Sitting of 3 March 1994

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

    BOURNEMOUTH-SWANAGE MOTOR ROAD AND FERRY BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

    SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Read a Second time, and committed.
    FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order)

    UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading Read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 March.

    LONDON DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION B ILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Monday 14 March at 7 o'clock.

    BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
    Motion made,
    That the Committee on the British Waterways Bill [Lords] have leave, for the purpose of its consideration of the powers sought by the British Waterways Board in the Bill, to visit and inspect sites on the Grand Union Canal, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Value Added Tax
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cash amount paid in VAT in 1979 by a family on average earnings with two children; and what is his latest estimate.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): A couple with two children on average earnings paid VAT of £12.95 per week in 1979–80, expressed in
    1056
    1993–94 prices, and an estimated £19.48 per week in 1993–94. Since 1978–79, the real take-home pay of such a family has risen by £83 per week.
    Mrs. Mahon: Despite that last sentence, is the Chancellor not adding to the burden of VAT by imposing taxes on car insurance, holidays, domestic fuel and many other things? How does he expect families to meet that increased burden when the Government have created the mess that has led to that extra tax, and how can anyone ever trust the Tories on tax again?
    Mr. Clarke: The average family with one wage earner, two children and a mortgage of £33,000 is now about 30 per cent. better off than in 1990, only three years ago. That is why, although I have had to raise tax increases, people can look forward with confidence to rising living standards based on steady growth and low inflation. The tax, seen alongside spending changes that I have made, ought to produce sound public finances.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we fought the 1979 election on a clear promise that we would change from direct taxes to indirect taxes? That is exactly why the burden has been shifted and we make no apology for that because we have increased take-home pay substantially, producing disposable income which is greatly reflected in the collection of VAT.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. We fought elections then and since on the basis that we thought that the burden should be shifted from direct to indirect taxation. We argued the case for incentives and their effect on the economy and it has worked. That is why the average family is now £83 a week better off in real terms than before we started on that process.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Why impose VAT on fuel when the Government should be ending the tax privileges that are central to some of the worst boardroom salary abuses in the country? If the Chancellor really wants to act on the unacceptable face of capitalism, will he condemn Mr. John Cahill's tax-free hand-out, condemn Lord Young's £370,000 salary rise in one year and will he now fully tax executive share options? That would raise £200 million for vital public services, or is there under this Government one tax law for the boardrooms and another for everyone else?
    Mr. Clarke: I frequently urge restraint on those who lead British industry at a time when we have to maintain our competitiveness and maintain low inflation. Individuals are cited who are wholly untypical of British management, most of whom have exercised such constraint. I do not believe in pay policies. I do not believe that Governments should direct the pay of individuals in the country and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in the course of his revisionism, is not going back to pay policies for the Labour party.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the welcome shift from direct to indirect taxation has significantly helped to improve our economic performance by enabling marginal tax rates to be reduced?
    Mr. Clarke: I do, and that is why, at a time of very tough public spending constraints and some increases in taxation, we have preserved our marginal rates at 25 per cent., a top rate of 40 per cent. and a lower band of 20 per cent., despite the other pressures on us. It is important that

    1057
    we do that to keep the incentives going which made the British economy perform so well in the 1980s and which will make it perform well again in the 1990s.

    Taxation
    Mr. Keen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the Government's tax policies on the economic well-being of the average family on average male earnings with two children and one spouse.
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the Government's tax policies on the economic well-being of the average family on average male earnings with two children and one spouse.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The real take-home pay of a family on average earnings has risen by £83 a week, in today's values, since 1978–79.
    Mr. Keen: The Financial Secretary has not answered my question. Is that because he wishes to hide the fact that the burden of taxation will have risen from 34.75 per cent. in 1979, to 38.5 per cent. next year? If he did not intend to mislead and the policy to switch from direct to indirect taxes is genuinely thought out, why do his answers fail time and again to include the total tax burden? Does he not think that the British public deserve straight answers?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I gave a very direct answer to his question. He asked what assessment we had made of the effect of the Government's tax policies on the economic well-being of the average family, whose take-home pay has increased by £83 per week in today's values since 1979 as a result of the Government's economic policies.
    Mrs. Roche: Will the Financial Secretary explain how it is fair to the ordinary family and the British taxpayer to increase taxes for everyone except those earning more than £64,000 a year?
    Mr. Dorrell: Once again, an Opposition spokesman is wrong. The Institute of Fiscal Studies studied the effects of the two Budgets last year and concluded from its research that they will raise extra revenue in roughly equal proportions all the way up the income scale.
    Mr. Horam: Has my hon. Friend seen the estimate by the Confederation of British Industry that the shadow Chancellor's loophole-closing devices would add £3.6 billion to the tax bill for industry over two years? Leaving aside any question of withholding tax on gas and electricity bills, has my hon. Friend estimated what effect that policy would have on prices, jobs or investment?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend asks an important question. Labour Members parade their interest in closing tax loopholes, but the measures that they espouse under that banner would close not loopholes but businesses and would put people out of work.
    Mr. Willetts: Does my hon. Friend agree that any assessment of the well-being of families has to include the effects of the fall in mortgage rates and that those reductions were possible only because of the Government's sound fiscal policies?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. It is not a coincidence that we are enjoying the lowest interest rates for 17 years—it is a result of the Government's success at bringing down and controlling the rate of inflation and we shall continue to deliver that.
    Mr. Darling: Talking about loopholes, why do the Government not close down the tax break that allows boardrooms to avoid paying tax by using offshore tax havens? Or were the Chancellor's words on boardroom restraint just bluff as usual, with no action to follow?
    Mr. Dorrell: The Government's approach to pay and the taxation of pay is the same all the way up the income scale. We want a pay system that reflects the performance of the organisation that employs the individual. That is the policy which will continue to inform our approach to public and private sector pay.

    Motor Vehicles (Security Devices)
    Sir Anthony Grant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce tax incentives to encourage the installation of security devices in motor vehicles; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dorrell: We have no plans to introduce such tax incentives.
    Sir Anthony Grant: As car crime is the fastest rising crime of all, is it not absurd that, for tax purposes, security systems should be treated on the same basis as stereos, cassettes and suchlike frippery? If my hon. Friend cannot change the tax system, could he perhaps try some other methods to help—for example, through insurance?
    Mr. Dorrell: If I may say so, my hon. Friend is on a better point when he suggests that the insurance industry should take account of the presence of proper security measures in cars. I understand that the industry is increasingly doing that. That is a proper incentive for people to do what is their responsibility and to ensure that their property is secure.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Financial Secretary agree that the Budget proposal that puts a value added tax on insurance will put a further burden on motorists, who are already burdened by rising crime?
    Mr. Dorrell: It is not a value added tax on insurance but an insurance premium tax which reflects the tax regimes that prevail widely elsewhere in the world. Given the Government's need to raise revenue in the Budget in November, it seems to be a very fair way of carrying out that objective.

    Growth
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Treasury's current estimate of the rate of growth for this year and next year.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): At the time of the Budget, United Kingdom gross domestic product was forecast to grow by 2.5 per cent. both in 1994 and in the year to the first half of 1995.
    Mr. Trimble: That is an extremely low rate of growth. To cope with the Government's problems with public expenditure in the medium term, they will have to take

    1059
    measures to increase the rate of growth. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will consider taking such measures and not allow themselves to be influenced by spurious foreign exchange considerations or panicked by the current problems in the bond market?
    Mr. Portillo: The principles underlying the Government's monetary policy have been set out time and again and are extremely clear. People believe that that monetary policy enjoys great transparency. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that our rate of growth is very low. After all, the United Kingdom will have the fastest rate of growth of any major European Community country in both 1994 and 1995. The rate of growth that we want to see is one that is sustainable.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that flexible labour markets and improved competitiveness in Britain have made ours the fastest-growing economy in Europe and that what we need is more Conservative policies and more deregulation so that Britain can continue that programme?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. Obviously, we have reaped the benefits of the reforms that we undertook in the 1980s. The reforms through trade unions and the scrapping of the wages councils have led to a downturn in unemployment in the United Kingdom much sooner in the recovery cycle than we expected, and sooner than has been experienced in other countries. That is a tribute to the policies that we have followed over the past decade.
    Mr. Radice: What is the Chief Secretary's estimate of the current output gap?
    Mr. Portillo: Our view at the moment is that there are no inflationary pressures that would justify any movement. There is an output gap at present, but I do not wish to quantify it. There is spare capacity in the United Kingdom, which is one of the reasons for thinking that the inflationary pressures are moderate.
    Mr. Forman: Is not the important thing about output for economic growth in this country that it is likely to be sustainable, non-inflationary and at a level that we can carry through over the years? In that context, is it not important that there are signs that industrial stock building is taking place again and that that is likely to lead to a further growth in investment, which puts the recovery on a very sound basis?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes an important point. His first underlying point is vital. What we need to see in the United Kingdom is growth from year to year. We wish to see growth at a sustainable level; we do not wish to see inflationary pressures building again. We can be well satisfied with the present conditions. The Government make the inflationary and monetary prospects extremely clear month by month.

    Redistribution of Wealth
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to redistribute wealth within the United Kingdom.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The Government's policy is to promote the creation of wealth so that all members of society may be better off.
    Mr. Wardell: Does the Minister accept the figures in the Inland Revenue statistics for 1993 which show that 10 per cent. of the population own half the marketable wealth in this country? If so, why have the Government targeted the poorest members of our society to be the scapegoats for the Government's economic mistakes over the past decade?
    Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman, like the Labour party generally, has always been obsessed with relativities rather than realities. Most people are more concerned about their real wealth and earnings than about relativities, and both of those have gone up under the Government. In particular, the wealth of the bottom 75 per cent.—that is most people in this country—has grown by 70 per cent. in real terms since the Government came to office.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on his engaging honesty in bringing to the Floor of the House once more the language of the redistribution of wealth, bearing in mind that that comes from a party which had tax rates of 98 per cent? Does that not show that all the snappy haircuts and good suits on the Labour Benches cannot conceal ancient prejudices?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party will always put the redistribution of wealth before the generation of wealth.
    Mr. Beith: Instead of merely complaining about boardroom salaries, why does the Chancellor not make a contribution to solving the problem by making the tax system more progressive? Will he confirm that from 1 April, people earning £7,000 a year will face a marginal tax and national insurance rate of 35 per cent. while those earning £500,000 or £1 million a year will pay just 40 per cent. in tax?
    Mr. Nelson: It is important that the tax regime should provide incentive as well as revenue. The richest 10 per cent. paid some 35 per cent. of income tax when the Government first took office; they now pay 45 per cent.
    Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend stick to economic policies that encourage not the redistribution of wealth, but its creation, because without wealth creation we shall have neither the high personal living standards nor the good public services that we all want?
    Mr. Nelson: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Mrs. Clwyd: What would the Minister say to the people in my constituency who do not have the opportunity to create wealth, and where 61 per cent. of households have incomes of £4,000 a year or less? Is that not real poverty in Britain today?
    Mr. Nelson: Over the period since the Government came to power, there has been a general increase in the earnings at all points on the distribution scale. A married couple with two children on average earnings are now some 40 per cent.—£83 per week—better off than in 1979. That is a considerable achievement. What matters to most people is their take-home pay and their earnings.
    Mr. Ottaway: Does my hon. Friend agree that this question demonstrates that the Labour party is interested only in penalising anyone who is prepared to stick their neck out and do something useful for the British economy?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party has made no positive contributions towards wealth creation in this country; it is simply the politics of envy that we hear time and again.

    Macro-economic Policy
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now revise his macro-economic policy targets set in the 1993 Budget.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Sustainable economic growth, low inflation and sound public finances remain the key macro-economic policy objectives of this Government.
    Mr. Hain: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer altered his macro-economic policy targets on pay? Contrary to what he told Today this morning, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the power to intervene on fat cat freebies and to close loopholes in relation to executive share option schemes. He has the power—or, at the least, the Government do—to instruct the regulators of the privatised utilities to stop abuses by executives such as £700,000 in tax-free giveaways for water chiefs. Why does the Chancellor only have a pay policy for the low paid and not for the privileged elite who are getting money as though there were no tomorrow?
    Mr. Clarke: Every Conservative Chancellor closes tax loopholes and there was a good crop in the November Budget. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said that one should look at where we get income tax and national insurance contributions nowadays. The top 10 per cent. contribute 45 per cent. of the total, whereas they contributed only 35 per cent. 10 years ago. We spread the tax burden fairly, and we do not ever want to go back to the punitive tax rates that so destroyed the economy in the 1970s under Labour.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend offer further explanation of his apparent linking between the level of executive pay and inflation? Does he agree that if any private company pays too much to any of its employees, that will result in its products being priced out of the market, and that that is a matter for the market, not for preaching politicians?
    Mr. Clarke: As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, at present we have our best record on inflation for 25 years. Manufacturing productivity is at an all-time high. It is extremely important that we keep our competitiveness. Therefore, I am extremely glad to see that the level of pay settlements remains at such an historically low level. With respect to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the climate of opinion has contributed to all those good targets and one or two leading individuals could contribute to the favourable climate of opinion that we have created.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: On the macro-economic damage inflicted by the huge sweeteners that the Government are giving for rail privatisation, wil the Chancellor admit that the Government instructed British Rail to change its accounts to turn a £968 million capital allowance tax
    1062
    liability into a £683 million tax credit to be passed to privatised companies? Will he now act to stop that monstrous fraud on the taxpayer?
    Mr. Clarke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's indignation will be satisfied when he tables a question for written answer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on that important matter.
    Mr. Smith: I have done so.
    Mr. Clarke: I am delighted to hear it. The fact is that privatisation has transformed the performance of most of our public utilities and companies. It has turned British Airways, British Telecom and British Steel into hugely successful international companies. Sad to say, we have been left behind a little on the privatisation of railways: the Japanese, French and others have moved ahead of us. I am sure that privatisation will produce the same transformation in the performance of British Rail as it has in so many others of our previously nationalised industries.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend take heart from the fact that a substantial depreciation in the rate of sterling in the past 18 months has not thrown economic policy off track? Will he take comfort from the fact that Professor Tim Congdon, who was pessimistic while we were in the exchange rate mechanism, is now optimistic about future growth of our economy?
    Mr. Clarke: One of the remarkable achievements of the past 18 months has been that, following a marked devaluation of the currency, we have kept inflation down. It has not led to any adverse consequences for our competitiveness in any other way. We now have a reasonably stable exchange rate at the new valuation. That is one of the favourable factors that are helping to produce the prospects for good, steady, sustainable growth in Britain.

    Taxation
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's tax policies on the economic well-being of the poorest 10 per cent. of wage earners.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The real income of a family with two children at the lowest decile of male earnings has risen by almost 24 per cent. since 1978–79.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Chancellor confirm that after his massive tax hikes of the next two years, the bottom 10 per cent. of people will pay 25 per cent. of their gross income in taxation? After the tax cuts of the 1980s, one third of which went to the top 1 per cent. of super-rich, with the bottom 10 per cent. receiving little or nothing, how can the Chancellor justify making the poorer taxpayers carry the can for his Government's economic failures?
    Mr. Clarke: Of course, most of the bottom 10 per cent. in terms of income do not pay income tax at all. Their incomes are largely affected by changes in benefits, in which the Government have been extremely generous in recent years. For example, we have given more than £1 billion of extra help since 1988 for poorer families with children. For that reason, figures comparing the actual

    1063
    overall effect on lower deciles of the population are misleading if they leave out the substantial increases in benefit that the Government continue to provide.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the best way of helping people on low wages to get real wage improvements in future years is by Britain having a successful economy in which high added value is what we seek for our industries and our service sector?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely. That is why, during the 1980s, the living standards of low wage earners went up by a quarter after we came to power. During the period when Labour had been in power, real income for the same group of people had risen by only 4 per cent.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Chancellor is effectively confirming to the House that the Conservative party is the party not of low taxation but of regressive taxation. Returning to the original question, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked, what is the moral justification for taxing citizens of ordinary means, particularly those with family obligations, rather than clawing money back from the beneficiaries of the 1988 top rate tax reductions?
    Mr. Clarke: The justification is that it increases the revenue received and retains the skills of those people in this country. By giving people the necessary incentives, we get the economic performance that we got in the 1980s compared with the economic performance that we got in the 1970s when the Labour party had put the top rate up to 83 per cent.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Is it not the case that the average direct tax burden in this country during the 1970s Labour Government was higher on the scale than at the highest point of the direct tax burden during the whole of this Government up until now, and prospectively under the new tax arrangements?
    Mr. Clarke: It is also the case that the percentage of total gross domestic product taken by income tax and national insurance has dropped from 18.5 to 16.5 per cent. under the Conservative Government. We are a party of low taxation and, most spectacularly, we have reduced the marginal rates of taxation to 40 per cent. at the top and to 25 per cent. for the standard rate and introduced a new lower band of 20 per cent. for the very lowest wage earners. We have no intention of giving way to pressure from the Opposition to put those rates up again.

    Personal Tax Allowances
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning his plans to freeze personal income tax allowances.
    Mr. Dorrell: Treasury Ministers have received a number of representations.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that freezing personal income tax would place a heavy burden on people who are on the borderlines of poverty? Does he know, as a Leicestershire Member, that the average women's wage in the city of Leicester is the lowest in the country and that among the people who will be hit most by the proposals are those who can put up with them least?
    Mr. Dorrell: We shall not accept lectures from the Opposition on the importance of indexing personal allowances. Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour Government cut the value of the single personal allowance by about a quarter. We have seen it increase by roughly an equivalent amount since then. The hon. and learned Gentleman should regard this measure in the context of all the other measures in last year's Budget. As I said in answer to an earlier question, those measures raise extra revenue in roughly equal proportions across the income scale.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many fewer people are paying income tax now than would have been paying it, had the 1978–79 regime continued? Of those who pay income tax, how many pay it only at the 20 per cent. rate which we introduced?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. More than 1 million people who would have paid income tax had we simply indexed the allowances that we inherited from the Labour party are not paying income tax this year or next because we have over-indexed the allowances since 1979.
    Ms Harman: Will the Minister confirm that, from this April, 400,000 people on low incomes who do not currently pay income tax will start to pay it for the first time? Is it not a scandal that, of those people, 160,000 are pensioners who will start to pay income tax on their low occupational pensions? Does that not show that the 1993 Budget not only broke election promises but hit hardest at those who could least afford it?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady, not for the first time, is misunderstanding an answer that she has been given by a Treasury Minister. It is perfectly true that we expect there to be more income tax payers next year, for a simple reason: we expect incomes to rise next year so that more people are brought into the income tax bracket.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated saving to British industry of the ½ per cent. fall in interest rates.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Every ½ per cent. reduction in interest rates, when fully passed on, is estimated to lower United Kingdom companies' interest bills by well over £½ billion a year.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that extremely helpful good news. Does he agree that a low-inflation, low-tax and low-interest rate economy, such as that of the United Kingdom, is better able to attract inward investment, particularly compared to our EC competitors, which, for example, maintain the social contract?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely. At the moment, we get about a third of all inward investment in the European Union. We do so because everyone agrees that Britain is the most attractive country in which to invest because of our low rates of taxation, our low rates of corporate taxation, our deregulated economy and our much more flexible labour market.
    Mr. Sheldon: Will the Chancellor send a clear message to those voices in the City asking him to increase interest rates? Does he accept that the present interest rates should come down if we are to sustain any improvement in manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall continue to set interest rates according to British conditions, taking a view about the medium-term prospects for inflation, looking at the monetary aggregates that we use, the exchange rate and asset values. That has guided all my decisions on monetary policy so far, and will certainly continue to do so.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although industry always welcomes a reduction in income rates, it welcomes consistency more, so that it can plan ahead, knowing that rates will not rise again? That will give industry the necessary confidence to invest in the future.
    Mr. Clarke: Industry wants low inflation and a stable environment so that it can do what it has to do to produce the sound growth that we all want. That is why I state so clearly our objectives for monetary policy. I am glad that British industry has benefited from the steady reductions in interest rates since 1990. Altogether, if they are passed on, they are worth about £13 billion to British industry. That has obviously contributed quite a lot to our recovery from the recession, which is steadily becoming stronger.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Chancellor aware that the House has been reassured this afternoon by what both he and the Chief Secretary have said about having regard to British circumstances in determining British interest rates? Could he be pushed just a little further on that to see the interrelationship between interest rates and the value of sterling, and the implications of both for British industry? Is he aware that the disinflationary pressures in the British economy make it possible for him both to move downwards on inflation rates and interest rates and to maintain a competitive rate for sterling, the importance of which he referred to a few moments ago?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall add that to all the advice that I get when making these monetary decisions, which I usually do at my monthly meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England. We have been consistently reducing interest rates since 1990. We have been able to do so because we have been so successful in getting inflation down. That is one reason why the outlook for investment is now so good. We have been able to cushion the blow to those who rely on interest from their savings by introducing the new national savings bond with a fixed rate of 7 per cent. for pensioners who want to take it.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect on the balance of payments now and in the future of inward investment into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Portillo: Inward investment encourages competition and innovation, boosts productive capacity and is good for the balance of payments.
    Mr. Arnold: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, of all the Japanese investment into the 12 countries of the European Community, more than 40 per cent. has come to
    1066
    the United Kingdom and that, likewise, more than 40 per cent. of United States investment into Europe has come to the United Kingdom? Does that not contrast with the dark days of the last Labour Government when multinationals were leaving Britain in droves?
    Mr. Portillo: It is indeed 40 per cent. in both cases. However, my hon. Friend need not only look back; he can look forward to what Labour would do in office. The Opposition are supporters of the European socialist manifesto which proposes that tax rates in Britain should be levelled up to European Community levels. Our rate of corporation tax is 33 per cent., whereas in Belgium it is 40 per cent., in Italy 52 per cent. and in Germany 60 per cent. The implication is that Labour would wish to raise corporation tax to the levels of the Community.
    Mr. Cryer: If that inward investment has been so beneficial to our balance of payments, why are we running at a deficit of about £12 billion a year? Is it not true that the economic policies of this wretched Government have created 2.5 million job losses in manufacturing industry, so that we cannot actually supply any demand for our exports from our own manufacturing industry because of the wasteland that the Government have created—worse than any wastelands created by Hitler during the 1939 to 1945 war?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman was talking absolute rubbish, even before he took off at the end of his sentence into hyperbole. I should remind him that the United Kingdom invests more abroad than is invested in this country. We, of course, have all the benefit of that flow. This country believes in free trade, in investing heavily abroad and in allowing people to invest in this country. Free trade is good for this country. It is a pity that the Labour party has not yet recognised that.
    Mr. Riddick: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the latest issue of "In Yorkshire and Humberside", which reveals that, in the 12 months to March 1993, 42 foreign companies invested in that region, creating 6,500 new jobs? Do not foreign companies come to Britain to invest because we do not have the social chapter, the job-destroying minimum wage and an interfering Government imposing a corporatist-style, bogus, so-called business plan on industry?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes; and if I may broaden that out to the national scene, total inward investment in this country over the past five years has been about £91 billion, and about 275,000 jobs have been created—for all the reasons that my hon. Friend gives, and particularly because we still retain low marginal rates of taxation, which the Labour party wishes us to do away with.

    Growth
    Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he has received on the levels of investment in education, research and development and transport required to sustain economic growth in the longer term.
    Mr. Portillo: A great deal of advice.
    Mr. Jones: As we find ourselves near the bottom of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league for investment in infrastructure and

    1067
    education, what evidence can the Minister give that the Government are prepared to invest in areas that will secure Britain's economic future, rather than concentrate on pre-election tax bribes?
    Mr. Portillo: Over the next three years, we will spend, on average, nearly £2 billion on trunk roads and motorways. Over the same period, our total railway investment will be around £3 billion. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to say that we are at the bottom of the OECD league. Let me remind him that, as a share of our gross domestic product, the United Kingdom spends more on education than either Germany or Japan.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is it not the case that, by having the lowest corporation tax in Europe, firms have the necessary flow of funds to enable them to invest? Is it not also the case that, by not having a punitive taxation system, we do not suffer the brain drain that we had in the 1970s?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that what matters is not only public sector investment but private sector investment. That is one of the reasons why the Government are concentrating so hard on the private finance initiative, which enables private finance and private expertise to be brought into areas that previously were the preserve of the public sector.

    Balance of Trade
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the figures for the balance of trade for the last 12 months for United Kingdom and for Germany.
    Mr. Portillo: The United Kingdom had a visible trade deficit of £13 billion in the 12 months to November 1993, while Germany had a surplus of £20 billion. But looking at the current account overall, the United Kingdom had a deficit of £10 billion in the 12 months to September, while Germany had not a surplus but a deficit of £17 billion.
    Mr. Spellar: Does not the first part of the answer—the real answer about manufactured trade—show that, in spite of all the huffing and puffing from Conservative Members, in the real test of who can sell what in the world market, Germany, with its social market economy and many elements of the social chapter, is competitive and we are slipping behind in the world trade race?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman was obviously stunned by the answer. Let me remind him that, taking the current account overall, Germany has a bigger deficit than the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman did not anticipate that answer and obviously did not like it when he got it.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that not only are current manufactured exports from the United Kingdom at a record level but our proportion of world trade is rising, and has done so for the past four years? Will he also confirm that European statistics show that, last year, while the German economy fell in industrial production terms by 7 per cent., ours was the only economy in Europe to grow by 2.5 per cent?
    Mr. Portillo: We look forward to a rise of about 5.5 per cent. in exports this year. In contrast, we reckon that consumption will rise by about 2 per cent. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that, after a long period
    1068
    following the 1960s in which the United Kingdom's share of world trade in manufactures was falling, the position has now stabilised. I am hopeful that the figure will rise.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the proposed VAT increases from senior citizens' organisations.
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): Treasury Ministers have received a number of representations.
    Mr. Connarty: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer received the kind of representations that most of us have received, which express the anger of pensioners who will have to pay 8p more in the pound for their fuel come April, and 17.5 per cent. more next year? Is any sense of pensioners' despair getting through to the Minister—despair at the arrangements that will enable those with money in the bank to pay their VAT in advance, thereby avoiding the burden that will fall on most pensioners?
    Sir John Cope: Forestalling arrangements are a familiar part of changes in indirect taxation, and that applies in this case. However, 80 per cent. of the net yield of VAT on fuel will come from households with incomes of more than £15,000 a year, as a result of the massive package of benefit measures that we have also introduced.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Kashmir
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister how many independent observers have been allowed by the Indian authorities to visit the Indian occupied area of Kashmir since his visit last year.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): A number of independent observers have visited Kashmir since January 1993. They include parliamentarians, jurists, diplomats, journalists and human rights groups. The Indian Government have also recently agreed to a visit by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply. Is the Prime Minister aware, however, that the Indian Government are reluctant to allow independent observers to visit the occupied area? Indeed, they refused to allow an all-party group from the House to go there.
    Is the Prime Minister aware that the forthcoming visit of the Indian Prime Minister gives him an opportunity to make known to that gentleman the deep revulsion felt by many hon. Members about the on-going attacks and brutality perpetrated by the Indian security forces against men, women and children in occupied Kashmir? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will make that known?
    The Prime Minister: I look forward to Prime Minister Rao's visit to this country. We have excellent relations with the Indian Government, and I look forward to discussing a range of matters with him. As for access for independent national groups, we have encouraged the

    1069
    Indian Government to allow independent access to India. There have been steps towards greater openness in recent months, and I thoroughly welcome that.
    Mr. Jessel: Is this not just one more attempt by Opposition Members to wreck Britain's excellent relationship with a most friendly Commonwealth country? Will my right hon. Friend not only welcome India's own decision to set up a human rights commission but remind all the independent observers that terrorists are murderers, and that the most important human right is the right to stay alive?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, we have an excellent relationship with the Indian Government, both politically and in terms of a greatly increased flow of two-way trade with India. As for my hon. Friend's second point, I think that we shall soon have a report from the Indian human rights commission, and I look forward to that. I understand that it will deal with a wide range of issues that have been drawn to the commission's attention.

    Engagements
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. O'Hara: Does the Prime Minister share the President of the Board of Trade's low opinion of the legal advice offered by the Attorney-General?
    The Prime Minister: That is not the position of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the news that nearly 2 million North Western electricity board—NORWEB—customers are to benefit from a 6 per cent. cut in the price of their electricity from 1 April? Coming on top of a cut of nearly 2 per cent. last summer, does that not prove that privatisation works?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that that is certainly the case. There have been significant reductions in fuel prices in recent years, and I welcome that.
    Mr. John Smith: Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. What a total waste of valuable time in Prime Minister's questions.
    Mr. John Smith: Concerning the excessive pay awards of top executives, does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's comments today, or does he maintain his own response of a few weeks ago, that it is not a matter for him?
    The Prime Minister: I set out in the House, from memory, to the former right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and, before that, to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), my view that excessive pay awards are not justified. I equally maintain the point that that is a matter between employer and employee or company and management rather than a matter for the Government, but my personal view remains as first set out in the House to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in 1991.
    Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister has clearly said contradictory things, because he told us that it was not a matter for him. Whatever he says, does he not notice that those top executives do not pay a blind bit of notice? They carry on regardless, relentlessly increasing their pay and their perks. At the same time, pay restraint is imposed on millions of people with modest incomes. Is that not inconsistent, unfair and hypocritical?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have said precisely the same thing on that issue and, as I indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and he might have the grace to acknowledge, I first said it in 1991.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister yet appreciate the anger felt throughout the country at massive pay increases for top people occurring at the same time as massive tax increases for the rest of the country? Why are the Government so soft and indulgent on the very rich but hard and unfair on everyone else?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has returned to the same point three times after having two answers, I will now quote to him what I said to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in 1991:
    "I made it perfectly clear when I was Chief Secretary that I do not believe that excessive salary increases are right."—[Official Report, 1991; Vol. 193, c. 857.]
    That still remains my view.[Interruption.] For the hon. Gentleman who shouts, "What are you going to do about it?" may I say that this happens to be a free capitalist country, in which companies determine their wages. I take it from this that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would himself interfere with companies in the payment of employees and the payment of management by the companies themselves. If that is so, it blows out of the water any of the Labour party's modernising ideas of understanding free enterprise.
    Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week's sacking of 7,000 British soldiers from the Army is deeply regrettable, and indeed mistaken, bearing in mind that the British commander of the UN force in Bosnia has now repeated three times his request for more troops? Can my right hon. Friend now give a positive response to that request by a British general in the field?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we set out the position in "Options for Change" some time ago and the redundancies that were announced—
    Mr. Churchill indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may shake his head, but it happens to be a matter of fact and record. We set out the decisions on "Options for Change", and this measure implemented that decision, taken some time ago.
    As for the request for troops in Bosnia, my hon. Friend will know that we have a significant contingent already in Bosnia, who have done magnificent work. If a request is made to the United Kingdom, we would of course consider providing more forces proportionately as part of a wider international effort.
    Mr. Ashdown: May we take it from that answer that our Prime Minister and our Government really are prepared to let go to waste the peace that has been obtained by General Rose in Sarajevo during the past two weeks,

