Wigan

  2,138

  25

  Barnsley

  2,955

  50

  Doncaster

  3,397

  41

  Rotherham

  3,162

  44

  Sheffield

  5,768

  44

  Bradford

  6,252

  43

  Calderdale

  1,849

  34

  Kirklees

  4,343

  41

  Leeds

  8,979

  46

  Wakefield

  4,427

  50

  Gateshead

  1,861

  37

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3,016

  43

  North Tyneside

  2,672

  55

  South Tyneside

  2,208

  53

  Sunderland

  3309

  40

  Avon

  5,052

  20

  Bedfordshire

  5,283

  33

  Berkshire

  5,900

  28

  Buckinghamshire

  2,683

  15

  857

  LEA

  Pupils in Nursery Schools and Nursery Classes1

  Percentage of population

  Cambridgeshire

  2,205

  12

  Cheshire

  5,526

  21

  Cleveland

  9,312

  57

  Cornwall3

  1,674

  14

  Cumbria

  3,035

  25

  Derbyshire

  9,467

  39

  Devon

  2,790

  11

  Dorset

  810

  5

  Durham

  7,072

  46

  East Sussex52

  1,465

  8

  Essex

  2,549

  6

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  1,959

  5

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,296

  7

  Hertfordshire

  8,409

  31

  Humberside

  9,118

  38

  Isle of Wight

  186

  7

  Kent

  2,008

  5

  Lancashire

  7,239

  19

  Leicestershire

  5,473

  22

  Lincolnshire

  1,431

  10

  Norfolk

  861

  5

  North Yorkshire

  3,713

  21

  Northamptonshire

  2,852

  17

  Northumberland

  3,044

  40

  Nottinghamshire

  13,498

  49

  Oxfordshire

  2,635

  17

  Shropshire

  1,897

  17

  Somerset

  322

  3

  Staffordshire

  6,787

  24

  Suffolk

  3,097

  17

  Surrey

  2,860

  11

  Warwickshire

  2,179

  17

  West Sussex

  796

  5

  Wiltshire

  586

  4

  ENGLAND

  339,914

  26

  1 Excludes pupils who became five years of age by 1 January 1993.

  2 Includes Corporation of London.

  3 Includes Isles of Scilly.

  Parental Ballots
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what was(a) the lowest bid and (b) the highest bid from companies invited to tender for the running of parental ballots over proposals for schools to move to grant-maintained status;

  (2) whether he will list by registered name those companies invited to tender to conduct parental ballots over proposals for schools to move to grant-maintained status;

  (3) for what period Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Ltd. has been contracted to run parental ballots over proposals for schools to move to grant-maintained status;

  (4) by what tendering process was Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Ltd. appointed to conduct parental ballots over proposals for schools to move to grant-maintained status;

  (5) when he next intends to invite tenders for the running of parental ballots over proposals for schools to move to grant-maintained status;

  (6) what is the scale of charges made to his Department by Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Ltd. for running parental ballots over proposals for schools to move to grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Education Reform Act 1988 gave parents the right to vote on whether their children's858
  school should become grant maintained. The Electoral Reform Society's company, Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Ltd., is the body currently prescribed in regulations to make the necessary arrangements for ballots of parents on the question of whether schools should apply for grant-maintained status. The Electoral Reform Society has had this function since 1988.

  Following implementation of the parts of the Education Act 1993 which streamline the arrangements for schools to acquire grant-maintained status, the Department is reviewing details of the balloting arrangements and considering seeking tenders for future contracts for balloting services.

  Charging arrangements between the Department and Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Ltd. are commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the information held by his Department on the typical cost to schools of holding parental ballots on proposals to move to grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A small survey undertaken by the Department last year indicated that the governing body of an average-sized primary school typically spends approximately £900 and the governors of an average secondary school approximately £1,500 in the process of applying for grant-maintained status. Most of this is spent on providing information for parents, including in meeting the statutory requirement to place a summary statement about proposals to become GM in a local newspaper.

  From 1 January 1994, governing bodies of schools in the process of balloting for GM status or preparing statutory proposals may apply to the Department for a grant to help cover the expenses incurred.

  Bentley Drive Primary School
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what current financial difficulties prevent a purpose-built block to be built at the Bentley Drive primary school, Walsall to replace the mobile classrooms.

  Mr. Forth
  Decisions on capital spending at a county school such as this are entirely a matter for the Walsall local education authority.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students were recruited to courses of initial teacher training in 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A survey undertaken by my Department shows that 29,266 students entered courses of initial teacher training in universities and colleges in England this autumn, some 5 per cent. above target. I have placed a copy of the survey report in the Library.

  Compared to 1992–93, recruitment to primary ITT courses fell by 5 per cent., to 15,775, and recruitment to secondary courses increased by 5 per cent., to 13,491. These figures reflect the pattern of intake targets for 1993–94 adopted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England—HEFCE—at the request of the Secretary of State.

  Of the main secondary shortage subjects, mathematics increased recruitment by 4 per cent. to 1,769, science by

  859
  10 per cent. to 2,373 and modern languages by 13 per cent. to 1,542. English, religious education and music also increased recruitment, but technology fell by 7 per cent. to 2,057.

  The survey did not cover distance learning PGCE courses at the Open university and ITT courses by consortia of schools and city technology colleges, which are being run for the first time this academic year. These courses are expected to recruit 1,220 and 220 students respectively, including 115 in technology under the CTC trust's smallpiece programme.

  Taken together, this means that overall intakes for each of the secondary shortage subjects—mathematics, science, modern languages and technology—are higher this academic year than in 1992–93.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Asbestos Pollution
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with Lloyd's about outstanding and impending compensation claims for asbestos pollution from companies; and what assessment he has made of the prospects for compensation claims for mesothelima.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Underwriters at Lloyd's are required to maintain assets estimated to be sufficient to meet all liabilities arising from valid claims that may arise from current and past policies. In accordance with the Insurance Companies Act 1982, the adequacy of these reserves is certified annually by auditors, in accordance with rules approved by the Secretary of State. This process was successfully completed last summer for the year ended December 1992. The basis of reserving is reviewed annually, and it has recently been approved for the accounts to be submitted later this year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Tenant Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Battle
  : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many tenant incentive schemes grants have gone to people moving to homes overseas;

  (2) if he will list by country to which they moved the number of tenant incentive grant schemes going to tenants who have bought properties overseas.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested, based on returns to the Housing Corporation, for 1992–93 and 1993–94 to 17 January 1994 is as follows:

  Number

  1992–93

  Australia

  2

  Canada

  2

  Chile

  6

  Colombia

  2

  Cyprus

  6

  Egypt

  1

  Eire

  34

  France

  6

  Ghana

  3

  Gibraltar

  2

  Guyana

  2

  India

  1

  Jamaica

  7

  Malaysia

  1

  860

  Number

  Malta

  2

  New Zealand

  1

  Poland

  1

  Portugal

  2

  Spain

  6

  St. Lucia

  1

  Turkey

  1

  Uganda

  1

  USA

  2

  Unspecified

  18

  TOTAL

  110

  1993–94 (to 17 January 1994)

  Antigua

  1

  Australia

  3

  Barbados

  1

  Boliva

  1

  Colombia

  2

  Cyprus

  2

  Egypt

  1

  Eire

  31

  France

  2

  Germany

  1

  Ghana

  2

  Gibraltar

  1

  India

  1

  Iran

  1

  Jamaica

  3

  Mauritius

  1

  Nigeria

  1

  Poland

  1

  Portugal

  1

  Seychelles

  1

  Spain

  6

  Sri Lanka

  1

  St. Lucia

  1

  Trinidad

  2

  USA

  3

  Unspecified

  20

  TOTAL

  91

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who are the members currently appointed to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution.

  Mr. Atkins
  Current members of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution are:

  Sir John Houghton—Chairman

  Sir Geoffrey Allen

  Professor Henry Charnock

  Professor Dame Barbara E. Clayton

  Mr. Henry R. Fell

  Mr. Peter R. A. Jacques

  Professor John H. Lawton

  Professor R. B. Macrory

  Professor J. G. Morris

  Mr. Donald A. D. Reeve

  Emma Rothschild

  Professor Z. A. Silberston

  The Earl of Selborne

  Government Offices
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of Government office accommodation in(a) the SW I postage district of London and (b) the remainder of the United Kingdom is now vacant; and what is the estimated annual net cost of these vacancies.
  861
  Mr. Baldry
  Office accommodation for general government use is managed on the common user estate. Including properties undergoing refurbishment, 5·8 per cent. is vacant in SW1 at an estimated cost in 1993–94 of £4·9 million. In the remainder of the United Kingdom, 9·6 per cent. is vacant at an estimated cost in 1993–94 of £51·9 million.

  National House Building Council
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the interest of consumers is being met by the National House Building Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Local Authority

  Estate/Scheme

  Barnet

  Grahame Park—phase 3

  Birmingham

  Ladywood—phase 2

  Birmingham

  Newtown—phase 2

  Birmingham

  The Firs—phase 4

  Blackburn

  Bennington Street

  Bradford

  Canterbury

  Bristol

  Barton Hill

  Bristol

  Lawrence Weston/Orlebar Gardens

  Burnley

  Trafalgar Gardens

  Carlisle

  Botcherby

  Cheltenham

  St. Pauls

  Chester

  Poet's Corner—phase 2

  Darlington

  Skerne Park

  Derby

  Austin

  Derby

  Harvey Road

  Doncaster

  Stainforth—phase 3

  East Yorkshire

  South Back Lane

  Great Yarmouth

  Middlegate

  Hackney

  Clapton Park—phase 4

  Hackney

  Holly Street

  Hackney

  Trowbridge

  Haringey

  Broadwater Farm—phase 3

  Harrogate

  Broadacres

  Hounslow

  Highfield

  Hull

  The Garths

  Knowsley

  Kirby

  Knowsley

  Lickers Lane

  Lambeth

  Penwith Manor

  Lambeth

  Thorlands

  Lambeth

  Myatts Field

  Lewisham

  Evelyn

  Lewisham

  Milton Court—phase 1

  Lewisham

  Pepys

  Liverpool

  Belle Vale

  Liverpool

  Dingle

  Liverpool

  Dovecot/Baycliffe and Southdene

  Liverpool

  Netherley

  Liverpool

  Norris Green/Sedgemoor

  Liverpool

  Norwood

  Manchester

  Benchill North—phase 2

  Manchester

  Monsall

  Manchester

  Newbank Street

  North Tyneside

  Meadowell—phases 1 and 2

  Nottingham

  Bridgeway/The Meadows

  Nottingham

  St. Anns

  Preston

  Callon—phase 2

  Redbridge

  Tiptree/Clayhall Avenue

  Rochdale

  College Bank—phase 2

  Salford

  Amersham Street

  Salford

  Ordsall—phase 4

  Southwark

  Gloucester Grove—phase 6

  St. Helens

  Peasley View

  Tower Hamlets

  Watney Market

  Vale Royal

  Over/St. Johns Gardens

  862
  Sir George Young
  This is a matter for the council itself, which is an independent body. A number of consumer interest groups are represented on both the council and its standards committee and are therefore able to influence the standards set.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the estate action schemes currently in operation which have projected spend estimates beyond 1995–96.

  Sir George Young
  Of the estate action schemes given full approval on or before 4 January 1994, the following have projected spend estimates beyond 1995–96:
  863

  Tenant Management Organisation
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those tenants and residents associations which received grant to develop a tenant management organisation in 1992–93, showing for each(a) the value of the grant in 1992–93, (b) the aggregate value of any previous grants and the years in which they have

  Tenants' organisation

  Authority

  1Agency

  Units

  2Start date

  3Progress

  Development cost

  41991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  5EMB

  6TMC

  Total £

  £

  £

  £

  Abbey Road

  Camden

  (None)

  279

  May 1992

  June 1992

  22,186

  22,186

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Agar Grove

  Camden

  CATCH

  247

  January 1994

  7,692

  0

  0

  7,692

  —

  1

  Alderwood

  Langbaurgh

  BOW

  20

  TD

  September 1992

  13,900

  13,900

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Alpha

  Sheffield

  YCHS

  255

  TD

  5,913

  0

  0

  5,913

  —

  1

  Angell Town

  Lambeth

  PEP

  844

  August 1991

  52,750

  21,011

  31,739

  0

  1

  —

  Arica Co-op

  Southwark

  HEXAGON

  82

  April 1992

  25,118

  0

  8,713

  16,405

  —

  1

  Ashb'ne and Buxton

  Trafford

  TPAS

  118

  October 1993

  8,580

  0

  0

  8,580

  —

  1

  Atholl and Braemar

  Westminster

  PIC SERVS

  42

  November 1992

  24,073

  0

  10,585

  13,488

  —

  1

  Bancroft

  Tower Hamlets

  SOLON CHS

  628

  September 1990

  19,898

  19,898

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Berryfields

  North Cornwall

  CPT

  273

  July 1993

  11,957

  0

  0

  11,957

  1

  —

  Bethnal Green

  Tower Hamlets

  PCHA

  158

  January 1994

  4,726

  0

  0

  4,726

  —

  1

  Birch Green

  West Lancashire

  PEP

  1,175

  June 1993

  24,023

  0

  0

  24,023

  1

  —

  Blackbrook

  Warrington

  PEP

  809

  November 1992

  40,767

  0

  12,838

  27,929

  1

  —

  Botcherby

  Carlisle

  BOW

  539

  April 1992

  35,323

  0

  24,041

  11,282

  1

  —

  Boulter Crescent

  Oadby/Wigston

  LHA

  140

  January 1994

  4,875

  0

  0

  4,875

  —

  1

  Broadwater Farm

  Haringey

  P W'HSE/T A

  1,063

  June 1993

  27,174

  0

  0

  27,174

  1

  —

  Browning

  Southwark

  CHURCH

  433

  TD

  26,394

  16,435

  9,959

  0

  1

  —

  Brunshaw

  Burnley

  PEP

  1,904

  May 1993

  31,917

  0

  0

  31,917

  1

  —

  Burrows St/Green L

  Walsall

  BCHS

  259

  June 1992

  29,315

  0

  18,290

  11,025

  —

  1

  Carol Street

  Camden

  (None)

  36

  January 1992

  June 1992

  10,662

  10,662

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Carrbrook

  Manchester

  CHS(NW)

  127

  TD

  February 1993

  9,806

  9,806

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Cartergate

  Nottingham

  LFHS

  52

  TD

  February 1992

  10,146

  10,146

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Chalkhill

  Brent

  TPAS

  1,800

  April 1992

  53,089

  0

  29,536

  23,553

  1

  —

  Chelsea Manor CT

  RBKC

  PEP

  83

  Failed

  9,776

  0

  9,776

  0

  —

  —

  Chuckery

  Walsall

  BCHS

  213

  September 1992

  25,755

  22,397

  3,358

  0

  —

  1

  Church Court

  Bradford

  YCHS

  32

  April 1992

  In abeyance

  21,892

  0

  17,006

  4,886

  —

  1

  Clapton Park

  Hackney

  PEP

  1,594

  January 1992

  60,255

  8,122

  31,363

  20,770

  1

  —

  Claybrow

  West Lancashire

  CDS (LIV)

  512

  July 1992

  35,324

  0

  9,697

  25,627

  —

  1

  Cleveland Est

  Tower Hamlets

  TENANT

  287

  April 1993

  20,632

  0

  0

  20,632

  —

  1

  Colesborne

  Liverpool

  PEP

  1,173

  January 1994

  10,113

  0

  0

  10,113

  1

  —

  Colwell Action G P

  Liverpool

  CDS (UV)

  340

  July 1992

  30,462

  0

  17,147

  13,315

  —

  1

  Cottington Gose

  Lambeth

  SLFHA

  227

  November 1992

  25,730

  0

  9,598

  16,132

  —

  1

  Cowley

  Lambeth

  SLFHA

  515

  April 1993

  21,025

  0

  0

  21,025

  —

  1

  Cranbrook

  Tower Hamlets

  HEXAGON

  435

  August 1993

  14,626

  0

  0

  14,626

  —

  1

  Crusader

  Lewisham

  CHISEL

  156

  April 1991

  28,490

  17,105

  11,385

  0

  —

  1

  De Beauvoir

  Hackney

  PEP

  877

  January 1992

  47,821

  3,656

  26,317

  17,848

  1

  —

  Digby Greenways

  Tower Hamlets

  HEXAGON

  890

  April 1993

  18,632

  0

  0

  18,632

  1

  —

  EwartRoad

  Lewisham

  HEXAGON

  182

  TD

  1,590

  1,590

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Fenside

  Boston

  LHA

  955

  April 1993

  21,059

  0

  0

  21,059

  1

  —

  Field Bottoms

  Hyndeburn

  PEP

  525

  October 1993

  11,489

  0

  0

  11,489

  1

  —

  Five Ways

  Lewisham

  CHISEL

  181

  March 1993

  26,802

  0

  5,809

  20,993

  —

  1

  Gascoyne

  Hackney

  CHURCH

  243

  Failed

  28,905

  0

  19,594

  9,311

  1

  —

  Gloucester Grove

  Southwark

  TIDE

  714

  April 1993

  36,422

  0

  0

  36,422

  1

  —

  Godwin/Crowndale

  Camden

  PEP

  173

  July 1990

  June 1992

  13,516

  13,516

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Goscote

  Walsall

  PEP

  422

  October 1993

  13,706

  0

  0

  13,706

  1

  —

  Greave Estate

  Rochdale

  TPAS

  268

  April 1993

  18,610

  0

  0

  18,610

  —

  1

  Halton Moor

  Leeds

  PEP

  1,319

  November 1991

  July 1993

  26,912

  26,912

  0

  0

  1

  —

  Harford House

  Westminster

  PIC SERVS

  104

  April 1993

  24,562

  0

  0

  24,562

  —

  1

  Haslingden

  Rossendale

  PEP

  1,461

  April 1992

  July 1992

  33,927

  33,927

  0

  0

  1

  —

  Higginshaw Village

  Oldham

  PEP

  339

  October 1991

  November 1993

  33,790

  11,327

  18,522

  3,941

  1

  —

  Holland Rise

  Lambeth

  PEP

  94

  June 1992

  22,626

  0

  18,788

  3,838

  —

  1

  Holland Town

  Lambeth

  SLFHA

  300

  January 1993

  22,729

  0

  5,645

  17,084

  —

  1

  Hollin

  Rochdale

  PEP

  1,200

  September 1990

  May 1993

  30,698

  30,698

  0

  0

  1

  —

  Holts Village

  Oldham

  CHS(NW)

  925

  April 1992

  46,108

  0

  33,750

  12,358

  1

  —

  Hornsey Lane

  Islington

  (Local Authority)

  173

  April 1990

  August 1992

  13,139

  13,139

  0

  0

  1

  —

  Ironbridge

  Liverpool

  CDS (LIV)

  227

  July 1993

  14,893

  0

  0

  14,893

  1

  —

  Kennington Park House

  Southwark

  HEXAGON

  40

  TD

  April 1992

  15,803

  15,803

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Kilburn Square

  Camden

  CATCH

  268

  July 1991

  28,056

  21,488

  6368

  0

  —

  1

  Kingsmead

  Hackney

  PEP

  976

  July 1992

  45,349

  0

  12,452

  32,897

  1

  —

  Lancaster West

  RBKC

  PEP

  829

  July 1991

  August 1993

  43,208

  20,542

  20,547

  2,119

  1

  —

  Langridge

  Middlesbrough

  BOW

  60

  TD

  December 1993

  4,997

  4,997

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Leather Market Gardens

  Southwark

  TPAS

  1,659

  October 1993

  27,740

  0

  0

  27,740

  1

  —

  Lillestone

  Westminster

  PPCR

  73

  November 1993

  6,870

  0

  0

  6,870

  1

  —

  Locknor

  Hackney

  FED HACK

  186

  April 1993

  19,649

  0

  0

  19,649

  —

  1

  Loggans

  Penwith

  CPT

  97

  April 1993

  15,706

  0

  0

  15,706

  1

  —

  Magdalen

  Lambeth

  SOLON W

  126

  March 1993

  26,276

  0

  1,000

  25,276

  —

  1

  Maiden Lane

  Camden

  PEP

  479

  July 1990

  May 1992

  19,794

  19,794

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Menzies

  Liverpool

  CDS (LIV)

  265

  August 1993

  14,460

  0

  0

  14,460

  1

  —

  Mowmacre

  Leicester

  PEP

  1,079

  June 1992

  In abeyance

  47,715

  0

  22,821

  24,894

  1

  —

  New Park Village

  Wolverhampton

  (None)

  415

  July 1992

  December 1992

  26,055

  15,286

  10,769

  0

  —

  1

  Nightingale CR

  Bromley

  CHISEL

  34

  TD

  13,169

  13,169

  0

  0

  —

  1

  North Garths

  Hull

  TPAS

  1,082

  December 1993

  11,689

  0

  0

  11,689

  1

  —

  North Peckham

  Southwark

  PEP

  1,429

  October 1991

  In abeyance

  54,350

  18,206

  36,144

  0

  1

  —

  Old/New Loughborough

  Lambeth

  PEP

  1,209

  August 1991

  48,703

  22,675

  26,028

  0

  1

  —

  Oslo Court

  Merton

  SOLON W

  16

  TD

  In abeyance

  11,423

  11,423

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Pare Mellan

  Penwith

  CPT

  39

  April 1993

  11,928

  0

  0

  11,928

  1

  —

  Park View

  Tower Hamlets

  HEXAGON

  307

  June 1993

  12,416

  0

  0

  12,416

  1

  —

  Parkwood Rise

  Bradford

  YCHS

  192

  October 1991

  26,446

  6,065

  20,381

  0

  —

  1

  864
  been paid, (c) the value of any grant paid in 1993–94, (d) the local authority, (e) what organisations are advising the association, (f) what progress has been made towards the successful establishment of a tenant manager co-operative or estate management board and (g) when the activity was first brought to the Department's attention.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is as follows:
  865

  Tenants' organisation

  Authority

  1Agency

  Units

  2Start date

  3Progress

  Development cost

  41991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  5EMB

  6TMC

  Total £

  £

  £

  £

  Pembroke Res

  Plymouth

  DEVON CDA

  153

  October 1992

  34,244

  0

  14,046

  20,198

  1

  —

  Perronet

  Southwark

  TIDE

  102

  April 1993

  29,654

  0

  0

  29,654

  —

  1

  Pinehurst

  Liverpool

  CDS (LIV)

  750

  August 1993

  18,243

  0

  0

  18,243

  1

  1

  Pleck

  Walsall

  BCHS

  434

  October 1992

  32,278

  0

  11,246

  21,032

  1

  —

  Ridings Way

  Bradford

  YCHS

  134

  April 1992

  24,711

  0

  24,711

  0

  —

  1

  Rossmere

  Middlesbrough

  BOW

  35

  April 1993

  17,165

  0

  0

  17,165

  —

  1

  Rothbury Road

  Middlesbrough

  BOW

  16

  June 1991

  December 1993

  13,800

  13,800

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Saint Georges

  Southwark

  TIDE

  567

  April 1993

  33,503

  0

  0

  33,503

  1

  —

  Saint Giles

  Lincoln

  LHA

  1,383

  October 1993

  14,728

  0

  0

  14,728

  1

  —

  Saint Marks

  Leicester

  LHA

  439

  April 1992

  49,200

  19,805

  11,023

  18,372

  1

  —

  Saint Pancras Court

  Camden

  CATCH

  49

  April 1992

  April 1992

  22,874

  22,874

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Saint Pauls

  Cheltenham

  CHURCH

  274

  October 1992

  22,451

  0

  11,195

  11,256

  1

  —

  Samuda

  Tower Hamlets

  PEP

  505

  May 1990

  February 1993

  16,754

  16,754

  0

  0

  1

  —

  Sandbank

  Birmingham

  BCHS

  253

  April 1993

  23,169

  0

  0

  23,169

  —

  1

  Scotland Gate

  Carlisle

  BOW

  265

  March 1993

  31,069

  0

  9,011

  22,058

  —

  1

  South Bank

  Langbaurgh

  PEP

  865

  July 1990

  September 1992

  20,435

  3,080

  17,355

  0

  1

  —

  South Hornsey

  Haringey

  PEP

  668

  July 1993

  18,720

  0

  0

  18,720

  1

  —

  Springfield Horseshoe

  Wolverhampton

  PARTNERS IC

  128

  October 1992

  32,191

  0

  16,931

  15,260

  —

  1

  Staincliffe

  Kirklees

  PEP

  628

  September 1990

  July 1992

  27,875

  27,875

  0

  0

  1

  —

  Stamford Hill

  Hackney

  PPCR

  460

  September 1993

  19,224

  0

  0

  19,224

  1

  —

  Stockwell Park

  Lambeth

  SOLON W

  998

  May 1993

  28,551

  0

  0

  28,551

  1

  —

  Suffolk Estate

  Hackney

  FED HACK

  259

  February 1993

  27,095

  0

  3,094

  24,001

  —

  1

  Sutton Park 'A'

  Birmingham

  (Self)

  250

  April 1992

  26,644

  0

  13,238

  13,406

  —

  1

  Tabard Gardens

  Southwark

  TENANT ACT

  1,433

  November 1991

  81,673

  10,790

  43,954

  26,929

  —

  1

  Tanhouse

  West Lancashire

  BCHS

  533

  April 1993

  October 1992

  28,958

  0

  0

  28,958

  1

  —

  Tanner House

  Southwark

  PEP

  25

  July 1993

  17,827

  0

  0

  17,827

  —

  1

  Thorlands

  Lambeth

  PEP

  403

  July 1993

  15,776

  0

  0

  15,776

  1

  —

  Triangle

  Bradford

  TPAS

  255

  July 1993

  14,704

  0

  0

  14,704

  —

  1

  Trowbridge

  Hackney

  TENANT ACT

  555

  January 1992

  26,873

  3,965

  16,433

  6,475

  —

  1

  Tustin

  Southwark

  PEABODY

  476

  April 1992

  33,960

  0

  25,119

  8,841

  1

  —

  Walpole

  Greenwich

  TENANT ACT

  87

  September 1993

  13,677

  0

  0

  13,677

  1

  —

  Warwick Crescent

  Westminster

  PIC SERVS

  25

  December 1992

  23,983

  0

  8,019

  15,964

  —

  1

  West Houghton

  Bolton

  CHS (NW)

  534

  June 1992

  31,391

  0

  24,805

  6,586

  1

  —

  West View

  Wyre

  PEP

  843

  October 1991

  44,049

  10,624

  21,467

  11,958

  1

  —

  Weston Rise

  Islignton

  SNU

  147

  April 1993

  24,878

  0

  0

  24,878

  1

  —

  Whitworth Valley

  Rossendale

  PEP

  827

  July 1990

  July 1992

  26,165

  26,165

  0

  0

  1

  —

  Woolwich CRA

  Greenwich

  PEP

  1,220

  Failed

  49,677

  26,645

  23,032

  0

  1

  —

  Wyke

  Hackney

  FED HACK

  415

  February 1993

  11,863

  0

  3,333

  8,530

  —

  1

  Wyncote

  Hartlepool

  BOW

  15

  June 1991

  18,987

  13,404

  5,583

  0

  —

  1

  TOTALS

  119

  56,690

  2,893,121

  671,662

  843,761

  1,337,698

  59

  57

  1 Agency name abbreviations:

  BCHS

  Birmingham Co-operative Housing Services.

  BOW

  Bank of the Wear (CHS) Ltd.

  CATCH

  Catch Ltd.

  CDS (LIV)

  Co-operative Development Services (Liverpool).

  CHISEL

  Community Housing in South East London.

  CHS (NW)

  Community Housing Services (North West).

  CHURCH

  English Churches Housing Group.

  CPT

  Community Projects Trust.

  DEVON CDA

  Devon Co-operative Development Agency.

  FED HACK

  Federation of Hackney Tenants.

  HEXAGON

  Hexagon Housing Association.

  LFHS

  Leicester Federation of Housing Services.

  LHA

  Leicester Housing Association.

  P W'HSE/T A

  Price Waterhouse/Tenant Action Ltd.

  PARTNERS I C

  Partners In Change Ltd.

  PCHA

  Paddington Churches Housing Association.

  PEABODY

  Peabody Trust.

  PEP

  Priority Estates Project.

  PIC SERVS

  PIC Services.

  PPCR

  PPCR Associates.

  SLFHA

  South London Family Housing Association.

  SNU

  Safe Neighbourhoods Unit.

  SOLON CHS

  Solon Community Housing Services.

  SOLON W

  Solon Wandsworth Housing Association.

  TENANT ACT

  Tenant Action Ltd.

  TIDE

  Tenant Initiatives Development Services Ltd.

  TPAS

  Tenant Participation Advisory Service.

  YCHS

  Yorkshire Community Housing Services.

  2 Start date refers to the date on which a tenant management development programme began. TD refers to those developments which commenced under previous grant arrangements.

  3 Date is that on which a tenant management organisation's management agreement received the Secretary of State's approval. Where a date does not appear, this indicates that development is continuing.

  4 Information from previous years is not readily available.

  5 Estate management boards.

  6 Tenant management co-operatives.

  866 867

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are(a) the budget and (b) the staff available to the housing associations' ombudsman service from the Housing Corporation for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1995–96.

  Sir George Young
  The ombudsman service for housing association tenants became operational in November 1993. The operating budget is as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Staff Costs

  150

  227

  227

  Non-Staff Costs1

  79

  145

  143

  Mediation/Legal Other Operational Costs

  103

  123

  110

  332

  495

  480

  1 In 1993–94, there was an additional sum of £24,000 to set up premises.

  The total staffing complement available to the ombudsman service is seven.

  Council Tenants
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to introduce to make it easier for local authorities to take action against council tenants displaying anti-social behaviour.

  Sir George Young
  Local authorities currently have a range of measures at their disposal to tackle anti-social behaviour. We have asked the local authority associations to let us know how their members are dealing with this problem and whether they think that there are any constraints on their ability to do the job effectively. We shall review the position in the light of the associations' response.

  Pennine Bridleway
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision regarding the Pennine bridleway national trail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Countryside Commission published its supplementary report to the Secretary of State on 1 July 1993, outlining revised proposals for the bridleway. I am presently considering the matter and I expect to announce my decision shortly.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those district councils whose provisional increase in their standard spending assessment between 1993–94 and 1994–95 is greater than 10 per cent.

  Mr. Baldry
  Those authorities with a provisional increase in their standard spending assessments of more than 10 per cent. in 1994–95 are listed in descending order.
  868

  List of District Councils with a provisional increase in SSA of more than 10 per cent.

  Local authority

  Percentage change

  Brentwood

  35·9

  Tewkesbury

  29·6

  South Bucks

  28·3

  North East Derbyshire

  25·8

  Ashfield

  24·8

  East Dorset

  23·4

  Three Rivers

  23·4

  Blyth Valley

  22·6

  Basildon

  22·3

  South Oxfordshire

  22·2

  Broxbourne

  22·1

  Welwyn Hatfield

  22·0

  Mole Valley

  22·0

  South Staffordshire

  21·7

  Epping Forest

  20·7

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  20·5

  Taunton Deane

  19·2

  Sevenoaks

  18·8

  Mansfield

  18·7

  Holderness

  18·7

  Halton

  18·6

  Runnymede

  18·4

  Thurrock

  18·3

  Wansbeck

  17·9

  Chiltern

  17·7

  Hereford

  17·7

  Eastleigh

  17·6

  Christchurch

  17·5

  Copeland

  16·7

  East Hertfordshire

  16·7

  Tamworth

  16·6

  Bolsover

  16·5

  Adur

  16·4

  Chesterfield

  16·4

  Durham

  16·3

  Rochford

  16·2

  Crawley

  16·1

  Lewes

  16·0

  Restormel

  15·8

  Hertsmere

  15·7

  Uttlesford

  15·6

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  15·5

  Stockton-on-Tees

  15·3

  Rushcliffe

  15·0

  East Yorkshire

  14·8

  Chester-le-Street

  14·7

  Colchester

  14·4

  Test Valley

  14·3

  Harlow

  14·3

  North Kesteven

  14·3

  Ryedale

  14·2

  Lichfield

  13·9

  South Wight

  13·8

  Scarborough

  13·8

  Bromsgrove

  13·7

  Stratford-on-Avon

  13·7

  Caradon

  13·6

  Derwentside

  13·4

  Charnwood

  13·3

  Canterbury

  12·9

  Salisbury

  12·8

  Bassetlaw

  12·7

  Mid Sussex

  12·5

  Sedgefield

  12·4

  Winchester

  12·3

  West Dorset

  12·3

  Wealden

  12·2

  Dartford

  12·2

  Tendring

  12·1

  Gosport

  12·1

  North West Leicestershire

  12·1

  Scunthorpe

  12·0

  Wychavon

  11·9

  Amber Valley

  11·9

  Allerdale

  11·8

  869

  Local authority

  Percentage change

  Eastbourne

  11·7

  Lancaster

  11·7

  South Bedfordshire

  11·7

  Surrey Heath

  11·6

  Vale of White Horse

  11·5

  West Lancashire

  11·2

  Wyre Forest

  11·2

  Stevenage

  11·1

  Chelmsford

  11·1

  Great Grimsby

  11·1

  Mid Bedfordshire

  10·8

  North Cornwall

  10·7

  Rutland

  10·7

  Richmondshire

  10·7

  Purbeck

  10·6

  Middlesbrough

  10·5

  Kennet

  10·5

  West Lindsey

  10·5

  Glanford

  10·3

  Worcester

  10·2

  Cotswold

  10·1

  Castle Morpeth

  10·1

  East Lindsey

  10·0

  Lincoln

  10·0

  Housing (Westminster)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the figures for council house voids, as a percentage of its total housing stock, submitted to his Department by Westminster city council for each year since 1985.

  Sir George Young
  The percentage of their own dwellings that Westminster city council reported on its annual housing investment programme—HIP1—returns as vacant at 1 April in the years 1985 to 1993 were as follows:

  Per cent.

  1985

  3·6

  1986

  3·2

  1987

  2·8

  1988

  4·0

  1989

  5·6

  1990

  3·4

  1991

  2·9

  1992

  1·8

  1993

  2·0

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, with appropriate dates, the chief housing officers and the housing committee chairmen who have served on the City of Westminster council since 1 April 1985.

  Sir George Young
  This is a matter for Westminster city council.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the amount of capital receipts spent by local authorities since the relaxation of rules concerning such receipts(a) in total and (b) in each local authority.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the temporary relaxation in the rules, local authorities can spend 100 per cent. of virtually 870
  all capital receipts received during the period from 13 November 1992 to 31 December 1993. The receipts can be spent at any time. The information which authorities provide to my Department on the spending of their usable capital receipts relates to financial years; I am arranging for their latest returns to be placed in the Library of the House. On the basis of these returns, authorities provisionally estimated spending of usable capital receipts of about £1 billion in 1992–93 and are forecasting spending of £1·8 billion in 1993–94. It is not possible for my Department to estimate the proportion of these totals relating to receipts received during the relaxation of the rules.

  Right-to-Buy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority-owned houses and flats have been sold since the introduction of right to buy in each housing authority in England and Wales.

  Sir George Young
  A table showing the available information on total right-to-buy sales for each English local authority for every financial year since 1980 and a cumulative total to September 1993 was recently placed in the Library. In addition, the table also gives data on total sales and on the number of flats sold.

  For information about Wales, I refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which councils are currently implementing a designated council house sales policy of the type described by the district auditor in his report on Westminster city council; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The Department does not collect information on voluntary sales undertaken by local authorities in a way which would permit the identification of policies of the type mentioned.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish consultation drafts of the statutory instruments which will implement the compulsory competitive tendering of housing management for consultation.

  Sir George Young
  On 26 November, I announced—Official Report, columns 264–65—how the Department proposed to proceed with the implementation of compulsory competitive tendering of housing management. My announcement followed detailed consultation with local authorities and their representatives. I am today publishing drafts of the orders and regulations which will put these proposals into effect.

  I am also publishing today draft guidance for local authorities designed to avoid anti-competitive behaviour. The guidance seeks to ensure that authorities can continue to deliver comprehensive and estate-based housing services and at the same time ensure that there is free and fair competition for their delivery. The wide-ranging guidance is designed to balance the needs of housing authorities and contractors, and to safeguard the interests of tenants.
  871
  Copies of all these documents are being sent to each local housing authority in England. Local authorities and others have until 4 March to let the Department have their views on these documents. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what advice he proposes to give local authorities on the handling of issues related to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 in relation to compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Baldry
  Today my Department has written to all local authority chief executives enclosing an issues paper on the handling of TUPE issues in relation to compulsory competitive tendering. This follows consultation with representatives of the local authority associations and industries engaged in CCT contracting.

  The paper covers, among other matters, the approach which authorities should adopt in relation to: requests for indemnities; the provision of information to contractors about workforce matters; delay to the CCT timetable; the treatment of tenders where there is a disagreement on the applicability of TUPE; and the evaluation of tenders.

  The paper also indicated that Department of the Environment circular 10/93 will be amended to provide that local authorities may give a preliminary view of the likelihood of T'UPE applying to a contract.

  The paper deals with matters of the handling of TUPE-related issues. As regards the substantive issue of whether or not TUPE applies to a particular contract, the position remains that this depends on the detailed facts of each case, as set out in the guidance which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster issued on 11 March last year.

  I have today placed a copy of the letter to chief executives and the paper in the Library.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has decided to issue the paper to local authorities in Wales. The Welsh Office has today written to all local authority chief executives in Wales enclosing the paper and indicating that Welsh Office circular 40/93 will be amended in line with DOE circular 10/93.

  The Government's view on pension rights in relation to TUPE and market testing of services is set out in "The Government's Guide to Market Testing" published by the Office of Public Services and Science efficiency unit in July 1993, paragraph 5.18. In my discussions, a number of industry organisations have commented on the matter of pensions rights in relation to CCT. I am considering these comments and will issue further advice on this matter as appropriate.

  Flagship Business Park, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he has used to choose the site of the Flagship business park in Nottinghamshire outlined in "Prospects for Coal"; when he will announce this site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: Following the announcement of the intention to establish a Flagship business park in the Nottingham area by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 25 March 1993, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Local Government announced on Tuesday 18 January 1994 that four sites have been
  872
  selected in the east midlands for designation as enterprise zones. This is subject to the agreement of the European Commission.

  The sites have been chosen in areas where the work force has been directly affected by colliery closures, having regard to the need to strike a balance between those sites likely to attract development and generate jobs quickly and those which will make a significant contribution to the reclamation and regeneration of the area.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Council
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will report on his consultations with the Sports Council GB following his statement of 9 July 1993,Official Report, column 599; and on what date he expects to announce his fresh proposals.

  Mr. Brooke
  Discussions with the Sports Council and other interested parties are continuing. I expect to announce fresh proposals for reorganisation around Easter.

  Commonwealth Games 2002
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration and representations his Department has undertaken regarding the impact of a common visa list with other EC states on the Commonwealth games in 2002 in either Sheffield, London and Manchester; and if he will make a statement before the venue is announced.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. It is too early to say what visa requirements will be in place in 2002.

WALES

  Grant-maintained Schools Centre
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial assistance he has granted to the Welsh grant-maintained schools centre in High Wycombe with respect to its activities in granted to the centre; what assistance in kind has been granted to the centre; what proposals he has for further grant in aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The grant-maintained schools centre at High Wycombe provides a service for schools in both England and Wales. For the current financial year, the Department has offered a grant of up to £40,000 in respect of advice the centre offers to schools in Wales both prior to and after their incorporation as grant-maintained schools. In addition, the GMSC has been involved in the arrangement of three conferences on grant-maintained status. Details of the costs have yet to be finalised. No assistance in kind has been granted to the GMSC.

  No decisions have been taken concerning future levels of Government funding.

  Urban Investment Grant
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the members of the independent panel of professional advisers who advise on urban investment grants applications above £250,000.
  873
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The membership of the urban investment grant appraisal panel is detailed in the publication "Public Bodies: Appointments made by the Secretary of State for Wales".