    1071
    rather than this country backing a request, made by a British general and supported by his own chiefs of staff, for more troops to ensure that that peace succeeds?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman yet again mistakes the position. It was the British Government who moved troops in to Sarajevo to ensure that the peace negotiated by General Rose and the corralling of weapons brought about by General Rose was able to be properly monitored. For once, the right hon. Gentleman might have the grace to acknowledge what we have done rather than carp and criticise inaccurately.
    Mr. French: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the British economy is to remain competitive in the future, it is essential that our children are trained now in the skills that they will require in the 21st century? Will he therefore join me in welcoming the announcement of the 12 technology schools, one of which is in my constituency and one of which I attended?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in his diagnosis. We certainly face greater competition in the years ahead and we will certainly need greater skills. One of the ways of obtaining them is the greater diversity in education brought about by the new technology colleges. I hope that many other schools and businesses will follow the lead set by those colleges.
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Wright: In the light of the Prime Minister's emphasis on the importance of personal responsibility, does he welcome the clear statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will resign if his conduct is criticised by Lord Justice Scott's report? Will the Prime Minister make an equally clear statement and will he expect the same of other Ministers?
    The Prime Minister: I have said repeatedly that I propose to make no comment on Lord Justice Scott's report. I propose to make no comment of any sort on Lord Justice Scott's report until he has reported. I set up that report and I gave it very wide terms of reference. I have assured Lord Justice Scott.— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Ms Armstrong.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. I have assured Lord Justice Scott that he will have the power and authority that he needs to complete his report satisfactorily, and I believe it follows from that that I should make no comment until I have that report.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.
    The Prime Minister:I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend welcome recent surveys which show that council tax bills this year will rise less than the rate of inflation? Does he agree that the revenue support grant settlement was correct in estimating needs for local councils, and is not that in stark contrast to the waste, inefficiency and nepotism of many Labour-controlled councils, especially that in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the news that council tax bills are on average likely to rise less than the rate of inflation is very welcome indeed and I believe that it shows that the local government settlement was very finely judged. That is, of course, very different from what was said by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who predicted at the time that the council tax would rise by four times the level of inflation. Clearly, he was scaremongering or wrong, or both.
    Mr. Galloway: Does the Prime Minister have a message for Nabil Shaath, the chief Palestinian negotiator, who is in Parliament this afternoon? In view of the fact that, since last Friday's massacre in Hebron, the Israeli army has shot down more people than were shot by the murderer in the mosque, will the Prime Minister support a protection force made up from the United Nations or at least the co-sponsors of the peace process to protect the Palestinians under illegal Israeli occupation?
    The Prime Minister: I think that violence from any source in that powder keg of the middle east is to be regretted, whether it comes from the dreadful massacre at Hebron or any other source. There are some United Nations observers there and I believe that they are doing an extremely good job. I had the opportunity of discussing that with the Secretary-General just the other day. What would be most helpful would be if, as soon as it seemed politically practicable, the two sides were to sit down again and continue with the negotiations that have made more progress in the past 18 months than for many years past. I believe that everyone wishes to see a comprehensive peace settlement that will enable the people who live there to live a decent, civilised and safe life.
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Sir John Hannam: During his visit to the United States, and remembering his excellent record as a former Minister with responsibility for the disabled, did my right hon. Friend observe the remarkable increase in the number of disabled people in America who are now attaining full, normal employment as a result of President Bush's anti-discrimination legislation? Will my right hon. Friend support our efforts in the House further to remove the barriers facing disabled people?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's desire to end discrimination against disabled people. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to identify further practicable and affordable ways to combat discrimination, There is much that may be done and I have asked my right hon. Friend to examine that matter.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House state the forthcoming business of the House?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons(Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam Speaker. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 7 MARcH—Motion on the Building Societies (EFTA States) Order.
Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 8 MARcH—Remaining stages of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill.
Motion on the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure.
WEDNESDAY 9 MARcH—Motion on the Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (Continuance) Order.
Motions to amend Standing Orders to establish a Select Committee related to Northern Ireland affairs.
THURSDAY 10 MARCH—Opposition Day (7th Allotted Day). There will be a debate described as "Strengthening of the Sex Discrimination Act", on an Opposition motion.
FRIDAY 11 MARcH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 14 MARcH—Estimates Day (2nd Allotted Day) (1st Part) Until seven o'clock, there will be a debate on housing, in so far as it relates to the Department of the Environment's grants in aid to the Housing Corporation.
At Ten o'clock, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding excess votes, supplementary estimates and defence votes A.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for the Opposition day. May I ask him to confirm that it is a requirement on all hon. Members to complete the declaration of Members' interests in the form agreed by the House? Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that all hon. Members are required to comply with the decision of the House and to complete the form?
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is going to ask for a debate on the matter, but may I remind him that it is not so far a business question? I am looking for business questions to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Brown: You anticipate my next move, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, in my statement just a week ago, I asked for no long preambles or statements before coming to a question.
Mr. Brown: It is indelibly printed on my mind, Madam Speaker.
May I therefore ask the Leader of the House to arrange for an early statement from the Attorney-General on the consistency of the legal advice that he gives to Ministers? Many hon. Members would like to question the Attorney-General on this point—including, I suspect, his ministerial colleagues.
May I also ask the Leader of the House to arrange for statements in the House on the latest policy changes relating to Home Office legislation and to Department for Education legislation? It is all very interesting to read
1074
about these policy changes in the newspapers, but we would quite like to cross-examine Ministers about these matters here in the House.
Mr. Newton: I observe mildly that that contains an above-average number of what I can only describe as rather mischievous questions. I am grateful, at least, for the hon. Gentleman's kind words about the Opposition day.
As regards the Register of Members' Interests, Madam Speaker, I can do no better—indeed, I would not dare to try —than repeat the points that you yourself made in responding to a point of order a day or two ago.
As regards the Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend has made it quite clear that he offered consistent advice, and I made some comments to that effect when answering on behalf of the Prime Minister on Tuesday. My right hon. and learned Friend will give evidence to the Scott inquiry in due course, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to wait for that rather than making such requests. As for requests for statements about legislation being considered in another place, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if statements were made in another place about legislation being considered here.
Sir Dudley Smith: May I raise with my right hon. Friend a matter of some urgency, and perhaps even of constitutional importance? As we, as a British Parliament—I emphasise the word "Parliament", rather than "Government"—are reneging on treaty responsibilities concerning our representation in the Western European Union Assembly, the Council of Europe and the North Atlantic Assembly, does my right hon. Friend not think that we should find time for a debate on the subject to consider whether we should temporarily withdraw from those institutions, or even consider staffing our representation with unelected peers from all parties, so that we can keep some continuity going?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's suggestions, but more importantly I note the continued concern that he expresses. He knows perfectly well that the absence of pairing is the cause of the problems, and that can be resolved only by the people sitting and staring on the Opposition Front Bench at this moment.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: As a former Minister responsible for people with disabilities, will the Leader of the House acknowledge the importance of the private Member's Bill to be discussed on Friday 11 March, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, with which the name of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is associated? What view do the Government take of the Bill? If it is given a Second Reading, will it be possible for further stages to be taken in Government time?
Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the importance of the issue. My right hon. Friend will of course make the Government's position clear in the course of the debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members interested in such matters will acknowledge that a further significant step forward for disabled people was taken on Monday, with the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment of a greatly improved access to work scheme.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on overseas students funded out of the overseas aid budget, with a view to examining statements made by Labour Members both currently and in days gone by? Although such people come to our country to obtain education for themselves, their presence is also a means of extending influence to the countries from which they come. Is that legitimate or not?
Mr. Newton: I do not feel that I can promise an early debate, but one of our aims is certainly to ensure that precisely that influence is gained, by whatever means can properly used.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House use his ministerial muscle next week to get the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to help hon. Members on the Standing Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, in Committee Room 14, with a statement explaining the Government's assumptions that challenge the local authorities' estimate of a cost of £720 million, with no new money?
Mr. Newton: Of course, we have had Treasury questions today. I believe that the hon. Gentleman raised the same issue with me some time ago, and I drew it to the attention of my ministerial colleagues. However, I am sure that the Scottish Office Ministers dealing with the Bill will have given the Committee full and proper information.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the facilities provided in the House? Is he aware that, when hon. Members sponsor functions here on Saturdays, tours are not allowed on Saturday nights—although that is being reconsidered—and that, if the function is at Saturday lunchtime, people are not allowed to look at the Chamber? Can anyone explain why, as the staff have to be here anyway, those doors cannot be opened? Can we have a debate, and can my right hon. Friend say who makes those decisions?
Mr. Newton: Those decisions are, of course, for the House authorities, although there are Committees that might make representations on the subject. My hon. Friend had already put that point to me informally. I had noted it, and I shall do my best to ensure that it is carefully considered.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: The House has already debated the Tomlinson report, and on the basis of that report the Secretary of State for Health has embarked upon a wholesale programme of hospital closures arid bed reductions. On Monday this week Professor Jarman gave evidence to an inquiry that I was chairing, suggesting that the report was based on a false premise. In view of the fact that that information was not to hand when the previous debate was held, will the Lord President of the Council find time for a debate next week, so that we can discuss Professor Jarman's findings and re-examine the Tomlinson report?
Mr. Newton: My understanding is not only that Professor Jarman's analysis is not new, but that Sir Bernard Tomlinson received evidence directly from Professor Jarman.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: As Britain slips and slides towards further involvement in
1076
Bosnia, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there will be an early debate on that subject so that the Government may hear the widespread view among those on the Conservative Benches that we do not want to become involved in a British Vietnam, and that there is no national interest involved in that tragic country?
Mr. Newton: I have three comments. First, I have often made it clear that I shall seek to arrange both statements and debates when that seems appropriate. Secondly, my hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only a few minutes ago. Thirdly, the Ministry of Defence is top for questions next Tuesday, when my hon. Friend may be able to raise the matter.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the Leader of the House elaborate on Wednesday's business concerning motions to amend Standing Orders to establish a Select Committee for the north of Ireland? Will he clarify what motions will be tabled, so that there will be no doubt that the Government will not interfere in the Committee of Selection's business?
Given that the Select Committee has been imposed against the wishes of a substantial number of hon. Members, and that the proposed membership is unfair to one section of us represented in the House, will he further assure the House that ample time will be made available for debate during the presentation of the motions?
Mr. Newton: I must gently point out that the hon. Gentleman can hardly expect me to confirm, as I would, that membership is a matter for the Committee of Selection, and then engage in debate about who should or should not be included in the membership.
There will be three motions. The first will make appropriate adjustments to the terms of reference of Select Committees generally; the second will set up the Northern Ireland Select Committee and give it its terms of reference; and the third will change the name of the present Northern Ireland Committee under Standing Order No. 99 to make it the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. The total number of Members will be set out, but not the detail.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for a debate on the report of the Hansard commission? He will know that hon. Members have a growing interest in the way in which the House carries out its business, and that such a debate would be a reasonable way to start the ball rolling.
Mr. Newton: I have carefully considered my hon. Friend's recent Adjournment debate, which was answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Services and Science. I have also studied the report. It contains much that is worth considering, but I cannot promise an early debate.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: May we have a debate on this year's standard spending assessment settlement, because an awful lot of its detail has become known since it was announced? For instance, Westminster city council has received more than £4.2 million to deal with homelessness, and is now making a profit off the backs of the people who are sleeping on its pavements. In that debate, we could perhaps hear a justification for that, and gain an understanding of how it happened.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, despite his attempt to come up with a reason for a further debate, knows that the House has had opportunities to debate the revenue support grant orders recently.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend make time available for a debate on the common agricultural policy, particularly since it has recently been discovered that a paper has been suppressed by the Commission in Brussels? That clearly shows that the system is almost unworkable. The CAP costs our citizens at least £1,000 a year extra on their food bills. I therefore urge him to make time available to discuss that document, and the role of the Commission in the matter.
Mr. Newton: I am not sure that my hon. Friend can be confident of his suggestion about suppression. As I understand it, work is being done on such a paper. It is certainly true that the Government will continue to support sensible efforts at CAP reform.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It has been two months since it was exposed that a Conservative Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), made £50,000 on buying the council house next door to his house in Westminster. Cannot we have a debate on the whole question of the right to buy, especially as that hon. Gentleman still refuses to pay back to the ratepayers of Westminster the £50,000 that he ripped off them?
Mr. Newton rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The last few words of the hon. Gentleman's question were quite unacceptable and I hope that he will withdraw them. I understand his sentiments, but I cannot accept those words, and I am asking him him to withdraw them.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment. I wish Members would not interfere when I am dealing with the situation.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is my belief that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton ripped off the ratepayers of Westminster to the tune of £50,000. I am afraid that I have absolutely no intention of withdrawing what I know to be the truth.
Madam Speaker: I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to use that phrase in the question as he has done. He can withdraw it, and he can rephrase the question, which would be totally acceptable. I ask him to reconsider and rephrase it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have been asking questions about this for eight weeks on behalf of ratepayers in Westminster, so that the money can be returned. I am afraid that I am not in a position to withdraw any statement that I have made to Parliament on these matters.
Madam Speaker: I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw statements that he has made previously or the statement that he has made today. I am asking him to withdraw the words "ripped off". That is all that I am asking him to do—to withdraw those words and to rephrase his question. His statement can stand; I have no
1078
objection to that. I am simply asking him to withdraw the last two or three words he used. He has certainly made statements over a number of weeks, all of which are acceptable in the House. Those last few words are not acceptable, and I ask him to reconsider.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Madam Speaker, I hold you, as you know, in the greatest of respect. I have to say to you that, repeatedly over the 14 years that I have been a Member of this House, I have heard reference to "ripping off'. On that basis, in so far as a precedent has been set by those before me, I am afraid that I am not in a position to withdraw it.
Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has not heard that phrase in respect of one hon. Member. It may have been used in a corporate context, but not in that way. I am asking him please to reconsider. I have the utmost respect for him and the way in which he pursues matters here. All that I am expecting him to do is to rephrase those few words. His statement still stands.
Mr. Campbell-Savoursindicated dissent.
Madam Speaker: I am afraid, if he does not, I must ask him to leave the House for the remainder of this day's sitting. I hope that he will rephrase it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Then I shall leave the House, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member, having used a grossly disorderly expression, was ordered by MADAM SPEAKER to withdraw the same, but he declined to comply with that direction; whereupon MADAM SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Disorderly conduct), ordered him to withdraw immediately from the House for the remainder of this day's Sitting, and he withdrew accordingly.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he would allocate time for a debate on Community enlargement? Is he aware that the enlargement talks in Brussels, far from being the success that has been portrayed, are being held to ransom by the Spanish Government, who are trying to take away the blocking minority in the Council of Ministers, and who are trying to invade Norwegian waters with their fishing vessels? Should we not have a debate on that matter to expose that double dealing?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that there has been a lot of progress in those negotiations, especially with Sweden, Finland and Austria, and negotiations are continuing with Norway. I do not want to comment in the way in which he invites me to do so while those negotiations are continuing. Of course, we wish to give details to the House as soon as those negotiations are concluded.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the light of that response from the Leader of the House, is it his understanding that negotiations with Norway have been put on ice for a further week? Does he not accept that there is a desperate need for Members to be advised on the terms of the negotiations in the context of the applicant members? None of us has been advised of what was laid on the table by the various Ministers during those

1079
negotiations and matters seem to fall between two Committees—the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Scrutiny Committee.
Could he therefore ensure that a mechanism is established whereby those hon. Members who are interested in the generalities and the specifics of the common fisheries policy are at least able to ask Ministers what is being said during those negotiations?
Mr. Newton: I can confirm that fisheries issues are one of the difficult areas of discussion, especially in relation to Norway, and I will consider the hon. Lady's point.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on early-day motion 618, which graphically exposes the Liberal Democrats' position on Europe and their willingness to abandon our national veto, which could result in the loss of Britain's European rebate and the end of zero-rated VAT items?
[That this House notes the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democratic Party over its policy on Europe; recalls the statement of Liberal Democrats' spokesman on Europe, the honourable Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, that 'the Nation state in terms of the old concept of sovereignty has seen its day' (Official Report, 26th June 1991, column 1365); contrasts these remarks with his parry's new policy of 'decentralised federalism'; believes that this new policy is contradicted by a long list of centralising proposals supported by the Liberal Democrats which include signing up to the Social Chapter, signing up now for a timetable for a single currency, a common defence and security policy, a common immigration policy, a common rural policy and, most significantly, accepting majority voting in the Council of Ministers, meaning the end of the national veto; believes that they have sought to disguise centralising policies, designed to create a United States of Europe, in decentralising rhetoric; and believes this to be a blatant attempt to mislead the electorate in the hope of gaining political advantage in the forthcoming European elections.]
Mr. Newton: Again, that is a debate that I would like to arrange, and I am sure that notice has been taken well beyond this House of the extent to which the Liberal Democrats would give up what most of us would regard as important British interests.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week on commercial lobbying organisations? One has recently been established with the support of a number of ex-Ministers, which claims that it can give access to the Government—access which is denied to ordinary people. Or is the Leader of the House not concerned about the operation of 'decent standards and the control of commercial lobbying organisations, which seem to be completely out of control—like the 12 Conservative Members who denied the House by not providing information about their Lloyd's interests?
Mr. Newton: I shall not comment, Madam Speaker —beyond what I already said when referring to your comments—on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's questions, beyond noting that Members on both sides of the House had not provided an entry at the time that the report was published.
Mr. CryerI was talking about Lloyd's.
Mr. Newton: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is very selective in the matters that he raises, is he not?
On the first part of his question, his comments on whether I was concerned about standards bordered on the offensive, so I shall ignore them. He will know that the Select Committee on Members' Interests is looking further into the matter.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Has my right hon. Friend received any request from the Opposition for a debate on unemployment on one of their Supply days? It is more than a year since they last did so. If not, have they explained to him why not? Is it perhaps because of the fall of 200,000 in unemployment and the fact that they are only interested in debating bad news, not good news?
Mr. Newton: I cannot better my hon. Friend's explanation. The only obvious reason for not having a debate on unemployment is that the Opposition do not want to draw attention to the fact that it is coming down.
Mr. Barry Jones: When will the Government allow us to debate their decision to end the iron and steel employees readaptation benefits scheme? Does he know about the anger felt in the steel communities? Does he not realise that steel workers believe that he has played a very sneaky trick?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has referred to that question several times. Equally, I have referred several times to the evaluation report that was put in the Library of the House last October, which underlines the reasons why the Government decided to make that change.
Mr. Robert Banks: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the special report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which is recorded in the Vote today? The report is concerned about the impediment to the work of the Committee caused by the Opposition preventing the investigation that it wants to undertake in South Africa. In view of that, and the principle which must be enshrined in this House that the work of Select Committees should not be fettered in that way, will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the subject?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's question is almost identical to another asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir. D. Smith), who was concerned about attendance at the Western European Union and other international organisations. I am aware of the resolution passed by the Trade and Industry Select Committee, and I hope that it will be considered by those concerned on the Labour Front Bench.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the announcement of the business for next week, especially that for Wednesday. However, will it be possible at some time during that week or the week after for the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People or another Minister to make a statement that might allow us to examine the fate and lot of adults affected by thalidomide, who have suffered for years without proper compensation?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be aware that representatives of the Thalidomide Action Group are meeting my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health on 9 March. I do not think that I want to comment before that meeting has taken place.
Mr. John Garrett: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Treasury Select Committee is carrying out an important study of the civil service. Is he aware that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has refused permission for the Committee to carry out a survey of junior and middle-ranking civil servants, quoting in evidence some civil service management code?
Does he agree that that civil service management code has no statutory authority, it has never been discussed in the House, and it represents an arbitrary use of power by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Does the Leader of the House agree that this could be a case for judicial review? Does he propose to defend the rights of the House against—
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Garrett: May we have a statement next week—
Madam Speaker: Yes, I was just wondering when we would get a request for something, rather than an argument.
Mr. Garrett: Here it comes.
Madam Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Garrett: Will the Leader of the House make a statement on this important constitutional issue, representing as it does the use of power by a Minister against a Select Committee? Will he make such a statement next week?
Mr. Newton: I certainly have no intention of making a statement of the kind sought next week, but I will bring the request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Mr. Eric Insley: Will the Leader of the House arrange perhaps next week for a short debate on the timetable on the Finance Bill, as it is preventing sensible debate on the Bill, much to the dismay of outside organisations which take a close interest in it? On some occasions, we find that we have too much to debate in the time allotted, and on other occasions we find that there is too much time. [Interruption.] Will the Leader of the House arrange for that to be dealt with?
Mr. Newton: The House had considerable opportunity to discuss the timetable motion as a whole. The detailed arrangements would be for the Business Committee. I think that I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. Mackay), who is on the Committee, say that Labour Members did not even bother to come to the Business Committee. It seems to be an issue that perhaps the Opposition could resolve, rather than the Government.
Mr. Roger Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the financial affairs of the Church Commissioners, who hold public national assets? The recent history of their activities has caused wide public concern.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate on the Church Commissioners. I see that there is a motion on the Pastoral Amendment Measure next week, but without some careful research I cannot be sure whether it would be in order.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate on the sentiments of the amendment to early-day
1082
motion 674 and the magnificent editorial in The Independent today which argues that the main cause of increasing crime is the profits being made by people who are selling drugs, and the only practical way to decrease the use of illegal drugs and crime is to decriminalise soft drugs —cannabis and amphetamines—and treat the addicts of hard drugs as patients, not as criminals?
That this House recognises the urgent need to reduce the consumption of illegal drugs of all kinds; notes with concern the clear conflict between the proposals of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and of the Scottish Office on the use of fines for drug offences; notes that the Home Secretary has proposed raising the maximum fine to £2, 500 for all offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; but notes that the Scottish Office, in the consultation document, Improving the Delivery of Justice in Scotland, proposes the use of £25 fiscal fines, which do not constitute a criminal conviction, for the same offences where appropriate; believes that the Home Secretary has displayed a complete disregard for the impracticality and ineffectiveness of imposing such severe penalties, particularly on the personal use of cannabis, which has been indicated by his own research; welcomes the criticism of Home Office policy by the police on these same grounds; and believes that this policy should be abandoned in favour of a more graded response towards punishing drug use and sale, so as to concentrate the limited resources in the criminal justice system efficiently and effectively on the most acute problems, and, particularly, those associated with the use, manufacture, importation and sale of the most harmful narcotics.]
Mr. Newton: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that many people do.
Mr. Michael Bates: Can my right hon. Friend find time next week for an urgent debate on the growing economic crisis in Chad, where the level of national debt is running out of control and has almost reached the level of that in Labour-controlled Camden council?
Mr. Newton: That is another interesting subject for debate. It shows just how much mismanagement of resources occurs in Labour councils.
Mr. Tony Banks: Chad?
Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to see the appalling pictures on the front page of the Daily Mirror today of the slaughter of up to 30,000 seals on the ice floes of the Caspian sea? Can we have a debate on animal welfare in Government time, because it appears that the Russians have been slaughtering protected species such as blue whales as well? Given the interest in this matter on both sides of the House, we should be given an opportunity to debate these issues.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that many people will have looked at those accounts with some concern. I understand that seal culling in Russia is not on a scale which threatens the species. However, the Russian authorities are well aware of British opposition to sealing, and I note the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate.
Sir Peter Emery: In considering the application for a debate from the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), will my right hon. Friend perhaps ensure that it is pointed out that, if the

1083
recommendation of the Procedure Committee on the programming of legislation upstairs was considered, the problem that the hon. Gentleman had would be overcome immediately?
Mr. Newton: I am sorry to see that the hon. Gentleman has fled before the point could come directly uo his attention, but I am sure that he will read my right hon. Friend's words with the weight which they deserve.
Mr. David Winnick: I do not want to cause any trouble, but could we have a statement next week on the Prime Minister's intentions in view of the new leadership bid which is being made by the President of the Board of Trade? The House will remember what happened in 1990. Should it not be kept informed of when the right hon. Gentleman intends to make that leadership bid?
Mr. Newton: With an eye on an interesting quote, may I just make sure that Hansard will record that the hon. Gentleman said "I don't want to cause any trouble"?
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 736?
[That this House calls for a full investigation of environmental problems in the Staveley and surrounding areas in Derbyshire which would include within its remit close examination of asthma levels, eye defects in calves, river pollution, airborne emissions, recent experience of high dioxin levels, safety precautions and emergency plans, inadequate sewage disposal provisions and the further potential of pollution from schemes such as those from motorway road widening; and further calls for such on investigation to draw together expertise from the Health Service, the Pollution Inspectorate, the Department of Agriculture, the National Rivers Authority, the local authorities and a wide range of other relevant statuutory and voluntary agencies.]
Can we have a debate upon this matter next week? It would be a fruitful debate, because it would lead to future discussions on environmental protection legislation, and the real problem which exists in that area.
Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the importance of any such problem, but I am advised that elevated dioxin levels
1084
found in the soil in the Staveley area have been investigated fully, and they do not give cause for concern on public health grounds.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come to the House to make a statement on a report published last week by his office called "The Rising Tide"? The report concerns women in science, engineering and technology and has several excellent recommendations, including encouraging firms to have family-friendly policies, and also tax allowances for child care. I am sure that every hon. Member would be interested to know what the Government are going to do about it.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend clearly is in much demand, and he will be answering questions on Monday next. There is also an Opposition debate called "Strengthening the Sex Discrimination Act" on Thursday. Without seeing the Opposition's motion, it is difficult to know what ground can be covered, but it does not sound as if the debate will be a million miles from the sort of ground which the hon. Lady is seeking to touch on.
Mr. Mike Watson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate at an early date to discuss the duplicity of the Allied Irish Bank, which has led to the closure of the Belmarda company in Oatlands in my constituency, with the loss this week of 240 jobs?
The bank originally told the company that it could extend its borrowing limit to £300,000, but restricted that to £150,000 without notice. The bank served notice on the company on Monday that it wanted to call in that debt, which led to the immediate liquidation of the company. It is a disgraceful state of affairs. The company has assets of some £10 million, and a £1 million order book. It is willing to continue trading, but is unable to do so. Will the Leader of the House take into account the fact that 240 jobs are at stake?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will understand that, without notice, it is simply not possible for me to comment on the case. I will certainly bring his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Points of Order
4.2 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I first wish you a happy St Winwaloe's day? The matter that I wish to raise with you is connected with that subject, and with your ruling that starred questions get a greater priority now than they did in the past.
I had a question selected for answer next Monday, but it has been transferred—quite irrationally—to the Secretary of State for Wales. The question was addressed to the Secretary of State for National Heritage, and concerned Cornwall. The Government may be now saying that Cornwall is a part of Wales, and I can understand that decision.
I have had many conversations with the Department of National Heritage since then, and have pointed out that the matter concerns national heritage. The question related to the heritage and the language of Cornwall, which is the responsibility of that Department, and not the Welsh Office. I have had conversations with the Table Office as well, and there seems to be no way to re-star a question which has been removed, which is of great disadvantage to those hon. Members fortunate enough to have questions selected.
Madam Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has pursued or will pursue the matter with the relevant Minister. It is within the Minister's discretion to decide whether a question is within his responsibility. I have no authority to intervene in that. It is up to the Minister to determine whether the question relates to him or to some other Department.
Mr. Flynn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have raised the matter on a daily basis with the Department involved since Monday. The only conclusion is that the Government have decided that Cornwall is a part of Wales, which is a matter of some celebration on St. Winwaloe's day.
Madam Speaker: I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman was just seeking to make a point about extending the Principality.
Mr. David Hanson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on what I hope is a genuine point of order—[Interruption.] The point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was also a genuine point of order. Is it in order for demonstrations such as that which took place during Prime Minister's Question Time today to take place? I for one was shocked at the demonstration. If that sort of behaviour had taken place in the Strangers Gallery, it would have resulted in the removal of people from that Gallery.
Madam Speaker: In this place, we proceed by debate and argument and not by flag-waving. I prefer us to use the old-fashioned methods of debate and argument in the Chamber.
Mr. Hanson rose—
Madam Speaker: I will take no further point of order.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Often, when there are outrageous scenes on one side, it is difficult for you as Speaker always to intervene when there is a large number of hooligans on the Conservative Benches at once. I am sure you would agree that that is often corrected in the Chamber by people on this side taking retaliatory action. If that sort of action continues, we shall have no compunction about bringing in a large number of copies of the current issue of Scallywag.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that that is not at all necessary. I dealt with the matter today, and I do not wish to see any other form of demonstration from either side of the House. As I say, argument and debate are what we are about here.
Mr. Michael Bates: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the implementation of Standing Order No. 42, particularly as it relates to the disgraceful attack by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) during business questions.
Madam Speaker: Order. That matter has been dealt with. One of the things that we do here is deal with matters immediately. The matter is now over and done with.

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
4.8 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I should like to clarify for the House following those points of order that I have no territorial demand for Wales today, just a good story to tell about how well Wales is doing. I want a more prosperous Wales. In the past 15 years great strides have been taken. Incomes have risen. Many new jobs have been created. Whole new industries have been established. Wales has gained a worldwide reputation for good work, few strikes, success in manufacturing and skill at services.
Long-term unemployment in Wales has fallen by 40 per cent. since 1986. Unemployment has fallen by 6,500 since 1993. That is more than 500 additional jobs a month every month. Wages have been rising faster than the United Kingdom average since 1990 because productivity is good and rising. I hope that, during the debate, Opposition Members will make some reference to the good news as well as to the other things that they wish to fasten on in their speeches.
Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in a success story in my constituency—the factory making an executive jet. I invite him to visit that factory because I am seriously concerned about the long-term future of the production of the Raytheon-Hawker executive jet in my constituency. A constant threat that appears to hang over the work force is that production facilities may be withdrawn from my constituency and located in America. Will the Minister and his colleagues in the Government take a keen interest in the matter and do all that they can to keep production facilities in Broughton in my constituency?
Mr. Redwood: I willingly give that assurance, as my interests are the same as the hon. Gentleman's. As he knows, I have been in touch with the management and asked the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency to do everything in their power to assist the company, as I wish to see it continue to provide good jobs in his constituency.
None of us can rest content with one in 10 of the Welsh work force out of work and incomes still below the UK average, so the important task before us is to build on the enormous progress made in the past 15 years in attracting still more business and growing more enterprises at home.
My strategy rests on four firm foundations. The first is the strength that Wales draws from general United Kingdom economic policy. Low inflation, flexible labour markets, low interest rates, deregulation and low corporate taxes are all crucial to business success. The second is our policy of educating and training the work force of the future. Rising educational standards and more qualified people are helping recovery. As we debated last week in the Welsh Grand Committee, more must be, and will be, achieved.
The third foundation is ensuring a good supply of development land and facilities for industry and commerce. Our programme of land reclamation has cleared another 700 acres for use this year and much more is planned. The fourth is improving our access to markets through our transport and communications policies. Many
1088
companies are attracted by the excellence of Manchester airport, linked by the A55 and M56 to north Wales, and by Heathrow airport, linked by the M4 to south Wales. I also wish to see more progress with Cardiff airport and services there.
Companies are also impressed by the sophistication of our telecommunications and the convenience of the world's main business language. Five export missions in the past year have won jobs and contracts for Wales: three were led by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and two were led by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, all with great distinction. The business that they won is good business for Wales. I hope that Opposition Members will get behind business men who are trying to win business abroad and will not knock them and make their task more difficult.
Mr. Donald Anderson: We certainly applaud any orders won overseas. On the example set by business men, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the leaders of private industry, including those of the privatised monopolies, to moderate their emoluments, whereas the Prime Minister has said that it is nothing to do with him. On whose side is the Secretary of State?
Mr. Redwood: My two right hon. Friends do not disagree. It is for shareholders to decide, to discipline and to ensure that boards of directors do the right thing over pay. We all want people to be well paid and to earn it. Nobody minds good pay if it is performance linked, which is exactly what both my right hon. Friends have been saying in their own ways.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Can the Secretary of State cite a single example of a privatised utility where the discipline to which he referred has been exercised by the shareholders?
Mr. Redwood: Discipline is exercised on behalf of shareholders in all companies. They decide which directors to put on the boards and are responsible for ensuring that there are proper remuneration committees or other systems to control those matters. I believe in shareholder democracy. If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not like what is going on in some of those companies, he should become a shareholder and go to those meetings and make his point in the right democratic context.
Mr. Nick Ainger: The Secretary of State mentioned remuneration committees for the privatised utilities. Does he know of any NHS trust in Wales that has a proper remuneration committee looking at the management and executive costs of its employees?
Mr. Redwood: I said, committee or other arrangement. I have asked them all to ensure that they have proper arrangements for guaranteeing value and supervising the contracts. I would be happy to take up any case if the hon. Gentleman thinks that any of them are falling down in that respect.
I hope that during the debate we shall learn something —anything—about Labour's policy for Wales. In the past year, we have had a Trappist silence from Opposition Members about what they would want to -do. The Labour Front Bench has been an idea-free zone. Let us see, one more time, whether we can get some answers to the questions that we and the people of Wales have been asking about Labour's policy.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: One thing that Labour would do is offer part-time workers the same protection as full-time workers. Does the Secretary of State welcome the judgment in the House of Lords just two hours ago in the case between the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Department of Employment? The ruling was that the Department of Employment was acting illegally and that part-time workers must be given the same protection as full-time workers. I am glad that the Minister is now briefing the Secretary of State and I hope that the Secretary of State will welcome that important ruling this afternoon.
Mr. Redwood: Of course I needed briefing as I have not had a chance to study the judgment. However, my hon. Friend tells me that the practices referred to in the judgment were introduced by a Labour Administration, so perhaps the hon. Lady should get her facts straight before trying to make clever points in the Chamber.
Would Labour put any limit on the taxing powers of its proposed Welsh assembly? We do not know. Would Labour increase spending on education on training? We do not know. Would Labour increase spending on the disabled and care in the community above the large increases I have announced? We do not know.
Will Labour ever stand up and praise the many fine achievements of Welsh business men, sportsmen and salesmen? We do not know. Will Labour say sorry for undermining our businesses in places such as Malaysia when it should be supporting them? Again, we do not know. Would Labour rule out higher taxes? Of course it would not, because that is what it really believes in. We can and will have to work out for it what the Labour party stands for.
Mr. Ron Davies: I shall be more than happy to address those questions at the next general election. Perhaps I can turn the Secretary of State's mind back to the last general election and refer specifically to a manifesto commitment that his predecessor gave. The Conservatives' Welsh election manifesto said that the Secretary of State would establish a Welsh economic council, which would
"ensure … a more united effort on the part of the Principality's major employers' and employees organisations."
When does the Secretary of State intend to implement that manifesto commitment?
Mr. Redwood: I shall be implementing it shortly and I shall let the hon. Gentleman know when the arrangements are completed for the first meeting and the people invited to join it, as I wish to make progress in the way that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
The Labour party is out of touch; it is permanently out to lunch. Given the choice, it would spend more on extra layers of Government and bureaucracy, not less. Given the chance, it would tax more, not less. The Opposition are discredited by the few things that they say. At the time of the local government settlement, they told me that it meant a minimum of 15 per cent. council tax rises.
Mr. Donald Anderson rose
Mr. Win Griffiths rose
Mr. Redwood: I shall finish the point before I give way. Today we learn that the average so far is not 15 per cent., not 10 per cent. and not even 5 per cent. At the time of our last debate, they threatened that Labour local
1090
government would cut teachers, when my priority—as Labour's should be—is better education. Why do they not look at spending on public relations, corporate affairs and the army of advisers that they retain in county halls?
Mr. Anderson: Might not the Secretary of State reflect on one reason for caution in giving costed increases possibly three years from the next election? When my party gave an honest shadow Budget shortly before the last election, it was pilloried by the Conservative leading press. We may well have lost the election as a result of that shadow Budget, whereas the Conservatives, despite their election promises, have put up taxes substantially more than we suggested in our shadow Budget.
Mr. Redwood: I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Labour party wishes to mislead the electorate, because it does not want to come clean about its plans. The truth is that the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Cabinet cannot get permission to announce the policies that he wants to announce. His hands are tied and he is gagged as well.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Has the Secretary of State calculated how much more in taxes Welsh people will pay in the coming two years? Will he tell us the amount of the publicity budget of the Welsh Office?
Mr. Redwood: There has been extensive discussion about the impact of tax changes in the previous Budget. That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can tell Labour Members that, when they left power, income tax was 33p in the pound. Today it is 25p in the pound. I know what people in Wales would rather be paying.
It is no wonder, with them all out to lunch, that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) have decided to steal away for good. They sense another defeat and do not want to be around for the recriminations. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that great paragon of socialist virtues, that scourge of any Conservative who falls short of high standards, cannot face it today and has gone out to lunch—or has gone out to something in Belgravia. He can see that it is time to go upmarket if one is to get on in the modern Labour party. It is time for designer suits and public school accents. It is time to trade in the working class life for something more middle class. I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) with his "back to Janice" campaign. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that he goes back to Janice and I go back to my own home.
The Government attach great importance to improving public transport.
Mr. Ainger: Nobody is laughing.
Mr. Redwood: I know that Opposition Members are not laughing, because that is close to the bone. They do not like it, but it is true. They got caught, and they know it.
The railway network is an underused asset. There is a need to attract customers. Better marketing and better services, comfort, reliability and frequency are all necessary. I use the trains as often as possible. I hope that more will do so. Our competition policy for the railways is

1091
designed to put passengers first and to woo more people on to the trains. The tracks will remain in public hands, as now, and franchising offers opportunities, not threats.
Mrs. Clwyd: I hope that the Secretary of State will take the debate a little more seriously than he has so far. Will he give some assurances on the future of the valleys lines, particularly under the unitary authorities? For example, as he knows, were it not for the intervention of Mid Glamorgan county council, some of those lines would not exist.
Mr. Redwood: Of course I want them to have a good future, but I can tell the hon. Lady that the best way for them to have that is to woo enough people on to the trains to use those excellent services. The Government are fully behind those lines. I am trying to outline to the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends the policy that we are putting into effect, which I think will make a difference. It will make the trains more attractive and give us more passengers on them.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will remind the hon. Lady that, since 1979, under the Conservative Government, more stations are open in the valleys.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his important point. Our franchising idea offers opportunities, not threats. It means that if a private company comes forward and can do a better job, it will be able to do so. If no one comes forward, BR will continue, as now. The services will be better and customers should be attracted in greater numbers.
A better complete service could be provided. For example, safe, convenient and secure car parking could attract more customers to stations—most people travel to the station by car in the first instance. There is scope for other facilities at stations, such as car servicing and better retail facilities for customers to make it a more attractive proposition.
I intend today to announce my plans for strategic roads in Wales to show how they will link all the main parts of Wales to the markets of the future. As I have travelled the length and breadth of Wales over the past nine months, I have made a point of visiting the sites of many road schemes to see for myself. I have decided that Wales needs three strong strategic east-west links. These are, or will be, the M4 in the south, the A465 heads of the valleys road and the A55 in the north. They will be dual carriageway standard, designed to carry large volumes of traffic safely at a good speed.
Following representations, I am bringing forward work on the A465. I hope that Opposition Members who wanted that will welcome the proposal. The Glynneath-Aberdulais contract is now under way, and I have asked officials to accelerate the dualling of the 25 miles between Abergavenny and Hirwaun. I shall be consulting the public on route options this year. Progress now depends on the speed of design work, consultation and statutory procedures. I see the A465 bringing prosperity to the northern valleys as surely as the M4 is doing in the south and the A55 in north Wales. The A55 on the mainland will be completed this year, and I attach importance to extending it across Anglesey as quickly as possible.
There is a need to improve capacity on the M4 in south-east Wales. The second Severn crossing is to open in
1092
1996. I have added a scheme to the programme to increase capacity by widening the section between Magor and Newport at about the same time. Congestion at Newport will be alleviated when the Brynglas tunnels/Malpas relief road opens next winter. In the longer term, additional capacity will be needed between the second Severn crossing and the west of Cardiff. I am considering responses to the consultation on the route options for the M4 relief motorway, and a planned widening of the M4 to three lanes around Cardiff is already in my programme.
I expect those roads to cater for the foreseeable growth in heavy lorry traffic and long-distance east-west car traffic for at least the next decade. There is no general need for increases in capacity on other routes. The A40 in mid-Wales and the A5 on the mainland of north Wales traverse beautiful scenery and go through pretty towns and villages. I do not see those roads as the primary routes for heavy long-distance traffic.
I have been persuaded by the environmental arguments in several cases. For that reason, I am deleting the A40 Crickhowell bypass and the A5 Bonwm bends schemes. I am deferring the Corwen and Bethesda bypasses and the A40 Pontargothi diversion. I shall be considering the Abergavenny western bypass in the light of the inspector's report and my policy on strategic routes.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: Talking of the A40, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the importance of relieving congestion in the Fishguard area, to provide better access to the port, the route 6 bypass and the southern bypass?
Mr. Redwood: I shall deal with the A40 links to the M4 from the extreme west a little later. I think that that is a different issue from the route of the A40 across mid-Wales. I wish to send a clear signal that the mainland A5 and the mid-Wales A40 are not destined to become major highways and that improvements to them will be made only where the safety case is compelling or there are special local needs.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement about the Crickhowell bypass. I am sure that it reflects the substantial representations that he received from those in the locality and, more widely, from people in Wales who know and value the area well.
My right hon. Friend will know, however, that there are still considerable traffic problems in many of the towns and villages of mid-Wales. Will he give more impetus to some of the traffic-calming measures that I know that his Department has been considering to deal with many of the problems that arise in some of our more beautiful villages?
Mr. Redwood: Of course I shall consider that point. I shall also consider individual needs for bypasses, road improvements or alignment improvements when they are required for local traffic reasons. The signal that I wish to send at this stage, however, is that those are not the key strategic routes and they will not be taking the main heavy traffic flows across Wales.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Carmarthen eastern bypass has been on the programme for the past 10, 15 or even 20 years. Will the Secretary of State assure me that it will be completed and that the starting date will be April 1996?
I note from the map that the right hon. Gentleman kindly sent us today that there is a large void north of