  A copy of this publication has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of NHS ambulance trusts about early retirement entitlement for ambulance drivers, control room staff and management aged over 55 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. My right hon. Friend is considering what arrangements might be introduced to facilitate the early retirement of long-serving ambulance staff in Wales.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the rationalisation of the ambulance service in Wales; and what representations he has received on proposed alterations affecting boundaries, numbers of control rooms and senior management personnel required to maximise efficiency in the service.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Proposals for the rationalisation of ambulance services in Wales are provided by the services themselves through applications for NHS trust status. Each application is subject to three months' public consultation and the representations received cover a variety of issues relating to the specific proposals for trust status. Every representation is taken into account, alongside the individual merits of the application, before a decision is made on whether to establish a trust.

  Applications have been approved in respect of the South and East Wales ambulance NHS trust, which became operational on 1 April 1993 covering services provided in Gwent, Powys and South Glamorgan, and the North Wales ambulance NHS trust which will become fully operational on 1 April 1994 covering services provided in Clwyd and Gwynedd.

  In addition, a joint application from East Dyfed and West Glamorgan ambulance services to form the West Wales ambulance NHS trust has been deferred with an invitation to re-present proposals to obtain trust status from 1 April 1995.

  Copies of the NHS trust applications have been placed in the Library of the House.

  One-Stop Shops
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the setting up of one-stop shops for enterprise support in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answers of 16 December 1993,Official Report, columns 854–55, and 11 January 1994, Official Report, column 102.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Animal Health Programme
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to get financial assistance from the EC veterinary fund to assist in his animal health programme.
  874
  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland sumbitted on application in 1991 for assistance from the EC veterinary fund in respect of expenditure on animal disease eradication. The application was unsuccessful due to the fund being heavily oversubscribed and this was also the position in 1992 and 1993 when the application was carried forward. The Department's bid remains active for 1994.

  Badgers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by county the number of badgers shot and gassed in each year since 1988; and what percentage of those badgers were subsequently shown to have tuberculosis.

  Mr. Ancram
  In Northern Ireland badgers are protected by the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and it is illegal for badgers to be shot or gassed. Since the order took effect, no badger has been shot or gassed for disease investigation purposes and there are no records of any illegal shooting or gassing.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research he has carried out into the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in badgers in Northern Ireland; and what evidence he has that badgers are a source of tuberculosis in cattle in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Past studies based mainly on road casualty badgers indicated that they do not represent a significant factor in the spread of bovine TB. In Northern Ireland there is no evidence that badgers are a major source of TB infection in cattle. It is estimated that badgers are responsible for some 2 per cent. of herd breakdowns at present.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many general practitioners received gross payments in excess of £200,000 per year in each year since 1991–92.

  Mr. Ancram
  There were four in 1991–92 and 10 in 1992–93. In each case, the general medical practitioner was a dispensing doctor whose payments, in addition to the normal fees and allowances for providing general medical services, included dispensing fees and reimbursement of the cost of drugs supplied to patients.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Argentina
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current state of Anglo-Argentinian relations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Relations with Argentina are good. Ministers meet frequently. Trade and investment are growing fast. We co-operate in a wide range of areas. But we reject Argentina's continued claim to the Falkland Islands and other British dependent territories.

  China
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total money received in compensation from the Chinese
  875
  Government under the Foreign Compensation (People's Republic of China) Order 1987 in respect of losses incurred between 1949 and 1952; what is the total value of claims received; what is the total value of claims allowed; what is the total amount paid out to claims to date; what is the percentage settlement being used; what is the total amount spent on administration; how much interest was earned whilst Ernst and Young deliberated; and what is the current balance of the fund.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1987, the Chinese Government agreed a settlement of £23,468,008 for all British claims arising before 1 January 1980 but had a counter-claim of their own. As a result, the net amount passed to the Foreign Compensation Commission was £21,873,660·35.

  The total value of claims received was £152,355,040. The total value awarded by the commission was £40,375,214. The percentage settlement being used is 62·25 per cent. The total amount paid to date is £25,127,550·34.

  To date, £3,323,506·97 has been spent on administration. Interest earned was £8,786,835·29 on which £2,198,277·30 has been paid in tax. The commission reports that there is currently £50,058 at the bank. The figure includes unclaimed payments.

  It is not possible without considerable research to differentiate the claims for losses incurred between 1949 and 1952.

  Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many papers have been presented by the United Kingdom Government to the United Nations and the review conferences of the 1972 biological and toxin weapons convention disclosing information on Britain's past biological warfare activities; and why and when these papers were presented.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has twice provided a "Declaration of past activities in offensive and/or defensive biological research and development programmes" to the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs in Geneva. These declarations were required under the confidence-building measures adopted by the 1991 third review conference of the 1972 bacteriological—biological—and toxic weapons convention. They were submitted in April 1992 and April 1993.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) of 17 January,Official Report, columns 354–55, which of the conventions arid agreements listed have entered into force.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The following have entered into force:

  European convention on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles

  Agreement relating to application of the European convention on international commercial arbitration

  European convention of the supervision of conditionally sentenced or conditionally released offenders

  European convention on the punishment of road traffic offences European agreement of "au-pair" placement

  European convention on the international validity of criminal judgments

  European convention on the transfer of proceedings in criminal
  876
  matters

  European convention on the calculation of time limits

  European convention on social security

  Supplementary agreement to the European convention on social security

  Agreement on the transfer of corpses

  European convention on the international effects of deprivation of the right to drive a motor vehicle

  European convention on the legal status of migrant workers

  European convention on the service abroad of documents relating to administrative matters

  European convention on the obtaining abroad of information and evidence in administrative matters

  European convention on the control of the acquisition and possession of firearms by individuals

  European convention for the protection of animals for slaughter

  European outline convention of transfrontier co-operation between territorial communities or authorities

  European charter of local self-government

  European convention for the protection of pet animals

  European convention on the general equivalence of periods of university study

  Sovereign Islands
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all islands in the world larger than 10,000 sq m that are not subject to a unique sovereignty, setting out the different sovereign powers in each case.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Foreign Compensation Commission
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who are the members currently appointed to the Foreign Compensation Commission.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The currently appointed members of the Foreign Compensation Commission are Mr. A. W. E. Wheeler, CBE—Chairman—and Mr. J. A. S. Hall, DFC.

  Law of the Sea Convention
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current status of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and the British Government's position on the convention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations convention on the law of the sea has now been ratified by 60 countries. It will enter into force in accordance with its terms on 16 November 1994. Although the convention contains many provisions of substantial value, we made known to the House in 1984 our objections to part XI of the convention which covers deep seabed mining. We welcomed and have participated fully in consultation under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General aimed at resolving the issues which have prevented industrialised countries from ratifying the convention. We will play an active part in the next round of consultations to be held in New York from 31 January to 4 February.
  877

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mining Museums
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that mining museums continue to receive technical expertise, services and material for collection after the privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  It will be for the mining museums to establish links with the new coal mining companies when British Coal is privatised.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Coal Task Force.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Coal Task Force was recently superseded by a new body, the Advisory Committee on Coal Research, whose membership is as follows:

  Dr. K. Brown (Chairman)

  Energy Technology Support Unit

  Dr. J. Billingsley

  Power Gen

  Dr. H. Davies

  British Gas

  Dr. B. Gainey

  Shell Coal

  Mr. R. Haywood

  Rolls Royce Power Engineering

  Mr. J. Monson

  British Steel

  Mr. A. Oliver

  National Power

  Mr. J. Perrin

  Babcock Energy Ltd.

  Dr. D. Pollard

  European Gas Turbines Ltd.

  Miss B. Webster

  Webster Mining Co. Ltd.

  Dr. J. Whitehead

  Coal Research Establishment

  Prof. A. Williams

  Leeds University

  Prof. J. Patrick

  Loughborough University

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is as follows:

  Sir Anthony Cleaver—Chairman

  Mr. J. Bullock

  Dr. B. L. Eyre, CBE

  Professor Sir Peter Hirsch, FRS

  Dr. D. Pooley

  Mr. R. Sanderson, OBE

  Dr. R. S. Nelson

  Professor Sir Roger Elliott

  Mr. A. W. Hills

  Mrs. V. S. Shirley, OBE

  878
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Fuel Cell Advisory Panel.

  Mr. Eggar
  The members currently appointed to the Fuel Cell Advisory Panel are:

  Dr. N A Pratten—chairman

  Manager, Energy Efficiency Technical Department

  Energy Technology Support Unit

  Dr. Gary Acres

  Director of Technology Planning

  Johnson Matthey plc

  Member, Advisory Council on Research and Development—ACORD

  Mr. Robert Carpenter

  Assistant Manager, Heating Plant Division,

  Midlands Research Station

  British Gas plc

  Dr. David Hodgett

  Operations Director

  EA Technology

  Dr. Susan Ion

  Head of Research and Development, Fuel Division

  British Nuclear Fuels plc

  Mr. John Loughead

  Director, Engineering Research Centre, Stafford

  GEC Alsthom Ltd.

  Dr. Julian Packer

  Engineering Director

  Combined Power Systems Ltd.

  Dr. Bryn Price

  Head of Applied Science Laboratory, Derby

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Mr. Clive Seymour

  Products Development Manager

  Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.

  Dr. Colin Snowdon

  ICI Visiting Fellow, Department of Engineering Science

  University of Oxford

  Mr. Richard Liwicki—Assessor

  Programme Manager, Electrical and Power Industries

  SERC—Science and Engineering Council

  Mr. Adrian Hyde—Assessor

  Electricity Division

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Offshore Industry Advisory Board.

  Mr. Eggar
  The members currently appointed to the Offshore Industry Advisory Board are:

  E. A. Blair

  President, Hamilton Brothers, Oil and Gas Ltd.

  K. A. Bray, CBE

  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, European Gas Turbines.

  D. Clark, OBE

  Chairman, Process and Energy Sector, AMEC.

  B. L. Crowe, CMG

  International Economic Issues, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  H. W. Dalton

  MD, Exploration and Production, British Gas.

  879

  J. E. d'Ancona

  Director General, Offshore Supplies Office, Department of Trade and Industry.

  A. Davis

  Managing Director, British Steel, Seamless Tubes.

  Dr. C. E. Fay

  MD, Shell UK Exploration and Production.

  R. T Fox

  Vice Chairman, Kleinworth Benson Group plc.

  Mrs. L M. Fraser

  Assistant Treasurer, Mobil North Sea Ltd.

  R. Garrick, CBE

  MD and Chief Executive, Weir Group plc.

  Dr. C. S. Gibson-Smith

  Chief Executive—Europe, BP Exploration.

  D. Hall

  Head—Projects and Export Policy Division, Department Trade and Industry.

  K. N. Henry

  Chief Executive, Brown and Root Ltd.

  Mr. P. E. Kingston

  Consultant, Enterprise Oil plc.

  W. S. H. Laidlaw

  MD, Amerada Hess Ltd.

  P. C. K O'Ferrall, OBE

  Chairman, Lloyds Register.

  Robinson

  Chief Executive, John Brown plc

  C. M. Smith, CBE

  MD, Chevron UK Ltd.

  Dr. K. H. Taylor

  Chairman and Chief Executive, Esso Exploration and Production UK plc.

  Mrs. J. Verdon

  Managing Director, ISA Controls Ltd.

  J. J. Wildasin

  President and Chief Operating Officer, McDermott Marine Construction.

  Sir Ian Wood

  Chairman and MD, John Wood Group plc

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to put nuclear waste materials down non-working pits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am advised that the nuclear industry has no such plans.

  Offshore Operators
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take to ensure that offshore operating companies are not able to avoid their legal and financial obligations relating to the payment of fines under health and safety prosecutions if they have been taken over; what time scale he envisages for this action; and if he will make a statement.
  880
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 14 December 1993]: I am not convinced of the need to take steps for this purpose.

  Safety Regulations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what responses were received by his Department to his recent consultation on relaxation of the Furniture and Furnishings Fire (Safety) Regulations 1988 and the Night Wear Safety Regulations 1985; which bodies expressed support for relaxing these regulations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on what conclusions his Department has reached on the relaxation of the Furniture and Furnishings Fire (Safety) Regulations 1988 and the Night Wear Safety Regulations 1985.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answers 20 January 1994]: The recent consultation exercise on the Furniture and Furnishings Fire (Safety) Regulations 1988—as amended of—and the Nightwear Safety Regulations 1985, in the context of the deregulation initiative, brought forward responses from a wide range of business and consumer interests. The detailed responses are being analysed and it is too early to reach conclusions on what changes—if any—are appropriate.

HEALTH

  NHS Administration
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many managers and administrators are currently employed by(a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities and (c) family health service authorities; at what cost to taxpayers; and what were the corresponding figures in 1991 and 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Table 1 General and senior managers and administrative and clerical staff employed in the Regional/District Health Authority structure at 30 September—whole time equivalents.

  1991

  1992

  General/senior managers

  10,640

  10,470

  Administrative and Clerical

  100,660

  82,530

  Table 2 General and senior managers and administrative and clerical staff employed in Family Health Service Authorities in England at 30 September—whole time equivalents

  1991

  1992

  General/senior managers

  790

  1,040

  Administrative and clerical

  4,650

  5,240

  Source: DH Form KM49.

  Notes:

  1. Table 1 provides the numbers of staff in regional health authority and district health authority headquarters and directly managed units; NHS trusts, the London ambulance service, special health authorities and other statutory authorities are excluded.

  2. A small number of FHSA staff are employed by the RHAs and are included in table 1. These staff are excluded from the FHSA figures given in table 2.

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

  4. 30 September 1992 is the latest date for which information is
  881

  Table 3 Salaries and Wages Costs of General and Senior Managers in England

  £000s

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Regional Health Authorities

  24,142

  46,922

  59,106

  District Health Authorities

  223,221

  277,179

  290,149

  Table 4 Salaries and Wages Costs of Administration and Clerical Staff in England

  £000s

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Regional Health Authorities

  114,146

  131,275

  109,104

  District Health Authorities

  1,050,370

  1,056,824

  920,570

  Sources:

  1. Annual accounts of RHAs and DHAs for 1990–91.

  2. Annual financial returns of RHAs and DHAs for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are for RHAs and DHAs. They include directly managed units, but exclude NHS Trusts, special health authorities and other statutory authorities.

  2. 1992–93 figures are provisional.

  3. The figures for general and senior managers should be treated with caution because the national increase in their number—and hence salary costs—is largely due to the reclassification of other professional and administrative staff as general and senior managers.

  Table 5 Salaries and Wages Costs of all Staff in FHSA's in England

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  Family health services authorities

  67,393

  88,564

  111,480

  Source: Annual accounts of FHSAs.

  Notes:

  1. Salaries and wages costs are not identified in separate categories for FHSA staff. The majority of expenditure will be for administration/ management staff.

  2. Figures for 1992–93 are provisional.

  3. "Salaries and wages costs" represent all employers' costs including gross salaries, national insurance and employers' pension costs.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are currently in operation for cross-departmental co-ordination of Government policy in relation to alcohol misuse and its consequences; and what plans there are for future co-ordination.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government remain committed to taking effective action to deal with the consequences of alcohol misuse both for the individual and the community.

  Action is focused on the promotion of sensible drinking habits including meeting the targets set out in "The Health of the Nation". I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's decision to transfer responsibility for the co-ordination of Government policy on alcohol misuse to EDH(H), the cabinet sub-committee responsible for "The Health of the Nation" and to expand its membership accordingly.

  University College London Hospitals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the further efficiency measures she has suggested to University College London hospitals.
  882
  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have made clear our commitment to retaining University College London Hospitals as a world-class centre of medical teaching and research. UCLH is already undertaking a major cost improvement programme in 1993–94, and North East Thames regional health authority is discussing with the unit how services can be provided most efficiently in future.

  Family Health Services Authorities
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the budget of each family health services authority convened by the London implementation group for each year from 1990 to 1995.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Expenditure for the years 1990–91 to 1992–93 of each family health service authority whose area falls wholly or in part in the London initiative zone is shown in the table.

  Budgets are not set for family health services as most elements of expenditure are demand-led and funded accordingly. Budgets for FHSA cash-limited expenditure are issued by regional health authorities and are not available centrally.

  Gross expenditure of family health services authorities

  Authority

  Year

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Brent and Harrow

  55,948,634

  51,986,077

  60,799,056

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  72,582,053

  71,167,352

  81,032,384

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  42,428,334

  41,604,503

  48,133,097

  Barking and Havering

  39,570,512

  38,935,837

  44,089,197

  Camden and Islington

  44,465,457

  40,875,179

  48,336,119

  City and East London

  72,327,505

  73,706,590

  86,561,387

  Enfield and Haringey

  50,226,717

  50,373,635

  58,238,102

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  48,575,570

  48,033,524

  55,881,603

  Greenwich and Bexley

  44,170,728

  45,761,746

  51,332,685

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  80,328,536

  83,416,519

  95,336,498

  Croydon

  32,996,828

  31,720,157

  35,950,625

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  63,235,072

  66,298,721

  74,237,746

  Notes:

  Source: Audited accounts of the authorities, total gross expenditure.

  2. Payments to general dental practitioners for general dental services are not included in 1991–92 and 1992–93 as the Dental Practice Board assumed responsibility for such payments from 1 April 1991.

  3. The authorities included are those which fall wholly or in part within the London initiative zone as defined in "Making London Better", February 1993.

  Medical Services Funding
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the funding for general medical services by region in each of the last three years; and what is projected for the next two years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure on general medical services by region for the years 1990–91 and 1992–93 is shown in the table.

  Projected expenditure for future years is not available: most elements of general medical services expenditure are demand led and funded accordingly. Budgets for

  883
  cash-limited expenditure on the general medical services are issued by regional health authorities and are not available centrally.

  General medical services expenditure by region

  Region

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £

  £

  £

  Northern

  122,989,021

  136,007,122

  147,860,526

  Yorkshire

  149,405,550

  170,025,108

  184,184,461

  Trent

  190,445,047

  213,810,189

  234,363,722

  East Anglian

  89,778,335

  102,767,280

  113,709,212

  North West Thames

  158,263,698

  177,377,481

  194,216,444

  North East Thames

  164,796,569

  181,707,722

  203,234,834

  South East Thames

  156,317,652

  179,843,993

  196,151,536

  South West Thames

  121,078,560

  141,373,233

  149,872,536

  Wessex

  122,291,245

  140,076,992

  151,505,080

  Oxfordshire

  109,953,026

  123,917,087

  138,089,077

  South Western

  157,299,584

  175,559,932

  185,364,931

  West Midlands

  204,916,256

  230,471,586

  252,117,604

  Mersey

  95,638,944

  108,302,334

  118,200,670

  North Western

  148,830,792

  169,855,541

  184,091,576

  Notes:

  Source: Family health services authorities' annual accounts.

  2. 1991–92 and 1992–93 figures include practice fund management allowances and general practitioner fundholder expenditure in respect of staff costs reimbursements. Expenditure in relation to general practitioner fundholder prescribing and hospital purchases is excluded.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will quantify the cost of the factors which led to an increase in the cost of cars for Ministers in his Department since 1990–91.

  Mr. Sackville
  Four main factors have led to the increase in the cost of Government car service cars for Ministers in the Department. First, the effect of inflation on GCS costs, particularly pay, vehicles and fuel. Secondly, during this period the GCS restructured its charges to reflect the fact that it had been under-recovering its full costs in 1990–91. Thirdly, the rate of value added tax has increased from 15 per cent. to 17½ per cent. Fourthly, there was the provision of an additional vehicle for an extra Minister in 1992, which accounts for some 20 per cent. of the increase.

  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost to the NHS of the IVF programme over the past four years; how many babies have been born as a result of this programme; and how many embryos(a) have been donated, (b) are currently in storage and (c) were destroyed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested cannot be separately identified.

  Educational Qualifications
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list in rank order for each district council in England the number and percentage of adult residents who have no post-18 educational qualifications.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information from a 10 per cent. sample from the 1991 census will be placed in the Library. In the table, local authority districts are ranked according to 884
  percentage of residents aged over 18, who have no qualifications obtained after age 18—other than those usually obtained at school.

  Information
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations underlay her decision not to collect information centrally on(a) response times by ambulance services, (b) hospitals which failed to treat patients within the waiting time set out in the patients charter, (c) the disease optic neuritis, (d) the number of child patients unable to receive paediatric intensive care owing to shortage of paediatric intensive care beds, (e) the number of general practitioners receiving gross payments of £200,000 or over per year, (f) district health authorities running at (i) a surplus or (ii) a deficit on the number of people wishing to be inoculated against influenza, (g) waiting times for outpatient treatment by (i) regional health authorities and (ii) district health authorities, (h) the use of Concorde flights by health staff and (i) the number of children refused orthodontic treatment because of the limitation on extra-contractual referrals; and if she will reconsider her decision in each case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The main thrust of the national health service reforms is the devolution of responsibility to appropriate levels, allowing those providing services to be fully in charge of planning and delivery. It would be counter to those reforms for the centre to impose unnecessarily restrictive monitoring systems and to require returns for, and about, every step in the process of procuring and delivering health care.

  Social Classes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each district council in England the proportion of the district population in social classes 3G4 and 5.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information, based on a 10 per cent. sample from the 1991 census will be placed in the Library. As there is no social class 3G, the table shows social class IIIM—skilled-manual.

  GPs (Misconduct)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the length of time on average involved in determining cases involving complaints against general practitioners accused of professional misconduct.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since we announced an independent review of all national health service complaints procedures, chaired by Professor Alan Wilson, a large number of representations have been received by the review committee, many of which have referred to the length of time taken to deal with complaints made by individuals.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health iuf she will list, by region and district, the responses made to NHS management executive circular EL(93)37 indicating the number of individual services(a) currently being market tested and (b) planned to be market tested.
  885
  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to publish this information. As stated in paragraph 2 of the annex to EL(93)37, the information will be available as a source of management information for the national health service and national health service management executive.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place a copy in the Library of the advice circular to the national health service from the Government Actuary's Department in relation to the pension package minimum equivalence with respect to contractors seeking work from a Government Department under market testing and competitive tendering, where the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Regulations) 1981 apply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government Actuary Department has not issued a general circular to the national health service as a result of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE.

  The national health service management executive issued guidance on TUPE on 5 November 1993, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Although pensions are not covered by the TUPE regulations, the management executive guidance suggests that advice on pensions equivalance may be obtained from the GAD on a case-by-case basis.

  Cars
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list in rank order for each district council in England the number of households without a car.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information from the 1991 census will be placed in the Library. In the table, local authority districts are ranked according to the percentage of households with no car.

  Long-term Illness
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many households in each district council in England include an occupant suffering limiting long-term illness; and what percentage this group constitutes of the area's total households in each case.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information from the 1991 census will be placed in the Library.

  Health Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the total final cash allocations and (b) the actual outturn expenditure for each district health authority in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Cash allocations to districts are issued by regional health authorities and are not recorded centrally. Information on revenue expenditure by district will be placed in the Library.

  Abortion
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of terminations of pregnancies were funded by the NHS in 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested will shortly be published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in monitor AB 94/1.
  886

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Dementia
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people under the age of 20 years in each of the last five years have suffered from Creutzfeldt-Jakob dementia; and of these how many had not had any growth treatment previously.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are not aware of any people under the age of 20 in the United Kingdom proven to be suffering from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the last five years.

  GPs (Staff)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the average reimbursement to GPs for salaries for receptionists, practice managers, secretaries and administrators in each year since 1990–91, excluding the GP fundholding management allowance.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Patients' Notes
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) who, apart from doctors, has access to patients' notes in hospitals;

  (2) whether hospital managers have right of access to patients' notes.

  Mr. Sackville
  Personal health information is handled on a strict "need to know" basis in the national health service. Besides doctors and other health professionals, managers and administrative staff may also need to see patients' notes in order, for example, to plan services and arrange appointments. Individual members of staff should only have access to that part of the information which is necessary for them to carry out their duties. Advice to the NHS on this will be included in the guidance on confidentiality which we hope to issue for consultation shortly.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has as to the use to which GP fundholders have put surplus funds from 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All savings must be used for the benefit of patients. The detailed rules setting out the uses for which general practitioner fundholders may use savings are in paragraph 24 of the National Health Service (Fundholding Practices) Regulations 1993, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hospital Closures
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans the Edgware health trust has to build new office premises in the grounds of the Barnet general hospital;

  (2) what plans there are for the closure of Edgware general hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Wellhouse Trust comprises the Edgware and Barnet general hospitals. Barnet health agency's five-year strategy proposes the development of Barnet hospital and the reshaping or closure of Edgware hospital. The period of public consultation ends on 31 January. Any formal proposal to close Edgware hospital would be subject to separate public consultation.
  887

  Casualty Services, London
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has received the report of the accident and emergency reference group on casualty services in London; and what plans she has to publish it.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what form the accident and emergency reference group reported for the London implementation group; and if she will publish this report.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The accident and emergency reference group was set up to advise the London implementation group on accident and emergency services in London. The group has not been asked to produce a report.

  Asthma
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to include the reduction of asthma in the objectives of "The Health of the Nation"; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We believe that further development and research is necessary before national targets in respect of asthma can be set. In 1992–93 the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, spent over £1·5 million on research into asthma and areas which may be relevant to the condition.

  Family Health Services Authorities
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are the members currently appointed to each of the family health services authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Members of family health services authorities are appointed by regional health authorities.

  Barnet Health Agency
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to public funds of the production and distribution of the publication "Focus on Health-A Strategic Framework 1993–1998" by the Barnet health agency in terms of(a) managerial costs, (b) production costs and (c) distribution costs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Barnet health authority is still consulting on its five-year strategy. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Alan Jacobs, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she proposes to raise the matter of an upper age limit on the availability of infertility treatment within the European Community; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has stated in its second annual report that it will be addressing the issue of treatment for post-menopausal women in the coming year. The Government will consider this matter further after they receive the authority's advice.
  888

  Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are the members currently appointed to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy.

  Mr. Sackville
  Current membership of COMA is:

  MEMBERS

  Dr. K. C. Caiman—Chair

  Government Chief Medical Officer, Department of Health

  Dr. P. Aggett

  Agricultural and Food Research Council, Institute of Food Research, Norwich

  Dr. S. Bingham

  Non-clinical Scientist, Dunn Clinical Nutrition Unit, Cambridge

  Professor F. Cockburn

  Samson Gemmell Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow

  Ms A. Foster

  Director, Scottish Consumer Council

  Dr. G. Fowler

  Clinical Reader in General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford

  Professor Grimley Evans

  Professor of Geriatric Medicine, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford

  Professor A. A. Jackson

  Professor of Human Nutrition, University of Southampton

  Professor W. P. T. James

  Director, Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen

  Professor M. Marmot

  Professor of Community Medicine, University College and Middlesex Medical School

  EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS

  Professor K. Alberti

  Director of Research and Development, Northern Regional Health Authority, Chairman of Nutrition Programme Committee

  Dr. J. Chambers

  Health Education Authority

  Dr. H. Denner

  Chief Scientist (Food), Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Dr. Hine

  Chief Medical Officer, Welsh Office

  Dr. M. Kemp

  Medical Research Council

  Dr. Kendell

  Chief Medical Officer, Scottish Office

  Dr. McKenna

  Chief Medical Officer, Department of Health and Social Security, Northern Ireland

  NHS (Cars)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cars have been allocated to the managers, advisers and administrators employed by the NHS trust hospitals in each of the last two financial years;

  (2) how many cars have been allocated to NHS managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff in each of the last five years for which figures are available;

  (3) how many cars have been allocated to NHS nurses in (a) the hospital service and (b) the community service in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
  889
  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in her Department's review of food safety and hygiene; and when its conclusions will be reported.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has three major reviews under way in the area of food safety and hygiene. These form part of the Government's food law deregulation plan which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 14 September 1993. These are:i. a wide-ranging review of all food temperature controls both in domestic and European Community legislation. A consultation on options both for change to United Kingdom legislation and for negotiation in the EC finished on 31 December. We shall make an announcement when the responses have been considered.
  ii. As part of the process of drafting regulations to implement the EC hygiene of foodstuffs directive, the Department has undertaken a review of domestic food hygiene legislation. We expect consultation on proposed new regulations will begin in February 1994. We plan to lay regulations before Parliament in the summer of 1994.
  iii. Under the EC hygiene of foodstuffs directive, the EC Commission must review the relationship between that directive and product specific food hygiene directives. We and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food aim to consult UK industry and other interests in the spring about options arising from the review before taking them forward to EC forums for discussion.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decision her Department's review of food safety and hygiene has reached in respect of the responsibility on retailers to check suppliers' storage areas if a product arrived at the required temperature.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no requirement in food law for retailers to carry out checks on suppliers' storage areas.

  Dentistry
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pregnant women received free dental treatment in each year since 1978–79.

  Number of dental patients registered at 31 March by region

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Region

  Adults

  Children

  Adults

  Children

  Adults

  Children

  Northern

  649,578

  239,078

  1,195,135

  389,836

  1,341,297

  420,265

  Yorkshire

  882,889

  311,465

  1,522,004

  486,054

  1,713,751

  524,295

  Trent

  1,051,920

  392,884

  1,871,795

  621,916

  2,114,935

  669,783

  East Anglia

  527,607

  213,725

  891,571

  289,320

  969,992

  300,802

  North West Thames

  593,438

  224,040

  1,252,037

  393,974

  1,457,164

  422,887

  North East Thames

  614,360

  238,172

  1,317,709

  416,204

  1,544,853

  450,396

  South East Thames

  740,094

  271,750

  1,405,098

  433,260

  1,525,461

  465,907

  South West Thames

  613,565

  240,174

  1,139,307

  377,684

  1,252,572

  400,101

  Wessex

  782,841

  273,117

  1,278,498

  399,876

  1,384,686

  423,329

  Oxford

  520,188

  235,926

  937,978

  355,515

  1,022,212

  376,492

  South West

  984,063

  344,602

  1,603,365

  497,499

  1,694,952

  522,918

  West Midlands

  1,183,315

  432,641

  2,068,975

  666,499

  2,294,996

  707,725

  Mersey

  564,545

  213,641

  1,001,407

  334,052

  1,134,834

  354,292

  North West

  942,400

  391,574

  1,621,160

  577,496

  1,781,811

  604,683

  England

  10,650,803

  4,022,789

  19,106,039

  6,239,185

  21,233,516

  6,643,875

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices accepted national health service patients in each region in each year since 1978–79.
  890
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not available centrally on the number of women for whom treatment was provided. The table shows the available information on the number of courses of treatment provided.

  General dental services: England Courses of treatment—expectant and nursing mothers1 from 1978 to year ending March 19932

  Expectant mothers3

  Nursing mothers3

  Total

  1978

  —

  —

  760,030

  1979

  —

  —

  771,970

  1980

  —

  —

  845,530

  1981

  —

  —

  846,690

  1982

  —

  —

  879,190

  1983

  —

  —

  886,090

  1984

  —

  —

  890,470

  1985

  —

  —

  903,760

  1986–87

  —

  —

  968,720

  1987–88

  —

  —

  978,770

  1988–89

  —

  —

  1,015,140

  1989–90

  —

  —

  1,044,250

  1990–914

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  452,555

  665,310

  1,117,865

  1992–93

  443,922

  672,609

  1,116,531

  1 Mothers aged 18 and over.

  2 Data for 1978 to 1985 are available for calendar year only.

  3 Separate data for expectant and nursing mothers are not available before 1991–92.

  4 Data for 1990–91 are not available.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were registered as national health service dental patients in each region in each year since 1978–79.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Registration figures are only available from October 1990. The table shows by region in England the numbers of adults and children registered with national health service dentists at 31 March 1991, 1992 and 1993. Over this period there has been a net increase in patient registrations in every region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. However, there are now more dentists in contract with family health services authorities for the provision of national health service dental treatment than ever before.
  891

  Health Service Staff
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 3 December,Official Report, columns 807–10, if she will give the total salary costs for each group in each region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Number of prescriptions (millions) dispensed in the family health service authorities England 1979 to 1992

  Chargeable

  Year

  Charge at point of dispensing

  Pre-payment certificate

  Chargeable total

  No charge made

  Dispensing doctor and personal administration

  Grand total

  1979

  108·7

  10·4

  119·1

  185·5

  17·2

  321·8

  1980

  90·9

  15·2

  106·1

  197·2

  17·6

  320·9

  1981

  76·5

  18·3

  94·8

  205·2

  18·0

  318·0

  1982

  76·5

  18·4

  94·9

  216·4

  19·2

  330·5

  1983

  70·6

  17·8

  88·4

  226·9

  20·0

  336·3

  1984

  69·6

  17·5

  87·1

  233·4

  21·8

  342·3

  1985

  63·2

  16·9

  80·1

  238·5

  23·2

  341·8

  1986

  60·3

  15·7

  76·0

  246·6

  24·1

  346·7

  1987

  60·6

  15·6

  76·2

  259·0

  26·3

  361·6

  1988

  61·6

  16·1

  77·7

  268·8

  28·9

  375·5

  1989

  61·4

  16·8

  78·2

  273·7

  31·6

  383·5

  1990

  601

  17·6

  77·7

  282·8

  34·3

  394·8

  1991

  56·1

  18·2

  74·3

  296·4

  35·8

  406·5

  1992

  55·0

  18·6

  73·6

  313·1

  38·3

  425·1

  Notes:

  1. The analysis of the exempt and non exempt categories is based on a 1 in 20 sample of all prescriptions submitted to the Prescription Pricing Authority by community pharmacists and appliance contractors. Dispensing doctor and personal administration prescriptions are not analysed into exempt and non exempt categories.

  2. 1979 to 1990 data are based on fees. 1991 and 1992 data are based on items.

  3. Figures may not add up due to rounding.

  Child Meningitis
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of meningitis in children were recorded in the years 1983 to 1993; and in how many cases this was fatal.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the tables.

  Number of recorded cases of meningitis in children (0–14 years old) in England and Wales from 1983–1992

  Year

  Notifications

  1983

  796

  1984

  795

  1985

  934

  1986

  1,462

  1987

  1,717

  1988

  1,876

  1989

  1,776

  1990

  1,673

  1991

  1,717

  11992

  1,693

  1 Data is provisional.

  Data for 1993 are not yet available

  Deaths of children (0–14 years) from all forms of Meningitis. 1ICD's 013·0, 036·0, 047·0, 047·1, 047·8, 047·9, 049·0, 049·1, 053·0, 072·1. 091·8, 094·2, 320 and 322 for 1983–1992 in England and Wales,

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1983

  120

  1984

  95

  1985

  130

  892

  Prescriptions
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of prescriptions processed in each year since 1978–79; and of that total, how many were (i) free of charge, (ii) covered by a prepayment certificate and (iii) paid for in some other way.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1986

  118

  1987

  132

  1988

  111

  1989

  110

  1990

  90

  1991

  112

  1992

  92

  1International Classification of Diseases 9th revision.

  Data for 1993 are not yet available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to reduce the incidence of meningitis in children.

  Mr. Sackville
  The inclusion of a vaccine against haemophilus influenze type b, Hib-one of the two main causes of bacterial meningitis in young children—in the childhood immunisation programme from 1 October 1992 has resulted in a dramatic drop of over 80 per cent. in cases of invasive Hib disease in children under one year, the main target group for immunisation. Effective vaccines against the commonest form of meningococcal disease—the other main cause of bacterial meningitis in young children—are not yet available; the Department of Health is funding research to assist in the development of these vaccines.
  893

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of persons appointed to NHS trusts and authorities in England and Wales, showing name, current employment and whether resident in the relevant trust or authority area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 17 January at column 385, for information on chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts in England.

  Non-executive members of district health authorities and family health services authorities are appointed by regional health authorities from amongst those who live or work in the area covered by the authority or trust, or have connections with it. Information on the place of residence of those persons appointed to NHS authorities and trusts is available from them.

  Details of chairmen and non-executive members of regional health authorities and special health authorities, and chairmen of district health authorities and family health services authorities will be placed in the Library.

  The appointment of persons to NHS authorities and trusts in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Clinical Trials
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to reduce the regulations governing clinical trial authorisation.

  Mr. Sackville
  As part of the deregulation initiative task forces were set up to advise Ministers on priorities for the repeal of simplification of existing regulations so as to minimise the costs on business. The chemicals and pharmaceuticals deregulation task force identified clinical trial authorisation as an area of regulation that might be simplified.

  Number of NHS sight tests paid for by financial year

  Regional health authority

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–901

  1990–911

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern

  592,050

  599,980

  627,570

  697,970

  740,420

  336,840

  275,590

  314,710

  345,890

  Yorkshire

  722,730

  730,350

  752,340

  843,200

  906,140

  403,450

  311,630

  368,240

  408,800

  Trent

  912,550

  950,010

  980,900

  1,095,300

  1,166,700

  514,960

  406,780

  483,640

  528,080

  East Anglia

  380,580

  408,760

  422,030

  468,670

  493,110

  191,460

  159,900

  194,320

  222,090

  North West Thames

  828,710

  853,400

  862,330

  943,670

  1,016,600

  384,370

  290,210

  354,260

  397,350

  North East Thames

  894,530

  914,430

  943,440

  1,027,970

  1,054,960

  468,230

  361,430

  440,270

  494,040

  South East Thames

  734,580

  761,800

  803,560

  875,140

  927,760

  385,600

  296,850

  359,930

  406,730

  South West Thames

  625,840

  648,680

  652,880

  710,560

  735,310

  283,000

  220,360

  267,800

  295,330

  Wessex

  619,230

  645,870

  697,710

  739,430

  806,250

  343,160

  257,990

  312,010

  348,770

  Oxford

  489,640

  515,570

  546,070

  607,850

  657,320

  221,480

  205,650

  247,540

  276,510

  South Western

  761,550

  785,870

  826,630

  917,220

  1,017,480

  418,050

  324,470

  402,870

  435,370

  West Midlands

  1,096,610

  1,154,760

  1,188,830

  1,314,230

  1,438,370

  633,980

  488,220

  573,960

  640,530

  Mersey

  449,750

  465,660

  473,640

  531,580

  562,130

  259,840

  204,910

  246,340

  271,730

  North Western

  773,810

  810,630

  837,510

  922,020

  970,270

  435,340

  349,690

  413,550

  456,360

  England

  9,882,150

  10,245,780

  10,615,430

  11,694,800

  12,492,830

  5,279,750

  4,153,660

  4,979,420

  5,527,590

  Wales

  570,860

  600,710

  626,590

  697,280

  733,470

  292,060

  271,170

  332,240

  372,590

  Scotland

  884,730

  913,900

  965,160

  1,098,150

  1,168,610

  466,130

  418,130

  477,930

  521,440

  1 From 1 April 1989 NHS sight tests were restricted to certain eligible groups in the population.

  The figures for 1989–90 included 1·82 million sight tests paid for in 1989–90 but conducted in 1988–89 under the previous scheme. The remaining 4·22 million were conducted and paid for in 1989–90 which do not constitute a full 12 months of the new scheme. The figures for 1990–91 which do represent twelve months under the new scheme, are not therefore directly comparable with those for 1989–90.

  894
  The Medicines Control Agency of the Department of Health is currently consulting on proposals to simplify the operation of the clinical trial exemption—CTX—scheme. Schedule 2 to the Medicines (Exemption from Licenses) (Clinical Trials) Order 1981 lists the areas about which the Licensing Authority must be informed forthwith if the supplier proposes to make changes to an approved CTX. It is proposed to ease these requirements by removing the need to notify the Licensing Authority of changes of investigators and to introduce a usage guideline. The usage guideline will allow the supplier to supply the product for use in a new clinical trial or an on-going clinical trial without the need to notify the Licensing Authority providing that the new conditions of the trial are within the scope of the information contained in the usage guideline. This will allow pharmaceutical companies to carry out clinical trials within defined criteria without the need to notify the Licensing Authority of each and every change before proceeding. Any changes that are outside the terms of the usage guideline will still have to be notified to the Licensing Authority as currently happens.

  The consultation will close on 31 January. We will consider carefully the comments received and decide how to carry forward these proposals.

  Copies of the consultation letter, MLX203, will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Sight Tests
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service sight tests took place in each region of the United Kingdom, in each financial year since 1984–85.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of national health service sight tests paid for in each financial year in Great Britain is shown in the table. The number of NHS sight tests carried out in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Nurses
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 December,Official Report, columns

  895
  67–70, how many nurses who finished their training in each year since 1979 were offered a job in the national health service (a) in total and (b) by region in which they finished their training.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will update the answers given to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on 20 July 1993,Official Report, columns 112–14, on appointment to public bodies of peers, former hon. Members, their spouses and parliamentary candidates.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Available information about appointments made since 20 July 1993 is shown in the tables.