1093
Cardiff, in the area of the routes to the Teifi valley and Ceredigion. This is not considered a strategic route. The Carmarthen eastern bypass, however, is seen locally as the first stage of improvement to links to the north.
Mr. Redwood: I shall come to that point, as there are important road schemes in the area. I shall be making a change of alignment in the Camarthen eastern bypass to avoid building a route through a sensitive environmental area, but I intend to continue with the scheme.
Mr. Allan Rogers: The Secretary of State has given us all copies of a letter and a map, but has not included an explanation. I understand that the press and the rest of the media received such an explanation. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is much better at colouring books than I am, but I cannot quite understand the map. Could he possibly provide us with an explanatory leaflet like that given to the media?
Mr. Redwood: I thought that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if they saw what I was publishing today, which is the map—the broad strategic outlines. I am now trying to give a few more details to show where my thinking has reached. The remaining details of all the different parts of the programme will be published in a month or two's time when they are all completed. However, I wanted the House to have an early opportunity to debate the matter. I gave Opposition Members an early opportunity by sending the map in advance so that they would know that I was going to do so.
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is purely a matter of information. I wonder, through you, whether the courtesy could be extended to us that was extended to the media. The media received an explanatory form with the map, giving details of what was taking place. There are simply coloured lines on our map.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a point of order for the Chair, but no doubt the point has been taken by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Redwood: I do not think that I have done anything wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given Opposition Members the map. I am now trying to tell them what the map means, in the proper place and at the proper time. After that I shall go out and brief the press, and that, I think, Opposition Members would also expect me to do. I am sure, however, that the press will be listening carefully to the statement that I am making, because that is the way in which they will learn, as will Opposition Members if they are interested in roads affecting their constituencies. If they listen carefully, they will realise that I have taken on board many of the representations from Opposition Members as well as from Conservative Members.
I am also deferring the A494 Llanbedr bypass. I am not convinced of the present need for a new road through that area of outstanding natural beauty and I wish every. effort to be made to improve safety without constructing that full bypass. I have already deleted the Hardwick Hill, Chepstow and Lower Town, Fishguard schemes, which aroused considerable local opposition and are not needed as major strategic routes.
Mr. Martyn Jones: I think that the right hon. Gentleman may have listened to the wrong
1094
people with regard to the objections to the A494. The people who are most concerned are those who live in Llanbedr village, who, I know, desperately need that route. Traffic-calming measures have been tried, to no avail. Everything has been tried at that point. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that.
As to the A55, which is now a strategic route, there is a great danger of all the development occurring along the strip of the A55, avoiding areas such as Denbigh and Ruthin in the vale of Clwyd in the north of my constituency. Is it possible for us to have a strategic route off the A55 into that area?
Mr. Redood: Of course I want roads to link other areas to the main strategic highways and later I shall mention the ones that are in the trunk roads programme. Others are in the local authority road programme. I hope that we reach an agreement with the local authority about which roads are needed—those that do least environmental damage for most economic benefit, because that is the balance that we have to strike.
Mr. Barry Jones: Was the right hon. Gentleman going to refer to the £25 million scheme, the Aston hill road-widening development, about which I know that he has had recent representations? Does he propose to delay it or drop it?
Mr. Redwood: I have not reached a conclusion about that and I am open to more representations.
Work will continue on projects offering improved road safety or relief of towns and villages, where that can be done without severe environmental damage. I want improvements on roads in those areas and I am seeking more jobs and investment through better access to the major strategic highways. In south Wales, the A470 from Merthyr to the M4, the A4042 from Cwmbran to the M4 and the A449/A40, linking the M4 to the M50, are crucial. Thus, work is soon to start on the A470 improvement west of Merthyr, between Pentrebach and Cefn Coed. Construction has just started on the A4042 Llantarnam bypass, which will complete a fast dual carriageway link to the M4. I want good access to valleys communities from the A465 in the north and the M4 in the south—essential for new jobs.
In west Wales, my requirements are the A477 Pembroke dock to St. Clears and the A40 Fishguard to St. Clears to link Pembrokeshire to the M4. I attach importance to the A477 Sageston and Redberth bypass and I expect to publish a preferred route shortly. The A40 Whitland bypass is planned to start in 1994–95. South Gwynedd has also asked for better links to the A55. I intend to bring forward schemes on the A470, beginning with the route between Blaenau Ffestiniog and Betws-y-Coed, and the Llanrwst bypass, with further improvements to the A487 from Porthmadog to Caernarfon.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Although I am very grateful that the A470 is to be dealt with at last, I wish to highlight an issue of which the Secretary of State may already be aware. The very fact that the A55 is being extended to provide such a good road network means that it is vital that work on the A470 is undertaken. When is it likely that that work will be put in hand?
Mr. Redwood: I shall publish that detail in the full document but I have today given a statement of intent that

1095
the link from south Gwynedd is important. We now have to programme all those matters finally to ensure that they fit in with the people, the public inquiry and the money available.
Mr. Ainger: Will the Secretary of State please enlighten me? From reading the 1993 "Roads in Wales" supplement, I understood that the Sageston-Redberth bypass was due to start as the line had been agreed. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the area between west Wales and St.Clears but announced nothing new; he merely restated what was already in the 1993 supplement. Am I correct in that assumption?
Mr. Redwood: I was trying to set out my priorities and my strategy. I said that the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred were an important part of that strategy and I hope that, where they are important, we can proceed where it is technically feasible. I have been just as clear about the roads that will be slipping or are being cancelled where there is too much opposition to them, where the economic benefits do not fully justify the environmental damage that they could cause. [Interruption.] Does the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) wish to intervene?
Mr. Alex Carlile: Not yet.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State has lost his place.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to think that I have lost my place. I was merely being characteristically generous. in giving way.
In north-east Wales, my priorities are to ensure enough road capacity to maintain the high quality link to the motorway network. Improvements will be made to the A550 and A494 and I shall take into account representations. In mid-Wales, I shall be examining a revised A470 Builth Wells bypass and I shall maintain the A458 scheme from Welshpool which will improve access to the M54. I shall be setting out the full details of my forward programme, with the dates, when a revised version of "Roads in Wales" is published in the spring.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for offering to give way earlier; I wanted to hear what he was going to say about mid-Wales. He said nothing about Newtown. The Welshpool bypass and the Llanidloes bypass have been beneficial, despite some road safety concerns. It would be logical to have a bypass to relieve heavy traffic through Newtown. Has the right hon. Gentleman any announcement to make?
Mr. Redwood: I shall consider that point; I have no announcement to make about it today.
I shall be publishing the new version of "Roads in Wales" in the spring. The result of the changes that I am making is a programme much more sharply focused on economic needs and much less focused on developments in beautiful areas where the environmental damage could be bad.
My plans presume a continuing strong commitment to the trunk road programme. The plans can be paid for from the money available and, of course, each year I shall keep expenditure needs for the roads programme under review, ensuring that the money is available to carry out the
1096
priorities in the strategic network. The decisions will, of course, be announced at the time of the annual public expenditure survey.
There are important links that are not trunk roads. I expect to continue to offer transport grant support for major local authority improvements, such as the third Dee crossing, which bypasses local communities and improves access to the Deeside industrial park. I attach special importance to the development of Cardiff-Wales airport and look forward to receiving suitable proposals for improving road links to it.
My roads programme will also benefit tourism, which is one of Wales's major industries. Projections show that there will be a significant increase in the number of domestic and overseas visitors to Wales in the years ahead. The majority of them use road transport, whether public or private.
Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State has mentioned local authority roads. Is he going to mention the Porth bypass or the lower Rhondda trunk bypass? When will they go in the programme? I accept that the bypasses in some of the areas are needed, but in those major areas of population the whole development of the valleys has been strangled because of lack of investment in roads.
Mr. Redwood: I have made clear my intentions for trunk roads directly under my control. I look forward to seeing the plans from local authorities at the correct time to see whether I can assist with the spending permissions and the money that they need to get on with the job.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State referred to tourism. Incidentally, I welcome his announcement about the A487 which is very important to Dwyfor and Meirionnydd. He will be aware of the importance of section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 and the grants that are available under it. Can he give me an assurance that section 4 grants will remain available in Wales, in view of what has happened already in England and the changes that are taking place in Scotland?
Mr. Redwood: We have no plans to change policy in that respect.
My aim for 1994–95 is to provide better quality public services in Wales, building on the big advances made in recent years. In health, I intend to spend more on patients, doctors and nurses and less on administration. I have made it the overriding priority to hit the patients charter targets. No one should wait longer than one month for urgent treatment. No one should wait more than two years for non-urgent treatment. No one should have to wait more than 18 months if they need a new hip or knee or a cataract removed. We are close to hitting those targets for the first time and I gave another £1 million to get the lists down last week. Every patient should be given a unique appointment time that means something. I look forward to announcing to the House as soon as possible that we have met all those targets and can go on from there.
I have placed controls on all additional recruitment of administrative and managerial staff, as I want more of the extra money that I am making available to go to medical teams. I have amalgamated the posts of head of the health policy unit and director of the NHS by appointing an experienced official from within to a single post. That will unite health policy and management responsibilities and

1097
avoid the cost of bringing in someone new from outside. I have asked each health authority to reduce its staff to reflect the change in duties with the coming of trusts, where more of the management will reside at the hospital and less, therefore, should reside in the centre.
I shall be issuing a consultation document on ways to reduce the number of health authorities from 17 to between three and eight. It should be relatively easy to merge each family health services authority and district health authority, and to amalgamate some geographically. If we press ahead I want genuine mergers—where staff from both will be treated equally—and not take-overs.
I have asked the health care professions to lay emphasis on clinical effectiveness, and to review procedures to ensure that they are working well. I am examining the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to find savings there and to adjust its role to the new world of trusts.
As more people and money are freed for medical care, so I expect to raise standards further. We should ask why patients in hospital are woken very early in the morning when more sleep might help them and why they have to wait so long for breakfast once woken up. We should ask whether the treatment could suit the patient rather more, because getting better depends on feeling well looked after. I want the system to be patient-driven and so, I am sure, do the patients. I want the highest possible standards of medical care, which we get in most of our hospitals, and I wish the medical profession every success in pioneering and developing new and better treatments and maintaining the very high standards that it achieves.
I have asked that all the empty houses owned by NHS Wales should be sold. That will raise over £2 million by 1 April this year for health care in Wales and more subsequently.
Welsh agriculture is flourishing. Total grants and subsidies in the next financial year will increase by 8.3 per cent. over this financial year, well ahead of inflation although not a figure that Opposition Members have ever given any credence to, with their complaints about individual parts of the package. Aggregate farming income, that is net income excluding labour costs and taking into account interest payments, is forecast to have risen by 80 per cent. in 1993 compared with 1992. I know that the base was low, but the increase is most impressive and welcome.
Low interest rates, higher subsidies and better livestock prices are all helping. Quality products at competitive prices will find market outlets, and I am pleased to announce that exports of Welsh lamb now represent over 50 per cent. of production. Farming is important to the rural fabric of Wales. The Government have recognised that through the common policies that we are pursuing in Europe and at home.
To protect more of the beauty of the Welsh hillsides and valleys, I intend to place more and more emphasis on urban and valleys renewal, tempting the bulk, or much, of our new housing, commerce and industry on to reclaimed land. I am keen on urban villages and have given the go-ahead for one at Cardiff bay to join the one in Ebbw Vale. Every house built on a plot of reclaimed land is one fewer planning application in an area of high landscape value.
I want those villages to be more than just mere housing estates. They can provide housing with a heart, villages
1098
with centres that create communities. The strategic development scheme offers councils and communities the chance to do something bigger, with more vision, than the old urban programme and special projects schemes allowed.
Mr. Donald Anderson: There will be a general welcome for what the Secretary of State said about making building on reclaimed land a priority. What encouragement, by way of fiscal incentive or otherwise, is he considering to ensure that that is done, apart from the planning mechanisms?
Mr. Redwood: There will be considerable encouragement through the large land reclamation programmes and I hope to agree stretching and ambitious targets with the Welsh Development Agency in the light of the substantial increase in grant and the receipts that it will be enjoying next year, because I want a big programme that clears more land and makes those sites available.
Next year I shall be looking, under the strategic development scheme, for one or two showcase schemes of several combined projects that will make a real impact on a whole area. The West Wales task force area and Deeside industrial development area are two of the larger beneficiaries this year. Valleys development also remains high on my list of priorities, and also development in south Gwynedd in the wake of the power station announcement.
The programme for the valleys is an exciting one. This year it will benefit from the re-signalling of the valley lines, new sports and leisure facilities for Rhondda and six major local strategies bringing jobs and a better environment to Amman and Gwendraeth, the upper Llynfi valley, Mid Rhondda, Merthyr, Tredegar and Cynon valley.
Wales will succeed in the next century only if our children do well at school in this. I am pleased to report to the House a sharp improvement in exam results over the past year, and I pay tribute again to the many teachers and students who have worked hard to achieve this.
As I reported to the Welsh Grand Committee last week, standards need to be raised much higher overall, especially in some schools where the results are well below what is required. I am expecting governors and head teachers in those schools to take action now. I do not want to have to use my powers under the Education Act 1993—I would far rather schools put their own house in order—but I shall use them if there is no action. The inspectors have made clear what needs to be done. [Interruption.] Instead of making silly comments from a sedentary position, Opposition Members should be behind me in that because they should want those children to do well and they should want those governors to take action before I have to move in. The inspectors have said what needs to be done. There is no time like the present to take action. Surely we do not want another year of poor performance from those schools.
The Government will provide the training places and college places needed to meet our ambitious targets.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman's hopes for development and improvement in Welsh schooling, which we all share, be helped or hindered by the fact that Gwent county council has been forced this year, because of his spending limits, to cut expenditure on education by £2.6 million, including reductions in additional pupil spending? When we already have 32 pupils per class, on average, in our primary schools, does

1099
he think that the education of those young children will be assisted or retarded by the failure to invest properly in education?
Mr. Redwood: I want to see proper investment in their education. That is why I increased the grant to county councils—I did not cut it—and gave them the opportunity to increase it. They then told me that they would have to put their council taxes up by 15 per cent., but they are not coming out at anything like that. They are now, through the right hon. Gentleman, saying that they are making reductions, where they have extra money and extra permission which they should be using for that priority sector. There is nothing more important than dealing with the needs of our schoolchildren.
We have ambitious targets for our training places and our college places. In 1979, one in eight went to university. Three in 10 now do so. One in three is our aim by the end of the century. By 2000, we want one out of two to obtain two A-levels or the equivalent, where three out of 10 do so at the moment. Training and enterprise councils have been asked to meet the demand for all 16 and 17-year-olds to have a guaranteed place on the youth training programme if they need it. Later this year I shall be introducing an engineering apprenticeship scheme.
Investors and employers tell me that a well-trained work force is one of the most crucial factors that they look for when considering where to base their business. Wales is already well known worldwide for its skilled and flexible work force. We need to train more of our young people to high international standards to accommodate the growing army of businesses expanding and setting up here.
Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of high international standards of qualification—to which we would all aspire for the young people whom we represent—is the right hon. Gentleman aware that support for postgraduate education in Wales has been radically reduced over recent years, during which time the Conservative Government have been in power? There is now effectively little or no support available at the discretion of county councils for young people who seek supplementary qualifications after graduating. Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that powers and finance should be restored to county councils so that young people with first degrees can get Master of Business Administration degrees or other secondary qualifications, to enhance their chances of gainful employment and their ability to compete with others in the world? They are now being severely disadvantaged despite their talents.
Mr. Redwood: Local authorities have considerable discretion in how they choose to spend their money, and the money increases year by year. It is interesting to note that when elections are due, councils can find more money to keep taxes down or to back special projects.
Quangos have been much in the news. The Labour party has been active in slating bodies that it set up and has been short-sighted in overlooking the good work that they do and the wide range of people—of all political persuasions and of none—who help them do it. Labour lives in a dream world, believing that we appoint people because they are Conservatives rather than for their talent. It chooses to overlook the fact that we appoint many who are not Conservatives: four Labour councillors on the Cardiff Bay body, a leading trade unionist on the Welsh Development Agency and a senior Plaid Cymru figure chairing the
1100
Welsh Language Board, to say nothing of the political researcher to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who is on the Welsh Arts Council.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: That point has now been made three times in the past few days from the Government Front and Back Benches, so will the Secretary of State accept it from me that my researcher, Councillor Jane Davidson, was in the first place elected to Cardiff city council and then nominated from the council to be a member of the Welsh Arts Council? Her appointment was initially vetoed by a Welsh Office Minister, in spite of the nomination by the Welsh Arts Council. Only when she was nominated a second time by that body was the political veto finally lifted.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman seems to be confirming the fact that his political researcher is on the Welsh Arts Council, which was the point that I was trying to make. I can assure the House that I shall continue to appoint on the basis of suitability for the job. That is the correct criterion and I propose to stick to it.
I can also assure hon. Members that I, like the House, expect high standards of our public bodies and councils. Each body operates under a framework of law and rules. I shall set targets each year for what we expect, and debate progress when required in the House. Each body has a chief executive and an accounting officer responsible for ensuring compliance with the rules. The Public Accounts Committee is there to check up on his success.
I intend to control the number of such bodies and the numbers of people involved in them—I do not normally favour large boards. I shall, as I have already announced, seek reductions in the number of health authorities following the establishment of several new health trusts.
Last week in the Welsh Grand Committee we were treated to the third 15 from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) embarrassed even the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) by slamming the Labour Government of the 1970s. How right he was. Last weekend, the hon. Member for Caerphilly showed that he had learnt from the new boy. He made news. He hit the headlines with a speech, which is pretty unusual. Even more remarkably, I found myself in agreement with what he was reported to have said. He slammed Labour for its "cult of arrogance" in Welsh local government. So now we have it from the highest Labour source in Wales that Labour local councillors do not always know best, that Labour is weak when it comes to internal party democracy, and it does not listen to the people.
Having made a speech in praise of harmony and sweetness, the hon. Member for Caerphilly tried to stop the hon. Members for Neath (Mr. Hain) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) attending the Parliament for Wales conference in Llandrindod this weekend, but I hear that they will disobey him.
Mr. David Hanson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Redwood: Certainly.
Mr. Hanson: As a member of the third 15, as the Secretary of State so kindly puts it, I thank him for giving way. Will he accept it from me that, whatever the situation of the Labour Government of the 1970s, there was more opportunity to go to university in those days, and more

1101
opportunity for council housing and for employment, and that everything that he does reduces those opportunities? People like me would not be where we are today without the opportunities provided by the Labour Government.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman doth protest too much, and wriggle too much, because he knows that my charge has gone home. Moreover, he has not been listening, because I have just told the House how many people are now going to university compared with the numbers in the 1970s when Labour was in charge and, on the hon. Gentleman's own admission, doing so badly.
So, we hear that Labour Members are not allowed to do what they wish with their weekends, but that the eloquence of the hon. Member for Caerphilly, aided by the wandering minstrel for Cardiff, West, has proved to be not up to the job. Handing the Welsh economy to those gentlemen would be like handing the car keys and a bottle of Welsh whisky to a teenage boy.
Well may the hon. Member for Caerphilly warn his troops, for he hears and sees the march of changing attitudes and changing votes in many parts of Wales where Labour used to hold unchallenged sway. Indeed, he himself should listen to the people of Wales. The majority do not want 16 as the age of consent or an assembly that would mean more taxes and more laws for Wales, and the majority do not take kindly to his stubborn refusal to come forward with an alternative budget for Wales to show what he could, or would like to, do. He is out of touch as well as out of power—and now he is out of sorts with his own party.
The Wales that we want is a successful outward-looking country, sure of its own history, language and culture and of the importance of the Union. It is a Wales that is world class in business, first class at rugby and top of the class in education. Wales is showing the way with jobs, better health care and higher educational standards. Doing it the Conservative way, we will win.
4.56 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: First, I register my strong disappointment that the Secretary of State was not prepared to insist in Cabinet that our traditional Welsh day debate be held on 1 March. As we now have a Secretary of State who does not want Welsh to be an official language in Wales, and does not believe the red dragon to be a clear enough symbol for Wales in Europe, I suppose that I should not be surprised to find that we are having our St. David's day debate on 3 March.
The Secretary of State is clearly not a happy man, and his speech showed just how out of touch he is. He showed a distinct and uncharacteristic lack of courtesy when he made a cheap personal attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Perhaps you will confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is a matter of common courtesy in the House that if an hon. Member intends to make a preconceived personal attack on another Member, notice should be given. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he told my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that he had designed in advance a personal attack on him?
Mr. Redwood: I did not. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be here himself. Besides, he never extends that courtesy to my hon. Friends.
Hon. Members: The answer is no, Ron.
Mr. Davies: That is clear. It is unacceptable for the Secretary of State to conduct himself in that way. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover does not need me to defend him, but it has to be said that while he has been a Member of the House he has never launched into an offensive or unjustified attack on the private life of any other hon. Member. My hon. Friend has never moralised about the private lives of other Members and it ill becomes a member of a Cabinet and a Government both now enmeshed in personal scandal and political corruption at the highest level to indulge in name calling of that nature.
For the first half hour of his speech, the Secretary of State talked about his roads programme. He then said that he would announce that roads programme later in the spring. It is a comment on his lack of command of his brief that he is unable to make a speech without packing it with information which he knows will be the subject of a statement in a month's time when, hopefully, we can debate it at length. I welcome his announcement of improvements, in particular, to the A465, the A470 and the A55, but will he confirm that his announcement disguises a cut of £10 million in other elements of the road programme? He shakes his head, but that was the basis of the briefings that he was giving the press all day.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the observation of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) commands the support of the Opposition? That road should form the major link between the industrial heartlands of south-east Wales and north-west Wales. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the announced cut in the roads programme will mean that roads in many of our towns and villages in Wales will be less safe, bypasses will not be built, roads and junctions will be in a worse condition and many unsafe bridges in the valleys communities will be deprived of much-needed investment?
Mr. Redwood: I have not announced a cut in the roads programme. As I said, I have not changed the figures announced in the Budget for Wales. Next year, I shall review the money available to ensure that it is up to the task of meeting all the priorities that I have set out. I have announced proposals on some big and expensive roads—and am bringing them forward. I also reject the hon. Gentleman's slurs about my lack of respect for the Welsh language and the red dragon. Of course I am proud of the dragon of Wales, and I use it on the promotional literature with which I am involved.
Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State's record on that matter speaks for itself. Expenditure on the roads programme will be substantially less than it was last year. I do not know how the Secretary of State can present that as anything other than a cut.
Nine months ago, the Secretary of State's first parliamentary duty was to remove from Welsh Members the right to help frame Welsh legislation. We could be generous and assume that he was merely doing the bidding of the Government's business managers. Subsequently, however, we have had ample evidence that the right hon. Gentleman is less sympathetic to Wales, less inclined to

1103
recognise our distinctive culture and values, and less willing to work with the grain of Welsh public opinion than any other holder of his office. Any one of his predecessors would regard that as a criticism.
I have no doubt that the present Secretary of State views the concerns of those of us who represent Welsh constituencies, not with understanding, nor even with hostility, but with indifference. After all, his political agenda is not focused on Wales, its people, its institutions or the prospects and aspirations of its people. His ambition is not for Wales; it is for the ideological leadership of the Tory party. The Secretary of State does not represent Wales in the Cabinet. He merely uses the place that Wales has given him in the Cabinet as a platform for the promotion of his right-wing views.
The Secretary of State's office brings together the major Departments of State—education with training and employment, environment with agriculture, and health with local government. It has enormous potential to harness political influence to achieve major political, economic, environmental and social gains. Given the challenges that we face in Wales in the last decade of this century, a Secretary of State who puts Wales first would seek economic advance for our country alongside the motor regions of Europe. He would ensure the development of a coherent policy for the sustainable use of our environment and natural resources. He would seek to develop social policy to reflect our co-operative and community values. Above all, he would seek to recast our political structures to allow the fuller expression of our national identity. He would seek to sweep away the quango system, with its attendant sleaze and corruption, to exert democratic control and scrutiny over the Welsh Office and to give those of us in Wales a greater opportunity to shape our destiny in the developing Europe of the regions.
Instead of grasping any of those opportunities, the present Secretary of State has been hesitant and accident prone, with the tedium of his time-worn politics relieved only by a series of spectacular political own goals. We know that he is not happy with the advice that he receives from his civil servants. He has been only too ready to pin the blame on them for some of his obvious failings. There must be a dream factory in the Welsh Office. There is a view that the Secretary of State's "initiatives" and his use of extravagant forms of self praise can somehow provide a substitute for policy.
Who advised the Secretary of State to take his single parents initiative? I am not suggesting for a moment that the Secretary of State is responsible for any of the single parents in Wales. It is a sad fact, however, that the only impact and lasting contribution to British political debate of the present incumbent has been to put into the public mind his obsession with the prospect of teenage mums obtaining council houses. It is now clear that his St. Mellons speech was the opening shot of the Conservative party's "back to basics" campaign. However, we should not intrude too far into private grief: that initiative did not endear him to the Prime Minister.
The Secretary of State then announced his health initiative. Presumably, he abrogates all responsibility for the past 14 years of Conservative health policy. That was certainly his message when he roundly condemned the bureaucracy and inefficiency created by the Government's health reforms. He was not flavour of the month with the Secretary of State for Health—the lady was definitely not amused.
1104
The Secretary of State tried a quango initiative. He made some cheap comments about the research assistant of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Three weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State why he does not make information available on the political affiliation of every person he appoints to a quango in Wales. Such information is collected on those appointed as magistrates. If that policy is suitable for them, why should not information be collected and published on those people who exercise trust and spend billions of pounds of public money? Instead of using selective and pejorative examples, why will the Secretary of State not provide all the facts so that we can make an appropriate judgment?
When the Secretary of State tried his quango initiative, he called the chaps together and told them that they must do better. Apparently, he still does not understand that democratic scrutiny is far more effective than private exhortation. In any event, that initiative collapsed with the fiasco of his appointment of a top Tory living as a tax exile in Monaco to head the Welsh Development Agency. If the Secretary of State is to be believed, he did not know that he was appointing a top Tory. He pleaded incompetence to defend himself against the charge of nepotism.
The Secretary of State's latest initiative has been on education standards. He and his policy were humiliated by my hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) in the Welsh Grand Committee last week. It is small wonder that the Secretary of State is now shunned by his Cabinet colleagues for the embarrassment that he has caused them. There is a whispering campaign against him in the Tory party. There is an open campaign against him in the media, with The Times newspaper calling for his dismissal.
According to an opinion poll out tonight, under his stewardship the Tory party in Wales has collapsed to its lowest ever rating of 11 per cent. He is so reviled by the Prime Minister that he is semi-publicly traduced in the foulest language—"bastard" being one of the more printable epithets used to describe him. That sort of record takes some beating, even by the standards of the present Government.
My heart went out to the Secretary of State when I read in the Western Mail on 11 February that the Conservative party was to cancel its annual conference in Wales. The paper reported:
"The Tories are set to cancel this year's Welsh party conference to concentrate on minimising their losses in the Euro-elections. Embarrassed Tory party managers have admitted difficulties in trying to arrange this summer's Welsh party conference"—
presumably the difficulty was that nobody wanted to go.
"The Conservatives expect bad news from the first and fear a thrashing in the second as voters take revenge for VAT on domestic fuel and higher income tax bills."
How much would the Secretary of State miss the renewed opportunity for a further lusty rendering of "Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau?" The Welsh Labour group Christmas party would never be the same again. With that uncanny grasp of Welsh politics and the instinct that told him that Rhondda Conservative association was the proper platform for a major speech on education, he announced that, after all, there would be a Conservative conference in Wales in the current year. The next day the Western Mail duly reported:
"Redwood Wants To Rescue Conference.

1105
Welsh Secretary John Redwood has stepped in to save this year's Welsh Conservative conference which has been threatened with cancellation because of a clash with the Euro-elections in June."
Mr. Rod Richards rose—
Mr. Davies: In a moment. The newspaper continued:
"He wants a one-day rally after a one-day conference, possibly late in May, to form part of the election campaign for seats in the European Parliament on June 9th."
He is obviously so isolated that neither his press department in the Welsh Office, nor Conservative party central office, nor what remains of the Conservative party in Wales had informed him of what was in the Western Mail two weeks earlier on 26 January, when it reported:
"Party In Election Write Off.
The Tory party have written off Wales in this summer's local and European elections. Cash draft high command and Central Office have decided to limit support to the party in the Principality to a minimum because they have no hope of taking over any of the handful of towns where a third of the seats are up for election on May 5th and there is little chance of taking any of the five Euro seats in the principality from Labour on June 9th. No doubt the few Tories remaining in Wales will have a few words to say to him as they witness the terminal decline of their party, their failure to win a single European seat, their virtual disappearance from Welsh local Government and, on the basis of the present polls, the loss of every single parliamentary constituency at the next general election."
Mr. Richards: If the hon. Gentleman must insist on flaunting the smattering of Welsh that he has picked up, he should try to get it right. It is not "Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nadau": it mutates to "Nhadau"—there is an "h" in it. The hon. Gentleman should learn that before he flaunts it on the Floor of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind Members that the normal language in the House is English.
Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
Mr. Davies: I shall give way after I have dealt with the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. Of course I understand that the Welsh for "fathers" mutates after the personal pronoun, but the mutation in south Wales pronunciation is not pronounced as it is in north Wales, where the "h" is sounded.
Mr. Anderson: Following that mass meeting which the Secretary of State addressed in a public telephone box in the Rhondda, if the Conservative party is so strapped for cash—poor dabs—could it not have a whip round among the quangos?
Mr. Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not mean that joke to be in poor taste.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Of course he did.
Mr. Davies: I hesitate to engage in that debate about the personal predilections of Conservative Members of Parliament.
I return to the opinion poll to be broadcast on BBC Wales tonight. More than 1,500 people in Wales were asked their view of the present Secretary of State and whether he was doing a good job or a very good job. The massed ranks of Conservative party supporters in Wales could not even muster a figure of 1 per cent. of that poll who believed that the Secretary of State was doing an excellent job. He had an excellency rating of zero.
1106
However, for every one person who felt that the Secretary of State was doing a good job or a very good job, there were three who thought that he was doing a bad or a very bad job. Most striking of all, 70 per cent. of people polled believed that elected councillors and not Government-appointed officials should be in charge of public affairs. Given Wales's special record of sterling service provided in local government, I am not surprised that 70 per cent. of the people think that—
Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence, I will certainly give way. Of course, the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience of Welsh local government and I would be delighted to listen to him in a moment.
Mr. Kinnock: More mutations.
Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend tempts me to comment on the extent to which the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) has mutated. However, it is a point that I would not wish to explore.
Seventy per cent. of people polled believed that elected councillors and not Government-appointed officials should be in charge of public affairs. That reflects the extent to which the Tory party in Wales is exclusively identified in the public mind with the quango system, which means corruption, fraud, nepotism and incompetence. That is the system that Tory greed has produced in Wales.
Mr. Sweeney: Is it symptomatic of the so-called excellence of the Labour councillors in Wales that the South Wales police force has been deprived of £5 million of its much-needed budget? Is that a reflection of the thinking that the hon. Gentleman supports?
Mr. Morgan: Read Hansard for 27 January.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West suggests that I refer the hon. Gentleman to Hansard of 27 January, when the Secretary of State directly contradicted his statement. A fortnight or so ago, with nine other hon. Friends representing constituencies in the South Wales police area, I led a deputation to the Home Office Minister responsible to press the case for additional funding. Due to the way in which the Home Office and the Welsh Office cannot get their acts together, about £2.5 million of funds are being withheld by the Home Office. The police authority is underfunded because of the 1.75 per cent. cut imposed on the county authorities and as a result the South Wales police authority faces the prospect of closing about 60 police stations in the area. That means, for example, that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, who has Ely in his constituency—I trust that the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties of that area—will be one of the few Members of Parliament in the whole country without one police station in his constituency. In the heart of Cardiff, that trouble-torn area is to be deprived of a police station as a result of Government policy. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the level of policing, I wonder why he does not make representations to the Home Office as we have.
Mr. Kinnock: In order further to assist my hon. Friend—not that he needs any assistance in rebutting the challenge made by the hon. Member for Vale of

1107
Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) —I draw to his attention the fact that the Gwent police force, despite one of the best records of crime detection and prevention, is significantly under strength. On the testimony of the police themselves, that is not a consequence of the inadequacies of the local authority, but the result of the limitations imposed on police numbers by the Tory Home Secretary.
Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend is correct. It is a further reflection on the present-day Conservative party that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan, who demanded the courtesy of being allowed to intervene in my speech, does not have the courtesy to remain in his seat to listen to the continuation of the debate.
I was dealing with quangos. With that uncanny sixth sense and prescience that has come to characterise the Secretary of State, his response was not to clean up the quango system but to attack the democratic sector—local government. It is now clear how tenuous is his attachment to democracy. This year a Bill that will reorganise Welsh local government was presented to the House of Lords first and not to the Commons—another defeat in the Cabinet for the Welsh Secretary.
Shortly, that Bill will come before this House. Despite the virtually unanimous opposition of all 32 Opposition Members representing Wales and the overwhelming weight of local government opinion, the Secretary of State will try to force it through on a whipped vote of English Tory Members. That is bad enough, but this time the exercise will be especially cynical because the Whips will force English Members, representing counties such as Somerset and Hertfordshire, to vote for a reorganisation of Welsh local government when they have made it clear to their Whips that, such is their opposition to the principles of the reform, they will not be prepared to support similar measures for the areas for which they were elected and which they represent here. That is a travesty of our democratic system.
Another matter reflects poorly on the Secretary of State's commitment to democracy. When his predecessor set out to buy the votes of Plaid Cymru last year—I want to treat the three Plaid Cymru Members as delicately as I can because I know that they are feeling especially sensitive today—so as to ensure the Government's survival during the debates on the Maastricht treaty, a deal emerged which treated local government with contempt and attempted to subvert the democratic rights of 28 of the 38 Members of Parliament for Wales. The deal envisaged a forum, involving Members of this Parliament and Members of the European Parliament representing Wales and Welsh local government. It was conceived—perhaps I should not talk about conceptions when dealing with such matters—behind the backs and, as it subsequently emerged, against the wishes of an overwhelming majority across all the political parties in Wales. The deal was clearly constitutionally unworkable, unprincipled and inherently undemocratic, as we pointed out at the time.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Wales wrote to local government leaders in Wales asking them to get him off the hook. In that letter he acknowledges to the Council of Welsh Districts:
"I am therefore writing to you to ask you to consider whether you would wish to establish jointly with the Assembly of Welsh Counties such a mechanism."
He was referring to the reporting-back mechanism for the Committee of the Regions.
1108
I shall ask the Secretary of State a direct question and I should be grateful for a direct answer. If the AWC and the CWD jointly propose an all-Wales council of local government to him as a report-back mechanism for the Committee of the Regions, will he accept the proposal? I will happily give way if the Secretary of State wants to answer.
Mr. Redwood: I set out my proposals, following consultations, and I should like an answer to those proposals. I cannot give an answer to questions about other proposals that I have not read. The offer that I made in my letter stands and I look forward to a positive reply.
Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State is getting into a habit of making excuses because he has not read his correspondence. Last time he had not read the CV of a top Tory living in tax exile. This time, he has not read the correspondence from the Council of Welsh Districts, which wrote to him on 16 February 1994 setting out its proposals. Has he received and read those proposals? Will he give us a direct answer? All my hon. Friends want to know, all the representatives of Welsh local government want to know, and I am sure that the leader and members of Plaid Cymru will want to know because their deal is at risk.
The proposals have been put to the Secretary of State, who has had a long time to reflect on them. They are jointly agreed by the Council of Welsh Districts and the Assembly of Welsh Counties. The basis for the support is not partisan or party political and they are overwhelmingly supported by Labour Members and by large sections of the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru. Considerable sections of the Conservative party also support the proposals.
I ask the Secretary of State once more: will he accept proposals if they are put to him jointly by local government in Wales? I want a direct answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] This is an example of the contempt and arrogance the man shows for Welsh public affairs. Elected leaders of all the district councils and counties in Wales have seriously debated the matter for the past three months and have made carefully thought out —
Mr. Llwyd: At the hon. Gentleman's instigation.
Mr. Davies: Of course it was at my instigation, but my meetings with Welsh local government were open. They did not take place in the Whips Office behind the backs of the majority of Welsh Members. When I have a statement to make, I do so before the leaders of all tiers of local government in Wales —Labour leaders, independent leaders and the leaders of Plaid Cymru in Wales. There is only one Conservative-controlled district. They were all made fully aware of the discussions and the proposals have been circulated to every local authority in Wales.
The Secretary of State is treating Welsh local government with contempt by refusing to give a straight answer and by the way in which he is trying to subvert its democratic processes to deliver a shoddy deal done with members of Plaid Cymru.
Mr. Wigley: I think that we would all accept the need for an effective report-back mechanism because we all hope that the regional dimension of the European Community will benefit Wales. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that the Committee of the Regions goes beyond being a committee of municipalities or of local government?