  National Health Service Authorities and Trusts

  FORMER HONOURABLE MEMBERS

  Mr. T. Flavell

  Chairman, Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust, 1.11.93–31.10.97 (Conservative)

  SPOUSES OF HONOURABLE MEMBERS

  Mrs. S. Biffen

  Non-executive director, The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital NHS Trust, 4.1.94–31.10.97

  Lady June Onslow

  Non-executive director, North Downs Community Health NHS Trust, 1.11.93–31.10.97

  SPOUSES OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS

  Lady Butterworth

  Director, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital Trust, 21.12.90–30.11.96

  Information concerning appointees to NHS authorities and trusts who have been party candidates for Parliament is not available centrally.

  Chairmen of NHS trusts are currently remunerated at a rate between £15,125 and £19,285 per year. Non-executive directors of NHS trusts and special health authorities receive £5,000 per year.

  Nadene Chouri
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigation she has made into the case of the delay in treating Nadene Chouri in casualty at King's College hospital; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 20 January.

  Community Care (Assessments)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data are being collected by her Department, in relation to assessment procedures, number of assessments required and number of assessments being undertaken, by local authorities, regarding care in the community.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are discussing with the local authority associations ways of including data on assessments in the Department's regular statistical collections.

  External Bodies (Funding)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make it her policy to operate a level playing field between opponents and supporters of Government health policies in future funding of external bodies;
  896
  (2) if organisations which oppose the introduction of the internal market have been offered financial support.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: The Department of Health funds external bodies on the merits of the individual applications for funding.

  NHS Trust Federation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what powers, and for what purposes, a grant of £5,000 was made to the NHS Trust Federation.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: I understand that the payment was made to the National Health Service Trust Federation to contribute towards its development costs. There was no statutory authority for such a payment, and the federation has repaid the money to the Department.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is normal practice for her Department to operate a clawback procedure where grant-aided organisations generate surpluses in years in which they are grant aided; and whether such a condition applies to the grant of £5,000 made to the NHS Trust Federation.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: The Department encourages the voluntary organisations which it grant aids to seek additional sources of income. Grants are not necessarily withdrawn or reduced because a voluntary organisation makes a surplus in a particular year, but the Department expressly reserves the right to discontinue a grant and to recover it if it is not used for the purpose for which it is given. The payment to the trust federation, which is not grant aided by the Department, was made without statutory authority and has since been recovered.

  Health Benefits Review
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recommendations were made by the health benefits review regarding the period of the certificate of entitlement to prescriptions;

  (2). whether the alternative schemes costed by the health benefits review included one based on exemptions and passporting;

  (3). whether the terms of reference of the health benefits review include part-payment of prescription charges for low-income persons; and what plans she now has to introduce such help;

  (4) when she commenced the review of the health benefits low-income scheme; what was the expected time scale for the review; and what was the expected date of publication of the results.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 22 May 1991 at column 530 that the Department of Health would undertake a review of the administration of the national health service low-income scheme during 1991, and would aim to produce proposals by the end of that year.

  The review made a number of proposals for consideration. These were reworked during 1992, as improved statistical information became available, and reconsidered afresh in 1993 as an integral part of the fundamental review of health expenditure. We plan to announce the outcome shortly.
  897

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the package of key data about the patients charter performance of each district health authority, referred to in her answer of 4 November,Official Report, column 458.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 17 January 1994]: We have no plans to publish this health authority-based data which are collected by the national health service management executive for internal management purposes only.

  We have already announced our intention to publish this summer NHS performance tables which will include key provider-based information about the patients charter performance of every NHS hospital and trust. We believe it is this information that will be of most use and interest to the general public.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Durham
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) families, (b) pensioners and (c) children were living in poverty in Durham in each of the last 14 years.

  Single waged married couple with two children aged 4 and 6 Earnings and benefits as at April 1994

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National Insurance contributions

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Council lax

  Council tax benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and council tax

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  60·00

  0·00

  1·44

  58·56

  66·70

  18·45

  32·54

  19·11

  10·35

  6·22

  169·04

  126·15

  70·00

  0·00

  2·44

  67·56

  66·70

  18·45

  32·54

  13·26

  10·35

  4·42

  170·39

  127·60

  80·00

  0·00

  3·44

  76·56

  63·30

  18·45

  32·54

  9·62

  10·35

  3·30

  171·23

  128·34

  90·00

  0·00

  4·44

  85·56

  57·00

  18·45

  32·54

  7·87

  10·35

  2·76

  171·64

  128·75

  100·00

  0·13

  5·44

  94·43

  50·79

  18·45

  32·54

  6·14

  10·35

  2·23

  172·04

  129·15

  110·00

  2·13

  6·44

  101·43

  45·89

  18·45

  32·54

  4·77

  10·35

  1·81

  172·35

  129·46

  120·00

  4·13

  7·44

  108·43

  40·99

  18·45

  32·54

  3·41

  10·35

  1·39

  172·67

  129·78

  130·00

  6·44

  8·44

  115·12

  36·30

  18·45

  32·54

  2·10

  10·35

  0·98

  172·95

  130·06

  140·00

  8·94

  9·44

  121·62

  31·75

  18·45

  32·54

  0·83

  10·35

  0·59

  173·24

  130·35

  150·00

  11·44

  10·44

  128·12

  27·20

  18·45

  32·54

  0·00

  10·35

  0·20

  173·97

  131·08

  160·00

  13·94

  11·44

  134·62

  22·65

  18·45

  32·54

  0·00

  10·35

  0·00

  175·72

  132·83

  170·00

  16·44

  12·44

  141·12

  18·10

  18·45

  32·54

  0·00

  10·35

  0·00

  177·67

  134·78

  Single waged married couple with three children aged 3, 8 and 11 Earnings and benefits as at April 1994

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National Insurance contributions

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Council tax

  Council tax benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and council tax

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  60·00

  0·00

  1·44

  58·56

  85·25

  26·70

  32·54

  16·64

  10·35

  5·46

  192·61

  149·72

  70·00

  0·00

  2·44

  67·56

  85·25

  26·70

  32·54

  10·79

  10·35

  3·66

  193·96

  151·07

  80·00

  0·00

  3·44

  76·56

  81·85

  26·70

  32·54

  7·15

  10·35

  2·54

  194·80

  151·91

  90·00

  0·00

  4·44

  85·56

  75·56

  26·70

  32·54

  5·40

  10·35

  2·00

  195·21

  152·32

  100·00

  0·13

  5·44

  94·43

  69·34

  26·70

  32·54

  3·67

  10·35

  1·47

  195·61

  152·72

  110·00

  2·13

  6·44

  101·43

  64·44

  26·70

  32·54

  2·30

  10·35

  1·05

  195·92

  153·03

  120·00

  4·13

  7·44

  108·43

  59·54

  26·70

  32·54

  0·94

  10·35

  0·63

  196·24

  153·35

  130·00

  6·44

  8·44

  115·12

  54·85

  26·70

  32·54

  0·00

  10·35

  0·22

  196·89

  154·00

  140·00

  8·94

  9·44

  121·62

  50·30

  26·70

  32·54

  0·00

  10·35

  0·00

  196·62

  155·73

  150·00

  11·44

  10·44

  128·12

  45·75

  26·70

  32·54

  0·00

  10·35

  0·00

  200·57

  157·68

  160·00

  13·94

  11·44

  134·62

  41·20

  26·70

  32·54

  0·00

  10·35

  0·00

  202·52

  159·83

  170·00

  16·44

  12·44

  141·12

  36·65

  26·70

  32·54

  0·00

  10·35

  0·00

  204·47

  161·58

  Note:

  Benefit rates for April 1994 are shown, rent and council tax values for 1993 have been used as the values for 1994 are not yet known.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables, similar to those in his
  898
  Mr. Burt
  Statistics on patterns of household disposable income, for the United Kingdom as a whole, are provided in "Households Below Average Income 1979—1990–91", published in June 1993, a copy of which is in the Library. Information is not available on a regional basis.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently without accommodation and claiming income support in Durham.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Spending Power
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables, similar to those in his Department's tax benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for each of a single waged married couple(a) with two children aged four and six years and (b) with three children aged three, eight and 11 years earning (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90, (v) £100, (vi) £110, (vii) £120, (viii) £130, (ix) £140, (x) £150, (xi) £160 and (xii) £170 per week under the benefit system as per its latest uprating.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.

  Department's tax benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for a lone mother with two children aged

  899
  four and six years under the benefit system as uprated in April 1991 and in each of the following circumstances (a) not working after one year on benefits, (b)earning £20 a

  Lone Parent with two children aged 4 and 6 Earnings and Benefits as at April 1991

  Gross Earnings

  Tax

  National Insurance contributions

  Take Home Pay

  Income Support

  Free Welfare Foods

  Family Credit

  Child Benefit

  Rent

  Rent Rebate

  Community Charge

  Community Charge Benefit

  Total Net Income

  Net Income After Rent and Community Charge

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  10·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  57·65

  5·27

  0·00

  21·10

  26·03

  26·03

  4·70

  3·76

  113·81

  83·08

  220·00

  0·00

  0·00

  20·00

  52·65

  5·27

  0·00

  21·10

  26·03

  26·03

  4·70

  3·76

  128·81

  98·08

  360·00

  0·00

  1·78

  58·24

  0·00

  0·00

  57·70

  21·10

  26·03

  8·03

  4·70

  0·00

  145·07

  114·34

  70·00

  0·00

  2·66

  67·34

  0·00

  0·00

  54·14

  21·10

  26·03

  4·43

  4·70

  0·00

  147·01

  116·28

  80·00

  0·00

  3·56

  76·44

  0·00

  0·00

  47·77

  21·10

  26·03

  2·66

  4·70

  0·00

  147·97

  117·24

  90·00

  0·00

  4·46

  85·54

  0·00

  0·00

  41·40

  21·10

  26·03

  0·88

  4·70

  0·00

  148·92

  118·19

  100·00

  0·00

  5·36

  93·75

  0·00

  0·00

  36·65

  21·10

  26·03

  0·00

  4·70

  0·00

  150·50

  119·77

  110·00

  3·39

  6·26

  100·35

  0·00

  0·00

  31·03

  21·10

  26·03

  0·00

  4·70

  0·00

  152·48

  121·75

  120·00

  5·89

  7·16

  106·95

  0·00

  0·00

  26·41

  21·10

  26·03

  0·00

  4·70

  0·00

  154·46

  123·73

  1 Not working after one year on benefits.

  2 Earning £20 per week from part·time working.

  3 Working full·time.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cold weather payments have been made in each year since 1978–79(a) in total and (b) in each standard region.

  Mr. Scott
  All the information available on cold weather payments made since their introduction in December 1986 is held in the Library.

  Taxation
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), of 14 December,Official Report, column 626, what are the numbers of (a) men and (b) women below (i) the tax threshold and (ii) the national insurance contribution threshold, by standard region of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hague
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the average duration of sickness for those in receipt of statutory sick pay(a) in total and (b) by region.

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated average number of statutory sick pay days paid in Great Britain in the period 1 April 1991 to 4 April 1992 is 15. This information is not available by region.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the total number of firms defined as small for the purposes of special compensation for statutory sick pay(a) in total in the United Kingdom and (b) in each region.

  Mr. Hague
  Subject to parliamentary approval, the existing threshold of small employers' relief will rise from 900
  week from part-time working and (c) working full time and earning (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90, (v) £100, (vi) £110 and (vii) £120 per week.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  £16,000 to £20,000 in 1994–95. We estimate that 750,000 employers in Great Britain will be eligible under the new definition. This information is not available by region. Figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Benefits Claimants
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will still be in receipt of special transitional additions in 1994–95 and the percentage of benefit increase taking effect in April.

  Mr. Burt
  Due to the very small numbers presently in receipt of special transitional addition it is impossible to give an accurate forecast of the number likely to be in receipt in 1994–95. The latest figures available are for February 1993 when 500 people were receiving a special transitional addition. Special transitional additions will increase in April by 3·5 per cent.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time between the date of application and an award from the independent living—1993—fund.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the fund that the average time taken for an application to the independent living—1993—fund to progress from initial contact to an offer of payment is 11 weeks. It takes on average a further five weeks for the offer to be accepted by the client and for payment arrangements to be made by the fund.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the projected underspend of the independent living fund during 1993–94; and if this amount will be carried over into the 1994–95 budget.

  Mr. Scott
  Total provision for the independent living fund is £124 million in 1993–94. The projected underspend
  901
  of the independent living—1993—fund during 1993–94 is £3·5 million. There is no projected underspend for the independent living—extension—fund. Normal Government accounting rules will apply to any unspent provision.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for a review of a current award have been made to the independent living—extension—fund; and how many awards have been increased as a result of this application.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the fund that the information requested is not available. However, in October 1993 the trustees of the fund initiated a programme of reviews for those clients who, for a number of reasons, were not able to make full use of the original amounts offered to them. Increased funding has now been offered to 766 clients, of whom 166 have accepted the offer made. The value of the increases now in payment is £5,958·40 per week, an average increase of £35·89 per week per client.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed by the Child Support Agency;

  (2) how many full-time staff on clerical officer grade or below employed by the Child Support Agency are (a) male and (b) female.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter form R. Hepplewhite to Mr. Dennis Skinner, dated 21 January 1994:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking for details about the staffing of the Child Support Agency.
  At 1 Janaury 1994, the Agency had 4,937 members of staff, of whom 4,156 were full-time and 781 part-time. Of full-time staff employed in clerical grades and below, 663 were male and 1,696 female.
  You may also wish to know that work is undertaken on behalf of the Agency by the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency. On 1 January 1994, 440 members of staff at the Centre in Belfast were engaged on work relating to parents with care who live in mainland Britain. Of full-time staff at clerical grades and below employed in this work, 113 were male and 228 female.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many copies of the leaflet on proposed changes to child support maintenance have been printed; when they will be available at local Department of Social Security offices; what has been the cost of the leaflet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Five hundred thousand copies of the leaflet, "Proposed Changes to Child Support Maintenance" were printed. They have been available from local offices since the second week of January. The leaflets were printed at a total cost of £21,691—zero VAT.

  Girocheques
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to his answer of 10 December 1993,Official Report, column 409, if he will make it his policy
  902
  that the Benefits Agency shall monitor centrally the number of girocheques issued by the Employment Service agency on behalf of his Department and the number of replacement girocheques issued to claimants;

  (2) how many girocheques have been issued by his Department for each of the last five years; and what was the total value of the girocheques issued for each of those years.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of payment of benefit by girocheque is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 20 January 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about girocheques issued by the Department of Social Security.
  The number of girocheques issued by the Department of Social Security in each of the last five years are as follows:

  DSS issued (million)

  Value of DSS issues (£ million)

  1988–89

  30·884

  2,292

  1989–90

  34·484

  2,619

  1990–91

  14·470

  2,814

  1991–92

  36·190

  3,304

  1992–93

  27·863

  3,509

  As you will be aware from my reply of 9.12.93., the Employment Service acts as our agent in the provision of girocheques to those who are unemployed and claiming Income Support. Data relevant to the number of girocheques issued cannot be separately identified as some girocheques are paid for a combination of benefits.
  We are advised of the number of girocheques issued by Employment Services and we are able to identify the total amount paid in respect of both Department of Social Security and Employment Service benefits. However, as a number of girocheques are issued for a combination of benefits administered by both Agencies, it is not possible to state how many girocheques were issued for Benefit Agency payments only, Employment Service payments only, or a combination of payments in respect of both Agencies.
  Within the Benefits Agency we are constantly monitoring the volume of losses of all Instruments of Payment including girocheques. Methods of preventing and reducing Instrument of Payment fraud are being developed in conjunction with Post Office Counters Ltd, Royal. Mail and the Employment Services. One of the areas we are seeking to improve is the Management Information System providing details of girocheque issues and losses. We are examining our systems to determine the detail we require to combat girocheque fraud. The decision on what information we collate centrally and subsequent implementation will be made after considering the costs involved and usefulness of such information.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what stage the market-testing process has reached in the DSS offices in Ayrshire; when he expects contracts to be awarded for these services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The market testing process in the DSS offices in Ayrshire is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  903
  Letter from M.Bichard to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 20 January 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the progress of the market testing exercise in DSS offices in Ayrshire.
  The Benefits Agency is market testing accommodation and office services and management training services to all the Agency's offices in Scotland. Tenders for the provision of management training have been received and a contract will be awarded in the near future. Invitations to tender for messenger and security services have been issued and a contract is expected to be awarded in March. Invitations to tender for typing and telephonist services are expected to be issued in about six months time and a contract awarded about two months later.
  I hope that my reply has been helpful.

  Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each scheme operated by his Department under which loans are available, the objectives of the scheme, the number of unrecovered loans, the total value of unrecovered loans, the average number of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990, the average value of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990 and the annual cost of recovering loans.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 20 January 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about loan schemes which are operated by his Department.
  The Social Fund (SF) scheme is intended to help people to meet large intermittent or unexpected expenses. There are two types of interest free loans available from the SF—Budgeting Loans (BL) and Crisis Loans (CL). BLs are available to people who have been on Income Support for at least 26 weeks to help with important expenses which are difficult to budget for out of weekly benefit. CLs are available to people who need financial help to meet expenses in an emergency or a disaster, whether they are receiving any benefit or not. However, a CL can only be awarded if it is the only way to prevent serious risk, or serious damage, to the health or safety of that person or a member of his family.
  The table at Annex A provides details of the number and total amount of unrecovered loans for each of the financial years ending March 1990 to March 1992 (latest year available).
  SF loans are normally recovered by weekly deductions from benefit. Customers can.only repay one loan at a time, so recovery of any subsequent loans is deferred to a later date. The amount outstanding therefore includes loans which have been deferred and also loans where recovery is continuing, but which have only been partially repaid.
  You also asked for the annual cost of recovering loans. Unfortunately this information is not available.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A

  Year End Date

  Number of loans unrecovered

  The value of the loans unrecovered

  (Thousands)

  £ (Millions)

  31 March 1990

  814·95

  107·691

  31 March 1991

  992·90

  138·783

  31 March 1992

  1,312·30

  178·376

  904

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 January on housing benefit to private sector tenants, if he will provide a breakdown by each housing authority in Great Britain of the amount of DSS subsidy and local authority expenditure for the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]The information is not available in the form requested for the financial year 1989–90. In view of the amount of data involved, I am arranging for copies of the available information to be placed in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Central Drugs Co-ordination Unit
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans the Government have to set up a central drugs co-ordination unit.

  Mr. Newton
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced in a written answer on 16 December 1993,Official Report, column 780, that a central drugs co-ordination unit was to be attached to the Privy Council Office. The unit will come into being on 24 January 1994 and report to me as chairman of the Cabinet Committee on drugs issues.

  Parliamentary approval to this new service will be sought in a spring supplementary estimate for the Privy Council vote—class XIX, vote 3. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure, estimated at £40,000, will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Flight ULE 966
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of(a) 22 December regarding the detention of passengers on flight ULE 966 from Jamaica and (b) 10 January regarding the detention of the pregnant wife of Mr. Graham Doughty of Nottingham.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I replied to the hon. Member's letters of 22 December and 10 January on 12 and 18 January respectively.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what redress he will offer Mrs. Maria Doughty of Honeymead drive, Daybrook Lane, for being held at Gatwick airport on 22 December 1993 before being allowed to join her husband in Nottingham.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: I have written to the hon. Member about this case. I do not believe that any redress is justified.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the Jamaicans, detained from flight JQ001, were transferred to prison detention after leaving the Campsfield detention centre; and which prisons were used.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  One who was transferred to HM prison Pentonville.
  905
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent flight ULE 966 from Kingston, Jamaica on 21 December 1993 was targeted by immigration officials; and at what level in his Department such decisions are taken.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  For the reasons given in my letters of 12 and 18 January to the hon. Member, prior arrangements were made by immigration service managers at Gatwick, in consultation with senior officers at immigration service headquarters to enable a potentially large number of individual interviews to be conducted. Every decision to refuse entry was individually authorised by an officer of chief immigration officer or inspector grade, as the immigration rules require.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline the nature of the contingency planning that took place in relation to flight ULE 966 from Kingston, Jamaica, that arrived on 21 December 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The contingency planning included arrangements for the disembarkation of the aircraft in stages, the provision of a gate lounge where passengers could sit while awaiting interview, and making available additional immigration officers from the other Gatwick offices. The immigration service was also provided with a passenger manifest 3½ hours prior to the aircraft's arrival. Further details are contained in my letters of 12 and 18 January to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason passengers on board flight ULE 966 were segregated into distinct groups before they were allowed to disembark; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Passengers on board flight ULE 966—JQ0001—were not segregated into groups before being allowed to disembark. European Community nationals and a number of unaccompanied children were invited to leave the aircraft first. The other passengers were asked to disembark progressively in groups by row number.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific evidence he has linking any of the 178 Jamaicans arriving on flight ULE 966 on 21 December 1993 who were detained, with criminal activity or with drug pushing.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is no evidence that any of these passengers is involved in criminal activity.

  Theft
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department (1) how many prisoners convicted for theft were unemployed at the time of their arrest;

  Incidents of terrorist activity in Great Britain since 21 February 1989

  Date

  Location

  (a) Connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland

  22 September 1989

  Royal marines School of Music, North Barracks, Deal, Kent

  Device exploded. Eleven people killed and 21 people injured.

  15 November 1989

  Kelso Place, Kensington

  Device made safe.

  18 November 1989

  Married Quarters, Messines Road, Colchester

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  906
  (2) what were the educational attainments of prisoners convicted for theft at the time of their conviction for the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters 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 D. Lewis to Mr. Frank Field, dated 21 January 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions as to how many prisoners convicted for theft were unemployed at the time of their arrest, and what were the educational attainments of prisoners convicted for theft at the time of their conviction for the latest available date.
  No information is held centrally on convicted prisoners' employment status at the time of arrest. However, the National Prison Survey, conducted in January and February 1991, found that 59 per cent. of convicted prisoners whose principal offence was burglary or another offence involving theft were not in paid work just before they came to prison; 31 per cent. said they were unemployed seeking work.
  The National Prison Survey can also provide information on prisoners' educational qualifications. It found that qualifications of convicted prisoners whose principal offence was burglary or another offence involving theft were as follows:

  Per cent.

  Degree or teaching qualification

  1

  Other higher qualification

  2

  A level or equivalent

  2

  O level or equivalent

  36

  Apprenticeship

  7

  Foreign qualification

  1—

  Commercial

  1—

  Any other qualification

  3

  No qualification

  48

  1 Less than one.

  About one third of those with O level or equivalent qualifications said that some had been attained in prison, as did about a half of those with higher qualifications.
  The National Prison Survey had a total sample of almost 4,000 offenders. The total number of respondents in the sample convicted of burglary and other offences involving theft was 675. The statistics presented here are estimates, and there may be some sampling error. There are no more detailed or up-to-date figures held centrally.

  Terrorism
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the incidents of terrorist activity in Great Britain since 21 February 1989 attributable to groups(a) connected with Northern Ireland and (b) not connected with Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Howard
  The list classifies acts of terrorism according to the definitions in section 14(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
  907

  Date

  Location

  16 January 1990

  Army HQ, SE District, Aldershot

  Device made safe.

  20 February 1990

  Combined Services Recruitment Centre, Rutland Street, Leicester

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  25 February 1990

  Army Recruiting Office, New Road, Halifax

  Device exploded.

  14 May 1990

  Service Education Centre, Eltham, South London

  Device exploded. Five people injured.

  16 May 1990

  Army Recruiting Centre, Wembly, Middlesex

  Device exploded. One person killed and four people injured.

  1 June 1990

  Lichfield Railway Station, Staffordshire

  One person killed and two people injured in shooting.

  9 June 1990

  Honourable Artillery HQ, City Road, London

  Device exploded. 19 people injured.

  12 June 1990

  West Green House, Hartley Witney, Hampshire

  Device made safe.

  21 June 1990

  RAF Stanmore Park, Uxbridge

  Device exploded.

  25 June 1990

  Carlton Club, St. James, London

  Device exploded. 20 people injured.

  6 July 1990

  The Strand, London WC2

  Device exploded.

  20 July 1990

  Stock Exchange, London

  Device exploded.

  30 July 1990

  The Dog House, Hankham, near Pevensey

  Device exploded. One person killed.

  6 August 1990

  Woronzow Road, St. Johns Wood, London

  Device made safe.

  13 August 1990

  Pye Bam, Moulsford Didcot

  Device made safe.

  10 September 1990

  Army and Navy Recruiting Office, Derby

  Device exploded.

  17 September 1990

  Army Information Office, Finchley, London

  One person injured in shooting.

  18 September 1990

  Milford, Staffordshire

  Two people injured in shooting.

  27 September 1990

  Royal Overseas League, Park Place, London WC1

  Device made safe.

  24 January 1991

  Territorial Army Firing Range, Cannock Chase, Staffordshire

  Device exploded.

  7 February 1991

  Downing Street, London SW1

  Three mortar bombs fired. One person injured.

  18 February 1991

  Paddington Station, London

  Device exploded.

  18 February 1991

  Victoria Station, London

  Device exploded. One person killed and 38 people injured.

  25 February 1991

  Napsbury Lane, St. Albans

  Device exploded.

  3 April 1991

  Preston Railway Station, Preston, Iancashire

  Devices made safe.

  5 April 1991

  Arndale Shopping Centre, Manchester

  Devices exploded.

  28 June 1991

  Beck Theatre, Hayes, Middlesex

  Device made safe.

  30 June 1991

  Royal Navy and RAF Recruiting Office, Fishergate Centre

  Device made safe.

  5 August 1991

  Cambridge Public House, Charing Cross Road, London

  Device exploded.

  29 August 1991

  London Underground Depot, Hammersmith

  Devices made safe.

  31 August 1991

  Bargain Bookshop, Charing Cross Road, London

  Device made safe.

  15 November 1991

  Old Barclays Bank, St. Peters Street, St. Albans, Hertfordshire

  Device exploded. Two people killed and one person injured.

  1 December 1991

  The Discount Furniture Store Habitat,

  Devices exploded.

  The World of Leather,

  The Reject Shop,

  Tottenham Court Road

  2 December 1991

  Littlewoods, Oxford Street, London Wl

  Devices exploded.

  7–8 December 1991

  Various locations in Blackpool

  Devices discovered.

  8 December 1991

  Arndale Centre, Manchester

  Devices exploded.

  14 December 1991

  Brent Cross Shopping Centre

  Devices discovered.

  15 December 1991

  Sainsbury Wing, National Gallery, London WC2

  Device exploded.

  16 December 1991

  Railway line near Clapham Junction

  Device exploded.

  23 December 1991

  Ilford Underground Depot

  Device exploded.

  908 909

  Date

  Location

  Neasden Underground Depot

  Device exploded.

  Train at Harrow-on-the-Hill

  Device exploded.

  10 January 1992

  Whitehall Place London SW1

  Device exploded.

  17 January 1992

  Marquis of Granby Public House, Shaftesbury Avenue, London

  Devices exploded.

  30 January 1992

  Elephant & Castle Underground Depot, London

  Devices discovered.

  3 February 1992

  Neasden Underground Depot

  Device discovered.

  7 February 1992

  London Underground Sidings between Barking & Upney Stations

  Device exploded.

  11 February 1992

  Telephone box, Parliament Street, London

  Device made safe.

  28 February 1992

  London Bridge Railway Station, London

  Device exploded. 29 people injured.

  29 February 1992

  Crown Prosecution Service, Furnival Street, London

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  1 March 1992

  White Hart Lane BR Station, Tottenham, London N17

  Device made safe.

  10 March 1992

  Near Wandsworth Common Railway Station, London

  Device exploded.

  6 April 1992

  Bridle Lane, near Piccadilly Circus, London

  Device exploded.

  10 April 1992

  St. Mary Axe, City of London

  Device exploded. Three people killed, 91 people injured.

  11 April 1992

  Staples Corner, Junction of Ml and North Circular

  Device exploded.

  13 April 1992

  Army Careers Information Office, Derby

  One person killed in shooting.

  9/10 May 1992

  Metro Centre, Gateshead

  Devices exploded.

  7 June 1992

  Royal Festival Hall, London

  Device exploded.

  8 June 1992

  A64 Leeds-York near Tadcaster, North Yorkshire

  One person killed and one person injured in shooting.

  10 June 1992

  Wilcox Place, Victoria Street

  Device exploded.

  15 June 1992

  St. Albans Street, near Piccadilly Circus

  Device exploded.

  17/18 June 1992

  Marks and Spencer, Leeds

  Device made safe.

  Stop and Shop, Leeds

  Device exploded

  Waterstones Bookshop, Leeds

  Devices discovered.

  25 June 1992

  Coleman Street, City of London

  Device exploded. One person injured

  30/31 July 1992

  Milton Keynes (shops, Library)

  Device exploded

  25 August 1992

  Shropshire Regimental Museum and two furniture shops, Shrewsbury

  Devices exploded

  6 September 1992

  London Hilton Hotel, Park Lane, London

  Device exploded

  6 September 1992

  London Hilton Hotel, Park Lane, London

  Device exploded

  17 September 1992

  Madame Tussaud's, Marleybone Road, London

  Device exploded

  The Planetarium, Marylebone Road, London

  Devices exploded

  Imperial War Museum, Lambeth Road, London

  Devices exploded

  7 October 1992

  Junction of the Haymarket and Panton Street, Piccadilly

  Device exploded. Five People injured

  Near Centre Point, Flitcroft Street, London WC2

  Device exploded

  8 October 1992

  Tooley Street, London SE1

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  Melcombe Street, London NW1

  Device exploded.

  9 October 1992

  Royal British Legion, Nursery Riad, Southgate N14

  Device exploded.

  Car Park, Arnos Grove Underground Station.

  Device exploded

  10 October 1992

  Paddington Freen PS, Harrow Road, Paddington, W2

  Device exploded. One person injured

  12 October 1992

  Sussex Arms Public House, Long Acre, Covent Garden

  Devoce exploded. One person killed and four people injured.

  19 October 1992

  Novotel Hotel, Shortlands, Hammersmith, W6

  Device exploded

  910 911

  Date

  Location

  Oxenden Street, London SW1

  Device exploded. Two people injured

  21 October 1992

  Railway Line, near Silver Street Station, Edmonton

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  Princess Louise Territorial Army Centre, Hammersmith Road, W6

  Device exploded. Three people injured.

  Railway Line, near Harrow Road (Junction with Furoess Road) NW10

  Device exploded.

  22 October 1992

  Sewage Pipe, Wick Lane, E3

  Device exploded.

  25 October 1992

  25–28 Morpeth Terrace, London SW1

  Device exploded.

  30 October 1992

  Whitehall, London SW1 (near Downing Street)

  Device exploded.

  14 November 1992

  Stoke Newington Road, London, N16

  Device discovered. One person injured in shooting.

  15 November 1992

  Canada Tower, Canary Wharf

  Device made safe.

  16 November 1992

  Collingwood Street, Bethnal Green, E1

  Device made safe.

  1 December 1992

  Stephens Street/Tottenham Court Road

  Device made safe.

  3 December 1992

  Deansgate and Cateaton Street, Manchester

  Two Devices exploded. 11 people injured.

  9 December 1992

  Woodside Park Underground Station, North London

  Device exploded.

  10 December 1992

  Wood Green Shopping Centre, London

  Two devices exploded. 11 people injured.

  16 December 1992

  John Lewis Department Store, Oxford Street

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  Cavendish Square, Oxford Street

  Device exploded.

  22 December 1992

  Hampstead Tube Station

  Device exploded.

  6 January 1993

  Reject Shop, Plaza Shopping Centre, Oxford Street

  Device exploded.

  Dillon's Bookshop, Northumberland Avenue

  Device exploded.

  C & A, Oxford Street

  Device exploded.

  Video Shop, 60 Oxford Street

  Device exploded.

  28 January 1993

  Harrods, Brompton Road, SW1

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  3 February 1993

  Train at Kent House Station, Kent

  Device exploded.

  South Kensington Tube Station, London

  Device exploded

  7 February 1993

  Quarry at Westbury-Sub-Mendip, Somerset

  Two men arrested attempting to break into explosives store.

  10 February 1993

  Cadogan Place, London SW1

  Device exploded.

  26 February 1993

  Warrington, Cheshire

  One person injured in shooting.

  Warrington, Cheshire

  Device exploded.

  27 February 1993

  Camden High Street, London

  Devices exploded. 18 people injured.

  20 March 1993

  Bridge Street, Warrington, Cheshire

  Two small devices exploded in litter bins in shopping area. Two children killed and 55 people injured, four extremely seriously.

  7 April 1993

  Argyle Square, London WC1

  Small device exploded in builder's skip. No injuries.

  23 April 1993

  North Shields, Northumbria

  Small device exploded at oil refinery. No injuries.

  24 April 1993

  Bishopsgate, London EC2

  Very large HME device exploded in tipper truck. One man killed and 44 people injured. Very extensive damage.

  24 April 1993

  Manor House, N4

  Small device exploded in hijacked minicab, no injuries.

  24 April 1993

  Judd Street, WC1

  Small device exploded in hijacked minicab, no injuries.

  9 May 1993

  Galleries Shopping Centre, Bristol

  Two incendiary devices ignited causing little damage.

  12 May 1993

  Reject Shop, Cornmarket, Oxford

  Small device discovered—had malfunctioned.

  9 June 1993

  Gateshead, Tyne and Wear

  Device exploded at gas installation. Some damage.

  10 June 1993

  North Shields, Northumbria

  Device exploded at oil refinery.

  912 913

  Date

  Location

  28 August 1993

  Wormwood Street, London (City)

  Small device discovered and made safe. No damage, no injuries.

  16 September 1993

  Curzon Phoenix Cinema, Charing Cross Road

  Two small malfunctioned incendiary devices found. No damage, no injuries.

  MGM Cinema, Shaftsbury Avenue

  One small malfunctioned incendiary device found. No damage, no injuries.

  2 October 1993

  Finchley Road, London

  Three small devices exploded. Five people injured some localised damage. One device found and made safe.

  4 October 1993

  Tottenham Lane, London

  Two devices exploded. No injuries. Some localised damage.

  Archway Road, London

  Two devices exploded. No injuries. Some localised damage.

  Highgate High Street, London

  One device exploded. No injuries, some localised damage. A second device discovered and made safe.

  8 October 1993

  Junction of Coles Green Road and Humber Road near the North Circular Road junction at Staples Comer.

  One device exploded. No injuries. Some localised damage.

  Outside the Blacklion Public House at 295 West End Lane

  One device exploded. No injuries. Some localised damage.

  Imperial War Museum, Lambeth Road, London

  Devices exploded.

  24 October 1993

  Reading British Rail Station

  One device made safe. One device exploded causing some damage to railway equipment. No injuries.

  Basingstoke British Rail Station

  One device made safe.

  Railway line, Dorton near Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire

  Small device exploded. Minor damage, no injuries.

  29 October 1993

  Edwardes Square, Kensington High Street, London

  Small device exploded beside a car. Extensive damage to car, no injuries.

  14 December 1993

  Railway line near Woking station.

  Small device exploded on railway line. Slight damage to line. No injuries.

  16 December 1993

  Railway line near Brookwood and Farnborough stations

  Two devices discovered disrupted by means of a controlled explosion.

  20 December 1993

  King Edward Buildings, Sorting Office, London EC1

  Postal device discovered. Made safe. No damage, no injuries.

  Travellers Tavern, Elizabeth Street, Victoria, London SW1

  6 devices discovered in suitcases. No injuries. One ignited, minor damage.

  Mount Pleasant Sorting Office, Rosebury Avenue, London EC1

  Package exploded. No injuries, minor damage.

  Northfields Tube Station, Ealing, London W13

  Small device exploded in a litter bin. No significant damage. No injuries.

  (b)Other acts of terrorism

  9 April 1989

  Haigh and Hochland, Manchester

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling, or thought to be selling, the 'Satanic Verses'.

  9 April 1989

  W. H. Smith, Moseley, West Midlands

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling, or thought to be selling, the 'Satanic Verses'.

  9 April 1989

  Dillons, London

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling, or thought to be selling, the 'Satanic Verses'.

  9 April 1989

  Collets, London

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling, or thought to be selling, the 'Satanic Verses'.

  9 April 1989

  Books for a Change, London

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling, or thought to be selling, the 'Satanic Verses'.

  13 May 1989

  Penguin Bookstore, London

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling, or thought to be selling, the 'Satanic Verses'.

  6 July 1989

  Collets, London

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling, or thought to be selling, the 'Satanic Verses'.

  3 August 1989

  Beverley House Hotel, London

  Terrorist killed by own bomb.

  914 915

  Date

  Location

  3 September 1989

  Liberty's, London

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling, or thought to be selling, the 'Satanic Verses'. Passer-by injured.

  3 September 1989

  London Bookshop

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling, or thought to be selling, the 'Satanic Verses'.

  13 September 1989

  Penguin Bookstore, Peterborough

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling, or thought to be selling the 'Satanic Verses'.

  Penguin Bookstore, York

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling, or thought to be selling, the 'Satanic Verses'.

  Penguin Bookstore, Guildford

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling or thought to be selling the 'Satanic Verses'.

  14 September 1989

  Penguin Bookstore, Nottinghamshire

  Firebomb attack on bookshop selling, or thought to be selling, the 'Satanic Verses'.

  29 October 1993

  Turkish Airlines Office, London

  Petrol bomb thrown.

  4 November 1993

  Turkish Embassy, Belgrave Square, London

  Petrol bombs thrown. Minor damage. No injuries.

  Turkish Airlines Office, London

  Petrol bombs thrown. No injuries.

  London Islamic Turkish Association Centre, N16

  Petrol bombs thrown. Extensive fire damage. No inuries.

  British Telecom Office (wrongly identified as T C Zjraat Bank), EC2

  Bricks and petrol bombs thrown. Minor injuries.

  Sabanci Turkish Bank, EC2

  Petrol bomb thrown. Minor damage. Member of public injured.

  Mr. Keith Whitehouse
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether Keith Whitehouse's name was placed on the police national computer, in accordance with Home Office rules, in order to alert police forces that he was wanted, after he failed to return from home leave in January 1991:

  (2) whether Keith Waterhouse was eligible for home leave under the Home Office rules barring leave for prisoners suffering from mental disorder; and when he was given home leave from HMP Risley in January 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters 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 D. Lewis to Mr. Tony Blair, dated 21 January 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the eligibility of Keith Whitehouse for home leave from prison in January 1991 and whether his name was placed on the Police National Computer after he failed to return to Risley prison on 11 June 1991. I have set out the circumstances and background 3n some detail because I think you will find it helpful in this tragic case.
  In January 1991 Mr. Whitehouse, then known as Nico Constantine or Keith Nicholas Constantine, was at Featherstone prison not Risley. He was a category C prisoner and was granted home leave between 18 and 21 January 1991 so that he could arrange a date for his wedding. He returned to Featherstone on time.
  He was later transferred to Lancaster prison and then moved to Risley in May 1991. He was allowed another period of home leave between 5–11 June, which had been agreed at Lancaster. The governor of Risley had no reason to interfere with that
  916
  decision He failed to return and was unlawfully at large until his arrest on 28 November 1991. He would have been released from prison at the end of his sentence on 29 August 1991.
  Prisoners who are "considered to be mentally ill or suffering from mental disorder, or who have been committed to prison as a place of safety" are ineligible for consideration for home leave. The definition of mental disorder is considered to be a condition requiring psychiatric care or treatment under the terms of the 1983 Mental Health Act. Mr. Whitehouse had been described in a report to court in 1990 as having a "psychopathic personality disorder", but he was not considered mentally ill and did not require psychiatric treatment. On each occasion when he was considered for home leave, prison doctors considered his case. They did not find any medical reason to suggest leave should not be granted.
  When a prisoner escapes, absconds or fails to return from temporary absence such as home leave it is the responsibility of the governor to inform the local police force. This was done within four hours of Mr. Whitehouse's failure to return on 11 June 1991. The Cheshire Police incident log confirms that Keith Nicholas Constantine was reported as unlawfully at large from Risley. I am advised that it is now impossible to confirm whether Cheshire Police then passed his details to the Police National Computer, as this data would have been deleted from the computer after 13 months.
  I naturally regret the very tragic outcome in this case. But I am satisfied that Mr. Whitehouse's requests for home leave were properly considered according to the rules that existed in 1991. His failure to return was properly reported to the police.
  Revised instructions now apply to requests for home leave. In particular, governors are required to make a rigorous risk assessment in each case, which is aimed at reducing the likelihood of further tragedies occurring.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female nationals of other European countries were either remand or sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 10 January.
  917
  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 21 January 1994:
  MALE AND FEMALE NATIONALS FROM OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
  The home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) male and (b) female nationals of other European countries were either remand or sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 10 January.
  The latest available provisional information is for prisoners in Prison Service establishments on 30 September 1993. On that date there were 1,022 males (of whom 309 were remanded and 713 were sentenced) and 46 females (of whom 17 were remanded and 29 were sentenced) recorded as nationals of European countries other than the United Kingdom. These figures exclude those for whom a nationality was not recorded.