1109
The regional dimension in Wales includes the Welsh Office and, regrettably, at this point also the quangos. Therefore, to establish a proper report-back mechanism we must bear in mind functions such as agriculture, docks and railways. Those are the responsibility of the Welsh Office, which is answerable to this Parliament and not merely to local government. That is why the forum will have to include elected representatives of all the levels in Wales: Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the districts and counties. Then we shall have a representational body which can give the views of Wales on all those functions to our representatives on the Committee of the Regions.
Mr. Davies: I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will accept that I mean no disrespect by turning my back to you when I deal with the matter that the leader of Plaid Cymru has mentioned. His arguments would be a little more convincing if he had been prepared to engage in open debate before he did a deal with the Conservative party. If there is merit in that case, it surely needs to be discussed by all 38 Members for Wales and not merely by four Plaid Cymru and six Conservative Members who expected to bounce the rest of us into an undemocratic deal which sells out the interests of Welsh local government. The hon. Gentleman has signally failed to deal with that.
Mr. Wigley rose—
Mr. Davies: I shall give way again in a moment as the matter is important, but first I must deal with two other important issues about which the hon. Gentleman is exercised.
I understand that there will be occasions when Members of Parliament, and certainly Members of the European Parliament, and Ministers at the Welsh Office, will want to discuss matters through the report-back mechanism. That is what I and my hon. Friends do regularly. We meet representatives of local government—for example, the Heads of the Valleys Standing Conference. We have that relationship and there is no reason why it should not exist on a voluntary basis.
However, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is seeking to turn Westminster Members of Parliament into exclusively Welsh Members. I and my hon. Friends are firmly committed to the fact that a directly elected Welsh assembly is required to meet the democratic deficit in Wales. For the life of me I do not understand why Plaid Cymru—the party which supposedly wants an independent Wales, a referendum on the monarchy and all the rest of it—is prepared to accept the second-best organisation nominated, which will exist with the patronage and at the whim of the Secretary of State for Wales. That has nothing to do with democracy and I want nothing to do with it.
Mr. Wigley: Of course we want to see an elected Welsh parliament. When we have an elected Welsh parliament, representatives elected by that parliament will go to the Committee of the Regions. I am glad to see some hon. Members nodding their heads, though some are shaking their heads. I should have thought that that stands to reason. In the interim while we have a Tory Government, what will be the reporting back mechanism? Is the hon. Gentleman not putting forward something short of an
1110
elected assembly? In other words, he is proposing a council for Wales. Is not his criticism of Plaid Cymru not on the substance of the forum but on the way in which it was brought about? If that is the basis of the criticism, it would be better for him to forget about the reason why the body was brought about and see how we can make it work for the well-being of Wales, rather than sulking and refusing to go on it.
Mr. Davies: I am certainly not sulking. I am trying to play a constructive role with all tiers of Welsh local government, representing all parties, to reach agreement. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, my objection is about the way the deal was done because it was dishonourable; it is not only about the way the deal was done, about the substance of the deal.
I will explain why the proposal is unacceptable. The House decided that it wished to defeat the Government on the matter. It decided that local government should decide the representatives who would go to the Committee of the Regions. I do not have the responsibility or the right—neither does the hon. Member for Caernarfon, nor the Secretary of State—somehow to set that to one side or subvert it by the practices into which they entered. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, because local government in Wales is charged with the responsibility of providing representatives to the Committee of the Regions, surely it is common sense that, first, they should be consulted and, secondly, they should be instrumental in constructing the reporting back mechanism—they should be the reporting back mechanism.
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little impatient. He must let me reply to this point. If we talk about democracy, the independence of local government and the respect that we have for local government—I know that the hon. Member for Caernarfon shares my respect for that independence—we cannot turn round and say that we will ignore local government. I have written to every local authority—
Mr. Llwyd: That is part and parcel of it.
Mr. Davies: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is heckling when I am trying to respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for Caernarfon. He should let me make this point.
Local government in Wales has its own independence. What I sought to do in my meetings with the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts was to construct a mechanism that was acceptable to them because I respect local government. Of course the Assembly of Welsh Counties has a Labour majority. Of course the Council of Welsh Districts has a Labour majority. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) should not smirk because he has influence in only one local authority in south Wales—Taff Ely—and it failed to support his proposals. That is a measure of the concern that exists in south Wales.
Out of this comes one clear message for Plaid Cymru Members: they should not do deals. with an untrustworthy Government, especially when such deals breach their principles and are based on nothing but party advantage. Having first been bought out, they have now been sold out.
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: This is the last intervention that I will take. I can never resist taking interventions from the hon. Gentleman because they are always so courteous and relevant.
Mr. Richards: If there were to be a Welsh parliament today, would it levy taxes in addition to those levied by Westminster?
Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government would introduce legislation to establish a Welsh assembly or a Welsh parliament—[Interruption.] Standards in the Conservative party are falling daily. The hon. Gentleman asked me a question. I should be grateful if he would do me the courtesy of listening to my reply.
If I thought that the Conservative party was going to introduce legislation in the current Session to establish an assembly, a parliament or a senate in Wales, I would be happy to engage the hon. Gentleman in that debate. I do not think that it is a realistic proposition. However, I am confident that the issue of establishing an all-Wales tier of government will be central to the outcome of the next general election. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has not exactly covered himself in glory in matters relating to local government. I suggest that he goes back either to his flat in Westminster or to Rutland. I can give the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) a guarantee that at the next election I shall be happy to advance the Labour party's proposals for an all-Wales tier of government. We shall then address all of the questions that he wishes to raise.
Mr. Dafis rose—
Mr. Davies: I shall conclude as I have given way to all hon. Members who have attempted to intervene.
During the 12 months since our last St. David's day debate, Wales has been badly served by the Secretary of State. Our economy has not recovered the jobs that we lost. We now have 150,000 fewer men in work than when the Government came to office. We are further down the regional pay scale. We are now at the bottom of the scale—we were near the top when the Government came to office. Investment in infrastructure has been cut, and is being cut as a result of the current programmes. From April this year, everyone in Wales will pay an extra £14 a year in tax, thanks to the Government's tax increases and their mismanagement of the economy.
Mr. Dafis rose
Mr. Davies: I indicated that the intervention from the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West would be my last. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) is desperate to put some further points on the record, so I will give way.
Mr. Dafis: This is a debate on Welsh affairs. So far, we have had an extended attack on the Secretary of State for Wales, with which I have a great deal of sympathy, and an attack on Plaid Cymru. I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman would comment on the state of Wales arid his proposals for the development of Welsh political and economic life.
Mr. Davies: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to invite me to attack my own party. I can assure him that I have enough friends without having to launch an attack on my colleagues.
1112
Presiding over all of the cuts, all the unemployment, all the difficulties, all the crime and all the social break-up is a Secretary of State who is so out of touch that he is prepared to play fast and loose with our democratic processes. Undoubtedly, the Conservative party will pay a very heavy price when the electorate has an opportunity to comment on that record. The sooner that opportunity comes, the better.
5.38 pm
Mr. Rod Richards: I have never been so glad to hear a speech come to an end as I was when the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) finished. Someone such as myself, who was born and raised in south Wales, knows that corruption, nepotism, inefficiency, waste and sleaze have been the stock and trade of Labour-controlled local authorities. Indeed, they have become so commonplace that many people have become insensitive to it, accepting that being totally secure in power for most of the century has led to that sort of corrupted complacency.
It is therefore outrageous that Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Caerphilly, should raise the subject of corruption anywhere, at any time and by anyone. The fact that they do so has encouraged some of us to take a fresh look at the fat cats of socialism.
A few days ago, the hon. Member for Caerphilly—as we have seen, a gentle and refined soul—told Labour councillors in Wales to improve their image, and to he more friendly and approachable. Indeed, he almost went as far as to say that they should model themselves on him. Imagine it. Somewhere in the shadows of Caerphilly castle, up in lights—"Ron's finishing school," with a slogan underneath saying, "Smile like a crocodile, sting like a bee."
I suspect that that was the hon. Gentleman's attempt to justify spending commitments which were made on 28 January by South Glamorgan county council. I have some details of those spending commitments by the council, which is, needless to say, Labour-controlled.
The council has committed £368,000 to public relations, including £50,000 for a new public relations director for the council. Gwent county council pulled off a similar stunt after the general election, and it gave the job to one John P. Smith, the defeated Labour candidate for Vale of Glamorgan. I am pleased to see that he is not here today, but that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) is. We shall certainly watch the appointment of the South Glamorgan public relations director with some interest.
In addition, South Glamorgan county council has committed £313,000 for members' services—the mind boggles at what that money might be used for—and £180,000 for the chairman's entertainment budget. One gets more than tea and sticky buns for £180,000. Of course, today's Bolsheviks entertain their comrades rather more lavishly than before. They are champagne socialists using taxpayers' money, with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) leading from the front.
I can see how the chairman of that county council could spend thousands at Christmas on advertisements in the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo, consisting mainly of large photographs of himself, wishing readers a merry Christmas and a happy new year. In addition, the county

1113
council has made a further commitment already to spend £772,000 on leisure, even though that is the responsibility of the district authority.
In aggregate, that is £1,633,000 down the pan. The council is spending as though there were no tomorrow. Of course, there will be no tomorrow for that authority, as it will thankfully be done away with in the proposed reform of local government.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is there not a subtle difference between what the council is doing and what the quangos are doing? If the electorate in their wisdom decide that they disapprove, they can get rid of the council. The people of Wales can do nothing about the great quangocracy which is home for so many members and supporters of the hon. Member's party.
Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman, of all people, should know that quangos are accountable to Parliament. The point that I was making earlier, which the hon. Gentleman clearly missed, is that there is a tradition of corruption and sleaze in south Wales, because the Labour party has been in control of councils there for such a long time. As an hon. Member representing Swansea, the hon. Gentleman ought to know more about corruption and sleaze in local government than any other Opposition Member.
Those are the goings-on in the Labour party. It yells about underfunding whenever education, health or any other policy is discussed. How much more should we spend, the Government ask? The Opposition cannot say, or they will not say. They are the same people who waste public money on themselves instead of spending it on schools, roads and social services for the benefit of the people.
Labour councils always plead poverty. I will believe them only when the chairman exchanges his Jaguar for a Metro, and when he melts down his mayoral chain.
Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman represents a seat in Clwyd, as I do. Will he come to the county with me tomorrow to meet the chief officers and chairmen of committees in Clwyd and explain to them why he has voted for cuts which have meant that children in my constituency do not have the books, resources and teachers they need? That is not poverty—that is fact.
Mr. Richards: I will talk to the chief officers of Clwyd county council when it starts to co-operate with the borough council in the transfer of information for local government reform, when the Clwyd education authority stops trying to undermine schools in Clwyd from going for grant-maintained status, and when the Opposition stop being childish in this place and co-operate with the Government so that we can all get away earlier to drive to north Wales in the morning.
I shall speak now about West Glamorgan county council. Anything that that council does not know about nepotism or fixing jobs in the teaching profession for Labour supporters is not worth knowing.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the hon. Gentleman substantiate his claims? Does he have any evidence to put before the House that there is anybody
1114
currently holding a position as a teacher or college lecturer in West Glamorgan as a result of any corrupt practice? If not, will he withdraw that statement?
Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman is being astonishingly naive for someone who was in the education service and who worked in south Wales for many years. As the hon. Member representing Gower, he will know West Glamorgan well, and the whole history of West Glamorgan education authority is one of jobs for the boys.
Mr. Wardell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Richards: I will not give way on that point again. I want to press on.
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a serious matter, because many people outside the House have been subjected to a quite deliberate slur by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). My hon. Friend has given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to withdraw that comment. People who are not able to protect themselves in the debate should at least have their names brought forward, or be given the courtesy of an apology.
As a dialogue has started between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, would you tell the hon. Gentleman that it would be a courtesy to the House if he were to take a further intervention so that the matter can be clarified?
Madam Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, no names have been mentioned. I would, of course, expect hon. Members of all parties to show restraint when making comments. That is a general observation, which is intended for all.
Mr. Richards: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The council's latest venture is gerrymandering.
Mr. Wardell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Richards: No, I will not.
The council's Labour leader—one Tom Jones—has attempted to secure political advantage by instructing officers to identify potential gipsy sites in the wards of political opponents. That is in contravention of the council's written criteria for suitable locations. A total of nine potential sites were identified recently in a single ward. Eight of them are on privately owned farmland, and the other is on the football ground of Mawr community council. The sites have been identified without even a county-wide survey.
Mr. Donald Anderson: When the hon. Gentleman rose to speak, I thought that we would descend from the sublime to the ridiculous. The leader of the county to which he referred, County Councillor Tom Jones, is one of the most respected leaders of any county council in Wales. He has received several honours and plaudits from Conservative Secretaries of State. That shows the hon. Gentleman's lack of feeling and knowledge.
If he is so worried, he will be pleased to know that some of the proposed gipsy sites have been identified and some have been established in my constituency, which happens to be the constituency of that very distinguished leader of the county council, who is not here to answer for himself. It is disreputable and disgraceful that such a personalised attack should be made.
Mr. Richards: I shall continue.

1115
It will come as no surprise that the other five wards in the southern half of the Lliw valley are held by Labour councillors. Nor will it come as a surprise to Opposition Members that the planning officer responsible for deciding on the sites is a Labour party activist, one Eddie Jones.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: As the hon. Gentleman is continuing to display his ignorance of the area of winch he is speaking, which is part of my constituency, will he accept that a public inquiry had to be held some 18 months ago into the establishment of a possible gipsy site in the ward of a Labour county councillor next to the Felinclre tin plate works? Will he accept that as a fact?
Mr. Richards: If the hon. Gentleman will also accept as a fact that one county councillor has the prospect of some nine gipsy sites in that one ward. That is yet another example of Labour putting Labour first and the people last, and Labour working for Labour, not for Britain.
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understood your ruling on my previous point of order, the hon. Gentleman was in order before because he had not referred to anyone by name. As the hon. Gentleman has now named two individuals, does he not have a responsibility to present some evidence to the House of Commons so that we can determine whether there is any substance to what he is saying?
It is disgraceful that individuals who have no opportunity to defend themselves are being insulted in this most cavalier way without any evidence being presented to us. Will you rule on that, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is possible for Members of Parliament to name people in that way, but it is expected of them to exercise restraint and responsibility in so doing.
Mr. Richards: The two people I have mentioned here are aware that others have levelled the same charges against them. So what I have said here this afternoon will not come as any surprise to them
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not relevant whether the charges have been made before elsewhere. We are concerned with the standard of proceedings in this House now.
Mr. Richards: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Ainger: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, the hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member. In your experience, is it not normal in such circumstances that an hon. Member provides some evidence rather than simply making accusations?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Member involved. I have simply made general observations about the type of remarks that should be made and the responsibility with which serious accusations should be made.
Mr. Richards: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I do not want the Labour party in south Wales to become paranoid. Their brothers in the north are just as sinister and generally incompetent.
Mr. Donald Anderson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have we not reached the point at which this new Member is making a series of such scurrilous
1116
attacks and acting in such a disreputable way that perhaps the Secretary of State should take him aside and tutor him in the courtesies of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me to judge.
Mr. Richards: Back to north Wales, close to my constituency.
In Clwyd, for example, the department of commercial services lost £1.5 million in 1993–94. It is expected to lose a further £1 million this year. It is a department which is expected to show a profit. The losses were discovered only by audit. The situation has come about simply because Clwyd county council operates a no-redundancy policy.
So the House will be concerned to learn that the chairman of the personnel committee of Clwyd county council, Councillor Tom Middlehurst, was, before being elected as a member of the county council, the negotiator and full-time officer employed by the National and Local Government Officers Association, acting on behalf of the staff. He is not a poacher turned gamekeeper, but a poacher in gamekeeper's clothing.
The last but by no means least authority to which I wish to refer is Ynys Môn. I gave notice to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) that I intended to raise the matter. He is not in his place, so it is a matter for him. There is a saying in Welsh, "Môn mam Cymru," which translates as "Môn, the mother of Wales." I am afraid that the borough council is a case of "Môn, the mother of all scandals in Wales." There are sufficient examples to keep the debate going for a month.
Discretionary grants have been misused. Information has been denied to councillors by the director of housing, who has for many years utilised delegated powers that were not formally granted to him. The chief executive and monitoring officer has refused to sanction independent action, in spite of representations by councilors.
There are allegations that councillors, and possibly even the director of housing, have been involved directly in a company called Tai Môn. A company of that name applied to purchase the borough's housing stock late in the 1980s. Furthermore, the development plan and grant application in respect of Mona airfield for civil and industrial use is also a subject of considerable local controversy and speculation.
The council's track record of granting planning consents to council members and their relatives is a disgrace. To sum up, in the words of one dismayed council tax payer in Ynys Môn, everything in Ynys Môn hinges on grant money. It matters not whether it succeeds, because the same people benefit. We are in danger of creating grant millionaires.
I should like to contrast the magnificent work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues are doing for Wales with the indolence of the Opposition parties and the damage they are causing. It seems that the Opposition parties have heard sufficient of the sleaze and scandal that has been going on in south Wales for many year—so much so that they cannot even sit there, take it and listen.
Mr. Hanson: We are still here.
Mr. Richards: I see that the third team has stayed. I am grateful for that.

1117
Let us start at the bottom of the Opposition parties, with the Liberal Democrats. He was sitting there on his own, the lone stranger;—that part-time, honourable, but mostly learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). He is known in this place and beyond as the moonlighting Member for Montgomery. Last year, he told the Welsh Grand Committee that he would not be attending its first ever meeting in Cardiff, because he wanted to protest at the lack of a Welsh assembly—
Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to make a point myself. I must make it clear to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) that, while it is possible to make comments of a nature such as the hon. Gentleman has engaged in, I strongly deprecate personal comments of that nature about any Member of the House. I do not intend to preside over a Chamber where that is commonplace. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take considerably more care before he says any more about a Member of this House
Mr. Richards: I abide by your wisdom, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that he would not attend his first ever meeting in Cardiff, because he wanted to protest at the lack of an assembly.
Mr. Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you have said, this speech is an outrage to the usual standards of this House. Is it not the normal practice, when an hon. Member wishes to make a personal attack on another hon. Member, that he should give that other Member notice not only that he will make an attack but of the nature of that attack if it is personal?
It does not surprise me that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) has given me no such notice. Will you invite the Government Welsh Whip, who is a man of some substance, to sit on the hon. Gentleman so that he goes the way of those melted chains to which he aspires?
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is the convention and custom to give notice, but the content of what is said is not normally known. It is left to the discretion of the Member who wishes to raise the point.
Mr. Richards: In the event, when the Welsh Grand Committee met in Cardiff, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was plying his trade in the legal profession at the Old Bailey, and served an injunction—
Mr. Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just told an untruth. Although I practise as a barrister, like many Tory Members, and am proud to do so, on that day I was not at the Old Bailey. That is a fact. Please will you demand that the hon. Gentleman withdraws that accusation, as it is untrue?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Obviously, it is not possible for me to judge the accuracy of these matters. I have warned the hon. Gentleman more than once that he should not engage in what one might call personalities, but should stick to policies. I hope that I shall not have to make the point again
Mr. Richards.: I shall rephrase what I said, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Gentleman was plying his trade in the legal profession. And he served an injunction—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have asked the hon. Gentleman not to continue with the discussion of personalities but to stick to policies. Does he understand what I have said, or does he not? I shall not warn him again.
Mr. Richards: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clearly, I hear what you say, and I withdraw the remarks if they cause that much offence to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.
As the hon. Member for Caerphilly devoted so much of his speech to attacking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make one or two points about the hon. Gentleman. He pompously proclaims that he speaks for the people of Wales, whereas he does not even speak for his own colleagues. In the shadow Cabinet elections, he secured 121 votes out of 270 cast, so he does not even speak for his own Back Benchers.
Nor does the hon. Member for Caerphilly speak for the people of north Wales. I have made inquiries of many people in north Wales, trying to ascertain how frequently the hon. Gentleman has visited north Wales other than to go to party conferences. I can find no one who knows of an event to which the hon. Gentleman has been, nor a location such as a school or factory that he has visited. That may be wrong, because I have not trawled everybody who lives in north Wales, but, were the hon. Gentleman in his seat, I would invite him to tell us where he has been in north Wales and whom he has visited. Has he visited any schools, for example, as he seems to be particularly interested in education?
I do not wish to detain the House for much longer, except to say that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, Wales is winning with the Tories. It will continue to do so, despite Opposition attempts to undermine it.
6.4 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: It does not make me happy to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and I shall not comment on what he said other than to say that I was sad that he descended into the realms of personal attacks.
I shall devote my speech to housing and the homeless in Wales. I am sorry that I cannot be here at the end of this debate because I must go to Llandrindod where I am chairing a conference tomorrow. I must be there a little earlier than the Minister of State to deal with the architectural heritage fund.
Less than five years after the Department of the Environment reviewed the working of the 1985 homelessness legislation and found that it was "adequate" and "appropriate", the Secretary of State for the Environment is presenting a "Review of Homelessness and Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies". He says that it is now virtually impossible for anyone other than statutorily homeless households to obtain a council or housing association tenancy.
The Secretary of State for Wales will not be surprised at that. If massive numbers of council houses are sold off and

1119
housing associations cannot meet projected housing needs, it is only commonsense that those who need housing will not be housed. But according to the Secretary of State for Wales, that has nothing to do with it. "Ordinary" people who are waiting for a home cannot get one because of all the young single parents who are having babies just to jump the housing queue.
The Secretary of State says that it has nothing to do with the fall in the number of homes available for rent by 48,000 in the 10 years from 1982 to 1992. It has nothing to do with the rise in the number of households accepted as homeless to more than 10,000 in the same period. It has nothing to do with the estimated 60,000 people who experienced homelessness in some form in Wales last year.
According to the Secretary of State, longer waiting lists for council houses have nothing to do with the fact that high rents, shorthold tenancies, widespread disrepair, the requirement of bonds or deposits and rent in advance, the requirement for tenant employment, the prohibition of children, and the commonplace harassment all make the private sector a non-starter for many vulnerable home seekers.
It has nothing to do, according to the Secretary of State, with the fact that more than one in three marriages now fails. Families split up and often need cheaper and tented accommodation. Nor is it to do with the fact that, nationally, 1,000 homes are still being repossessed each week. In Wales in 1992, more than 19 families a day either lost or were threatened with the loss of their homes. They have to be housed. On average, 30 dependent children became officially homeless every day in Wales in 1992. Such children have to be housed, if not by district councils then by the social services under the Children Act 1989.
There are also the mentally ill, discharged from hospital into community care; there are youngsters coming out of care seeking and needing a secure and stable home; there are young offenders who need a new start; battered 'wives and children and the chronically sick. All those groups make priority demands on public and social housing.
If the Government will not allow councils to spend the money from council house sales on building special needs housing and if they underfund housing associations so that they can provide only one third of the social housing identified as needed, we can expect council waiting lists to get longer.
Mr. Llew Smith: As housing associations will be expected to build for sale as opposed to for rent, what effect will there be on homelessness?
Mr. Wardell: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the balance between houses for rent and houses for sale is significant, but as long as shared equity housing is available and the lower percentage applies, I am sure that will provide some assistance.
To return to the main points, we can expect that more families will have to cope with overcrowded conditions. We can expect more couples who are living with their in-laws to resent intensely the dichotomy between postponing parenthood and raising a family with grandparents, while aunts and uncles sleep on the couch in the living room, and to begrudge the lack of privacy.
According to the Secretary of State, housing needs cannot be met because young single girls are getting pregnant and using what the Government call a fast-track
1120
system into housing, pushing ordinary couples back down the list. To close that supposed fast track, the whole fragile framework of homelessness legislation has to be uprooted.
The Government say that they want a constructive public debate on their proposals. I am all for constructive debate, especially when we are debating the need to deny homeless people—the vast majority of whom are homeless through no fault of their own—access to a permanent home, and especially when it is proposed to reduce local authorities' powers and duties so that, at the discretion of the Secretary of State, they will have to ensure only that an as yet undetermined agency can provide for the homeless a roof for the short to medium term.
What determines access to housing is the number of houses that are available and, particularly in relation to housing the homeless, the number of affordable homes available. The Government have progressively cut the housing allocations in England and Wales.
The Welsh Federation of Housing Associations reckons that Government plans to cut the housing association grant rate will result in a £1 a week increase in rent for tenants for every 1 per cent. decrease in grant. That alone will erode the supply of affordable housing in Wales, increasing waiting lists.
As for teenage single parents, they play a minor role in the overall picture. If all young girls under 18 were excluded from applying under the homeless persons legislation, that would affect allocations by a maximum of only 2 per cent., according to a survey of local authorities by the Institute of Housing.
The 1991 labour force survey found that only 0.3 per cent. of the heads of council homes were single mothers under the age of 20. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys "Population Trends" No. 71 shows that more than 50 per cent. of the estimated 1.3 million lone parents in Britain became lone parents as a result of divorce, separation or death. Single women account for only 29 per cent. of lone parents, and a further 10 per cent. are single men. Men comprise one in three of all single parents.
DSS research report No. 6 on lone-parent families in the United Kingdom—I am sure that the Secretary of State uses it for his bedtime reading—states:
"Despite the anxieties that are often expressed, that many young women are getting pregnant deliberately for one reason or another,…we found little evidence that this was the case."
In 1991, lone parents between 16 and 24 comprised only 6 per cent. of all families with dependent children. In the last three months of last year, only 2 per cent. of households housed as homeless under the 1985 Act were headed by a young person. That 2 per cent. includes all young people housed for whatever reason, not only those with children. There is no information whatsoever on housing applications by pregnant women. Those are the very small numbers of tenancies involved.
I cannot believe that a Minister—indeed, no less than a Secretary of State—should not familiarise himself with the factual background information on the area in which he proposes to legislate. I find it incredible that the whole structure of housing policy should be changed because of the blind prejudice of the Secretary of State and a few of his Cabinet colleagues. It is blind prejudice and, as ever, a desire to cut spending.
It is important to look at just what the Government propose. They propose that local authorities will have a duty to "assist" housing applicants in priority need who have no home. They propose to make the new duty

1121
applicable only when the home is lost—when there is no roof—instead of when homelessness is imminent within 28 days. That duty starts only after the council has made an assessment of the claim and satisfied itself that the applicant really is entitled to help.
In practice, the pending homeless facing eviction within days will end up, in great distress, in the worst private accommodation; thus, they will never appear as homelessness statistics. At a stroke, the number of homeless will fall, in the same way as unemployment fell when who was or who was not a claimant was redefined.
The councils' new duty to those brave enough to hang on and go to the council offices after the bailiffs have put them on the street will be to find them temporary accommodation. Applicants will be expected to use their time in shelter to find their own accommodation. What is likely to happen to many is what the Institute of Housing and the Institute of Housing in Wales calls a revolving door syndrome, when a homeless application is followed by a temporary letting in the private sector, followed by a reapplication as homeless. As the Institute of Housing points out, that will increase administrative costs for councils and also create insecurity, which could severely affect family life, employment and education prospects. That surely cannot be what the Government regard as improving the well-being of our citizens. Where is the Prime Minister's vision? He is not in the House to hear this piece, and I apologise for not giving him advance notice that I was going to mention him. I hope that he will forgive me.
Under the new proposals, before people living with their parents, relatives or friends can be accepted for assistance, they must be served with a court order to evict them—so much for the Government's family values. The review paper also seeks views on whether hostels should be available for young single mothers. It does not say that the Government plan to provide money to build them. Ninety per cent. of respondents to the Institute of Housing's questionnaire on the review of homelessness legislation were firmly against any move to make the council's housing duty discretionary, temporary, or both. The Institute of Housing, the Welsh Federation of Housing Associations and Shelter Cymru share the concern of housing officers about the proposed change.
In Wales, there has been marked progress in dealing more effectively with homelessness, and co-operative and innovative schemes are in their infancy. All that work is now jeopardised, not because any factual evidence shows that it has failed or because a better scheme has been devised, but on the whim and the convenient prejudice of the Secretary of State and fellow travellers at the Treasury.
The review is devious. It seeks to justify further cuts in expenditure on housing and at the same time cuts the number of homeless by changing the definition of what it is to be homeless. It seeks to divert attention from the real cause of long waiting lists. The root cause of homelessness and the shortage of rented homes in Wales and the rest of Britain is the lack of money and support for affordable and permanent rented housing. It is by building houses and creating homes that waiting lists will be cut. Bigotry towards teenage single parents is a red herring that gets us nowhere. The review is irrelevant. It is constructive only in
1122
exposing just how fragile are homeless people's rights. It concentrates the mind on how wide is the gap between housing provision and housing need.
The review should be withdrawn. If the Secretary of State's contribution to the most vulnerable, the most distressed and least secure of our Welsh citizens is to sever their right to a home, the sooner he severs his tenuous connection with Wales, the better.
6.23 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not having been present during the first part of his excellent speech. I had a long-standing engagement to meet, in the other place, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ferrers, who is Minister of State at the Home Office, to discuss policing in south Wales—an issue which I raised in the recent debate in the House on the funding of local government. I make no apology for returning to that issue today.
We have a great problem. In 1992, the number of recorded crimes per police officer was 51 in south Wales compared with 44 in England and Wales and 42 in the whole of Wales. The number of recorded crimes per 100,000 of the population was 12,355—almost double the figure 10 years ago for the area covered by the South Wales police and considerably more than the figures for the rest of Wales, which was 9,602, and for England and Wales, which was 9,353. The South Wales police performed well, all things considered, in that each officer managed to make 18 arrests in 1992, which is slightly better than the figure for the rest of Wales, 17; and for England and Wales, 15. The number of arrests per 100,000 of the population in 1992 was 4,344 in south Wales; 3,955 for the whole of Wales; and 3,275 for England and Wales. The clear picture therefore is that more crimes are being recorded in south Wales than in the rest of Wales and the whole of England and Wales and that the success of the police in arresting people is slightly better.
The recent catastrophe regarding the budget of the South Wales police has had dire effects in my constituency. I have had discussions with senior officers and can report the following consequences. Operation Bumblebee, an important initiative designed to reduce the number of burglaries, has had to be put back, perhaps for several years. Just before Christmas, I was told that there was a shortage of petrol to put in police cars and, on one occasion, it was impossible to send a constable to Llantwit Major to arrest a burglar because the force could not afford to pay the constable£ 7;.50 for the petrol.
In November last year, my local police force was optimistic that it would achieve a zero increase in crime for last year—the first time that would have happened in many years. Sadly, that aspiration is in tatters. Local police stations are still under threat of closure, although that seems to have been withdrawn for the time being. There has been a substantial loss of police overtime. I was told that it has been impossible on occasion to send officers to court simply because there is no money to pay them overtime and that the only basis on which officers could attend court was by submitting overtime payment claims in the subsequent year.
That is not the way to run a police budget. The local police believe that they have been forced to renege on promises that they made to the public. On bank holidays,