  Population in Prison Service establishments by type of prisoner and nationality as at 30 September 1993

  Type of prisoner

  Nationality

  Remand

  Male Sentenced

  All

  Remand

  Female Sentenced

  All

  Angola

  —

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Benin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Central African Republic

  4

  2

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Ivory Coast

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Ghana

  16

  41

  57

  5

  18

  23

  Gambia

  —

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Kenya

  2

  25

  27

  1

  —

  1

  Liberia

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Libya

  1

  7

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Morocco

  6

  18

  249

  —

  1

  1

  Mauritania

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Mauritius

  1

  8

  9

  —

  —

  —

  Malawi

  —

  3

  3

  —

  1

  1

  Nigeria

  37

  134

  171

  14

  48

  62

  Seychelles

  1

  4

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Sudan

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  St. Helena

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Siena Leone

  2

  7

  9

  —

  —

  —

  Somalia

  9

  9

  18

  —

  —

  —

  Tunisia

  —

  6

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  4

  5

  9

  1

  —

  1

  Uganda

  4

  I5

  19

  —

  —

  —

  South Africa

  3

  17

  20

  —

  2

  2

  Zambia

  4

  3

  7

  —

  1

  1

  Zaire

  2

  6

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  2

  9

  11

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  101

  337

  438

  21

  74

  95

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the foreign language documents available in prisons in England and Wales to be given to people serving sentences who do not speak English; in what languages the documents are available; and what information each contains.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 21 January 1994:
  918
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female nationals of each African country were either remand or sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales on 10 January.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 21 January 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) male and (b) female nationals of each African country were either remand or sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales on 10 January.
  The latest available information is given in the attached table.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about foreign language documents available to be given to prisoners in England and Wales who do not speak English.The foreign language documents issued centrally by the Prison Service are listed below, along with details of the languages into which they have been translated and an outline of their content. Further foreign language documents may also have been produced locally by establishments or by other agencies, but details are not kept centrally.
  Prisoners Information Pack.

  Languages: Arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, Dutch, French, Gujerati, Hindi, Italian, Punjabi, Spanish, Turkish, Urdu, Vietnamese, and Welsh.

  Content: useful organisations; starting your sentence; visits, letters and phone calls; requests and complaints; race relations; social security and discharge grants; health and hygiene; welfare and religion; prison discipline; unconvicted and civil prisoners; women prisoners; young offenders; release; and visiting prisoners.
  919
  Foreign Prisoners Resource Pack

  Languages: staff section—English only; prisoner section—English, Arabic, Bengali, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Gujerati, Hincli, Italian, Spanish, and Urdu.

  Content: the criminal justice system; immigration; customs and excise; embassies and consulates.

  The Race Relations Policy Statement

  Languages: Arabic, Bengali, Greek, Gujerati, Hindi, Punjabi, Spanish, Turkish, Urdu, and Welsh.

  Content: Statement of Prison Service race relations policies.

  "Custody, Care and Justice: The way ahead for the Prison Service in England and Wales",

  Languages: Arabic, Bengali, Dutch, Greek, Gujerati, Hindi, Punjabi, Spanish, Turkish, and Urdu.

  Content: details of the Government White Paper "Custody, Care, and Justice."

  How to make a request or a complaint

  Languages: Bengali, Dutch, Greek, Gujerati, Hindi, and Spanish.

  Content: information on request and complaint procedure in establishments

  Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984

  Languages: Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, and Turkish.

  Content: information for foreign prisoners about the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984.

  Assisted Prison Visits Scheme
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to allow homosexual partners to benefit from the assisted prison visits scheme on similar terms to other partners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The current assisted prison visits scheme is designed to help prisoners maintain their family ties by paying towards the costs of visits made by their close relatives on low incomes. Under the scheme, close relatives are defined as spouses, children, siblings and partners of prisoners. A partner is defined as a person of the opposite sex who was living with the prisoner for at least

  1992

  1993

  Total value

  £

  Merchant banks

  Lazards

  Report on attracting private firms for facilities management for secure training centres.

  Accountancy firms

  Touche Ross

  Asset survey for ED5

  Spectrum sizing study amendment. Police information system strategy study. Team assurance co-ordinator message handling system—EP Division. Radio spectrum sizing study Project advisor to PSRCP.

  228,795

  Ernst and Young

  Firearms licensing costs.

  PNCO security review.

  Police roles and responsibilities.

  Feasibility study of artificial intelligence study

  ICL Domain review.

  Feasibility of market testing Hendon Data centre.

  376,892

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Review of organisation of PNCO.

  Scoping study for Design and illustration branch

  Privatisation of D/Tels.

  Radio spectrum study.

  Public safety radio communication project.

  302,000

  Price Waterhouse

  Development database demo facility.

  SSADN analyst work on AFIS project.

  920
  four months before imprisonment, or who has a child from the relationship. Consequently, homosexual partners of prisoners do not qualify for assisted visits, although consideration is being given to whether the scheme should be extended.

  Murder
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of all the people imprisoned for murder since 1967 who have subsequently(a) had their conviction overturned on appeal and (b) been released by the Home Secretary due to unsound convictions; and what are the total numbers in each category.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is for those originally sentenced to life for murder and whose sentences were subsequently reduced, or lifted on appeal whilst serving their sentences in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. There were 127 cases between 1967 and 1992, of which 19 followed references to the Court of Appeal by the Home Secretary under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Details of individual cases cannot be given.

  Consultancies
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) accountancy firms and (b) merchant banks to which his Department awarded private consultancy work in 1992 and 1993, together with a list of the consultancies concerned and the amount paid.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on accountancy and non-accountancy contracts awarded to all known accountancy firms and merchant banks is not recorded centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Details of contracts awarded during the last two years to the main accountancy firms and merchant banks are set out in the table.
  921

  1992

  1993

  Total value

  £

  EDI in-house bid consultation support. Assisting In-house bid for the provision of security at Lunar House.

  Privatisation of D/Tels Principal advisor. In-house bid support, recruitment of immigration officers.

  409,495

  Cooper and Lybrand

  Market Testing review.

  VFM audit of action support

  Triple CJS report on criminal justice initiatives.

  Senior management workshop.

  192,000

  Crime, Durham
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there were in Durham in each of the last 14 years for(a) house burglary,

  Number and percentage of offenders convicted for certain indictable offences in the Durham police force area and England and Wales 1979,1980,1982,1984,1986,1988,1990 and 1992

  Burglary in a dwelling1

  Theft from vehicles

  Robbery

  Total indictable

  Year/Area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  [=100 per cent.]

  1979

  Durham

  279

  6

  175

  4

  24

  0

  4,837

  England and Wales

  19,310

  5

  7,368

  2

  3,188

  1

  412,346

  1980

  Durham

  353

  6

  223

  4

  25

  0

  5,477

  England and Wales

  22,808

  5

  8,559

  2

  3,470

  1

  455,425

  1982

  Durham

  373

  6

  263

  4

  32

  1

  5,964

  England and Wales

  24,827

  5

  2,918

  3

  4,375

  1

  475,131

  1984

  Durham

  316

  5

  222

  4

  28

  0

  5,917

  England and Wales

  25,842

  6

  10,970

  2

  4,282

  1

  449,449

  1986

  Durham

  328

  7

  156

  3

  27

  1

  4,774

  England and Wales

  20,527

  5

  9,145

  2

  4,196

  1

  384,209

  1988

  Durham

  345

  7

  89

  2

  35

  1

  4,623

  England and Wales

  19,468

  5

  8,406

  2

  4,311

  1

  386,236

  1990

  Durham

  265

  7

  212

  6

  36

  1

  3,825

  England and Wales

  18,386

  5

  7,622

  2

  4,806

  1

  342,759

  1992

  Durham

  254

  7

  177

  5

  39

  1

  3,641

  England and Wales

  18,637

  6

  6,257

  2

  5,082

  2

  324,910

  1Also includes "aggravated" burglary in a dwelling.

  Race Relations Act 1976
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action he intends to take following the Commission for Racial Equality's second review of the Race Relations Act 1976;

  (2) when he will respond to the Commission for Racial Equality's second review of the Race Relations Act 1976.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government are giving careful consideration to the Commission for Racial Equality's recommendations and have discussed the issues raised with them; we will respond formally as soon as possible.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether and how visitors to the United Kingdom detained for questioning by immigration officials are made aware of their right to complain to the immigration and nationality department complaints unit.
  922
  (b) theft from vehicles and (c) robbery; and if he will give the total number of convictions for these offences in Durham during this period as a proportion.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1979, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992 is given in the table. Data for other years would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Passengers who wish to complain are normally invited to speak to a supervising officer; if they remain dissatisfied they are given the address of the immigration and nationality department complaints unit and advised that they may put their complaint in writing.

  Probation
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of(a) probation orders and (b) community service orders successfully ran their course during 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information published in the 1992 probation statistics for England and Wales, a copy of which is in the Library, shows that 81 per cent. of probation orders terminated successfully in 1992, in the sense that 65 per cent. ran their full course, 3 per cent. were replaced by a conditional discharge and 13 per cent. were terminated early by the courts for good progress. In the same year
  923
  72 per cent. of community service orders terminated successfully, in the sense that the specified number of hours was completed without termination of the order for failure to comply with its requirements, conviction of another offence or for other reasons.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much it cost to build the three most recently opened probation and bail hostels; and where they were sited.

  Mr. Maclean
  The costs of the three most recently opened hostels are:

  £

  Merseyside bail hostel, Merseyside

  934,299

  Bunbury House bail hostel, Cheshire

  545,537

  Scunthorpe bail hostel, Humberside

  1579,016

  1 Estimated.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was, or will be, the projected underspend on the hostel expansion budget for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1992–93 the underspend on the approved hostel expansion programme was £3·26 million. The current projected underspend for 1993–94 is £1·2 million.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what revision was made following a public expenditure survey to the probation accommodation grant scheme as originally set out in the three-year plan for the probation service 1994–97.

  Mr. Maclean
  Planned provision for the probation accommodation grants scheme as shown in the three-year planning document for the probation service 1994–97 is as follows. The spending plans set out in the 1993–96 planning document published following the 1992 public expenditure survey are shown in parentheses.

  £million

  1994–95

  10·8 (11·9)

  1995–96

  11·7 (13·2)

  1996–97

  12–0

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons will be made redundant as a result of the bail hostel closure plans.

  Mr. Maclean
  It will be for the individual probation committees and hostel managing committees concerned, as employers, to decide how to manage the consequences of closures in terms of staff redeployment or redundancy; we have not yet received full accounts of their conclusions.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average occupancy level for bail hostels in England and Wales for each of the last 10 quarters.

  Mr. Maclean
  Occupancy figures for the period April 1991 to March 1992 are not readily available on a quarterly basis. The occupancy figures for the most recent six quarters are as follows:924

  Per.cent

  April to June 1992

  66

  July to September 1992

  61

  October to December 1992

  62

  January to March 1993

  65

  April to June 1993

  64

  July to September 1993

  67

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were remanded to a probation or bail hostel in England and Wales; and how many of these were(a) black males and (b) black females, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally and is not readily available.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residents of probation and bail hostels were aged(a) under 17, (b) 17 to 21 and (c) 21 years or over, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally and is not readily available.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to the number of persons who will be received into custody as a result of the proposed bail hostel closures; and what will be the estimated annual cost of such custody.

  Mr. Maclean
  It remains to be seen whether there are any additional custodial remands. These are decisions for the courts, who will continue to have the option of remanding defendants to other under-utilised bail hostels in the same or neighbouring probation areas.

  Drugs
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the average length of custodial sentences in each of the last three years for offences of possession with intent to supply(a) class A, (b) class B and (c) class C substances as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information regarding the average length of custodial sentences for the offence of possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply unlawfully, for the last three years for which figures are available, is contained in the table. The available information does not differentiate between the classes of drug involved.

  Table: average length of custodial sentence for possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply unlawfully. United Kingdom, 1990 to 1992

  Year

  Average length of sentence (months)

  1990

  21·1

  1991

  20·9

  1992

  19·6

  Crime Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) of
  925
  26 November, Official Report, columns 237–38, how many notifiable offences there were for each police force area in each year since June 1983, (a) in total, (b) broken down into each category of offence and (c) what was the clear-up rate in each category.

  Mr. Maclean
  Statistics on the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area and offence group are published annually in table 2.5 of the command paper "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales". Figures for clear-ups are published in table 2.9 of the volumes for 1991 and 1992 and in table 2.19 of the 1990 volume.

  Figures for clear-ups by selected offence groups are published in table 2.19 of the volumes for 1986 to 1989. Information for earlier years is not available centrally.

  Copies of the annual command paper "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" are available in the Library.

  Deportees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount paid to private security firms for escorting detainees and their dependants overseas in 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The amount was £257,035, excluding ticketing costs.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which private security firms are used by carriers required by the immigration service to effect the removal of a passenger refused leave to enter;

  (2) what checks his Department makes on private security firms employed by carriers required by the immigration service to effect the removal of a passenger refused leave to enter.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Where directions are given to carriers under paragraph 8 of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 to remove people refused leave to enter, the carrier is responsible for all the arrangements necessary to comply with the directions. This includes making arrangements for any escort considered by the carrier to be necessary, the selection of the escorts and ensuring they are able to perform their duties satisfactorily. Where removal is directed at public expense under paragraph 10 of schedule 2 to the Act, any in-flight escort judged necessary is arranged by the immigration service in accordance with its normal policy.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that medical records of deportees are consulted before drugs are administered.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Where the medical records of a person being deported are available, they are already consulted as necessary before the administration of any medication.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ban the administration of drugs during deportations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The administration of medication to a deportee is a matter for a medical practitioner to decide.
  926
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which companies manufacture the arm and leg restraints and body belts with handcuffs used during deportations;

  (2) if he will publish his Department's regulations relating to the materials, size and specification of restraints used in deportations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that the body belt and leg restraints are manufactured to a specification developed by the Metropolitan police and manufactured by its stores department. Hiatt and Company Ltd. supplies the Metropolitan police with handcuffs in accordance with standards evaluated by the Home Office police scientific development branch and approved by the Home Office and Association of Chief Police Officers in consultation with the Police Complaints Authority. The standard handcuff is manufactured from steel with either a chain or hinge link and the Quick-Kuff is made from steel with a nylon grip.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of in-flight escorts for deportations have been provided by private security firms since August 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the period from 1 August to 31 December 1993, 93 per cent. of the in-flight escorts for people being removed at public expense—including deportees—were provided by the private sector.

  Crime Prevention
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent in each year since 1978–79 on(a) crime prevention and (b) public relations by each police authority in cash and in current prices.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Joy Gardner
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to the Exchequer of the attempted deportation of Mrs. Joy Gardner.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The cost of the police officers and the immigration officer directly involved in the attempt to deport Mrs. Gardner on 28 July 1993 was £539·79. The cost of the time of other officials of the immigration and nationality department involved in this case could not be established without disproportionate expense.

  Ethnic Communities
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what projects have been funded in the London borough of Southwark under section 11 funding for ethnic communities; and what funding those projects will receive from the Home Office in 1994–95;

  (2) how much section 11 funding for ethnic communities there was in 1993–94; and what will be the section 11 funding for 1994–95.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Total provision for section 11 grant in 1993–94 is currently £130·8 million. The corresponding figure for 1994–95 amounts to £111·5 million. This includes funding transferred to the new single regeneration budget.
  927
  At present, the following projects in the London borough of Southwark are approved for section 11 grant:

  English as a second language and bilingual support project—primary and secondary

  Removing barriers to the education achievement of new pupils—primary and secondary

  Section 11 support for pupils in special schools

  Bilingual and language development support for NCW children under five including those with special needs

  Co-ordination and delivery of English for speakers of other languages—ESOL—to adult NCW members/groups in Southwark

  Caribbean teachers association teaching and educational project

  Southwark Muslim womens association

  Mental health project

  Child protection project

  Translation and interpretation service

  Bengal community development project.

  The level of grant paid to Southwark in 1994–95 will depend upon actual expenditure incurred by the authority. I shall write to the hon. Member setting out in more detail the position for 1994–95 funding in Southwark.

  Immigration (False Imprisonment)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what redress is available to visitors detained at airports but eventually allowed entry in respect of false imprisonment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: Paragraph 16 of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 provides that a person who may be required to submit to examination may be detained under the authority of an immigration officer pending his examination and pending a decision to give or refuse him leave to enter. It is open to anyone who considers that he has been falsely imprisoned to sue for damages.

SCOTLAND

  Large Combustion Plant Directive
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on compliance to date with the Scottish limits in the United Kingdom national plan to meet the requirements of the EC large combustion plant directive.

  Sir Hector Monro
  None of the Scottish limits set in the plan was exceeded in the years 1991 to 1993 inclusive. However, on 21 December 1993 a transfer was made of 12 kilotonnes of sulphur dioxide from the other industry sector to the power stations sector with effect from 1996, declining pro rata to the existing reductions from 1999 to 2003. The revised figures are set out in the table. This minor technical change recognises the new five year contract agreed between British Coal and Scottish Power and the latter's commitment to fit flue gas desulphurisation equipment at Longannet power station.

  Revised LCPD national plan SO2 limits for Scotland (in kilotonnes)

  Power stations

  Refineries

  Other industry

  1993

  104

  14

  35

  1994

  102

  14

  34

  1995

  102

  14

  32

  1996

  114(102)

  14

  19 (31)

  1997

  114 (102)

  14

  18 (30)

  1998

  111 (99)

  13

  17 (29)

  1999

  98 (88)

  13

  17 (27)

  928

  Power stations

  Refineries

  Other industry

  2000

  86 (77)

  13

  16 (25)

  2001

  77 (68)

  12

  15 (24)

  2002

  70 (62)

  12

  14 (22)

  2003

  63 (57)

  12

  14 (20)

  Note: The figures in the existing national plan are shown in parenthesis, where any change has been made.

DEFENCE

  Arms Sales, Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has anything to add to the answer by the Minister for Arms Procurement to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) of 25 January 1991,Official Report, column 357.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. This issue is being investigated by Lord Justice Scott, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment before the publication of his final report. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that Lord Justice Scott has access to all relevant documents.

  Artillery Shell Sales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department holds in regard to the underwriting by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International of the export of artillery shells from British companies to Iran since 1985.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department holds no such information.

  Canira Technical Company Ltd.
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he possesses in regard to the ownership and trading activities of the Canira Technical Company Ltd. of Northern Ireland in relation to the Iraqi arms procurement programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  This issue is being investigated by Lord Justice Scott, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment before the publication of his final report. I can assure the hon. Member, however, that Lord Justice Scott has access to all relevant documents.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence between what hours the night low flying system is activated.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom night low flying system is operational between the following hours each month:

  Start

  Finish

  January

  16.30

  07.30

  February

  17.30

  07.00

  March

  18.30

  06.00

  April

  19.30

  04.30

  May

  20.30

  03.30

  June

  21.00

  03.00

  July

  21.00

  03.30

  929

  Start

  Finish

  August

  20.00

  04.00

  September

  18.30

  05.00

  October

  17.30

  06.00

  November

  16.30

  07.00

  December

  16.00

  07.30

  All times are Greenwich mean time.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for which portion of the flight by 29 Squadron Tornado F3s on 12 April 1993 the specified minimum authorised altitude applied; and who was responsible for issuing the authorisation.