1123
for example, there is only enough money to provide 37 officers in the Vale division, instead of 51, which would constitute what they regard as a skeleton staff. That means that, taking into account the shift system, only 10 police officers would be out in the whole of the Vale of Glamorgan and Penarth, and only one traffic car and one dog, where there should be four traffic cars. People who are arrested in the evening have been bailed at police stations rather than being kept in overnight. They are granted bail not because the police are satisfied that that would be appropriate, but because there are not the staff to supervise the prisoners overnight. That shows the scale of the problem. I shall now deal with how the problem arose.
In the past few weeks and months, we have seen an unholy battle over who is responsible for the underfunding. I wish to put the blame where it appears to me squarely to lie—with the South Wales police authority.
Mr. Liwyd: If the blame lies squarely with the police authority, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why did he waste his time going to see Earl Ferrers?
Mr. Sweeney: I should have thought that that was self-evident. Responsibility for home affairs rests with the Home Secretary and his Ministers, rather than with the Secretary of State for Wales. When I wished to raise my concern about the issue, it was naturally to the Home Office that I went.
What I learnt during that meeting reinforced information that I had already received in correspondence with the Home Office. The South Wales police authority comprises, among others, elected councilors from South Glam organ, Mid Glam organ and West Glamorgan county councils. Under the indicative distribution arrangements for Wales, 5.6 per cent. of the budget should be going to the South Wales police this year. Last year, they received only 1.6 per cent. When I have taxed local councilors—Labour councillors, incidentally—with those figures, I have been told, "It is all your wicked Government's fault: rate capping prevents us from giving the police authority the money that we would like it to receive."
With respect, that is nonsense. The total 1994–95 budget for the three local authorities is in the region of£ 900 million and the amount that the police desperately need to deal with the shortfall and deliver the services that they have promised is a mere £5 million. My arithmetic tells me that that represents a percentage of 0.5 recurring. It is not even as if the three authorities had to find the whole amount; they need find only 49 per cent. of it, because 51 per cent. of the budget for all police forces in England and Wales comes from the Home Office. By giving the police 1.6 per cent. rather than 5.6 per cent., the police authority has deprived them of not only the part that it should have paid them, but the part that would have come from the Home Office if it had paid the full whack.
I appreciate the problems of capping and I realise that all local authorities face difficulties in trying to keep within their budgets. Every organisation, however, must deal with the same constraints and I do not see why local authorities should be exempted. If the Government are to control overall spending levels, local government must play its part. I believe that central Government have been generous to local authorities in Wales, in all the circumstances.
In view of the smallness of the total amount involved —£4;5 million out of £900 million, with less than £2.5 million actually having to come out of the£ 900 million
1124
—it should be relatively easy for local authorities to trim their budgets elsewhere. Of course, they are right to say that they have statutory responsibilities in a number of areas and that some of their expenditure is unavoidable; but I see the waste that takes place in my local authority, South Glamorgan.
I have written to the authority about issues such as its decision to reduce spending by turning off the lights on the main roads in my constituency. I suggested that that was a very short-sighted policy, given that the accident rate tends to be higher on roads whose lights have been switched off, as does the incidence of bulb failure. What is the point of spending a large amount of capital in installing street lights and then switching them off in a form of short-termism? That is a truly penny-pinching approach.
Although my overtures in favour of switching the lights on were ignored, it may be significant that they were switched on immediately after one person was killed in an accident in South Glamorgan. No apology was made for the fact that they had been off in the first place, but somehow the money was found.
Given the importance that the public attach to policing, it behoves all county councillors who happen to serve on police authorities—and all other members of police authorities—to realise the vital importance of maintaining an effective police force. The public will accept nothing less. It is not simply a question of how much money is made available to the police; it is also a question of how that money is spent. What appears to be emerging now is that the way in which the police budget has been spent has not been properly controlled.
It seems that overtime payments have been allowed to accrue and claims for those payments have not been put in. That means that the treasurer of the police authority has not at any given time had a full grasp of how high or low spending is running. That was certainly brought home to the South Wales police authority in a very painful way. I understand that at one stage it was told that it was spending well over £1 million under budget. Naturally, the senior officers did the obvious thing and started to increase spending—only to be told, as late as July 1993, that they were overspending at that stage to the tune of more than£ 500,000 pounds and would have to put their budget in order.
Another factor has distorted the police authority's budget. Not only had it overspent on overtime; it had relied on an assumption that substantial savings in salary levels would result from the retirement of police officers. In fact, those savings were not achieved, because the number of officers retiring did not match expectations. In the meantime, a number of civilian workers had been employed. In theory, that should have improved police efficiency, because civilians can perform certain tasks at lower cost than police officers. The net result, however, was a considerable unanticipated overspend.
Those are serious issues, which need to be tackled by the police authority. They need the full support of the county councils, which contribute to the budget of the police authority.
I have an assurance from Lord Ferrers that the Government fully realise the importance of policing in Wales. All that I said to him was that, even if the police authority discharged its duty and the police received the full £5 million that they should have received, better

1125
resources would still be needed for the police in south Wales. That should mean not only more money and more police officers, but better use of existing resources.
It is especially necessary for the police to make much better use of information technology so that there can be a more efficient exchange of information and so that experienced police officers no longer waste a considerable amount of their time typing out charge sheets by hand. Before entering the House I was a solicitor, engaged in the court duty solicitor scheme and in the police station duty solicitor scheme. I frequently visited local police stations in the area and, frankly, I was appalled at the obvious waste of police time resulting from inefficient methods.
The Government are often criticised for taking too much control of the affairs of local government. I believe, however, that in this case the Home Office should be taking more control, not less, of the running of local police forces, especially if police forces are mismanaged and underfunded as a result of poor local control. I would especially like the Home Office to give a firm steer to all police authorities, in England as well as in Wales, to encourage them to spend parts of their budgets on suitable equipment that would enable them to function efficiently.
Time and time again I hear from my constituents that, notwithstanding the increase in the number of police officers which we know—on paper—has taken place, coupled with the increase in white collar staff to back them up, the public see fewer, not more, police officers on the street. That is partly because many of those police officers are in panda cars or high-speed police vehicles. I am not suggesting that they should not be properly equipped in that way; it is no good a bobby on the beat trying to give chase to someone in a fast stolen car.
The police want more police officers to be on the beat. The success of community watch schemes and so on depends on it. It is vital—I know that we are beginning to do it—to achieve a better relationship between the police and schoolchildren and between the police and the public, but we can do so only if we release more of our officers from the burden of unnecessary paperwork, to which inefficient equipment at police stations often contributes.
6.43 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: Nothing is sacred, apparently, not even the chains of the mayors of boroughs such as Llanidloes—at least, not to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), although I reassure myself that on the same side of the House sits the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), who has a proper sense of Welsh history and would wish those mayoral chains to be preserved. I suppose that after Piltdown man we have Meltdown man, although I comfort myself with the recollection that Piltdown man turned out to be a fraud.
This has been a rather sad debate. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West came to the House with a great deal of promise and was said to have a promising ministerial career in front of him. In this afternoon's debate we have probably seen that promising ministerial career—which would have been based on intelligence—destroyed by bad judgment and melting down into a phial of poison.
At the beginning of the debate, the Secretary of State made an announcement about transport policy. We all listened with much interest and we had a short tour of
1126
Wales by intervention. The Secretary of State kindly let us all intervene to make our specific arguments. I am disappointed that we have not yet heard an announcement about the Newtown bypass, but I am grateful for the assurance that it will be considered.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider one small thing, which would cost very little, and about which I have written to the Minister of State—provision for the disabled in towns and villages which are crossed by trunk roads for which the Welsh Office has responsibility. I wrote to the Minister of State specifically about Welshpool. It is a serious problem for disabled people. The right hon. Gentleman gave me a positive response and I hope that that issue can be expedited.
I had hoped today that the Secretary of State would give us a little more hope for the carriage of freight on the railways. Not a bean is carried, in terms of freight, on the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth line. It would be nice if we could hear a commitment—
Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
Mr. Carlile: I am glad to see the Secretary of State nodding in agreement with the principle, at least. It would be nice to hear a commitment to transport more freight by railway, rather than to have it trundling through the towns and villages of mid-Wales.
Tonight I shall speak principally about agriculture. I do so because it is very important to rural mid-Wales and also because the Minister of State, who is responsible directly for agriculture in Wales, will, I understand, wind up the debate.
Wales depended on agriculture before Welsh coal and steel were mass-produced to stoke and build the industrial revolution. All hon. Members present are only too well aware of the significant effect that the industrial revolution had on the communities of south Wales. The industrial revolution is now part of history. Today we are in the midst of the post-industrial revolution, of which the main characteristic is probably the deconstruction of the past. Wales has suffered disproportionately, with the spring tide of destruction in the coal and steel industries and with the resulting enormous economic and social upheaval.
We welcome the fact that the Welsh economy has attracted many foreign and multinational companies and few people could doubt sensibly that the investment of such companies has been necessary and welcome. However, I regret that the international investment has not been matched by growth in Welsh indigenous industry, despite remarkable exceptions such as Laura Ashley and, more recently, Control Techniques in Montgomeryshire.
It is a matter of regret that so little risk capital has been invested in Wales in proportion to the risk and venture capital invested in England and indeed in Scotland.
I suggest to Ministers that it is unsound economics and unwise politics to accept that the Welsh work force should be the lowest paid in the United Kingdom and that our school leavers and unemployed people should have to make do so often with inadequate training provision.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the lack of indigenous investment in industry in Wales. He may be aware that the report produced by the Institute of Welsh Affairs 2010 specifically drew attention to the need to develop a spirit of enterprise in Wales,

1127
which, it has to be recognised on both sides of the House, has perhaps looked too much to the past. Will he discuss that?
Mr. Carlile: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Wales has not been awash with entrepreneurialism, which, as I was trying to say, needs to be encouraged. The old business expansion schemes barely featured in Wales whereas in the south of England one could hardly move for leaflets about them. We need to bring the spirit of enterprise to Wales.
I said that I would concentrate on agriculture. At the moment, 18,000 people work in agriculture in Wales. That is still a significant proportion of the Welsh work force, although the number is falling. In 1920, the figure was 70,000; in 1950, it was 50,000; and, as I said, today it is 18,000. The decline is exceptionally relevant to rural and hilly Wales. Many parts of Wales still depend on the direct and indirect jobs and income from farming. In my constituency, as much as 16 per cent. of the work force is still employed in and around agriculture, but the decline in agriculture is apparent to all who visit.
The decline has caused the demise or amalgamation of farms, the loss of chapels and churches, and the closure of schools, pubs and shops and of many agriculturally based businesses. We have, of course, welcomed the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales, but it has often been work of a very different character which has not served to save villages.
As time passes, we once again face the risk of rural depopulation resulting from the decline in agriculture. Agriculture will continue to decline unless we are prepared to be truly radical and imaginative in our approach and brave enough to take the long-term view, which has never been taken in this country, save at the time of the formation of the common agricultural policy in which we chose not to participate. Although there has been an improvement recently—I shall not quarrel with the statistics given by the Secretary of State—the problem is compounded by the historically low income base.
The Employment Gazette of February this year gave the average hourly income for all industries and services as £8.44. For farmers the average was £4.97, barely 60 per cent. of the average for all industries and services. Government policies have compounded the disparity. The hill livestock compensatory allowance is, for many farmers, the lifeline that allows them to farm land which would otherwise be unviable. The Government used to recognise the importance of the HLCA. The section on Wales in the most recent Conservative manifesto stated:
"We will give further resources to our Rural Initiative. And we will continue to support hill farmers through the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances".
That commitment undoubtedly impressed many farmers in rural Wales—not surprisingly—but, unfortunately, the reality has not matched it. Farmers have been helped by accidents rather than policy, notably by black Wednesday and the devaluation of the green pound. They are temporary conditions which, if the economy—as the Government promise—becomes stronger, lead to a further reduction in farm incomes. We suffer from short-termism in our agriculture policy. As a result, many farmers whom I have met earn £4,000 to £4,500 a year for hard work on a family farm, with little prospect of making a decent living in the future.
Many farmers must also now bear the financial costs of the necessary drive towards increased environmental
1128
sensitivity. Farmers are keen environmentalists—if it were not for them we should not have the countryside that we love—but they cannot conjure cash out of the air. The Government have, however, reduced by £40 million the expenditure available for the environment by reducing the grants for agricultural diversification and the farm conservation grant scheme.
Welsh farming needs investment if it is to survive. We have to decide whether it is worth farming on the hills. If we decide that it is not, we shall have a derelict and ugly countryside, bereft of its communities. If we decide that it is—as I believe—we must support it. I shall suggest in a moment how we should do so.
Welsh agriculture is dominated by the common agricultural policy. It is generally agreed—I do not dissent from the view—that the amount of money spent on the CAP is too high. Efforts have been made to change its structure via the MacSharry reforms, but they seem merely to have increased bureaucracy, as happened with the integrated administration and control system, cattle identification documents and the arable scheme which splits Wales into two areas. Although it could not be said that the areas were arbitrary, they are nevertheless proving to be unjust and are exciting consternation among farmers of a kind which, I suspect, would be likely to vote for the Conservatives rather than the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Ainger: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman; agree that the position adopted by the Welsh Office in relation to arable regionalisation is wholly illogical? Wales produces only 2 per cent. of the cereals produced by England, but England has one system and one payment whereas Wales has to have a two-tier system. Is not that irrational?
Mr. Carlile: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; and he will find that the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales agree with both of us.
It is increasingly likely—even inevitable—that the CAP will be altered dramatically. I believe that we should tear it up and start with a blank sheet of paper. The Americans are opposed to it; the third world is opposed to it; and, perhaps most important, the emerging central European democracies are opposed to it. The CAP is self-evidently incompatible with the expanding European Union about which many of us are enthusiastic. The accession in due course of other countries—notably the democracies of central Europe—will provide the opportunity for change.
If and when the CAP goes, it will have to be replaced with something; if not, the rural dereliction to which I referred will follow. We must prepare for that now. It will not be good enough for us to learn, following a meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, that the shop is now closed. However, some of our experience of the way in which the business of the European Union has been conducted leads one to conclude that that could happen.
Post-CAP farming will be very different from the agriculture of today. It is likely that there will be no more intervention and no more payment for fallow, set-aside land. For many farmers, especially those in Wales where holdings tend to be small by British standards, it will be uneconomic to farm for profit in the traditional way. We must find new systems of farming, with the emphasis on not only food production but land use. Intensitivity will be a thing of the past, but the danger is that many farmers will be blown away in the often cruel gale of the free market.

1129
In Wales, we must prepare a structure—a strategy—to ensure that land is used in a diverse and economic way. Farmers must be given the training and funds to enable them to diversify as much as possible. Tourism, alternative cash crops, rural industry and leisure are all very important, but we must bear it in mind that diversification is difficult in the remotest areas—one can sell only so many love spoons at the gate.
I suggest that farmers should be encouraged, probably through a scheme of fairly negotiated contracts, to come up with as many strategies of their own as possible for the future use of their land. I foresee the possibility of a system in which each farmer will have the option of either remaining in the free market or negotiating a contract for the future production, environment and management of his farm, or a mixture of the two. Only if we are brave enough to venture down the road of considering that kind of future will we avoid disaster for the hills.
Farming was the mainstay of the Welsh economy long before coal and steel. Now coal and steel have declined. The challenge is for agriculture not to go the same way, but to show that it can prosper, albeit in a different world. If it dies, a huge swathe of Welsh culture and society will die with it. The solution to this long-term problem is a challenge. It will take a bold and imaginative Government to introduce the kind of agricultural policies which will meet the uncertain future. Rural Wales is rich in those "dappled things" of which Hopkins wrote so immortally. Unfortunately, the survival of the Welsh countryside depends on the mortal weaknesses of economists and politicians, but we must not shrink from the challenge.
7.1 pm
Mr. Roger Evans: I wish to go back to where we began the debate, with the Secretary of State's announcement on the road programme in Wales. I wish particularly to congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he announced for my particular part of Wales. The emphasis of focusing on economic needs and at the same time minimising environmental damage is a welcome development.
It is perhaps to be expected from a Secretary of State who represents a constituency in Wokingham that he sees the importance of strategic motorway routes, which are a significant means by which the state can properly contribute to economic prosperity and development. Those of us in south-east Wales are particularly aware of the M4 effect—I appreciate that it does not go far enough; it does not go further up the valleys, and I can see the point that will be made—which has swept down and transformed Reading from the rather grubby railway town of 20 years ago and transformed Swindon into a much more prosperous place than we remember when we used to be stuck there because of British Rail on Sunday afternoons 20 or 30 years ago.
Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman should have been in chapel.
Mr. Evans: Yes, I agree. That is probably not a bad sedentary observation. But one well remembers going back to university in the 1960s and being stuck on Swindon station on Sundays, sometimes for four or five hours if British Rail was doing its maintenance work.
1130
The M4 effect has meant increasing prosperity, and it is a very useful way in which public expenditure can assist economic development. But there is increasing awareness in the 1990s that if one is to build roads, they must be economically highly desirable and focused, and we are much more aware of the environmental damage that can be caused by the wrong type of road proposal in the wrong place.
I do not know if, because of the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) heard the news, which I have no doubt he will join me in welcoming, of the deletion of the A40 Crickhowell bypass proposal.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: He was here.
Mr. Evans: He was here for it. I am corrected. It is a matter of considerable importance for our part of the world. My right hon. Friend very properly told us, in respect of the Abergavenny western bypass, that he would await the inspector's report. That is the correct way of proceeding in these matters. I have no doubt that in Abergavenny the deletion of the Crickhowell bypass proposal will be greeted as an encouraging signal that the Abergavenny western bypass will go the same way.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: My hon. Friend may know that it has been estimated that, if the Abergavenny western bypass were to proceed, traffic flows through Crickhowell would increase by 17 per cent. In those circumstances, if we are not to have a bypass in Crickhowell, he will understand that the people in Crickhowell will be anxious to ensure that we do not have the Abergavenny western bypass either.
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. Those two schemes go together, and the logic and the policy must be that if one is to be abandoned, the other must be as well. In Abergavenny that will be particularly welcome, because the proposal to build a motorway-style causeway across the Usk valley, creating an unsightly urban scar in a particularly attractive piece of rural landscape, with the kind of 10-metre lighting columns which at night can be seen from the top of the Skirrid mountain, and generally debasing the environmental quality of the whole area, is exactly the kind of ill thought-out, old-fashioned, 1960s style of road building that we no longer want in the 1990s.
The other facet of this matter which has become increasingly appreciated is that when one builds new roads —sometimes that is a good thing, when trying to create an important strategic route such as the M4 corridor or to improve the heads of the valleys road through the A465 —and attempts to create and attract traffic, they do attract traffic and that sometimes, by creating new roads in the wrong place, one attracts traffic where one does not want it.
As I understand the position in Abergavenny, the peak traffic jam problem is on Sunday morning at bank holiday weekends, when the type of traffic which is said to be objected to and which stuffs up Abergavenny is visiting tourists, who are exactly the kind of people that we want to see more of in Abergavenny. So if communities are to go on living, and if historic communities are to preserve the

1131
quality that makes their environment so attractive, as in the case of Abergavenny, road schemes must be sensitive and be directed more to environmental matters.
I have another problem to put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, if the A40 is not to be the great strategic through route which, as I understand it, both the Department of Transport and the Welsh Office have assumed for many years.
Some of us sometimes, in protest at the M4 being rather full of traffic, take the other way to south-east Wales—via Gloucester—and see, as vie are stuck in a traffic jam at Northolt, those enormous notices telling us about the great road scheme described as the "A40 London-Fishguard trunk route". Will we see an end to that scheme in its entirety now that it has at least been realised that it cannot be expected to proceed through the environmentally sensitive part of Gwent and Breconshire in the same way? I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement.
I am particularly grateful to the Welsh Office ministerial team for their recent announcements, not just because of greater respect for the environment but also because of heritage matters. I refer particularly to the emphasis on and increased resources available for re-listing and properly surveying Wales for buildings of architectural and historic importance, and the help to be given in the form of the proposed redundant churches and chapels fund to save parts of Wales's important heritage.
I have one query about local government reform. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is absolutely right in thinking that I am the kind of Tory who is deeply concerned about mayoral chains. Not only do I not want them melted down: I believe them to be part of the municipal heritage of Victorian Wales, and want them preserved.
But there is an important point here, which goes slightly beyond mayoral chains. It is about what happens when local government is reformed and councils are closed down, which may or may not be controversial. Councils tend to accumulate over the years various types of memorabilia—paintings of former civic dignitaries and so on—which are terribly important and part of the pride of the community. I ask my right hon. Friend whether proper arrangements will be made to preserve these vital parts of the Welsh municipal and county heritage.
7.9 pm
Mr. Llew Smith: There has been a debate on the Government's "back to basics" policies for several months now. Many Opposition Members have argued that the Government were referring to individual morality, whereas the Government would deny that, saying that they were trying to apply those policies to some of the big issues, such as health, education and crime.
It is hard to deny that they were talking about individual morality, because it became obvious when we heard the attacks on single mothers. We were given to believe by some Ministers that all the problems that western civilisation faced were probably caused by single mothers —that is, until one Minister said a few days later that the clergy must also take a considerable amount of the responsibility.
To be fair to the Government, I believe that they were also trying to apply "back to basics" to the big issues. I am surprised that that idea caused such a stir, because in my opinion that is what they have been doing over the past
1132
decade—applying that policy to the problems we now face. Every time I hear the Minister of State, Department for Education speak, and every time I hear the Secretary of State for Wales address the Welsh Grand Committee on education, as he did last week, I am convinced that the Government are sincere about going back to basics.
In educational terms, "back to basics" could mean not only changing from comprehensive to grant-maintained schools, but changing from comprehensive schools back to the old 11-plus examination. There is often a lot of debate about the 11-plus, and much time is set aside to say how grand the grammar schools were. That is debatable, to say the least. However, it is remarkable that, when we debate the 11-plus, virtually no time is given to discussing the merits or otherwise of the old secondary modern schools.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: While we are talking about the benefits of the old grammar schools, may I declare an interest and say that I went to the same grammar school as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the former leader of the Labour party—although I always say that I learned more there than he did. Were not grammar schools a vehicle for social mobility, an avenue by which children were enabled to do so much better in life, and has that not been cut off by many of the changes that took place in the 1960s and 1970s, which the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) appears to support?
Mr. Smith: That does not show in the statistics; very few children of working class parents ended up in our universities. That is point number one.
Point number two is that, when we discuss the 11-plus examination, we should talk not only of the merits or otherwise of the grammar schools, but also about those of the secondary modern schools, because, under the old system, 75 per cent. of our youngsters were written off and dumped at the grand old age of 11. They were dumped in the secondary modern schools and conditioned for life at 15 or 16, when they would go out to work, labouring in the pit, the factories or the building sites. The lucky few would manage to achieve apprenticeships.
That was a tragedy. Many youngsters with tremendous skills, talents and creativity were not given the opportunity to use them for the benefit of their communities, and even to create the industries in which their fellows could have been employed when they left the secondary modern schools.
What worries me is that, if the Government go back to basics and return to the 11-plus and the secondary modern schools, it will all be even worse the second time round. If it happens again, we shall be dumping youngsters in secondary modern schools that will condition them not for a life labouring in factories and building sites, with a few skilled apprenticeships, but for a life on the dole, with the lucky few doing soul-destroying, menial, part-time jobs in the local factories.
It is a tragedy that Conservatives are still willing to defend the old secondary modern system and the 11-plus, which wrote off 75 per cent. of our youngsters at the age of 11.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The hon. Gentleman is expressing concern about children who are not academically inclined. Does he not appreciate what the Government are now trying to do

1133
by introducing GNVQs—general national vocational qualifications—and so on? Those are aimed at precisely the people whom he is talking about.
Mr. Smith: I am shocked to hear a senior Minister talking about the old 11-plus system and the secondary modern schools in a way that shows that he is willing to write off the 75 per cent. of youngsters who did not go to grammar schools as, in his words, "not academically inclined".
I happen to be an authority on secondary modern schools, because I was one of the children who attended one. I found that the people who went to secondary modern school and joined me in the activities of the school were academically inclined. The tragedy, and the argument against the 11-plus examination, is the fact that those children did not have the opportunity to show that they were academically inclined, because they were written off at the age of 11.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I do not want to intervene too often, but surely the lesson is that we should have been endeavouring to improve the standards of technical and secondary modern education, just as the Minister has suggested, rather than cutting away the grammar schools, as happened in the 1960s and 1970s.
Mr. Smith: I am all in favour of raising standards, but the hon. Gentleman does not understand that the 11-plus worked against that idea, because it said to 75 per cent. of youngsters, "You will spend four or five years in a secondary modern school being conditioned not to expect anything better in life than a job in the factory, the building site or the pit."
It is an insult to those children for the Minister to categorise every one of them as not being academically inclined. That shows a misunderstanding of the nature of schools under the 11-plus system. It is an insult to every one of those youngsters who would have liked the opportunity to use his or her skills, and who objected to being written off at the age of 11.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am surprised that we are having this argument across the Chamber, because I thought the Conservatives had now come to terms with comprehensive schools. Is not one of the problems with education in Britain the fact that we are still elitist and tend to think only of the top 10, 20 or 30 per cent., whereas Japan, Germany and the United States think that 60, 80 or 90 per cent. of the people need to be very well educated today, because jobs will change so much during their working lifetime?
Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. The situation will be exacerbated by student loans, because youngsters from working-class homes will find it increasingly difficult to participate in the colleges and universities in our land.
I shall touch on another area in which the Government are serious in their belief that we should go back to basics. Over the past decade, they have definitely been developing "back to basics" policies on employment—and, indeed, on unemployment. For them, "back to basics" means back to the 1920s and 1930s.
Mr. Jonathan Evans indicated dissent.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) should know better. He would not shake his head if he revisited the constituency in which he was brought up, and with which I am sure he was proud to be associated. He would see that conditions in that constituency are becoming increasingly similar to those which prevailed in the 1920s and 1930s.
A number of my colleagues and I spent a considerable time collecting and collating statistics on poverty in Blaenau Gwent. We also went out and interviewed people in the villages to find out about their experiences. I should like to quote from the pamphlet. It will be one of the few occasions in the history of Parliament when the words of ordinary working people, who have been subjected to extreme poverty, will be spoken in this Chamber. Some 50 per cent. of the people in one street of families we surveyed were unemployed.
I want to relate the experiences of those people in our community who suffer severe poverty. The first case is that of an unemployed couple with one child at home. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor may think that it is a laughing matter, but if he bothered to visit our community, I suspect that he would be reluctant to laugh at the people and their experiences, which I am about to iterate.
Excuses are not necessary on this occasion. I repeat that one case involves an unemployed couple with one child at home. The father, aged 49, is on invalidity benefit and suffers from arthritis. He has not worked for 11 years. He says:
"The Hoover's broken, it'll cost about £70 to repair so we'll just have to go without. We don't go on holidays—just day trips. We don't go out, we don't drink.
We have got into debt but we learnt from that. It we want something now we sit down and talk about it. You've got to watch every penny.
I think we go from day to day. We feel a bit depressed. It affects your whole life—its monotonous. Some days we get up thinking if only something was different. But you've just got to get on with it."
Another case involves an unemployed couple with an unemployed son. The father, who is 62, has been unemployed for 10 years. He has worked in the building trade for 30 years, sometimes on low pay. He said:
"People like us will get into debt. The social will only give you a loan and then you have to fight for it. We put in for a £70 loan for a cooker and they wanted £8 a week back off us. Well we didn't bother—we couldn't afford to pay that.
We went on holiday once—we paid for a caravan—that's in more than 30 years of marriage … I'm not optimistic for me, nor for my grandchildren. The chosen few will be getting all the resources and all the others will get left out."s
That shows some of the problems that we have in our communities.
It is right to accept the Government's argument that they are committed to going "back to basics" in terms of unemployment. That policy extends further, because unemployment and poverty are related to other problems, such as low pay. The Government often give the impression that, if we had low pay in our communities, all our problems would be resolved and all of a sudden our communities would flourish. That is nonsense. If low pay were the answer to all our problems, Germany would be the poorest country in the world and India the richest. I suspect that that is not the case.
Bad health is another problem that is linked to poverty, to unemployment and, indeed, to low wages. That issue is relevant in my community and constituency, where we have some of the worst health problems in Wales. A high

1135
percentage of people in Blaenau Gwent have a permanent disability. The 1991 census shows that 41 per cent. of households include someone with a long-term illness or disability that limits how they live. The people in my community, therefore, have a vested interest in ensuring that there is decent health care, and that we maintain the national health service.
The Government are sincere in their belief that we should go "back to basics" in the NHS. Their idea of "back to basics" is to return to the position that prevailed before the NHS, when people's ability to receive effective treatment depended not on their health needs, but on the amount of money in their pocket.
The Government are determined once again to go "back to basics". The health service will be increasingly dependent on, and determined by, whether people can make a quick buck out of health provision. By supporting that trend, the Government are going "back to basics". That is true not only of this country—health care in the United States is going back to basics. At least it is now recognised in the United States that there are major problems in the health service, and efforts are being made to resolve them.
A few years ago, when I read a book on health care in the United States, I was reminded that we are copying the position that prevails in the United States. The book stated that the chairman of Kentucky Fried Chicken had resigned his position to head the new Hospital Corporation of America, because, in his words, the growth potential in hospitals was enormous—it was even greater than in Kentucky Fried Chicken.
I do not know how many right hon. and hon. Members have tasted Kentucky fried chicken. Those who have done so will be justifiably concerned that the quality of that product will be similar to the quality of health care that we can expect in the months and years ahead.
Mr. Morgan: Plastic surgery.
Mr. Smith: As my hon. Friend says, plastic surgery.
The money that can be made out of health care is not the only issue; the people who run the service are also a matter of concern. We find increasingly that the people who serve on area health authorities have never worked in the national health service, have not devoted their lives to it, do not care about it, and do not know what makes it tick. Increasingly, those serving on health authorities are slick business people who are out to make a quick buck. That is utterly unacceptable.
The Government are successfully attempting to take our democratic process back to basics. They have taken us back to the days when that process had no relevance to the vast majority of people. I do not suggest that the Government intend to abolish the vote in the next few months—even by their standards, that would be going too far—but the result of their policy will be the same.
People will be allowed to participate in the vote for local authorities, but it will be a worthless exercise, because those authorities will no longer have any powers—it will be a charade. Increasingly, powers are being put into the hands of quangos, and of people who are unelected and unaccountable to the local population.
Councillors are often attacked, but the money that councillors receive is nothing compared with the money that some quango members receive. The then Mr. Geoffrey Inkin once fought a parliamentary seat in Ebbw Vale,
1136
which is now part of my constituency. He managed to win about 2,000 votes. When the votes were announced, I thought, "That Mr. Inkin, he's a loser"; but I was wrong and I apologise.
Some years later, although Mr. Inkin had become somewhat disillusioned with the democratic process and elections, he was sympathetic to the idea of appointments. He now works for a few days a week. He receives about £60,000 to £70,000 a year. That is an insult to the people who, at one time, he wanted to represent.
If we go "back to basics", we should go back to the time when we gave our youngsters the opportunity to use their skills and talents: when we said to them that there were opportunities for them if they used the available facilities. We should go "back to basics", to the days when youngsters left school and knew that they were going to gain employment. We should go "back to basics" in terms of how we care for our people in hospitals; we should say to them that we will respond to their health needs, and that the money in their pockets is totally irrelevant.
We should go "back to basics" in our communities. Communities, including my own, which is one of the most famous in western Europe, are now breaking up because of the 10 or 12 or 13 or 15 years of "back to basics" from the Government.
7.30 pm
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) because he presented from his constituency the view of unreconstructed socialism that so many of us on the Conservative Benches recognise. It took me back to my childhood in Tredegar, where there were so many people with the same outlook as the hon. Gentleman running the local councils. Does he recall that, in those days, the level of unemployment in Wales was always higher than the national average? Wales was a country heavily dependent on the old, heavy industries. He will recall that there were coal mines in the area. In fact, my grandfather worked in a coal mine in Tredegar.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly outlined, the aspiration of youngsters in that area was either to work in the pits or to go over to the Ebbw Vale steel works, which was a major employer in the area at that time. He has obviously conveniently forgotten that a substantial rationalisation of the steel industry at Ebbw Vale was subsequently announced by the former Member for Ebbw Vale, his own predecessor Michael Foot. That change was brought about not through wickedness on the part of Michael Foot, but through a recognition that the steel industry was not able to carry on with the high level of manning that had previously been the case. That process of rationalisation has carried on in Wales.
Mr. Llew Smith: I certainly do not have a short memory and, because of that, I remember the announcement of job losses in Ebbw Vale. I remember it well, because a few days later it was followed by another announcement that there was to be substantial investment in new factories and developments in the northern part of the constituency. That is what makes that period different from the present period. In the present period, jobs in our community are part-time, low-paid, menial and non-union.
Mr. Evans: I also have a reason to remember that announcement because it was the first occasion, and

1137
probably the last occasion, on which I addressed many thousands of people at the Ebbw Vale rugby ground and got an immense cheer for my remarks. If I may say so, on that occasion, the hon. Gentleman and his friends in the local Labour party were not as popular in that constituency as they might have been at the election.
In considering the position of the economy in Wales, it is important to recognise that all is not perfect. We must recognise from where we have come during the 20th century and that is why I referred earlier to the position of the old, heavy industries. A more substantial manufacturing base subsequently developed in Wales. Historically, the former manufacturing base was at the end of the line of industries based in the United Kingdom. When there was recession job losses would always occur first in Wales and that is why we always had levels of unemployment that were significantly higher than the national average.
As the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent accepted, we have had to face rationalisation of those old, heavy industries. We hardly have a deep-mined coal industry left in Wales but, at least, we have a rationalised steel industry, which is at the forefront of competition in Europe. We should recognise and be positive about that instead of adopting the negative approach that we so often hear from the Opposition Benches.
We must also recognise the job that has been done in developing the manufacturing base in Wales and the work of the Welsh Development Agency in that regard. I know that it is the favourite sport of Opposition Members to deride the work of the Welsh Development Agency, but we would do well to recall that there are many thousands of people who are working in Wales today primarily because of the efforts of the Welsh Development Agency.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: We are concerned about the Welsh Development Agency and the lack of accountability in its structure. Nobody on the Opposition Benches undervalues the work that it has done. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the present reorganisation of the Welsh Development Agency into three regional offices and the closing of the office in Carmarthen will mean the loss of 70 jobs, the loss of 70 key people whose expertise lies in working to develop indigenous industry and to attract inward investment? Is the WDA safe in the Government's hands?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman asked three questions. It has been shown in past months that the Welsh Development Agency is a demonstrably more publicly accountable body than many local authorities in Wales and all the people in Wales attach great importance, as we do in the House, to the activities of that body. The Public Accounts Committee demonstrated the accountability of the Welsh Development Agency. If that were not the case, the occasions when it fell short of the standard that we required would not have come into the public domain.
However, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the work that has been done by the Welsh Development Agency in the development of industrial opportunities in Wales. Clearly, every organisation must operate according to a specific plan. In those circumstances, my inclination is to give maximum support to the new chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, helped by the recent appointments made to the board which include—there is
1138
silence on the Opposition Benches—George Wright of the Welsh Trades Union Congress and the Transport and General Workers Union. He has agreed to join the board of the WDA, which is carving out the organisation that it requires to take forward the next stage of industrial development.
It is important that we should recognise where the successes have occurred. I am not saying that they are all successes and that we should rest on our laurels, because many concerns have properly been raised by some Opposition Members about sectors in which we need to progress still further. Let us recognise the major achievements in winning new inward investment to Wales. Let us not deride the fact, as some did a few years ago, that we have investment from north America, from Japan and from continental Europe because they do not set a lower standard of wages.
Assessments that have been made of wages paid in many of the new manufacturing plants in Wales show that their levels of pay are in no sense dramatically different from levels of pay in the UK. The overall wage level in Wales is lower than the national average, but that is because of many of the reasons outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) earlier. He said that wages for those who do not own large farms, but for the ordinary family farmer on a small farm in Wales, are about 60 per cent. of national wage rates. Wage rates in indigenous business in Wales are pulling the average down. The new investment from others parts of the world has not reduced wage rates in the Principality.
Mr. Ainger: The hon. Gentleman touched on the accountability of the Welsh Development Agency. He claimed that, because the Public Accounts Committee investigated the scandal of more than £1 million of public money which was not being used in the correct manner, the WDA was therefore properly accountable. The Public Accounts Committee became involved because some Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), drew the serious allegations and rumours about the Welsh Development Agency to the attention of the Audit Commission. Its proper route of accountability was through the Welsh Office, but under the administration of the Secretary of State's predecessor that Department totally failed to make the WDA accountable. That is why Opposition Members constantly refer to that accountability.
Mr. Evans: All public organisations within Wales that are within the remit of the Welsh Office are accountable ultimately to the House. That is the factual and the constitutional position.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has not been in Wales quite as long as I have. At the start of my political and legal career in Wales one of the first cases that I dealt with involved corruption on the old Glamorgan county council—supposedly an accountable organisation. It had decided to delegate authority for all planning matters in an area that covered West Glamorgan, Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan to one Labour councillor—the chairman of the planning committee, who came from the Rhondda valley. He ended up serving three years in prison, but that does not mean that the system was not accountable. Nor does the example that the hon. Member for Pembroke

1139
gave about the work of the WDA in any way undermine the fact that the agency is accountable to Parliament, as I outlined.
Let me return to the thrust of my argument on the development of the Welsh economy. It is important that we take advantage of some of the positive messages that we have received, for instance from the "Wales 2010" report by the Institute of Welsh Affairs. I drew attention to that report in an intervention as it sets out an important agenda for the future. It suggests that we should aim to become one of the most prosperous regions in Europe and that we should not spend our time looking negatively towards the past but should build on some of our successes—for example, the undoubted growth within the Welsh economy.
During the past 12 months there has been greater growth in the Welsh economy than in the United Kingdom as a whole. The "Wales 2010" report shows that we should be more ambitious and should seek annual growth of up to 4.5 per cent. in Wales. We must also aim to increase the gross domestic product in Wales. That is an agenda that can and must be addressed. It must be our ambition to make Wales one of the most prosperous regions in the United Kingdom. We can do so only by changing attitudes within Wales and that is why I pointed that out to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I am glad that he dealt with my argument and accepted it.
We need a new spirit of enterprise in Wales, which does not have a great history of entrepreneurial activity. I am pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery at least recognises that it is. important that we develop that spirit in Wales, because the growth and jobs that people and Opposition Members want will result from that sort of entrepreneurial activity. The difference between Opposition Members and Conservative Members is that the former believe that such activity is Government-generated.
We shall change the situation in Wales only by dealing with the concerns outlined by the Institute of 'Welsh Affairs. Yes, we all agree about improving skills and about the importance of achievement for our school children. The Secretary of State for Wales remarked on that recently. However, we should also develop that entrepreneurial spirit. All those issues are of the utmost importance.
The Secretary of State mentioned the roads programme and I welcome his announcement about the Crickhowell bypass. Judging from what he said, he has clearly taken into account the weight of local representation on the subject. I am slightly disappointed that my intervention in my right hon. Friend's speech about traffic-calming measures was treated with derision by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I do not know whether he has received any representations on the subject from his constituents, but many groups in my constituency strongly believe that traffic is travelling through our towns and villages much too fast and that in the past, sadly, roads policy has not dealt with that problem. The thrust of that policy has been to get traffic moving more quickly from one main centre to another, without dealing with the traffic management problems, such as how one gets traffic through a community other than driving a bypass around it. That is one reason why I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement.
Mr. Alex Carlile: If derision is the right word, it was for the measures available. Has the hon. Gentleman
1140
observed some of the traffic-calming measures, such as those in the village of Crew Green in my constituency, which are ineffective and almost encourage motorists to accelerate?
Mr. Evans: I certainly think that it is an important matter. As I returned to Westminster this week I approached Glangrwny, the most southerly village in my constituency, and saw 37 Welsh Office approved traffic signs within 100 yd, many of which merely tell people to reduce speed. That is not what we mean by traffic-calming measures.
On Saturday I attended a meeting at Llanwrtyd Wells in my constituency—the smallest town in Britain—where the Welsh Office has sponsored serious proposals involving placing gateways across the road to the town. They are interesting and innovative proposals, which I discussed in detail with representatives of the traffic department at the Welsh Office.
Although it is a well-known fact that I do not have the highest opinion of the Welsh Office's previous approach to the roads programme, I was much encouraged by its attitude to that development. I want more developments of that type. That was the essence of my intervention on the Secretary of State. That is why I was surprised at the derision expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, as I thought that he would have welcomed my observation.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will convey to the Secretary of State my next point. It is perhaps known that a "Panorama" programme revealed that I am one of a group of Members who have asked questions about Government transport policy. However, the Secretary of State's announcement on the roads programme shows that he has carried out the type of review that I have been urging Ministers to undertake nationally. It would be churlish of the House not to recognise that he has dealt with the issue and caused that first review to be undertaken in Wales and he deserves great credit and support. I am happy to convey that to him.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery mentioned agriculture and said that it was the oldest and the largest industry in Wales. I recognise that fact and he knows that our constituencies are not dissimilar in that regard, although he painted an especially bleak picture. As we all recognise, there has been a decline in employment in agriculture since the 1950s. I take some solace from the fact that the number of agricultural holdings has not declined during the past 10 years and that is another factor. Having said that, many of the holdings have become larger, as the hon. and learned Gentleman outlined.
I wonder whether the imaginative and radical solution that he outlined—scrapping the common agricultural policy—is the answer that so many of our constituents want hear. Would they accept that it is uneconomic to farm for profit in many parts of mid-Wales? When the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the need for diversification it took me back to those days when my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) used to make similar observations, as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As I remember, he had a somewhat rougher passage from Liberal Members on those occasions.
This year, income from agriculture is better and it improved last year. Although that was partly helped by what the hon. and learned Gentleman derided as the

1141
accident of black Wednesday—I still refer to it as black Wednesday—many other factors have also led to an improvement in income. Many other factors have led to an improvement in income. One of them was falling interest rates, which has been a great help to the farming industry. We also have seen a significant increase in market prices. That is the truth of the situation.
For those who have them, quotas have buttressed agriculture, in cattle and sheep production, but those who do not have quotas have become involved in a mammoth bureaucratic exercise. Hon. Members who represent completely agricultural constituencies will know what I am talking about.
On several occasions, I have expressed disappointment about at least a few of the recent decisions as they have affected farmers in Wales. I have always made my position clear with regard to the hill livestock compensatory allowance, which is regarded as a central part of support for farmers in Wales. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) will recall that I raised that issue in the Welsh Grand Committee at the sitting before last, so it is some time since the matter arose. I was the first person to be concerned about the issue.
Agriculture has also been buttressed by arable aid. The Secretary of State is aware of my consternation—that is the lightest word that I can use in the circumstances—at the announcement about the arable aid scheme. He wants to sweep away regulation, and I agree with him. In those circumstances, the easiest way to sweep it away is to have an England and Wales region for the scheme. Everyone —even the nationalist party—wants that because it is the way to resolve the matter. To split Wales for the purposes of arable aid on the basis of LFA and non-LFA is deeply damaging to cereal farmers who happen to be within the LFA boundary.
Not many farmers are able to take advantage of the livestock premiums that are available within the LFA. It is no good telling a specialist cereal grower that he is in the LFA and, as a result, is eligible for other premiums because we have introduced a quota system. Unless he was in livestock production in 1991, he will not be able to get his livestock production now and receive those premiums, so that is totally irrelevant.
Another matter of great importance is that cereal producers in less favoured areas form a more substantial group than many would recognise. Only last night, I looked at the statistics published by the Welsh Office, which show that the majority of arable farmers in Wales are based in less favoured areas. There is more arable land in the less favoured areas of Wales than in any other area of Wales. That also underlines their difficult position. We shall have to come back to that issue.
The tourism industry is always important in the rural parts of Wales, and I am pleased that a number of tourists will be attending a Parliament for Wales campaign meeting this weekend, which will be held in Llandrindod Wells in my constituency. [Interruption.] I shall be there, in a sense, as the home Member. I am talking about the tourists from the other parties who will attend the meeting.
When I began my speech, I referred to the way that things used to be in the valleys of Wales. We now know that Labour Members and their friends wish to revisit the 1970s by raising again their ideas about the need for a
1142
democratic Welsh assembly. As Labour Members rightly said from sedentary positions, I intend to attend the meeting for the Parliament for Wales campaign. However, I intend to do so because I think that I will be virtually the only person present who was among the 83 per cent. of the people in Wales who voted against the setting up of a Welsh assembly on the last occasion.
I point out to those people—so many of them are on the Opposition Benches—who talk about a democratic deficit in Wales that the people of Wales have been given an opportunity to speak on this issue. They spoke resoundingly in a way that Labour Members did not like, so Labour Members decided that in the future the people of Wales would not be given a vote on it at all because they could not be trusted on the issue. If one reads the statements made subsequently by the protagonists for a Welsh assembly, one will see that the elitism is evident among those sitting on the Opposition Benches rather than among those sitting on the Government Benches. Labour Members spoke of people who had rejected the advice of the intelligentsia in Wales. I am sorry that so many people in the Labour party, churches, universities and so on believe that in some way the lot of the people in Wales could be advantaged by setting up a separatist assembly.
When I was first elected to the House and made my maiden speech, I made it clear that for all the time that I am here I am determined that Wales will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. The Parliament for Wales campaign is a wedge to take us down the road to separatism. We can say that loudly with a certain knowledge that the people of Wales, when asked to judge this issue, agreed with us, not them.
7.55 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), despite his final remarks, because he is a lively contributor to debates. I find it easy to listen to and disagree with him. His speech was in marked contrast to the earlier contribution from the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). Perhaps some time later this evening or next week, I hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor will have a few words with the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West in terms of demeaning the House and Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman put her in a very difficult position. I do not know what he had in mind when he made his wild allegations about whoever he saw at that moment. It was a pleasure to listen to the regional speech of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor.
The Secretary of State made a statement on the roads programme. Although I expressed some pleasure that the Whitland bypass was to go ahead, in an intervention I asked the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance about the Carmarthen eastern bypass. We have been waiting for that bypass for the past 20 years. There is appalling congestion in Carmarthen town throughout the year. It is especially horrific in the tourist season, but I can promise that we have appalling congestion problems in the rush hour, at 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock in the evenings and on Wednesdays when there is a market in town. I want that bypass to go ahead with the utmost urgency, as do the people of Carmarthen. I got a reasonable assurance from the Secretary of State, but I hope that the bypass will go ahead and the Government will stick to the timetable.

1143
The map of Wales that was circulated as part of the announcement shows that there is a large empty area where there appears to be no roads at all. That is north of Carmarthen, between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth. There seems to be a void where one must imagine that there is an enormous mountain range which we cannot cross. Indeed, that is good agricultural land.
Unfortunately, the road links north of Carmarthen to Llanybyther, Newcastle Emlyn and up towards Aberystwyth should be one of the strategic routes. Dyfed county council believes that the northern links are extremely important and I hope that the eastern bypass will go ahead. We see that bypass as the first stage of a major development programme of our northern links.
I shall make most of my remarks about a Welsh assembly and the proposed forum on which there have been some developments this week. In contrast to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, I have always been a firm believer in the need for some devolution of power away from London to all the regions of Britain. In the referendum on St. David's day in 1979, I worked hard for the yes campaign and it was a deep disappointment when the vote went substantially the other way.
The hon. Gentleman did not recognise, however, that there has been a fundamental change in public opinion in Wales during the past 15 years. We have endured 15 years of Conservative Government that have gone absolutely against the grain of all the people of Wales. That change of opinion applies also within the Labour party in Wales at local government and parliamentary level and among our supporters. Where once the Labour party looked on an assembly as a concession to nationalism, we now see an assembly in a different light, a Labour-controlled bulwark against the excesses of any future Conservative Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): The hon. Gentleman suggests that there has been a change of opinion on the subject of a regional assembly for Wales. How can he demonstrate that that is the case? If he is so confident that there has been a change of opinion, why is he determined to refuse to give the people of Wales a say on the matter?
Mr. Williams: An opinion poll conducted by BBC Wales has been referred to this evening, but I do not know whether the question was put in that poll. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] I am told that the question was included.
Mr. Paul Murphy: I was one of those who, in 1978–79, opposed the setting up of a Welsh assembly. Like my hon. Friend, I realise that there has been a massive change of opinion in Wales, largely as a consequence of 15 years of a Government who were not elected by the Welsh people. The opinion poll run by the BBC showed that 45 per cent. of the Welsh people were in favour of an elected assembly, 22 per cent. were against and 33 per cent. did not know but were likely to support the idea of an assembly.
Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who beautifully answered the point made by the Minister. As I interpret those figures, there is a 2:1 majority in favour of a Welsh assembly.
Mr. Jonathan Evans rose—
Mr. Williams: I want to make progress.
Mr. Gwilym Jones rose—
Mr. Williams: I will give way to the Minister.
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is kind in giving way, but he is still missing the question. If he is so confident that there has been a change of opinion, why is he determined not to give the people of Wales a say in the matter?
Mr. Williams: The Labour party will contest the next election, as we did at the previous election, by being firmly committed to the setting up of a Welsh assembly. Hon. Members may cast their minds back to the general election, where 72 per cent. of the people of Wales voted for parties that wanted a Welsh assembly.
If the Minister wants government by referendums, why do the Government not offer the people of Britain a referendum on their tax policies or, better still, call a general election? We see the matters as being resolved at the next general election, when our policy will be to set up assemblies for Scotland and for Wales in the first year in power. We need an assembly to democratise the work of the Welsh office, and to take over its role in education, highways, health and the Welsh Development Agency. The assembly would run Wales, not by quango, but with elected and accountable local people.
There is to be a rally in Newport called "Forward to Victory", which will launch our European election campaign. There will be four main themes at the rally—the government of Wales, the health service, unemployment and the place of women in Europe. We will have a resounding rally with many good speakers. We know that there is a rival event at Llandrindod, which has been organised by the Parliament for Wales campaign. My view is that if we want an assembly or a regional tier of government in Wales, the only way to achieve that is by electing a Labour Government. All my energies in that regard will be channelled via the Labour party.
Earlier, we debated the setting up of an interim measure until we get a Labour Government and an assembly. The interim measure would set up a forum to receive reports back from the Committee of the Regions, and other matters. Unfortunately, the origin of the proposal which the Secretary of State has made is shrouded in mystery and is highly undemocratic. It came out of that dirty deal last year over the Maastricht treaty where, to win the support of nationalist Members, the Government agreed to establish a forum not only of council representatives but of the European Parliament.
Mr. Llwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman realise exactly why the Committee of the Regions is being set up? It will deal with regional policies and structures, and so forth. Those matters are frankly beyond the competence of people in local government, and I mean competence in the strictest terms. That is the point I am getting at.
Mr. Williams: I will come back to that point in my own way in a minute, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. The Labour party supports in principle the establishment of an interim forum, but that forum must be acceptable to our county councils and district councils, and it must have transparent accountability and democracy. At the moment, the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts are two all-Wales forums in existence.
We propose the development and the merger of those organisations as the unitary authorities are set up. There should then be a council for Wales, based on the principle of one member of the council per 100,000 people in each

1145
of the unitary authorities. That would make a total of 41 members representing all the new unitary authorities in Wales and would give a neat structure for the council, or Cyngor Cymru.
The council need not meet just four times a year, and it would not just take reports from the representatives of the Committee of the Regions. In a sense, it would inherit the work which is now done by the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts, and the bodies would evolve naturally into the council for Wales.
I will answer the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). It is absurd that Members of Parliament will serve on the body to which he refers. Our job is here at Westminster, and I find that I have quite enough work with a constituency to look after and my work in London. The last thing I want is a third part of my job based in Cardiff.
I read carefully a press release from the nationalist party last Monday, in which they referred to Bavaria and Catalonia as having their own Parliaments and members of the Committee of the Regions, who then report back to their Parliaments. There was no mention of having Members of Parliament from Berlin or Madrid also taking part in the discussions.
The arrangement which the nationalist party is trying to foist on the Government, and which the Government are reluctantly willing to accept, would be unprecedented in Europe. No region in Britain would have such an arrangement. No region in Europe would have such a report-back mechanism. I take rather harshly the doubts that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy expressed about the competence of local government representatives.
Mr. Llwyd: I was using the word "competence" in the strict sense. That is the point that I was making.
Mr. Williams: I am sorry. I accept that. It was a misinterpretation on my part. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and he should not use technical legal language on a scientist. The legal meaning of the word is different from the colloquial meaning.
In Wales, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West, we have elected councillors. They are people of the people who know about their local area and have long experience, much longer than most Members of Parliament, of the affairs of local government. They work in Wales. They live in Wales. They travel across Wales. Members of the Council of Welsh Districts and of the Assembly of Welsh Counties criss-cross Wales in a way that ordinary Members of Parliament do not.
Elected councillors know the towns, the industries, the infrastructure and the roads of Wales and the highway problems that we have. They know where people work. They know our problems much better than the average Member of Parliament because our main job is naturally in Westminster. It is my firm conviction that local councillors know best what is needed in terms of advice to the Committee of the Regions.
If we set up the new body, it should, of course, appoint its three representatives on the Committee of the Regions. They would be accountable to the council. It is a curious structure in which the appointment is made by the
1146
Secretary of State and the accountability is to an amorphous body that is not democratic. The Labour party and I see the new arrangement as an interim measure.
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene a second time. He is, of course, aware that of the three representatives of Wales on the Committee of the Regions, the only one who is directly elected is our Labour representative.
Mr. Williams: Absolutely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is an appalling commentary on the structure of government in Wales that the Secretary of State has the power to make nominations and has nominated a Conservative Member of the House of Lords. No one knows him in Wales. He has no reputation. The third member of the committee comes from a party that has only 8 per cent. of the support—
Mr. Llwyd: He is a county councillor.
Mr. Williams: As it happens. But he comes from a political party that has only 8 per cent. of political support in Wales.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman has derided the Conservative representative and the Plaid Cymru representative. Does he believe that all the representatives should be members of the Labour party? Is that his case?
Mr. Williams: No. We are willing to set up a mechanism that would ensure that the three representatives on the Committee of the Regions accurately reflected political opinion in Wales. We could build such a mechanism into the structure of the election of the representatives.
The interim measure may last only three or four years.
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a third time. We ought to put on record what we mean by direct representation. We are not talking about the fact that the three representatives on the European Committee are elected to their ward as councillors. We are saying that the Labour party representative was directly elected by all the Labour councillors in Wales, whether county or district councillors.
Mr. Williams: Absolutely. I am grateful once again to my hon. Friend. I hope that when the Secretary of State reflects during the next few weeks on the comments that have been made about the forum, particularly in the early part of the debate, and receives representatives from the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts, he will decide that the Labour party's proposal goes with the grain of Welsh local government and makes much more sense in the European context; otherwise, the new body that will be set up will be an unusual, very odd body.
The forum will have an interim existence because the Labour party wants a Welsh assembly. The people of Wales want a Welsh assembly with real powers, not just influence. The forum of Welsh counties will have some influence, but we want a body that is democratically elected, with real powers to administer the whole budget of the Welsh Office—that £6 billion—to take charge of the health service, the education system and the infrastructure in Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. Some comments were made earlier about the problems of the

1147
Welsh Development Agency and its lack of accountability. The WDA should be directly accountable. It should be part of the Welsh assembly.
My time scale for setting up an assembly is as follows. If we have our general election in 1996, in the first year of a Labour Government—1997–98—we will introduce the legislation. We could have elections to the regional assembly in 1999. As we turn into the new century, we will have a structure of government in Wales befitting of the 21st century.
8.15 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: The past 12 months have allowed us to try to get to know the Secretary of State a little better. I have to confess that I did not know much about him. I think that some of my hon. Friends suffered from the same ignorance. We did not know what made the new Secretary of State tick. At least in the past 12 months we have had a chance to take a closer look.
I agree with those of my hon. Friends who observed that we have probably for the first time a Secretary of State who at least has agendas. That has become clear. He has an agenda that might have something to do with Welsh needs and an agenda within the Conservative party. The second agenda is one for him, except where it might become inimical to or in conflict with the interests of Welsh people and Welsh needs. At least we can offer him some advice as he proceeds on his second agenda.
I draw to the Secretary of State's attention an observation once made by Mr. Harold Macmillan. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not of the same persuasion or tendency, or perhaps even of the same party as Mr. Harold Macmillan. Nevertheless, it might be worth his remembering a remark made by the former Prime Minister and great Tory leader. He once said that the Cabinet was a prison without bars. The Secretary of State has begun to find in some of his attitudes and in his approach to the issues that he has raised in the past 12 months that the Cabinet has been a bit of a prison.
At least the Secretary of State is a quick learner. He has picked up one or two Welsh habits, one of which is a. belief in crusades. The Welsh have always had a strong belief in evangelical crusades. Recent press releases have been headed:
"Redwood calls for a crusade to set the best education standards".
Then the Secretary of State wished to lead a crusade through all the corners of the Welsh health service. So the right hon. Gentleman is following a good Welsh tradition in backing or being part of a great crusade.
The crusade on health launched by the Secretary of State was the first in Welsh history to begin with an apology, after he had made an interesting statement. It began:
"1 am a child of the National Health Service".
He then found that he had ruffled the feathers of the Secretary of State for Health, who did not like his statement. So we had a sort of apology.
I was more interested and more pleased in some respects that the Secretary of State appeared to take some of his ideas forward, unlike the Under-Secretary of State who, when I asked him how much progress was being made on the health crusade, took a month to reply. He gave a list similar to those that we have had many times in the past 12 months about so-called successes in the health service. At
1148
least this time the right hon. Gentleman appeared to take some of the ideas in his original statement about being a child of the national health service further forward. I hope that he pursues some of those targets and observations.
My family has a long tradition of nurses and sisters in the health service. The scrapping of sisters and matrons, who form the core of the health service, was a bad move as they were some of the best audit officers, with real responsibility for the running of wards. They were prudent about the resources available. It was not a creation of the Labour party which led to managerial problems and the present position where managers and contracts are discussed more than service to patients. We need to redress all the mechanisms that were set up to try to create a new internal market but which led to a great increase in salaries and numbers of managerial staff. Let us get back to the concept of a service and we shall not go far wrong.
I agree with the Secretary of State when he said:
"Nor should the health service be too ready to want to destroy all the great old hospitals of Wales… it is not always the right thing to do to seek to build on a green field site and bulldoze the existing one"
which has support and affection in the community. I hope that we shall see the practical application of those remarks. If the Mid-Glamorgan health authority ever proposes a plan to vandalise the health service in our community by closing Mardy hospital in my area or Mountain Ash hospital in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), I hope that the Secretary of State will stand by those principles rather than the consequences of some of the health proposals that have been put to us, often in the name of so-called efficiency and internal market changes.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend extend his plea to the Secretary of State to look also at the venerable institutions in South Glamorgan, for example Cardiff royal infirmary? Old hospitals that have served the community well have not necessarily come to the end of their time.
Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend makes his point forcefully. Like all good crusades, we have a good text from which to work. I hope that my hon. Friend will invoke the text that I have drawn to his attention. He might also invoke the next part of that text, when the Secretary of State went on to say:
"Nor will I be very pleased if the search for economies begins and ends with the search for ward closures."
That is exactly what has been happening in the past couple of years. Searches for economies have been about ward closures and reducing services and not about employing trained and skilled nurses. That is what has gone wrong. I hope that there will be a reversal not of some historic policy but of recent Government policy, the consequences of which the Secretary of State describes vividly and, quite rightly, pejoratively. I hope that the text of the crusade will be implemented in practical decision making.
Mr. Ainger: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent minutes of the Pembrokeshire health trust contain a statement by a senior trust executive that, as the provider of health care in Pembrokeshire, the trust should be careful not to exceed the number of patients it is contracted to treat with Pembrokeshire health authority? In other words, if one more patient than the number in the contract is treated, more money will be demanded.
Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend draws attention to one of the most insidious developments in the health service. As a result of contracts and strict budgets, there is now a real danger that the treatment of people will not be undertaken or will be questioned because it does not fall within the budget. I am presently locked in negotiation on an extremely serious case, the details of which I shall not go into on the Floor of the House, but it illustrates my hon. Friend's point. We are already seeing signs of an extremely worrying trend—decisions on medical care, for example, whether to operate, being made according to the budgetary position at any given time of a hospital or district unit. That fundamentally undermines and destroys the principle of a national health service.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Those symptoms can also emerge with GP budget holding.
Mr. Rowlands: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must be careful not to lose the fundamental principles attached to the national health service. That is a "back to basics" policy which we want to maintain.
May I direct my central remarks to the economic, industrial and employment position of communities such as the one that I represent? Before the Minister puts on the same old record and says that we are trying to run down our communities by drawing attention to our present problems, may I say that I am excited by many of the infrastructural changes that are taking place in my community. Those include the largest land reclamation scheme; a road programme; urban investment; and, I hope, an accelerated improvement in the A465. I do not regard Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney as threatened by the M4 corridor. It could be an M4 society in the sense that we can reach the M4 as well as the midlands and the north, by the road network. We can go east, west, north or south as a result of our road infrastructure, which I hope will be completed in the next few years. As a result of those infrastructural changes, we have the potential to remove our historic inhibitions to development. The questions of environment and roads communication are both being dealt with fundamentally, so I have no argument about that.
The fact that is now emerging is that infrastructure alone will not be enough. The work that I have been doing recently on the history of the 1930s to 1950s revealed that one of the lessons to learn is that, even if one has invested in infrastructure, it is not sufficient of itself. Sadly, the figures that are emerging have demonstrated that point all too forcefully.
I am frightened and shaken by the figures from censuses of employment and the official census of the past 18 months to two years. May I describe what they have meant for Merthyr borough? In 1981, which was not a good year for us as it was the first recession, 20,800 people were in employment in Merthyr borough; 13,100 of those were men, of which 400 were part time; and 7,700 women were in employment, of which 3,200 were part time. The figures reveal that, one decade later, only 16,700 people were in employment, of which only 8,700 were men. That is in a borough of more than 60,000 inhabitants which was the centre of the first industrial revolution. The 16,700 comprises a 50:50 ratio of men to women. Of those 16,700 —including the 8,000 women—4,100 or half are part-time, poorly paid employees. That is the present-day 1991
1150
employment base of a borough and a constituency of the character of Merthyr Tydfil. It is not just frightening, it is wicked; it really does require attention.
Our largest employers are public administration and health, which are the newest Government targets. In addition to the fact that our employment base has shrunk, the largest part of what remains is the target of the Government's major new attack and shake up.
I did not come here to preach gloom and doom, but to present the problems and the issues. Irrespective of how it was caused and who caused it, let us examine the consequences of such a fundamental shift in the basis of our local economy and society.
The jobs in our community partly determine its character. They create the distinctive character of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. When a community loses jobs on the scale and of the character that we have lost jobs in the past decade, there are bound to be consequences which neither the Government nor any of us have wholly addressed.
I shall tread on dangerous ground, so I choose my words carefully. I believe that one of the consequences is the enormous shift from full-time, predominantly male jobs to part-time, women's jobs within a community such as mine. In no way do I express what everybody believes to be a historic old male chauvinist attitude. I do not represent such an attitude, but I believe that tremendous consequences flow from shifts of such character in a short time.
Everybody in the House—certainly those who know our community well—will recognise the role that Mum played in the nature of the social fabric. The personal, familiar nature of society was part of the distinctive character of our community. Much of the internal family and community discipline arose not from men, but from women. It was mother, as much as anybody, who drove me to do my homework or insisted that members of the family took piano lessons and practised. A tremendous feature of the community and society was the role played by natural internal discipline.
If, as the figures show, the nature of society shifts and changes, consequences will follow. There is no way—and rightly so—that women in the 1990s will play the same role as they did in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. They do not want to do it for two reasons. First, it was not a liberating role in many respects; and, secondly, they cannot do it because they as much as anybody are propping up the local economy in terms of jobs. Some 50 per cent. of jobs in communities such as ours are now employing women.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does it not have the further consequence of totally demotivating young male teenagers in terms of their future?
Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend anticipates my conclusion. I do not believe that anybody listening to my remarks thinks that I am blaming women for the problems in society. Of course we do not.
No one expects women in the 1990s to play the historic role that women played in our communities. However, we have to admit that that has happened and is happening. The decline in the number of jobs and the idea of work reduces the independence and dignity that comes from having a job and the shrinking of that potential which represented other sets of values.
The Secretary of State should not look for easy scapegoats and symptoms in single parents or anything

1151
else, but should instead try to address the deeper shifts in social attitudes in society. If I had an answer to that conundrum, I should be Prime Minister, or at least Secretary of State for Wales. I do not have an easy answer and I do not think that there is any single answer. Househusbandry has not yet caught on in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney or across the valleys—certainly not in any meaningful timescale.
We have to address the issues and find other ways to resolve the social consequences that flow from such a fundamental and fairly dramatic short-term change in many of our communities.
I have only two fundamental suggestions. First—I have been coming here for 25 years to argue this case and I shall continue to do so—jobs are at the centre of the solution. If we recreate jobs, we raise expectations. The prospect of the job has an amazing stabilising effect; it creates all sorts of values.
The great difference between the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s was the decasualisation of work. The creation for the first time of reasonable expectations of employment created a more socially stable and independent society—more independent of Government than ever before.
In a curious way, Thatcherism has created greater dependency on Government in the 1990s in communities such as mine. I do not want to come to the House and talk about clawing back benefits, or about fighting for invalidity benefit or any other benefit. We have subsidies here and there, but if we create jobs we can do away with that dependency.
We become dependent on Government, but some Governments, when it suits them or when they have to, take away certain props from the communities. The current Social Security Bill is doing that now, with a rather dramatic and immediate effect on purchasing power in communities such as ours. We do not want the dependency that has been created by the destruction of jobs and the erosion of the jobs base in many of our communities.
I follow everything that the Secretary of State has said and done and I have become a connoisseur of his statements and speeches. I have noticed that he frequently says that we need more jobs. We shall do everything we can to help, but the right hon. Gentleman has to go away and get those jobs—and quickly. He was not here when I quoted the figures on the shrinking labour force in my community, but I hope that he will hear them from his right hon. Friend.
Secondly, the solution lies in training and education. At the eleventh hour the Government have been trying to rescue training from a deadly decade when, in the eyes of many people—especially the young—it represented nothing more than income support and bus fares. At last, we are beginning to reconsider the concept of modern apprenticeships and manufacturing. It is a good sign, but it is a very late conversion.
For too long, the Government have spent a great deal of money on substitutes for proper training to take more people from the dole queue—what in the 1930s were called palliatives. We have had many palliatives until, late in the day, there has been a conversion.
I think that there has been a conversion, but it has not yet been seen in the approach to education. On education policy, the right hon. Gentleman should cut the umbilical cord with Whitehall and the Department for Education. For 15 years, we have watched education policy be determined by a Government with a bilious, prejudiced and ideological
1152
view of what has happened in parts of inner London and other cities. It has had virtually no relevance to the educational arguments of Wales. Although the right hon. Gentleman has tried once or twice to defend corners, he failed rather sadly in defending us against most of the nonsense of their policy. Many of the same arguments and solutions have been peddled. Scotland might have survived this, but we have not.
There are two areas in which the umbilical cord should be cut. First, the Minister should stop arguing about grant-maintained schools. They have not caught on in our communities. We do not want to create a competitive education system. It does not make much sense. Most parents and children believe that there is one school to go to; they want to make that school better. Parents do not want to set one school against another. Let us return to the principle. Now, with the idea of unitary authorities, there is an ideal opportunity to create a community education system based on unitary authorities, which the right hon. Gentleman will introduce in his Bill—with some changes, I hope. From that unitary authority basis, Ministers should build on the concept of community education. Schools should not compete with colleges, or with other schools. We are ending up with schools spending money to try to compete with each other—tool up here, tool up there—and not produce, particularly in technical education, one decent centre of excellence of character of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks so much. I have told him that he should abandon the rigid national curriculum and develop vocational education.
Two years ago, I made a speech in the Welsh Grand Committee, pleading with the Government not to impose a rigid national curriculum and to go for technical vocational education from age 15, not 16 or 17, because sixth forms are no longer like the comprehensives of the past 25 or 30 years. As youngsters stay on in school longer, sixth forms are now trying to play multi-purpose roles.
An opportunity exists now to transform technical vocational education, as a distinctive alternative route, with an alternative qualification to GCSEs, of the sort that was such a feature of the training vocational system of the 1950s and 1960s, developed primarily by the great nationalised industries—the coal board, electricity, water and other major companies. That has collapsed in the past decade and we have had to look for alternatives. Among the suggestions could be the regeneration of communities such as mine. But given what has happened in the past decade in terms of numbers of jobs, and the shift in the nature of work in the community that I represent, we are at the eleventh hour. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen and heed the voice of our communities.
8.49 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The debate has been interesting and I have enjoyed many of the contributions, particularly from the Opposition side of the House. It is my heartfelt and sincere view that we in Wales have consistently been marginalised by this Parliament for far too long. This is the annual Welsh debate, and Welsh Members of Parliament are supposed to debate matters of considerable importance to us and our constituents in this single debate. The Welsh Grand Committee sits from time to time as a forum of debate, but it has no teeth whatever

1153
and is normally a platform or an opportunity for the Secretary of State to make press releases detailing his latest largesse.
It would be churlish of me not to say that I welcome the announcement today about the road structure in Wales. I welcome it unreservedly, but I respectfully remind the Secretary of State that I hope that the A470 could be accelerated—I am sorry to use that word—in as reasonable a manner as possible, because it is vitally important, especially in the light of the closure of Trawsfynydd which, in fairness, the Secretary of State mentioned.
I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland recently introduced some plans to strengthen the role of the Scottish Grand Committee. He says that it should deal with exclusively Scottish legislation and various other pointers that would strengthen the Committee and make it more viable and, indeed, give it real purpose. Unfortunately, so far as I know, there are no plans in the Welsh Office for that to be done with the Welsh Grand Committee. I refer to what the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. David Hunt), the previous Secretary of State, said during the debate on the structure of government in Wales on 8 March 1993 in Cardiff:
"As Secretary of State, I make it clear that I regard this as a vital, continuing debate. I look forward to hearing Members of the Committee tell us how they would like the Committee's role and influence to be strengthened."
What was vital to the then Secretary of State is not even on the current incumbent's agenda. That is disappointing and frustrating.
The so-called democratic deficit in Wales has already been mentioned, and it really is a deficit. Indeed, I would go further than that and say that it is a huge abyss. If the present structures are to retain even a veneer of respect and credibility, Welsh Members' powers of scrutiny need to be overhauled by revamping the Committee or even transferring its role and incorporating it into the all-Wales forum.
We have heard much about the way in which the all-Wales forum has been set up. I shall not go into its history, but for the first time ever in the history of Wales an all-Wales body would meet on Welsh soil to discuss Welsh government issues, and representatives of all the tiers of government in Wales would meet in one chamber to discuss and debate. It will have representatives of local government, county and district, Members of the European Parliament, Members of this House and members of the Committee of the Regions. I sincerely believe that it will be a true and real opportunity which all democrats should grasp immediately.
Mr. Ron Davies: May I put one problem to the hon. Gentleman? I have followed with interest the case that he is developing, but he will know that it is the view of many Opposition Members that the Welsh Grand Committee should be empowered to take legislation through the House which specifically affects Wales. I ask him to cast his mind back to this time last year when he joined us in the Lobby opposing the repeal of Standing Order No. 86 because we wanted the Welsh Language Bill, for example, to be taken in the Welsh Grand Committee. If what he is proposing comes about and the Welsh Grand Committee is subsumed into a local government structure, surely we will lose not only that opportunity, but others in which to scrutinise in this place the working of the Welsh Office.
Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I did say "either/or". I said that the first premise was to strengthen the Welsh Grand Committee in terms of what has been proposed in Scotland, which in effect would give the Welsh Grand Committee an opportunity to deal with exclusively Welsh legislation. I then went on to develop the theme of a possibility of the forum becoming involved. It is an alternative, but I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand the point that he makes. I have to say genuinely and sincerely, however, that the Labour party's stance on this is mistaken.
It is clear that the Committee of the Regions will deal with regional, structural issues—transport links, broad structural funding and larger issues. Such issues are beyond the everyday competence—if I may use the word again—of local councils, even before the new Bill slashes them further, denuding them of their powers and obligations.
I plead with Opposition Members to reconsider the position. I do not think that history will record who initiated action, or how it was initiated; what it should record, in due course, is the establishment of a forum representing the opinions of all tiers of Welsh representation. We should grasp this opportunity. I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—is in favour of a powerful Welsh assembly; he is entirely sincere in that regard. The forum, however, would give us a form of assembly pro tem, although it would be a poor substitute for the proper Parliament with full legislative and tax-raising powers that my party wants.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I accept that the hon. Gentleman sees the forum as an interim measure, but he has questioned the competence of those involved in local government. Does he envisage interference by Members of Parliament in the relationship between the Committee of the Regions and the Welsh assembly, when it is eventually established?
Mr. Llwyd: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a PhD. I am not sure what kind of PhD he has, but it is certainly not in linguistics.
Let me make one point clear for the third and, I hope, final time. I have no pencil with me, but I will try to spell out what I mean by "beyond the competence of local government". I am trying to say that councillors do not deal with regional policy; they do not deal with Interreg funds, objective 3 and 2B5 status, and so on. The point is that the Committee of the Regions will deal with such matters.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: My question was this: does the hon. Gentleman envisage Members of Parliament being involved in the Welsh assembly's relationship with the Committee of the Regions, when we have such an assembly?
Mr. Llwyd: As far as I am concerned, the Welsh assembly is just a milestone on the road. I want a full Welsh Parliament, and I have not even given the assembly much thought. I understand that the Labour party is in favour of an assembly without tax-raising or legislative powers. I wonder what it will do to keep anyone there, let alone Members of Parliament. Clearly, however, the assembly would be a step in the right direction, and provide an opportunity to scrutinise the disgraceful position that