  Mr. Hanley
  The specified minimum authorised altitude of 2,000 ft applied to the entire duration of the flight by 29 Squadron on 12 April 1993—apart from take-off and landing. Two thousand feet is the minimum altitude down to which all United Kingdom military aircraft can fly without specific authorisation, normally by either the squadron commander or one of his senior officers. On this occasion no such authorisation was given.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are given to military aircrew concerning use of an air traffic control radar service when descending into the United Kingdom low flying system in visual meteorological conditions in unregulated airspace in the flight information region.

  Mr. Hanley
  No instructions are given to military aircrew concerning the use of such a service when descending to low level in visual meteorological conditions in unregulated airspace in the flight information region.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the arrangements for separation of low-flying military aircraft from offshore industry support helicopters during the hours of darkness, in the coastal areas around(a) the Humber estuary, (b) Morecambe bay, (c) north-east Norfolk and (d) the Aberdeen-Fraserburgh area.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of civil helicopter activity in each of the areas specified are brought to the attention of aircrews in the United Kingdom military low flying handbook and on the night low flying chart. Separation from offshore industry support helicopters is achieved by military aircraft operating in separate height bands.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which date low flying area 10 was established in Suffolk; which unit is the controlling authority for the area; and what are the limits on entry of fast jets into the area.

  Mr. Hanley
  Low flying area 10 was established on 1 September 1993 and is controlled by Wattisham airfield. Fast jets wishing to operate in the area must seek permission from the controlling authority.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if aircrew are permitted to plan entries into particular areas in the night low flying system contrary to the sector-to-sector flow direction when no other aircraft have booked to fly in that area.
  930
  Mr. Hanley
  The fixed wing region of the United Kingdom night low flying system is divided into a series of numbered night low flying areas, each of which is sub-divided by letter into night low flying sectors. Aircraft crossing from sector to sector must follow the flow direction specified in the regulations except that when an aircraft or formation has exclusive use of an entire NLFA, it may cross the sector boundaries within that area in either direction, but must still comply with the flow direction if crossing to an adjacent area.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum height for military aircraft transitting through the Leeming-Teesside gap at low level ; and on what date the current height limit was introduced.

  Mr. Hanley
  The minimum and maximum heights for fixed wing military aircraft transitting through the Leeming-Teesside gap are, respectively, 250 and 1000 ft. These limits have applied since the introduction of the present United Kingdom low flying system in 1979.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the requirement in the low flying regulations for military aircrew to make radio contact with Brough airfield prior to transitting the Hull-Brough gap, was changed to a requirement to contact Humberside airport.

  Mr. Hanley
  Military aircrew are strongly advised to call Humberside radar prior to transitting the Hull-Brough gap, but this is not a mandatory requirement. The change from Brough airfield to Humberside radar came into effect on 15 June 1992.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the transit areas established in the daytime low flying system are in force in the night low flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes. Transit areas apply equally to military aircraft operating during the day and at night.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what central records are held by his Department of the number of aircraft movements into each numbered low flying area in the night flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  Central records are maintained on a monthly basis of the number of aircraft movements into each sector of the United Kingdom night low flying system.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the maximum permitted speeds and minimum permitted altitudes for Royal Air Force Vulcan aircraft, prior to their retiral from the strike/attack role, while operating in the United Kingdom low flying system(a) on the fixed tactical routes and (b) outside the tactical routes.

  Mr. Hanley
  RAF Vulcan aircraft were permitted to fly at an absolute maximum of 350 knots and a minimum height of 300 ft in the United Kingdom low flying system. The aircraft did not operate outside fixed tactical routes except when using designated range areas.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations and dates in the last five years on which No. 591 Signals Unit, Royal Air Force, has
  931
  conducted covert monitoring of tactical radio frequencies used by aircraft operating in the United Kingdom low flying system; and on how many occasions this has included monitoring of the common low flying frequency.

  Mr. Hanley
  No. 591 Signals Unit has never been tasked to carry out covert monitoring of tactical radio frequencies used by aircraft operating in the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if night low flying is permitted over(a) the Western Isles, (b) Orkney, (c) Shetland and (d) the northern half of the Isle of Man; and what are the reasons for their exclusion from the system of numbered night low flying areas.

  Mr. Hanley
  With the exception of the Isle of Man, which is designated an avoidance area, aircraft are permitted to overfly the areas listed at low level at night. These areas are not included in the system of numbered night low flying areas because the amount of low flying carried out over them at night is not sufficient to justify their inclusion in the system of procedural deconfliction which exists elsewhere.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level flights in instrument meteorological conditions were undertaken by RAF Tornados from Canadian forces base Goose Bay(a) during daylight hours and (b) at night during each of the years 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The records of sorties flown from Goose Bay do not differentiate between those sorties flown under visual flying rules and those flown under instrument meteorological conditions. The statistics requested are therefore unavailable.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the agreed annual number of low-flying

  RAF(U) Goose Bay—breakdown of costs

  Financial year

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94 to end October 1993

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Personnel

  0·560

  0·878

  0·771

  1·066

  4·509

  3·423

  3·876

  2·183

  O & M + Capital

  3·057

  2·973

  5·406

  6·842

  4·683

  6·245

  9·601

  4·382

  Total contribution payable to Canada

  3·617

  3·851

  6·177

  7·907

  9·192

  9·668

  13·476

  6·565

  Dedicated costs

  Buildings and Infrastructure

  1·831

  1·414

  1·941

  1·782

  0·608

  0·955

  2·424

  0·816

  Facilities

  0·530

  0·561

  1·195

  1·123

  0·942

  0·951

  1·439

  0·843

  Equipment

  0·050

  0·073

  0·144

  0·144

  0·085

  0·127

  0·033

  0·014

  Aviation/Land Fuels

  0·015

  0·003

  1·292

  2·810

  1·512

  1·476

  2·608

  1·264

  Total dedicated costs

  2·395

  2·051

  4·573

  5·859

  3·146

  3·508

  6·503

  2·936

  Common costs

  Buildings and Infrastructure

  0·452

  0·482

  0·160

  0·225

  0·922

  2·131

  2·433

  1·116

  Facilities

  0·175

  0·207

  0·460

  0·323

  0·141

  0·142

  0·158

  0·064

  Equipment

  0·034

  0·231

  0·212

  0·438

  0·407

  0·428

  0·393

  0·240

  Environmental Mitigation Measures

  0·000

  0·000

  0·000

  0·000

  0·67

  0·037

  0·114

  0·025

  Total common costs

  0·661

  0·921

  0·832

  0·985

  1·537

  2·738

  3·098

  1·446

  Exchange Rate £ =

  C$2·043

  C$2·12

  C$2·119

  C$1·923

  C$2·132

  C$1·996

  C$2·073

  C$1·96

  Figures shown are based on bills presented by the Canadian Government.

  932
  sorties over the United Kingdom by aircraft participating in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation tactical leadership programme courses.

  Mr. Hanley
  The NATO tactical leadership programme holds six courses per year and was permitted in 1993 to fly an average of two low-level sorties per course in the United Kingdom low flying system. Each low-level sortie in the United Kingdom may involve up to 24 aircraft.

  RAF Fast-jet Aircrew
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many person-days have been spent by Royal Air Force fast-jet aircrew on operational deployments to actual or potential areas of combat operations in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost and effort.

  Goose Bay Training Base
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amounts paid to the Canadian Government in each year since 1980 for use of the training facilities at Goose Bay, Labrador; and if he will provide a breakdown of the figures into(a) contributions to personnel, operations and maintenance expenditure, (b) contributions to common user building, infrastructure, facility and equipment expenditure, (c) payments for dedicated user buildings, infrastructure, facilities and equipment and (d) contributions to expenditure on environmental research and mitigation measures.

  Mr. Hanley
  Amounts paid for financial years prior to 1986–87 are not readily available. For financial years 1986–87 to the end of September 1993 the breakdown is as follows:
  933

  Tornado Incidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the action taken as a result of the incident involving a Scandinavian Airlines MD-80 and a Tornado from the trinational training establishment in the Manchester air traffic control zone in November 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  The crew of the Tornado involved in the incident on 4 November 1992 were formally interviewed by their squadron commander upon their return to the Tornado trinational training establishment and extensively debriefed on the procedures for dealing with the situation which had arisen. A review of TTTE procedures was conducted at RAF Cottesmore in particular relating to briefing for low level flying and emergency pull-up procedures. These are re-emphasised at all pre-flight briefings and are rechecked by squadron authorising officers.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the joint airmiss working group report on the airmiss between an Army Lynx helicopter and an RAF Tornado over the North Yorkshire moors on 12 January 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Tornado F3 (Fuel Tanks)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and circumstances of all incidents involving the inadvertent jettisoning of underwing fuel tanks by Tornado F3 aircraft from RAF Leeming.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date

  Circumstances

  15 January 1991

  The cause was not positively determined, although it was considered the most likely cause was the inadvertent hitting of the selective jettison button by the pilot.

  5 October 1992

  Inadvertent operation of the selective jettison button by the navigator as he tried to resolve a fault in the underwing stores management panel.

  Both incidents were fully investigated and the lessons to be drawn were disseminated throughout the RAF.

  Phantom
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances of an incident at Bentham, North Yorkshire, in September 1991, in which a Phantom aircraft lost part of its engine during flight.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 11 September 1991 a RAF Phantom aircraft was flying at 500 ft and 420 knots over north Yorkshire when an explosion was heard from the right engine. The engine was shut down and the pilot diverted to RAF Leeming. On investigation the engine pressure and high pressure turbine assemblies were found to have seized. Small pieces of engine debris fell on the roof and car park of the Angus Fire factory in High Bentham, causing some minor damage. There were eight claims as a result of this incident, all of which have been settled.
  934

  Exercise Luce Belle
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the reason for the exclusion of the Buccaneer aircraft from the Exercise Luce Belle noise measurement programme.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Buccaneer's primary role is maritime strike/attack; it does not conduct a significant amount of low flying over land in the United Kingdom low flying system. It was excluded from Exercise Luce Belle on that basis.

  Military Aircraft (Radio Communication)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those military aircraft types in United Kingdom military, and United Kingdom-based United States military service, which do not possess radios capable of communicating on very high frequency civil air traffic control frequencies.

  Mr. Hanley
  All United Kingdom military aircraft are capable of communicating on very high frequency civil air traffic control frequencies. United Kingdom-based United States F15C and F15E aircraft are not capable of communicating on VHF frequencies, but would communicate with air traffic control using VHF frequencies.

  Instrument Meteorological Flights
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations governing flight by military aircraft in instrument meteorological conditions at less than 3,000 ft altitude outside controlled or regulated airspace; and what measures are taken to ensure separation of aircraft flying in these conditions from other air traffic.

  Mr. Hanley
  Military aircraft are not permitted to operate below 3,000 ft above mean sea level in instrument meteorological conditions outside controlled or regulated airspace except: when they are taking off or landing; when they are descending to or climbing out from authorised low-level flight; or when special dispensation has been granted. In these circumstances, aircrew will as far as possible avoid areas of known airborne activity or will make use of air traffic services to maintain separation from other aircraft. In addition, military aircraft conduct low flying training in instrument meteorological conditions in the highlands restricted area using terrain-following radar.

  Military Aircraft (Live Weapons)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each year since 1989 and by(a) location and (b) aircraft type when a military aircraft carrying live weapons has landed at a civil airport in the United Kingdom as a matter of urgency; and if he will show in his answer the type of weapons being carried.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Skyguard
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) date and (b) locations when the Skyguard surveillance system has been operated since its inception.
  935
  Mr. Hanley
  Since its introduction, Skyguard radar has been deployed to the following locations to monitor low flying:

  Location

  Dates

  Knaresborough, North Yorkshire

  27 to 29 June 1989

  Penrith, Cumbria

  1 to 3 August 1989

  Alnwick, Northumberland

  3 to 5 October 1989

  Morpeth, Northumberland

  27 to 29 March 1990

  Shepton Mallet, Somerset

  10 to 13 July 1990

  Grange-over-Sands/Camforth, Cumbria

  17 to 20 September 1990

  Leeming/Teesside Gap, North Yorkshire

  1 to 4 October 1990

  Peterborough, Cambridgeshire

  13 to 15 November 1990

  Richmond/Barnard Castle, North Yorkshire

  23 to 25 April 1991

  Rhaydar area, Powys

  1 to 4 July 1991

  Morpeth area, Northumberland

  16 to 18 July 1991

  Cley and Stiffkey, Norfolk

  22 to 24 October 1991

  East Fortune, Lothian

  10 to 13 February 1992

  Duns, Berwickshire

  9 to 12 March 1992

  Carmarthen, Dyfed

  7 to 9 April, 1992

  Dumfries area, Dumfries and Galloway

  18 to 21 May 1992

  Forest of Dean, Gloucester

  8 to 11 June 1992

  Beverley, Humberside

  29 June to 2 July 1992

  Conon Bridge, Ross and Cromarty

  21 to 24 September 1992

  Market Deeping, Lincolnshire

  17 to 18 November 1992

  Cockermouth, Cumbria

  23 to 25 February 1993

  Upper Dinmore, Hereford and Worcester

  26 to 29 April 1993

  Norwich, Norfolk

  21 to 24 June 1993

  Lake Bala, Gwynedd

  12 to 14 July 1993

  Thurso, Caithness and Sutherland

  20 to 23 September 1993

  Alnmouth, Northumberland

  27 to 30 September 1993

  Chirnside, Berwickshire

  25 to 28 October 1993

  Hornby, Iancashire

  23 to 25 November 1993

  Daventry, Northamptonshire

  7 to 9 December 1993

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993(a) the cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 "Competing for Quality" programme with the efficiency unit in the Cabinet Office. Much of the information requested in the question will, once it has been finalised, be published in aggregate form in the "Citizen's Charter Second Report".

  Ships (Medical Provision)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what medical provision is provided on board Royal Navy(a) aircraft carriers, (b) landing ships,

  Female officers

  Non-commissioned females

  Financial year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Total

  1979–80

  4

  13

  7

  55

  174

  162

  415

  1980–81

  6

  13

  13

  72

  185

  179

  468

  1981–82

  11

  21

  23

  84

  250

  186

  575

  1982–83

  8

  15

  16

  95

  208

  186

  528

  1983–84

  5

  9

  12

  103

  179

  161

  469

  1984–85

  6

  14

  12

  113

  195

  175

  515

  1985–86

  6

  13

  15

  100

  226

  156

  516

  1986–87

  6

  10

  18

  104

  176

  151

  465

  1987–88

  7

  15

  16

  125

  205

  186

  554

  1988–89

  3

  12

  18

  86

  143

  160

  442

  1989–90

  4

  14

  15

  84

  157

  157

  431

  936
  (c) destroyers, (d) frigates, (e) minesweepers, (f) mine-hunters, (g) patrol boats and (h) other small craft in terms of qualified doctors, nurses and other staff.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Aircraft Carriers

  2×Medical Officers—1 surgeon, 1 anaesthetist

  1×Dental Officer

  1×Operating Department Assistant

  1×Laboratory Technician

  6×Medical Assistants

  (b) Landing Ships

  1×Medical Officer

  1×Dental Officer

  7×Medical Assistants

  (c) Destroyers and Frigates

  The complements of all destroyers and frigates include a medical assistant; in addition, vessels designated to lead destroyer or frigate squadrons and those operating independently, or on directed tasks, carry a medical officer.

  (d) Minesweepers, Minehunters, Patrol Boats and Other Small Craft

  These ships are classed as minor war vessels and carry no dedicated medical personnel, but all minor war vessels Coxswains undergo special first aid training at the Royal Naval medical staff school.

  Pregnant Women
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has of the amount of money that will be spent in 1993–94 and 1994–95 in compensation to women who had to leave the armed forces because they became pregnant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not possible to estimate reliably the amount of money that will be spent in 1993–94 and 1994–95 in compensation to women who were compulsorily discharged from the services on grounds of pregnancy between 9 August 1978 and August 1990.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women in each year since 1980 who left the forces because they became pregnant subsequently rejoined the forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women have left each of the armed forces in each year since 1980 because they became pregnant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of women who left the Armed Forces in each year since 1980 because they became pregnant, are as follows:
  937

  Female officers

  Non-commissioned females

  Financial year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Total

  1990–91

  3

  17

  12

  60

  167

  124

  383

  1991–92

  4

  17

  15

  78

  177

  140

  431

  1992–93

  3

  16

  18

  85

  204

  112

  438

  Notes:

  1. Actual figures for the numbers of female officers leaving on pregnancy are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate effort. The figures provided are therefore estimates based on the percentage of non-commissioned females leaving on pregnancy.

  2. Prior to August 1990, service women who became pregnant were compulsorily discharged. In August 1990, maternity leave was introduced and pregnant service women could choose whether to leave or take maternity leave. The figures for 1990–91 cover both those who were compulsorily discharged prior to August 1990 and those who opted to leave after that date.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Ministry has had with the Equal Opportunities Commission about conditions covering women employed in the forces who became pregnant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been no formal discussions about conditions for service women who became pregnant between my Department and the Equal Opportunities Commission. The commission was, however, made aware in 1990 of the introduction of maternity leave for servicewomen.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent in compensation to women who had to leave the armed forces because they became pregnant; how many women have received compensation; what is the(a) maximum, (b) minimum and (c) average amount paid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of £7,822,943 has so far been paid in compensation to women who were compulsorily discharged from the armed forces on grounds of pregnancy between August 1978 and August 1990 when maternity leave was introduced. Compensation has been paid to 1,679 claimants. The average amount paid is £4,659. The maximum awarded by a tribunal is £172,921—but this will be the subject of an appeal by the MOD to the employment appeals tribunal. The minimum payment has been for £500.

  Department

  Compensation paid

  From

  To

  (nearest £000)

  British Rail

  4,427

  April 1992

  30 November 1993

  London Underground

  184

  August 1992

  7 January 1994

  Northern Ireland Railways

  2

  November 1992

  19 January 1994

  HM Customs and Excise

  14

  January 1992

  31 December 1993

  Benefits Agency

  4,071

  April 1992

  March 1993

  Contributions Agency1

  76

  April 1991

  March 1993

  Employment Service

  89

  April 1992

  March 1993

  Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland1

  520

  April 1991

  20 January 1994

  1 These figures represent payments made from April 1991, four months before the Contributions Agency and Northern Ireland Social Security Agency charters were introduced.

  In addition, in the financial year 1992–93 the Inland Revenue paid £389,000 in compensation for "serious error" as defined in the code of practice "Mistakes by the Inland Revenue"; and between January 1992 and 31 December 1993 HM Customs and Excise paid £532,000 in repayment supplements.

  The privatised utilities also compensate customers for failure to meet service standards. Details of payments are not held centrally.
  938

  Creches
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the military bases where creches are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Creche and child-minding facilities are available to service personnel and dependent parents on bases in the United Kingdom and overseas as a result of local initiatives. Details of these facilities are not, however, held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Child care legislation places no statutory obligation on the MOD to provide creche or child-minding facilities for service personnel or their dependants, and, as with the civilian population at large, service personnel are responsible for making their own arrangements for the care of their children and for meeting the costs involved.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total amount paid out to date in compensation under provisions of the citizens charter(a) in total and (b) by relevant Department.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  An estimated £9,383,000 in total has been paid out in compensation under provisions of the citizens charter. This is broken down as follows:

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest estimate of the number of inquiries dealt with to date under the citizens charter(a) in total and (b) by relevant Department.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since April 1992, over 5,000 letters have been received in the citizens charter unit. Individual Departments and agencies will, of course, receive their own citizens charter correspondence, but my Department does not hold records on this.
  939

  Iraq (Visits)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list each of the visits made by Ministers or officials of his Department to Iraq since 1982, giving details of dates, names of Ministers or officials and the purpose of visit in each case.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  According to the information available, there is no record of either Ministers or officials 940
  of the Office of Public Service and Science having visited Iraq since centralised departmental records were begun in 1986.