1155
now exists in Wales, where all these quasi-autonomous non-governmental bodies are ripping us off day after day. I seem to have got away with using a certain phrase; it did not work this afternoon.
On a more serious note, the forum and/or strengthened Welsh Grand Committee would be a poor substitute for a Welsh Parliament. I believe that the denial of the democratic right of the people of Wales to self-determination is holding the nation back. That affects all of us, day after day. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tyclfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who speaks about his area with great authority, stressed our current very worrying employment position. There is long-term unemployment, and young people have not a hope in hell of finding jobs owing to the underfunding of various courses. Even if they are given places on such courses, what are they to do next? That is just one of the serious problems that exist not just in Merthyr, but throughout Wales.
I am afraid that we have a Secretary of State who is not interested in Wales: that is the real problem. I was interested by a press release issued in the last fortnight by a Conservative hopeful in connection with the forthcoming Euro-elections, headed
"John Redwood speaks to packed lunch at Haverfordwest".
I believe that the words "and the lettuce curled" appeared in brackets, although I am not sure whether that is entirely true. Can it be that, at last, the Secretary of State has found a captive audience in Wales? Or is the job getting the better of him? I am not sure which it is, but no doubt time will tell.
I mentioned earlier that the people of Wales were suffering as a direct result of Westminster misrule. Nowhere is that more evident than in the crisis currently facing our police forces. They are highly trained and motivated, but they cannot beat the crime wave without the resources that they need. My area—the North Wales police area—has an excellent force, but for years that force has been seriously undermanned. For years it has applied to the Home Secretary for an increse in its staff complement. It is currently undermanned by 70 officers, and has been for more than five years. The Home Office, however, refused point blank to sanction the employment of one new officer. What kind of Government do that? What message does that send to the public in an area of north Wales where crime is soaring?
The message is clear: the Home Office has other priorities and interests. The interests of Wales are—to put it succinctly—peripheral. The situation is critical in south Wales: police stations are being shut and police cars left in garages because they are damaged and there is no money to repair them or even, in some cases, to put petrol in them. I do not think that the Home Office has offered any help, and I think that it is unlikely to do so. The best that it can do is to blame local government—in accordance with the Government's hidden agenda, which will be evidenced in the Welsh local government reorganisation Bill.
I believe that the Welsh public are now concluding that the only way out of the conundrum is to campaign for a Welsh Parliament. Would such a Parliament starve that most basic and necessary service, the police, of the funds and resources that it requires? I do not think so. I believe that, for the time being, responsibility for Welsh policing should devolve to the Welsh Office; otherwise we shall continue to stand at the end of the Home Office queue with our empty begging bowl. The Government have a serious responsibility which, unfortunately, they are shirking. The
1156
blame for inadequate policing in Wales lies wholly and directly with the Home Office. That is unnacceptable and I believe that the people of Wales will signal their disapproval and frustration at the next available opportunity—the local and European elections in June.
The Conservatives' standing in Wales has never been lower, which is entirely understandable. We in Wales have great respect for law and order, but it is disgraceful that large parts of Wales must be policed by neighbourhood watch schemes. Welcome though such schemes are, they would not be necessary if the service was adequately funded. Our communities are in crisis: housing waiting lists are unacceptably high, and ever rising. I ask again: would a Welsh Parliament assign to housing such a low priority as is assigned by the Government? I do not think so.
I am appalled to think of the number of people on housing waiting lists in Wales. Some are on those lists for years on end, denied the basic requirement of life—a roof over their heads. What kind of Government sanction such an anti-social policy?
Mr. Win Griffiths: A Tory Government.
Mr. Llwyd: Quite so. Why should people be sleeping rough on the streets of Cardiff and Swansea? The answer is clear: a Welsh Parliament would not allow it. We have a better set of principles. I do not want to go "back to basics", or we shall become embroiled in a laughing match, but I think that we think more about our people and have more respect for our fellow men than is evinced by the Government.
What of those other obvious facets of a community in crisis—unemployment and lack of youth training? I shall not dwell over-long on that subject because the problem was eloquently described by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. Every civilised society must aim for full employment, although perhaps it is unattainable. That should be the aim of any civilised society because chronic unemployment brings with it a plethora of social problems. Among the most serious are high anxiety levels and sickness, low morale, low self-esteem and, unfortunately, crime. Although I do not subscribe to the view that unemployment per se is directly responsible for crime, it would nevertheless be idle to ignore the fact that it is a major constituent in the formula.
What advice does one give a young person who has been unemployed for five years or, as is often the case in many areas in my constituency, even seven or eight years, ever since leaving school? What incentives are there for him or her? In the absence of training schemes, that is worrying, but even when there are training schemes in areas such as my constituency, young people feel that it is almost a waste of time to go on them because they will not lead to employment.
Steeped as we are, in Wales, in the work ethic, historically and traditionally, I cannot believe that a Welsh Parliament would attach such minimal priority to employment and training. The answer for the people of Wales is obvious once again. I was speaking with a Trades Union Congress official last night who argued that, unless the Government wake up to the fact, in 10 years we shall be left way behind virtually the whole of the developed world, simply because nothing is being spent, in real terms, on employment and training. It is all very well bowing our heads and saying, "We are spending such and such". We

1157
are not spending anything like the amount that we should be spending. Everyone who has ever considered the situation realises that. We shall end up in 20 years' time with an undisciplined society and in a situation in which we are virtually competing with third-world countries, directly because of the unenlightened stance of the Government.
Agriculture is still a major source of employment in Wales. The traditional Welsh hill farm has both kept the fabric of rural society together and proven to be a guardian of the Welsh hills and the precious environment, but the Government have set their face against the agriculture industry. I see the Secretary of State grimacing. He may be grimacing even more in a minute.
Mr. Redwood indicated dissent.
Mr. Llwyd: If evidence were required, we need only consider three or four recent moves by the Government. The cuts in the hill livestock compensatory allowances will affect upland families very badly. I acknowledge that there has been an improvement in farm incomes during the past 12 months, but we must consider that improvement in the correct perspective.
First, the improvement came about due to some market changes and, which is more likely, as a result of the green pound devaluation. Secondly—this is vital—the improvement came after eight or 10 years of regularly decreasing income, so the improvement is from a very low base. Therefore, let us not delude ourselves by saying that the cuts will not hurt. In the next 12 months, the full force of the cuts will be felt. Many farmers used their HLCA payments to pay for wintering their sheep. HLCA payments exist to assist them because it is a difficult region in which to "produce the goods". However, the cost of wintering increases regularly and the HLCA has now suffered two savage cuts. Inevitably, there will be a great deal of hardship in the next 12 months and it will badly hit some areas such as my constituency of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, where one family in five relies directly or indirectly on agriculture.
What the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) said is all very well, but I note in passing that not one Conservative Back Bencher is in his place. That shows the real priority—[Interruption.] Not one Conservative Back Bencher from Wales is in his place; yet this is the annual Welsh debate.
Mr. Donald Anderson: There is one Member representing a Welsh seat.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is right; there is one Member representing a Welsh seat, but I know that he has a great deal of gravitas and I am sure that he is there to look after their interests.
Sir Wyn Roberts rose—
Mr. Llwyd: I see that the Member in question has been tempted to intervene.
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) will have noticed that he is only a quarter of his party here this evening.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is a good deal less than that.
Mr. Llwyd: I am a quarter, but 75 per cent. of my party attended the debate and I think that shortly there will be 50 per cent. here.
Mr. Ainger: The right hon. Gentleman is only a sixth.
Mr. Llwyd: Yes. My mathematics are not very good —he is only a sixth. Despite the obvious gravitas, he is only a sixth of his Welsh party. Anyway, I shall not get embroiled in this or I shall be mimicking, dare I say it, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards).
The farm conservation grants scheme was recently cut. That cut will bite hard and it is very damaging to the average farmer. I must question the bona fides of the Government. If they dictate to farmers that they must handle the environment carefully, put funds in place to enable them to do so, and then chop off that funding, it is a serious and retrograde step and will be financially damaging to Welsh farmers.
The Government have also given in to strong lobbying by the landed classes for a reform of tenancy law. The reform is overwhelmingly opposed by Welsh farmers, who regard it as damaging in the extreme, but because English farmers are happy with it farmers in Wales have to toe the line. What better example of misrule could there be?
Cereal growers in Wales also suffer from discrimination. They are paid substantially less for producing exactly the same amount of grain as growers elsewhere, which is patently unfair. The message to Welsh farmers is absolutely clear: the Government do not want anything to do with them. They want the farmers to be guardians of the rural areas, but they will not pay them for it. Welsh farmers are low on the Government's agenda: the Government have worked out that they can do without them. I urge Welsh farmers to accept that a Welsh Parliament must be the answer because without a properly funded agricultural industry, and without taking account of the changes in guardianship mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), the fabric of rural Wales will crumble and the culture and language which are so precious to us all will disappear. That is a signal danger that we must bear in mind.
During the passage of the Welsh Language Act 1993, I realised how undemocratic and how unrepresentative of Welsh opinion Westminster is. There was a weight of informed opinion in favour of a clear statement in the Act on the status of the language. Against that opinion, and with the assistance of Conservative Members who knew nothing about the issue, every amendment was defeated. That is yet another example of Westminster rule adversely affecting the interests of the people of Wales.
In case further examples are needed, I cite the question which I tabled last week and which was answered on 1 March. It read:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will recommend that St. David's day be designated a bank holiday and a national holiday in Wales; and if he will make a statement."
The Secretary of State's answer was:
"No."—[official Report, 1 March 1994; Vol. 238, c. 651.]
I am not concerned about whether that response was an insult to me—I am sufficiently thick skinned to take an insult from the Secretary of State—but I do not think that the people of Wales are happy about it. They are not comfortable with a person who just says no without going into any further detail. That is not the type of government that Wales wants; nor is it the type of representation that we want. The Secretary of State will no doubt realise that

1159
fact one day, if it is not too late already. I do not know whether he thinks it is funny, but I do not find it funny and one of these days the people of Wales will ensure that he realises that it is not funny.
Of course, this is the Secretary of State who wanted to turn back the clock and ruin the good work carried out by Welsh bodies on mainland Europe. He wants to remove Welsh dragons from Welsh Development Agency literature, or rather confuse the issue by including a Union Jack, too. When we have at last got the people of mainland Europe to recognise "Wales in Europe" as a selling point which is readily understood, he wishes to confuse the issue by bringing in the Union Jack which is unrepresentative of Wales because Wales does not feature in it.
Is there any truth in the report in The Herald that the Secretary of State is considering closing the Welsh centre in Brussels? I understand that he said today that he did not intend to do so, but I should be pleased if at some point he could undertake to continue to support that vital centre.
Mr. Redwood: I have no plans to close the centre. That is just another of the silly rumours put about by Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman's previous point was also inaccurate. I have passed comments on literature that we send to potential Japanese investors who do not know Wales well. He is confusing that with "Wales in Europe", which is entirely different, as he well knows.
Mr. Llwyd: I will not argue the point. I know that time is short.
Is it just a coincidence that the same Secretary of State for Wales has seen the changes to the national curriculum which will undoubtedly slow down the process of bringing bilingualism to our young people in the schools? It may be just a coincidence: I do not know, but I tend to think that his heart is not in the job, that he is really here just on his way up the greasy pole and that he has no real respect for Wales. He certainly never stays there. He has stayed there one evening, I believe, since his appointment, or perhaps two. The Secretary of State shakes his head. Maybe he will tell us in due course.
It was said earlier that because of the vote in 1979 which went against devolution that is the end of the story. Hon. Members are expected to vote on hanging at every opportunity. We are supposed to vote as often as possible —vote early, vote often—on that issue, but on this vital subject of extreme importance to the people of Wales we are not to have a referendum because in 1979 the country decided against it.
A former Prime Minister, Lord Wilson, said that a week was a long time in politics. Fifteen years of Tory misrule is a very long time in politics. That fact alone has led the people of Wales to the inevitable conclusion that they have had enough. Bearing in mind that 72 per cent. of the electorate of Wales voted for parties which had in their manifesto some form of devolution—be it a Parliament, as we want, or an assembly—if we had a referendum tomorrow the answer would be an overwhelming and resounding yes. I want to be awake to greet that day when it eventually comes, because the misrule of this place and the way in which we have been treated is an insult to the people of Wales.
9.11 pm
Mr. Nick Ainger: My contribution will be brief because I know that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) wants to speak before the Front-Bench speakers wind up.
I want to comment on what the Secretary of State said about roads in Wales. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred to the Secretary of State's attendance at a private function in Haverfordwest on Monday, after which the Western Telegraph, the local weekly there, ran a headline this Wednesday about the major announcement to be made on roads in west Wales by the Secretary of State. I was, therefore, extremely disappointed by the statement about roads that he actually made because, it appeared to me, all he said was that the "Roads in Wales" supplement 1993 was to stand in relation to those roads. When he publishes the new 1994 supplement, I hope that work on the Robeston Wathen bypass, in particular, will be brought forward and that the Red Roses to Llandowror section will be included in the road programme. The Secretary of State nods. I am not as disppointed now as I was when he first spoke some four hours ago.
The other issue to do with roads that is worth addressing, particularly as the Minister of State is sitting next to the Secretary of State, is the Cleddau bridge. It is a very important road in west Wales. The Minister of State has received a delegation about it. I hope that he will find a few moments in which to comment on trunking the Cleddau bridge, on possibly significantly reducing the tolls and in removing the massive debt burden with which the new Pembrokeshire authority, following local government reorganisation in Wales, will find itself saddled.
The final point that I want to make before I move to the main part of my contribution is perhaps the most serious. Today, I learnt from the office of Bruce Millan something about the Interreg II proposals, about which I, in company with a delegation from west Wales, recently spoke to the Minister of State. I was informed only this afternoon that those proposals, which exclude Dyfed but include Gwynedd, now also exclude south-east Ireland, which had previously been included. As the Minister of State will be aware, the fact that south-east Ireland has now been officially removed from the formal document makes the situation serious.
Previously, we had an illogical situation. On one side of the Irish sea, Rosslare, in south-east Ireland, was included for Interreg funding, whereas on the other side south-west Wales, Dyfed, was excluded. We thought that an omission had occurred because that pattern was paradoxical and illogical. Unfortunately, we understand that the Commission has now altered its submission and removed south-west Ireland, too. As the Minister of State will appreciate, that makes our case far more difficult to argue.
I shall rattle quickly through the rest of my speech because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East wishes to speak. In south-west Wales, as throughout Wales, we have more than a crisis of unemployment. In my constituency, rather than our seeing the end of the recession and the beginning. of the recovery, unemployment is worse than it was a year ago. In the Pembroke constituency, unemployment was higher in January 1994 than in January 1993. There has been no recovery at all in west Wales.

1161
The issue is not only unemployment, bad though that is. One of the consequences of unemployment is low pay. I have contacted my local jobcentres over the past couple of days, and I can tell the Secretary of State what people are expected to live on in west Wales. In the Milford Haven jobcentre, a vacancy for a butcher is advertised at £2 an hour and vacancies for a full-time cook and for a care assistant in a private nursing home at £3 an hour.
Milford Haven jobcentre has 50 vacancies on its books. That means that it has one vacancy for every 30 unemployed people registered there. In Pembroke Dock, on the other side of the Cleddau bridge, a security guard's job is advertised at £2·70 an hour, a job for a bus driver, with all the responsibility that that involves, at £3·22 an hour and one for an experienced chef at £3 an hour. Goodness knows what pay an inexperienced chef would command.
In the south Pembrokeshire travel-to-work area we have the highest unemployment rate in Wales—more than 22 per cent. That means a crisis not only of unemployment but of low pay. The impact that that has on families is best illustrated by a case which I came across that I referred to the Secretary of State for Social Services. Mr. Stephen Rees, after a period of unemployment as a building contractor, got himself on a course and finally found a job. Before that, he was drawing benefits, and benefits in kind such as free school meals, totalling £179·90 a week.
When he started the job, he lost his income support and free school meals but gained his wages and family credit, and kept his child benefit. The new total was £161 a week —but the family still had to pay £9·50 a week for two children's school meals. In the end, after finding a job after following a course of education, Mr. Rees was £35·80 a week worse off. What sort of society are we when people who have followed a course and obtained work find that, because the work is so low paid, and family credit makes up only part of the difference between their income and what is called a living wage for a family, they are worse off?
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of State yet again to the crisis in our discretionary awards system, and I hope that he will touch on that subject. Whether one receives a discretionary award in Wales is a lottery. The system is based on where a person lives and his or her age. Many local education authorities are forced to limit discretionary awards to those aged between 15 and 25. A 26-year-old in Powys or Dyfed on a further education course does not receive help. Some people in Mid Glamorgan do not receive help with fees. Some people go on a further education college course after being made redundant or because they want to be retrained. Goodness knows how they live. Where are we going if it is better for people to stay on income support or unemployment benefit than to go on a further education college course, during which they cannot support their families or themselves?
Something has to be done. I know what the Minister will say, "Well, we have given this discretion to the local authorities." But the Government have also significantly reduced local authorities' resources. As it is a discretion, sadly, after 15 years of Tory rule, authorities have started to chip away at the resources. When local authorities had the resources, they resourced further education places well. Now they have to make significant cuts. We should
1162
encourage people to come off income support and unemployment benefit and enter further education colleges to acquire the right technical skills.
Unless we tackle those basic issues and are willing to make resources available to create a highly motivated and skilled work force, we shall continue to be at the bottom of the pay league, not only in Britain but in Europe. Ultimately, we will be competing against the Pacific rim countries. That is not good enough for the people of Wales.
9.21 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: This has been a good debate, with the exception of the disgraceful speech of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). For me, the high spot of the debate was the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who described graphically, and with an intensity of feeling and knowledge, the crisis in his community. I hope that the Secretary of State will read that speech with great care.
This is our annual Welsh day debate, and there is a certain symbolism in the fact that, while it is usually held on St. David's day, it is being held on 3 March. What arrogance that shows. It is as if the Government were announcing that, as a result of the diktat of the Secretary of State, Christmas day was to be held on 27 December.
The problem involving disabled facilities grants in Wales should be brought graphically to the attention of the Minister. I shall give him one example and I shall not elaborate on it. In April of last year, a constituent of mine applied for the disabled facilities grant because of the crisis in her personal health. I am told by the city council that
"Unfortunately … the Council's allocation for discretionary grants (which includes mandatory Disabled Facilities Grants) is fully committed for the current year and the number of applications already in the system will take up the whole of the sum allocated for 1994–95. What is more alarming is that it seems unlikely that all the outstanding applications will be approved in 1994–95 with the consequence being that some will be waiting until 1995–96 before they can be considered for approval.
This means that for someone in"
my constituent's
"position, they are unlikely to receive an inspection for some considerable time—probably not until the latter half of 1995—and the speed with which an approval can be issued will be dependent upon the capital allocation for Disabled Facilities Grants in 1995–96."
So much for the preparation for care in the community, a principle that we all support.
The general point that I shall make briefly is that, on St. David's day, what is the idea of Wales that we wish to promote? Do we believe in the value of a Welsh identity and, if so, what, if anything, are we prepared to do to encourage it? I ask not for any exclusive identity, as there are other identities, but for something of value in itself which gives roots, meaning and value to life. We should be concerned that some all-Wales institutions are now under threat. For example, British Gas Wales is scrapping its Welsh region and is likely to close its headquarters. Does it matter? It says that the service to the consumer will be the same, as if that sentence in some way justifies the removal of an institution which, with its predecessor, has been in Wales for a long time. It is not an answer to say that.
We know of the crisis in the Welsh national opera. As a result of underfunding, we have had not only the recent resignation of the general manager but, in my city of Swansea, the reduction by Welsh national opera of half of

1163
its number of appearances. It may not matter, but I believe that it does and it is of some significance. Other institutions are being marginalised and reduced. The Government. may say that we shall have the Committee of the Regions, but such a Committee was grudgingly accepted by the Government and Wales is not being given a constitutional focus. It is not a separatist argument. I hope that my contribution during the 1970s suggests that I am not someone likely to be swayed by separatist arguments.
I see the value of a Welsh identity and think that it is wrong in community terms that there is such an erosion of that identity. The Government talk of the linking of Wales with motor regions. It is absolutely clear that Europe is going for greater regional identities and that each of the motor regions with which we liaise has its own institutional focus and its own elected and administrative unit. We in Wales do not and I believe that that is wrong.
We must return to the position of the Secretary of State for Wales. I see many great virtues in the Secretary of State. As a person, he has political courage, but he represents Wokingham. He is from outside the folk and outside the culture. Imagine what would happen in Scotland if the Secretary of State for Scotland were to come from Wokingham. Why is Wales so quiet when that insult has been delivered to us? The Secretary of State has his own constituency with its own ideas, which he is pursuing and which puts him, effectively, as part of an English nationalist party. For example, when he tried to prevent the use of the symbol of Wales in Brussels, was his argument against Wales or against Europe? Why cannot Wales project its proper national identity internationally in that way?
It is quite wrong that the Government are acting in a way that dilutes, reduces and removes our Welsh identity. There is a Welsh identity, which is seeking to define itself. The debate on that is under way in Wales today and the Secretary of State and his party have largely opted out of it. That is why the Conservatives are an irrelevance in Wales. The more negative they are, the more that they will promote that which they seek to undermine.
9.29 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I shall take up where my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) left off. This debate does not have one topic, but is a review—an annual debate during which we can paint a picture of the Wales that we see.
The Secretary of State has done his best—he perceives a land of milk and honey. I am pleased to see him back in his seat after his visit elsewhere—probably to Wokingham —so that he can hear more contributions from Opposition Members, which will show him why Wales has, strangely, become more united as it has become more divided from him and from the Tory party.
The Secretary of State has accused Labour Members of not having constructive ideas or offering an alternative vision, but we have just heard one from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, and I shall do my best.
The Secretary of State also accused those on the Labour Front Bench of being Trappists. I have been accused of many things, but never of being a Trappist. I tried hard to join that order as a young man, but I failed the oral examination!
My hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)
1164
and for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) painted a picture of the devastating changes taking place in Wales—fundamental changes, for example, to our concepts of the family, of society and of the breadwinner, of council houses and a steady job. People of our age group had been brought up to expect such things, but those fundamentals have been withdrawn and our dreams and expectations have not been replaced by anything else. That is an extremely worrying development, as it is difficult to recreate a society.
The Secretary of State said that he would reintroduce engineering apprenticeships, which were very much a part of people's expectations. People thought that the existence of such apprenticeships would create a sort of working-class aristocracy. Many entrepreneurs followed that route; they did an engineering apprenticeship, attended the local technical college, knew that they were pretty good at their jobs, and, after working for five or perhaps 10 years, started their own businesses.
It is pretty rich for the Government to try to present engineering apprenticeships as a great development, instead of apologising to the people of Wales for destroying them 12 or 13 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney witnessed the decline and painted a devastating picture. Firms such as Hoover, Teddington Aircraft Controls and Thorn used to supply engineering apprenticeships in numbers a hundred times greater than the number today.
Mr. Rowlands: And the Coal Board.
Mr. Morgan: Yes, the Coal Board and GKN Dowlais also supplied many of them, but that has all been taken away.
It is a devastating U-turn for the Government to say today that they have decided that what they did for the past 12 years was a bad idea, and that they want to bring back one of those fundamentals. We are pleased to see any conversion on their part, but I hope that they will not expect us to congratulate them.
We recognise the damage that was done to Welsh and to British society at a time when other European countries, such as Germany and France, did not abandon engineering apprenticeships for 14-year-olds, but merely tried to extend them so that more girls were taken on. Apprenticeships for girls were always a problem for my generation arid people who are slightly younger, such as the shadow Secretary of State for Wales.
The Secretary of State also made a major announcement about roads. He tried to claim that he was proposing a new strategic direction for roads. The missing elements of his speech were as important, however, as the content. He stated that he would concentrate on the three east-west routes, and said little about north-south routes. The latter are not as important, but they cannot be ignored.
We want some progress reports on the A470, and we want to know whether priority is being removed from the A483.
As has been said, Clwyd is an extremely important industrial powerhouse in north-east Wales. The connection to Wrexham, Mold and the other important industrial areas around Deeside from industrial south Wales is enormously important. The Department of Transport in England and the roads division of the Welsh Office have put in excellent new routes south from Wrexham through the Ruabon bypass to the Chirk bypass, from Shropshire in England with the Oswestry bypass, and the Welshpool bypass.

1165
There are about 30 miles along the Severn valley where a bypass could easily be constructed—I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will agree with me—at a reasonable cost, given the nature of the Severn valley. That would give us a connection between the powerhouse of north-east Wales and the powerhouse of industrial south Wales. We see enormous lorries carrying forestry, for example, to the shop and paper mill from mid-Wales and the Brecon Beacons area in south Wales.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that we need a policy which consists of putting freight back on the railways, and not running a dual carriageway through central Wales but having a road of the sort of standard which we have on the Welshpool and Llanidloes bypasses?
Mr. Morgan: I entirely agree. I defer to the views of local Members. Certainly, the last thing I want is despoliation of the countryside by roads ripping through. A bypass would make it possible to travel, say, the 60 miles from immediately south of Newtown to Wrexham in one hour without difficulty and the sort of hold-ups that one gets at present when one is between Newtown and the southern edge of the Oswestry bypass. A bit of continuity would enormously improve communications there.
There was a big gap where the Secretary of State should have talked about north-south communications. Surely, even on the railways and roads, and the connections to England, I thought that he might have mentioned the one thing on which he as the constituency Member for Wokingham and the Members of Parliament elected by the people of Wales might agree, which is the need to do something about connections to Heathrow from the west.
The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of Heathrow. Why will we have to go all the way to Paddington and then back out again when what we need, as do the Secretary of State and his constituents—6 million or 7 million people live west of London, as well as the people in industrial south Wales, Bristol and so on—is the same access through the Heathrow express link without having to go all the way to Paddington and back out again?
The Secretary of State should be pressing that matter, because it is something on which he and the people of Wales can agree. He should take advantage of and push for it, along with Members of Parliament from the western edge of the home counties. Obviously, that is the origin of his political status which enables him to have the platform to become the Secretary of State for Wales, for however brief a period that may be.
We have also mentioned the issue of morality and housing, on which the Secretary of State made his name. The chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs referred to that issue as well. I do not want to intrude further on the Secretary of State's difficulty in trying to recover his reputation for talking about single mothers in an unprepared and off-the-cuff manner, so I shall turn to a subject on which he has also done a bit of talking off the cuff—the health service and bureaucracy.
Today, the Secretary of State said that he will merge the national health service in Wales with the health policy division, thereby saving one top civil servant's job. That is his way of giving practical effect to his attack on
1166
bureaucracy in the national health service which has caused such trouble between him and the Secretary of State for Health. We have been told that the Secretary of State for Health knee-capped him on the issue. After all, it is not every Minister who can combine the good looks of Nancy Kerrigan with the brains of Tonya Harding. The Secretary of State for Wales has had to learn that the hard way.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we want not a lot of pretence and populist drivel about needing to drive down the number of bureaucrats, but acceptance that, in an internal market-based national health service, there will undoubtedly be a large army of accountants to shuffle bits of paper from one health authority to another. That is what we are seeing in the health service at present.
It is no use the Secretary of State pretending that one can introduce an internal market—which undoubtedly he supported in the Lobby, although he was not in the Cabinet at the time—but not like the consequences of it in terms of the number of bureaucrats. He must realise that, in an accountancy-driven health service, not a needs-driven health service, we will get the sort of crisis at the end of the financial year that we are experiencing at the moment.
In the Cardiff area, we are aware that Llandough hospital is not taking any more non-urgent patients from South Glamorgan health authority because the contract money has run out. I believe that there are problems in the Ceredigion health trust, which is not taking any non-urgent patients. I think that there are similar problems in Pembroke involving contracts.
Mr. Ainger: There have been redundancies.
Mr. Morgan: Those problems have knock-on effects on employment. There is the problem of boom and bust in the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital. Mid Glamorgan health authority has paid for so many orthopaedic operations, including knee and hip joint replacements, that the Prince of Wales hospital cannot do them in time. I have talked to members of staff of the health authority and Mid Glamorgan will ask for its money back on 1 April if the hospital cannot complete 47 outstanding hip and knee joint operations.
The health authority has come up with a wizard scheme. As well as working late at night after doing a full day's work, the staff come in at the weekend. Eight hip operations are carried out on each day of the weekend for two successive weekends, as that is the only way of completing the Mid Glamorgan contract. Otherwise, the health authority must pay the money back to South Glamorgan.
The doctors are being offered £250 a day to come in on Saturday and Sunday, while nurses get double time. However, the doctors cannot get anaesthetic cover without breaching the Royal College of Anaesthetists' professional rules. As a result, the scheme seems to be falling apart and the money may be repaid from South Glamorgan to Mid Glamorgan on 1 April because it was unable to complete the contract. What a way to run the health service.
Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the patients charter is pioneering work to raise the standards of quality in a way which the Opposition never envisaged when they ran the health service? Will he welcome the fact that we are close to delivering those targets for the first time and does he agree that the Opposition got nowhere near that kind of performance?
Mr. Morgan: I reject that completely. The patients charter has produced an army of clerks who tick little boxes to say whether a patient has been treated one or two years after he got an appointment with a consultant. There is a delay in getting an outpatient appointment with a consultant until the consultant is confident that he can see the patient within the maximum time specified in the patients charter.
The Minister asked me for examples of that, and I have given them. Out-patient appointments are now impossible to get. Constituents have come to my surgeries and said that their GPs tried to get them a first outpatient appointment with a consultant. The consultant's secretary has rung the GP and said that the appointment cannot be made and the patient cannot get on the waiting list, because the consultant is still seeing his cases from 1992. The patient is not on the waiting list—he is on a waiting list to go on the waiting list. That is the problem.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: The hon. Gentleman asked me to investigate those cases. I have done so, and his constituents are on the waiting list, as are all the others who are in the same situation.
Mr. Morgan: The Minister will confirm that he did not tell me that. I supplied him with the information for which he asked, but obviously he has not supplied me with the information that I asked for. That is not an entirely good thing.
Mr. Richards: On a point or order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate is about Welsh affairs. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) spoke solely about south Wales and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West is speaking solely about his constituency. Is that in order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the debate is on the Adjournment. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West is entirely in order.
Mr. Morgan: Conservative Members were complaining five minutes ago that I was talking about the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I do not know where that remark comes from. The House has learnt the hard way with the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). I am a fairly plain man myself and I believe in calling a shovel a shovel. However, it is what is sticking to the shovel that worries me about the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) spoke about police and crime. It was a useful contribution, because he was a calming influence after the previous speech from the Government Benches. The hon. Gentleman was more PC Plod than Flying Squad, despite his name, but he gave a proper illustration of the way in which the shoe is pinching on the police and crime front.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had been to see the Home Office Minister, Earl Ferrers, about the matter. We have taken a deputation to see Earl Ferrers because of the problems with the South Wales police authority, for which the situation appears to be "capped if you do, damned if you don't." The problem is that it has been told by the Home Office to spend 5.5 per cent. but by the Welsh Office to spend only 1.75 per cent. That is a classic example of interdepartmental cross-sterilisation.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan thinks that the main part of the blame should lie with the South Wales
1168
police authority. We do not agree with that, simply on the basis of the extremely instructive letter that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) dated 27 January as part of a parliamentary reply.
He made it clear that the 1.75 per cent. restriction applied even to police expenditure. There was no ring fencing and no way out of the restriction. The authority is bound hand, foot and finger. He will see that if he reads the reply that he gave in Hansard. That is the problem. We have to solve it somehow. I wonder whether, in his reply, the Minister might make some reference to the approaches that Lord Ferrers has made to Welsh Office Ministers to try to solve the problem.
The other major topic that has been covered extensively today is the constitutional issues relating to Wales. That is natural on a day like this. We have referred to the quangos, the forums and the assemblies. We have seen the Secretary of State's press release today about his letter to the two local authority associations in Wales. His press release contradicts the letter that he has sent as regards the position of Members of Parliament on any future forum or council of local authorities.
The press release says that Members of Parliament will be invited to attend. Therefore, they will not be part of the body. Clearly, one does not need to be invited to attend if one is part of the body. The letter to the local authority associations, which may have been doctored later, says that Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament probably could be part of the body. There is some confusion here, which we hope the Minister of State will clear up.
The Secretary of State said that we were running down Wales by referring to criticisms of the quangos, and that the criticisms were partisan. He seems to forget—he ought to know—that the Public Accounts Committee has taken on most of the burden of criticising the quangos in Wales. It is the most non-partisan Committee. It has a Tory majority, although it has a Labour Chairman. Criticisms of quangos have come from both sides of the Committee. It would be wrong of us to seek to limit the powers of the PAC to make such criticisms.
Our problem is that the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State not for Wales but for quangoland in Wales. He is anti-Welsh, as most Opposition Members who have spoken tonight have mentioned. People in Wales look at him as a rising Tory placeman who missed his turn-off on the M4 one night. They do not have confidence in him, simply because he has not earned it. We shall find out on 19 March, because there will be a clash between his constituents, who will expect him to cheer for England, and people in Wales, who will expect him to cheer for Wales.
We have also said tonight that this debate should have been held on Tuesday. I tried to get some inspiration before I came to the Commons today by looking up at the gilt relief statue of St. David. I tried to get some inspiration to apologise to St. David that the debate was being held two days late. I heard an other-worldly, ethereal voice saying, "Hammer them, Rhodri." Everyone has told the Secretary of State that, if we had a vote tonight, the result would be 32–6 to this side. We hope that the result on 19 March will be the same. We know that St. David would be pleased about that.
9.48 pm
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Today's debate, as most of us expected, has wandered over the fair face of Wales. I am not so sure that the debate has been such a good advertisement for a Welsh assembly, if we ever get one. Be that as it may, the first thing that I want to do is reassert the prime importance and high priority that the Government, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I attach to the successful development and strengthening of the Welsh economy. That matters more than anything else because the living conditions and quality of life of Welsh people depend on it.
Achieving a greater measure of prosperity requires a single-mindedness and a unity of purpose on the part of all involved, which is never easy to achieve in Wales.
We are making progress out of the recession and business optimism is high. But no one is more aware than the Conservative party of how far we must go to raise GDP per head and average full-time earnings in Wales. We are driving hard on the inward investment front and our success in attracting manufacturing industry shows the way forward. We are also actively promoting exports, particularly by our small and medium-sized companies. Joint ventures between them and similar companies abroad are also being promoted because we know that full order books are one of the keys to safeguarding existing jobs and creating new ones.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) pressed us to get alongside the "four motors", but we have been doing precisely that since 1987. One of the developments as a result of our connection with the four motors was to establish, through the Welsh Development Agency, Eurolink at Stuttgart. That has now developed links between some 50 European and Welsh companies. What is the Opposition's policy in that vital area? They always give me the impression that they think that inward investment and expansion by existing Welsh companies will continue automatically. I assure them that it will not unless the conditions are right—low interest rates, low inflation and low corporate taxes.
Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister give way?
Sir Wyn Roberts: Alas, I was given less than my ration of time by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).
We have also adhered firmly to our policy of improving infrastructure, with record high investment in roads—both Welsh Office trunk roads and county road schemes—and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there is more to come in the years ahead. I am delighted that most of his road proposals announced today were welcomed by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who realises that the A465 can be a lifeline to Merthyr, as can the A470, which he and I had the pleasure of opening not so long ago.
That investment is crucial to the future development of all aspects of the Welsh economy, as is our investment in education and training. We have heard nothing of the Opposition's policies in those areas. It is all very well to criticise us, but they are repeating many of the points that we made in last week's debate and claiming them as their policies. From what I hear of their education policies, they would appear to take us backwards rather than forwards.
1170
They would undo much of what has been done in schools and elsewhere. Indeed, the Opposition's policies are very sleazy in the true sense of that word, which is "thin and flimsy".
Nothing could have been sleazier, in those terms, than the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly, which consisted largely of personal imprecations against my right hon. Friend and an attack on Plaid Cymru.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who, alas, is no longer here, reacted strongly to our review of the homelessness legislation and referred to our consultation document, "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies". The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) also referred to that. May I emphasise that we must always ensure that the operation of the homelessness legislation is fair to all those in need of social housing. It is in the interests of people in genuine need for us to ensure that no one uses wholly unjustified fast tracks to a council or housing association home provided with public funds.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to agriculture and to hill livestock compensatory allowances in particular. As my right hon. Friend said, I am sure that he will be aware that the average level of net farm income for hill livestock farms rose by some 35 per cent. in real terms in 1991–92 and 1992–93 and is forecast to rise further in the current year.
Total direct subsidies to hill sheep farmers in Wales have increased by 38 per cent. over the past two years to an average of more than £26,000 per farm. During the same period, the average level of HLCAs paid to these farmers fell, but the reductions in HLCAs were more than offset by the overall increase in subsidies. Some 16,000 farmers are expected to benefit. There has also been a 16 per cent. rise in sheep annual premium rates in 1993 and farmers will benefit from the substantial increases in suckler cow premium for last year.
Total payment of direct subsidies to hill farmers in Wales will be at least £160 million in 1994. That surely shows the Government's commitment to the farmers in the hills and uplands. Only recently, my right hon. Friend announced the addition of the Clwyd and Preseli environmentally sensitive areas.
There have been numerous references to education. We all know that more children are staying on at school or going on to further and higher education. I must tell the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) that that is why we are encouraging children to achieve vocational qualifications as well as or instead of strictly academic qualifications. We are encouraging them to take GNVQs instead of A-levels.
The staying-on rate at school has meant a tremendous increase in student numbers in the past 10 to 12 years. Since 1980, student enrolments in higher education in Wales outside the university have more than doubled, while at the university of Wales numbers rose by more than 50 per cent.
The higher education sector in Wales has grown by 53 per cent. since 1987–88 and we are increasing the total funding available for students by some 4 per cent. next year. Those students are very important because they will make a significant contribution to the trained work force which is essential for Wales to remain competitive.
There has been a remarkable development in further education. We have given high priority to the launch of the new further education sector, which is the key to producing

1171
many more people with technical and other skills so that Wales can compete more effectively in the world economy.
This year's funding is intended to support an increase of nearly 10 per cent. in student numbers to an overall total of 46,000 full-time equivalents. So resources for next year will rise from £144 million to £160 million and further increases in funding have been provisionally earmarked for the following years.
As my right hon. Friend reminded us earlier, over the weekend the hon. Member for Caerphilly lectured Labour councillors on their arrogance. The Western Mail called it a stinging attack. Today he lectured us on our indifference. So, in the hon. Gentleman's view, friend and foe alike are guilty of the besetting sin of pride. If I were on the Opposition Benches, I should be worried as to when he would start lecturing me.
Opposition Members must be as puzzled as I am about what really lies behind the castigations of the hon. Member for Caerphilly. Is it all part of a softening-up process before we see Comrade Ron's little kingdom, his very own little Moscow, his dream socialist-style estate in Wales? Or is the real explanation that the hon. Gentleman is at fault in that he lacks a proper degree of humility? That is a fatal flaw in a leader and a sure prelude to riding for a fall. The Labour party may be riding high in the polls at the moment, but it is very uncertain about its policies and has nothing new to offer the people of Wales but stale and unprofitable policies, such as devolution.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

CHIROPRACTORS BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session resulting from the Chiropractors Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Privy Council under the provisions of the Act relating to the default powers of the Privy Council.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
Ordered,
That Mr. Anthony Coombs be discharged from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Mr. Andrew Hargreaves be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Bronchitis and Emphysema (Mining Industry)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
10 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I am aware that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the Back-Bench Member of Parliament for Pontefract and Castleford, played an enormous role in the fight to persuade the Government to accept chronic bronchitis and emphysema as an industrial disease. I pay tribute to that work.
I requested the debate tonight for three reasons—first, to look closely at the new regulation, which I shall call "Amendment No. 2 regulation"; secondly, to draw the attention of the House to the restrictive nature of the regulation, which is causing much concern in mining communities; and thirdly, to suggest how the regulations might be amended to provide a fairer test for diagnosing the disease.
I am aware that the "Amendment No. 2 regulation" is based on the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, but the recommended prescription is clearly too harsh, particularly because the council reported that the prescription test should be rather tight. Although the council established for the first time a connection between the retention of coal dust in the lungs and the development of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, it nevertheless put forward a prescriptive test that we feel is much too restrictive.
The concern in our mining communities is highlighted markedly by the failure rate of that test. I am informed by the Yorkshire National Union of Mineworkers and by the DSS office in Doncaster that the failure rate in south Yorkshire is as high as 90 per cent. However, the DSS pointed out that there are some regional differences and that the failure rate in Scotland is even higher. I understand that the failure rate in Wales is slightly lower.
Hon. Members who represent mining communities are all too aware of the terrible, debilitating effect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. We all know men who can hardly walk 100 yards without having to stop several times to fight for their breath. We are all aware of men who, having spent a lifetime in the colliery, cannot venture outside their doors and, in summer time, must sit watching television with an oxygen mask on to help to ease their fight for breath.
The cautious welcome that we gave to the regulations when they first appeared has turned to despair. There are several reasons for that, but the main one is the prescriptive criteria that are used in the diagnostic test.
In some instances, miners with 40-odd years' service underground, who have been treated by their doctors for chronic bronchitis and emphysema for many years, are now told by the examining authorities when they apply for a disablement assessment under the regulations that they do not have the disease. Naturally, that is causing considerable concern.
I feel that the problem arises from the prescription test of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which I know that the Minister adopted and which is implemented in the new regulation. The Minister ought to be aware that it is

1173
possible under the test for a man who suffers from the disease to be ruled out of benefit because he does not meet other criteria laid down in the regulations.
As the Minister knows, a miner must pass three tests to proceed to full medical examination and then—hopefully —a disablement assessment. First, he must have the qualification of 20 years' work underground; secondly, there must be X-ray evidence of dust retention in his lungs; and thirdly, there must be a reduction of 1 litre in the forced expiration volume.
At the examination stage, miners are screened to eliminate those who do not meet the criteria. If a miner has worked underground for fewer than 20 years, he is ruled out, and no further examination is conducted. If he is successful at that stage, he is then given an X-ray. If he succeeds then, he proceeds to the FEV test. Only if he passes all three tests will he be referred to a doctor who will give him a full examination.
There are means of appeal to a special medical board, and, finally, to a medical appeal tribunal but there are flaws in the appeal procedure. I have not enough time to describe those flaws, but I will write to the Minister about them.
The procedure is clearly onerous and the prescriptive test is too restrictive, debarring genuine cases. An additional problem is caused by the difference between the pneumoconiosis principle of diagnosis and the new regulation principle. Let us suppose that two miners, A and B, have worked together underground for 17 years. Both leave the pit at the same time. Miner A takes a job outside the colliery, in an office, while miner B continues to work on the surface, in the coal preparation plant. At the time of retirement, both men have a respiratory disorder and apply to the pneumoconiosis medical board.
In the first instance, miner A is examined and found to have pneumoconiosis and attendant chronic bronchitis and emphysema. He is given an assessment for his pneumoconiosis and then an additional assessment, because his pneumoconiosis worsens his chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Let us say that he is given 20 per cent.—10 per cent. for his pneumoconiosis and 10 per cent. for his chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
Miner B, who has spent a lifetime working at the colliery, is examined and found to have dust retention with acute chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Because the dust retention does not meet the criteria for pneumoconiosis, he is referred for an examination for chronic bronchitis and emphysema, under the new regulation, but, because he does not meet the criterion of 20 years underground, he is ruled out. I am quite sure that that was not the intention of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.
There are other examples, one of which is a situation that confronts many miners. As the Minister is aware, tens of thousands of young miners have been made redundant over the past few years. Those miners worked, using new technology, in conditions that were more dusty than was the practice in the mines in a previous age. However, as a result of the implementation of the redundancy scheme, many of those miners will not be given the opportunity to work for 20 years in the industry, and will have worked for only 10 to 18 years. Yet, inevitably, many of those young men will develop chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
1174
Under the current regulation they will not be entitled to claim benefit. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council could not have intended that.
I ask the Minister to consider three matters. First, I ask him to consider reducing the qualification condition to 10 years, to equal the pneumoconiosis qualification condition. Secondly, I ask him to consider reducing the threshold for disablement benefit under the regulation. The threshold is now 14 per cent. and it ought to be equal to the pneumoconiosis threshold, which is 10 per cent. There is no logical reason for the difference under the new regulation, compared with the threshold under the pneumoconiosis scheme. Finally, I ask the Minister to consider seriously replacing the FEV test with a much more sensitive test for detecting obstruction in the lungs. The FEV test is much too rigorous. It has proved so restrictive that very few cases pass it. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he is prepared to take those three items on board and to review the situation regarding the prescription test.
I also ask the Minister to think about the compensation aspect. As he is proabably aware, in the mining industry we have a no-fault liability scheme for pneumoconiosis. We should like him to enter into discussions with his colleague, the Minister for Energy, to consider extending the scheme to cover chronic bronchitis and emphysema. There is no logical reason why chronic bronchitis and emphysema should be outside the no-fault liability scheme.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall invite my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) to add to that.
10.11 pm
Mr. Eric Clarke: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know the history of the matter and as an ex-National Union of Mineworkers activist, one of the reasons that I became a Member of Parliament was to try to alleviate the anomalies that cause pain to the sufferers of those two diseases. I was also delighted when the Government accepted the recommendation, because an academic medical argument was going on and many people who had a great deal of disability in the past were not covered by the pneumoconiotic or silicotic coverage.
I do not have much time to go into detail, but I support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Pensitone (Mr. Clapham) because I am confronted in Scotland, as are many Members of Parliament in their constituencies, with ex-miners who are bitterly disappointed at having been turned down. At this stage, I must thank the people in the Department of Social Security, who have brought things forward very smoothly. Mr. John Strachan is in charge in my area and he and his team are doing the best that they can to alleviate the problem.
Many people feel disappointed because, even when they meet the 20 years requirement, the X-ray that is looked at could be an X-ray that was taken up to 18 months previously. The argument is that the X-ray does not show traces of retention of dust in the lungs and that fibrosis is not visible so people are being eliminated from the scheme. Many people were proved to have pneumonoconiosis only after a post-mortem had been carried out because nothing showed up on the X-ray.

1175
The National Union of Mineworkers asked five eminent chest consultants to produce a paper on the subject but two of them produced a minority report on the diseases and their elimination. I remember being part of a delegation that went to see Reg Prentice who was the Minister of State for Social Security. We were knocked back—because of the cost, he said.
I do not have time to read out the details, but I have reports of consultants and doctors from the hospitals attended by sufferers. They say that the people involved are chronically ill, some are in wheel-chairs. I have here a copy of a letter sent to a widow, which gives an example of the terminology being used. It states that the "customer" has not been suffering from the prescribed diseases known as chronic bronchitis and emphysema. However, many such people have "puffers" or other equipment to alleviate the hardship of merely drawing breath.
I must stop now in order to allow the Minister time to reply. I say only that the people to whom I have referred have given their lives and their health to make Britain "Great" Britain. They have created the wealth and energy that we needed to make our industries tick. We cannot replace their health but we can make their lives more tolerable. I shall not repeat all the arguments but the question of the time limit, the capacity of the lungs and the dust on them must be considered more compassionately. We cannot give people back their health but we can make their lives and those of their relatives more tolerable by providing the compensation that we seek. We are not seeking a fortune but it would help. The needs of these people are greater than those of healthy people.
I thank the Minister for allowing me to speak.
10.16 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing a debate on what I acknowledge is an important issue that deserves the attention of the House. I very much appreciate his concens and the way in which he expressed them. I am conscious of the distress experienced by those suffering from these unfortunate respiratory conditions. I also listened to the passion in the voice of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) as he expressed his concern on behalf of those with whom he has worked so closely and whose interests he holds close to his heart.
I echo the remarks of both hon. Gentlemen and acknowledge the tireless campaign that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford, have conducted on behalf of miners to have chronic bronchitis and emphysema added to the list of prescribed industrial diseases. You have spoken and corresponded about those matters for a long time, but unable, because of your distinguished position in the House, to campaign as others have been able to do.
I know, however, that you met the Prime Minister to discuss the issue with him in March last year and I am well aware of your continuing close interest in the operation of the scheme and the fact that we have, after a long period —the history of which I shall deal with briefly in a moment —recognised that these conditions should rightly be prescribed as industrial diseases under the industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme.
Industrial injuries disablement benefit is payable only for prescribed diseases, as we all know. The legal basis for
1176
this prescription has remained unchanged since the industrial injuries scheme was introduced in 1946. The statutory provision, which is now in section 108 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, states:
"A disease or injury may be prescribed in relation to any employed earners if the Secretary of State is satisfied that—

(a) it ought to be treated, having regard to its causes and incidence and any other relevant considerations, as a risk of their occupations and not as a risk common to all persons; and

(b) it is such that, in the absence of special circumstances, the attribution of particular cases to the nature of the employment can be established or presumed with reasonable certainty."

There are therefore two aspects to prescription, both of which must be satisfied. The first criterion requires unequivocal evidence of a causal relationship between occupational exposure and disease. The second criterion —attribution to occupation in the individual case "with reasonable certainty"—has in practice been interpreted as meaning "on the balance of probabilities", that is, more likely than not. Evidence of an increased incidence of disease in relation to a particular occupation or occupational hazard does not, on its own, necessarily justify prescription. The association with occupation must be sufficiently strong to show that the disease in the individual case is more likely than not to have been caused by the person's work, and that implies a relatively high risk.
I should like to move from that general outline of the scheme to the specific instance that we are discussing this evening. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council first considered the prescription of chronic bronchitis and emphysema in coal miners in 1973, when it decided that it had insufficient evidence to recommend prescription. In 1985, it undertook a further study which culminated in a report in 1988. The limited information then available to the council suggested that the effects of coal dust exposure on lung function were less than those of cigarette smoke, and it was generally agreed at the time that tobacco smoke inhalation was a major cause of lung function impairment in coal miners as well as in the general population, and the council, therefore, again felt unable to recommend prescription.
In the following three years, however, as I think both hon. Gentlemen will recognise, reports were published in this country, in Belgium and in the United States which demonstrated that the risk of developing disabling impairment of the lung function increased more than twofold in coal miners, whether or not they were smokers, who had accumulated significant coal dust exposure, and it was with that evidence that the council felt able to recommend prescription of chronic bronchitis and emphysema in relation to those coal miners and former coal miners whose disability could most confidently be attributed to coal dust rather than to some other cause, such as tobacco smoking.
The council recommended the criteria to be used for evidence of sufficient exposure to coal dust for that to be the probable cause of the disability. Those were, as the hon. Gentleman identified, a minimum of 20 years' underground exposure and definite evidence. of coal dust retention on a chest X-ray of at least category 1 on the International Labour Organisation classification of pneumoconiosis. The council also recommended that prescriptions should be based on an objective measure of

1177
impairment associated with clincially important disablement. It recommended that that measure should be a loss of lung function of at least one litre on the expiratory test, commonly called the FEV1 test, against that predicted for a person of the same age, height and sex as the claimant. The Government accepted and implemented the council's recommendations in full from September last year.
I do not set myself up as an expert on chronic bronchitis and emphysema. I have had conversations with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with other colleagues who have had much more direct experience of, and contact with, people who suffer from these conditions than I have ever had, and I have listened to them. But in this matter the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department have always been governed by the expert opinion of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. It is right that we should look to its members to read the literature and to accumulate for themselves such evidence as they can discover about each of the individual matters of concern that are raised, and offer advice to the Secretary of State.
For the reasons that I have outlined, it is on that advice that we invariably depend when we make our decisions.
The covering leter from Professor Malcolm Harrington, the chairman of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, concludes by saying:
"the Council suggest that the qualifying conditions should be reviewed after a suitable period of operation of say five years."
So the IIAC and its chairman recognise that the judgment made on the qualifying conditions already outlined in the debate was not like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, but was something that should properly be reviewed after some experience.
I cannot say whether the council was influenced in coming to that judgment by the knowledge that there had been a substantial take-on of case load in the initial stages of the introduction of the new scheme. However, at the end of the covering letter, the recommendation was clearly made that the conditions should be reviewed after a suitable period of operation. The period of five years was mentioned, but the council was not being especially prescriptive about that. The Government accepted and implemented, as we invariably do, the council's recommendations.
I understand the concern of Opposition Members, but in general my impression is that the addition of chronic bronchitis and emphysema to the list of prescribed diseases has been widely welcomed. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have appreciated it, as have the unions representing miners. I am glad to say that the new scheme has been successfully implemented, too. Indeed, the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone paid tribute to that fact.
The hon. Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone and for Midlothian came to see me before the scheme was launched, and impressed on me the importance of smooth
1178
implementation and of making proper administrative arrangements. We did that, both in terms of pure administration by the Benefits Agency and the Department of Social Security and by making arrangements for proper medical tests to be conducted smoothly and efficiently.
Special arrangements were set up with British Coal and the mining unions to help to make the operation a success. We can rightly claim that in administrative terms it certainly has been a success, however disappointed hon. Gentlemen may be at the moment by the number of miners and former miners who have satisfied the existing conditions for qualification. In my view, there continues to be a positive, constructive and successful dialogue between the unions and the Benefits Agency—a relationship that is valued by both sides.
We staggered the take-on of claims in two six-month stages. The first stage has just been completed and the second started on 1 March, two days ago. Manifestly, the burden of work has been largely confined to traditional mining areas, and we had to make a number of special arrangements, including setting up special centres in some areas to cope with the groups of applicants.
On the medical side, we have sought to design procedures to minimise the inconvenience to those who claim the benefits. The procedures ensure that they do not have to attend for tests or examinations more than once, whenever it is possible to arrange that, and handling arrangements have been enhanced to control the flow of cases throughout the organisation and to provide us with proper and valid criteria.
In the last two minutes or so, I shall emphasise a couple of points. First, whatever I may feel personally, the Government—and I, in view of my responsibilities—have to rely on the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on the prescription of industrial diseases. The council in turn relies on acceptable scientific evidence. We have implemented in full its recommendations on chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
The scheme is still in its early days. We are still talking on the early cases. I read out Professor Harrington's advice on reviewing the conditions after a suitable period of operation, and I am certainly willing to receive correspondence from Opposition Members expressing any concerns that they have about their experience of the scheme.
However, we should be pleased that the council eventually came to the conclusion that it did, and I hope that the Government can get some credit for swiftly accepting the recommendation and implementing it successfully. The first phase has gone well, thanks to the careful planning, special resources and considerable effort that have been put into this extension of the industrial injuries scheme. We are committed to a similar successful implementation of the second phase, and we shall continue to see how it all works out in practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Listed Buildings
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will consider issuing statutory guidelines to local authorities to limit enabling development to those listed buildings with negative equity;

  (2) what plans he has to provide guidelines to local authorities in dealing with planning applications involving enabling development which contravene policies incorporating protection for the countryside, registered parks and gardens and the setting of listed buildings.

  Mr. Baldry
  The term "enabling development" is not found in the Planning Acts and there are no plans to give it any statutory significance or make any specific reference to it in guidance.

  City Grant
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the schemes given city grant in the north-west region in the last two years with the amounts in each case; and what were the amounts of any clawback of grant.

  Mr. Baldry
  The schemes in the Department of the Environment's north-west region for which the provision of city grant was approved since April 1992, and the approved level of grant, are set out in the table. None of these schemes has yet reached the date for determining the level of any clawback. The urban development corporations offer their own grants analogous to city grant; schemes funded in this way are not included.

  Project

  Approved Grant (£)

  Blackburn

  Enamel Street housing

  735,782

  Farmers Market site offices

  672,717

  Hornby Hotel

  127,439

  Bolton

  Sunnyside Mills housing

  1,413,441

  Burnley

  Holy Trinity Church flats

  300,000

  Manchester

  Broughton Street cash and carry warehouse

  249,835

  Sherborne Street housing

  835,700

  Blackett Street units

  425,000

  Express Offices redevelopment

  1,972,000

  Lever Street offices

  350,000

  Jackson Crescent student flats

  575,000

  Energy Street housing

  520,000

  Louisa Street housing

  774,093

  Kelbrook Road units, phase 1

  151,000

  Kelbrook Road units, phase 2

  370,000

  790

  Project

  Approved Grant (£)

  Oldham

  Cromford Street units

  121,877

  Park Road flats/units

  1,012,316

  Greengate Industrial Estate, phase 2

  1,306,000

  Preston

  Avenham Terrace housing

  101,170

  Queens Mill housing

  291,440

  Rochdale

  Perseverance Mill units

  475,000

  HQ Co-op Retail Building

  3,000,000

  Smallbridge Business Park

  216,000

  Salford

  Deva Centre offices

  2,770,000

  Hamilton Garden housing

  380,717

  Griffin Court offices

  220,000

  Liverpool Road industrial units

  196,981

  Albion units

  1,550,000

  Wigan

  Gordon Close housing

  130,605

  Kent Street mixed development

  280,863

  Piatt Lane units

  147,405

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary aof State for the Environment what is the current situation regarding the city grant application made in respect of the Foleshill gas works site.

  Mr. Baldry
  English Partnerships has made a proposal to British Gas, the site owners, under which a grant could be offered for a first phase of development on the Foleshill site. English Partnerships has also suggested a possible joint venture for the development of a second phase.

  Pollution, Lewisham
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the levels of atmospheric pollution and the levels of nitrous oxide and black smoke emissions in the Lewisham area in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Atkins
  Annual average concentrations of black smoke and nitrogen dioxide in Lewisham is given in the table. No monitoring data on levels of nitrous oxide in the Lewisham area is available. However, Lewisham was included in both the 1986 and 1991 national nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube surveys. Black smoke is monitored in areas of the United Kingdom at risk of exceeding the limit value of the European Community directive on smoke and sulphur dioxide—89/427/EEC. The site in Lewisham was closed in 1989 since concentrations of these pollutants were not at risk of exceeding the directive limit values.

  Annual emissions of smoke and nitrogen dioxide between 1985 and 1991 are given in the Department of the Environment's 15th edition of the Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.
  791

  Annual average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and black smoke at Ladywell Baths, Lewisham High Street, Lewisham, London

  Year

  Black smoke (ug/m3)

  NO2 (ppb)1

  1985

  12

  —

  1986

  15

  26

  1987

  17

  —

  1988

  23

  —

  1989

  —

  —

  1990

  —

  —

  1991

  —

  32

  1 Parts per billion at 20°C and 1013 millibars pressure.

  CIPFA Employees
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the grade and present duties of each member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy employed in his Department; and if he will cross-refer each post to his Department's latest MINIS report.

  Mr. Gummer
  Three members of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy are employed in the Department of the Environment. They are Mr. P. Rowsell, grade 5, listed as head of finance and local authority expenditure and resources division in page 28 of part 1 of MINIS 14; Mr. D. Weatherly, SEC) in construction division 5—page 38 of part 6 of MINIS 14 dealing with prequalification systems and the consultants register; and Mr. J. Gauld, SEO in management audit services division—page 32 of part 5 of MINIS 14 where the division is shown under its former name of finance management audit.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to review the council tax transitional relief scheme;

  (2) what plans he has to change the rules governing transitional relief following the letter of 18 February from the hon. Member for Woolwich;

  (3) what estimate he has of the number of cases where persons in a higher property band pay less in council tax than someone in the same district or borough in a lower property band but in otherwise similar circumstances as a result of transitional relief; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: We have no plans to change the rules governing transitional relief. I have written to the hon. Member about the application of the transitional relief scheme in Greenwich.

  King's Cross Conference
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to respond to the invitation he has received from the Metropolitan police, local churches, and local authorities, to attend the conference on King's Cross due to be held on 8 March.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 2 March 1994]: Following an invitation from the leaders of Camden and Islington councils, my office telephoned the conference organisers on 18 February to say that, because of other commitments, I would be unable to attend.
  792

ATTORNEY GENERAL

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the common law duty of a Minister of the Crown to sign public interest immunity certificates rests upon the contents of(a) an individual document or (b) the class of document; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to him on 3 February 1994,Official Report, column 833, and to the extract from the "Supreme Court Practice 1993" which I have already placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Criminal Proceedings
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make it his policy that the identities of all witnesses as to fact in a criminal investigation which leads to proceedings by way of complaint or indictment are disclosed to an accused person facing trial in a sheriff court or the High Court of Justiciary;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to accept the principle of full disclosure of evidence to the defence in criminal cases.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland, disclosure of the case for the prosecution is achieved by providing the defence with a list containing the names and addresses of witnesses who may be called to give evidence. The defence is then entitled to obtain statements from these witnesses. In summary cases, copies of all police witness statements are given to the defence on request.

  An experiment in the provision of some civilian witness statements is being conducted in Paisley. In cases prosecuted on indictment, the accused will also have a list of productions served on him. The production will be lodged in court prior to the trial diet, and they may be examined by the accused or his represenative prior to the trial.

  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate confirms that the policy of the Crown in Scotland is to disclose to the defence any information which supports the defence, even though it may be damaging to the prosecution case. Procurators fiscal are also instructed to provide assistance to the defence if it is necessary to enable witnesses for the defence to be traced. The overall aim is to ensure that the true facts of any case are laid before the judge or jury.

  Health Service Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding contact between Dumfries and Galloway health board, and Mr. Frank Brown of Ayrshire and Arran health board on urology services.

  Mr. Stewart
  Mr. Brown, commissioning manager of Ayrshire and Arran health board, contacted Dumfries and Galloway health board in September 1993 to establish that board's purchasing intentions for urological services.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official

  793
  Report, column 689, if he will list the contracts currently in operation between the South Ayrshire and North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trusts and Dumfries and Galloway health board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Currently, the South Ayrshire hospitals and North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trusts each have a block contract with Dumfries and Galloway health board for a variety of specialties.

  Forestry
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to assess whether, in deciding not to oppose afforestation plans at Cloanaig, Kintyre, Scottish Natural Heritage took adequate account of the interests of local communities within the terms of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The formulation and provision of advice to the Forestry Commission on the natural heritage aspects of woodland grant scheme applications is solely a matter for Scottish Natural Heritage.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether tax options of the kind described in the recent Country Landowners Association report, "Focus on Woodlands", are being considered by the forestry review group.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Country Landowners Association report was one of a large number of representations received by the review group in the course of its work. The views expressed in these representations have been valuable to the group in preparing its advice to Ministers.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that the Government's forestry review group is considering in detail all types of incentive for both tree planting and management.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The forestry review group was asked, among other things, to review the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment, in accordance with the manifesto commitment. Ministers are now considering its advice before deciding what action, if any, should be taken.

  Health Service Management
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the targets for each national health service general manager, unit general manager and chief executive in the next year; and what is the performance-related pay payable for achievement of these targets.

  Numbers of personal injury accidents on the A1

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  East Lothian

  January

  —

  2

  3

  5

  —

  3

  2

  5

  —

  —

  6

  6

  February

  —

  —

  3

  3

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  March

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  1

  1

  April

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  May

  —

  1

  3

  4

  2

  —

  2

  4

  —

  —

  2

  2

  June

  —

  1

  2

  3

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  2

  July

  1

  —

  2

  3

  1

  —

  5

  6

  1

  1

  5

  7

  August

  1

  1

  3

  5

  —

  —

  4

  4

  —

  3

  5

  8

  September

  —

  —

  3

  3

  2

  —

  2

  4

  —

  —

  2

  2

  October

  —

  1

  2

  3

  2

  —

  2

  4

  —

  2

  2

  4

  November

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  a/a

  n/a

  794
  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally. The setting of targets for each NHS general manager, unit general manager and chief executive is determined locally. Arrangements for assessment of performance-related pay for achievement of targets are matters for the remuneration committee of the employing body.

  Insolvency Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) corporate and (b) individual insolvencies were recorded in Scotland for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  The number of insolvencies in Scotland for each of the past five full accounting years was as follows:

  (a) Corporate insolvencies

  Year

  Number

  1988–89

  663

  1989–90

  651

  1990–91

  720

  1991–92

  862

  1992–93

  915

  Source: Table C2 of "Companies in 1992–93".

  (b) Individual insolvencies

  Year

  Number

  1988–89

  1,612

  1989–90

  2,618

  1990–91

  5,451

  1991–92

  8,584

  1992–93

  11,970

  Source: Office of the Accountant in Bankruptcy.

  A1 (Accidents)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total number of(a) minor, (b) serious and (c) fatal road traffic accidents on the Al in (i) East Lothian and (ii) Berwickshire in each month for the last three years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the table.
  795

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  December

  —

  2

  4

  6

  —

  —

  3

  3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/

  n/a

  Totals

  2

  9

  28

  39

  7

  5

  26

  38

  1

  8

  26

  35

  Berwickshire

  January

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  1

  4

  5

  February

  —

  2

  2

  4

  —

  1

  4

  5

  —

  —

  4

  4

  March

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  3

  3

  April

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  4

  May

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  June

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  0

  July

  —

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  2

  2

  August

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  September

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  October

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  0

  November

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  1

  —

  1

  December

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Totals

  1

  5

  9

  15

  2

  3

  6

  11

  1

  4

  19

  24

  Note: n/a=not available as the accident figures for these months have not yet been verified.

  New Home Building
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of new homes to be built in the Blairgowrie, Alyth, Coupar Angus, Meigle, Newfyle, Birk Hill and Muirhead areas of Tayside in the next three years and five years, as advised by Tayside regional council, Angus district council and Perth and Kinross district council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Forestry Review Group
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to publish the report of the forestry review group.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No. The report of the forestry review group was prepared for the confidential advice of Ministers.

  Seals
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the Sea Mammals Research Unit estimates the number of grey and common seals in Scotland; if the seal population of lochs is included; and what assessment he has made of the method of counting.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Each year, the sea mammal research unit—SMRU—carries out counts of grey seal pups using aerial photography. All major Scottish colonies are surveyed, including Loch Eriboll—the only site within a loch where significant numbers breed.

  The SMRU counts common seals along the Scottish coastline during August each year, using a thermal-imaging camera mounted in a helicopter. The survey is repeated on a five-year cycle and includes all islands and sea lochs.

  The SMRU survey programme for Scottish seals is reviewed annually by the special committee on seals, an independent group of experts.
  796

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, columns 955–56, if he will make a statement listing the current annual fees levied by the private schools with pupils under the assisted places scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is publicly available in the publication "Which School" which is available from the Independent Schools Information Service (Scotland) at the following address:

  Floor 2/1

  11 Castle Street

  Edinburgh

  EH2 3EH

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what agencies are employed by the Highlands and Islands Enterprise to provide its public relations; and what is the annual cost to the company.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is an operational matter for Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I will ask its chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Speech, Paisley
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech on Saturday 26 February.

  Mr. Lang
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the extract from my speech at Paisley on 26 February which was released to the press. I shall be replying shortly to the hon. Member's letter to me on the subject.

  Howie Report
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish the Howie report on the reform of the upper secondary school curriculum.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Howie report was published on 5 March 1992.
  797
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the report of the Howie committee on curriculum and examinations in upper secondary education in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to announce that I am publishing the Government's response to the Howie committee's proposals today. Details of my decisions, which build on the strengths of the current system, are set out in the document "Higher Still: Opportunity For All", copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House and the Vote Office.

  Nurses
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of newly qualified nurses completed their training in Scotish NHS hospitals in the 12-month period ended December 1993 and found full-time permanent employment in NHS hospitals in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The exact information requested is not available centrally. The table shows the status of nurses who were final year students in Scotland on 30 September 1992 one year later.

  It should be noted that the methods by which this information is collected do not permit account to be taken of certain students, for example those who have been unable to complete their training within the normal three year period; those who, having qualified, may have chosen to have a break in service before seeking employment; those who have found employment as a nurse outwith the NHS; and those who may have qualified, joined the NHS and left. Those who qualify and work occasionally in the NHS, for example, bank or agency nurses, also cannot be identified and have therefore been counted with the "not employed" category.

  Status of final year basic student nurses in Scotland one year later: year beginning 30 September 1992:

  Status at 30 September 1993

  Headcount

  Per cent.

  In full-time post in NHS

  889

  37·5

  In part-time post in NHS

  325

  13·7

  Total in post in NHS

  1,214

  51·2

  Taking further training in NHS

  16

  0·7

  Not employed in NHS

  1,143

  48·1

  TOTAL

  2,373

  100

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish health service advisory council.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: The advisory council was abolished last year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the people from Clydebank who have been appointed to(a) Glasgow health board, (b) Dumbartonshire local enterprise company, (c) the board of management of Clydebank technical college and (d) other Government bodies;
  798
  (2) which people from Eastwood have been appointed to (a) Greater Glasgow health board, (b) Argyll and Clyde health board, (c) the boards of local enterprise companies, (d) local hospital trusts, (e) the board of management of technical colleges and (f) other Government bodies;

  (3) how many people on local hospital trusts live in (a)Clydebank and (b) Eastwood.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]:No resident of Clydebank has been appointed to Greater Glasgow health board. One resident of Eastwood has been appointed to the board, Rev. R. D. M. Campbell.

  No resident of Eastwood has been appointed to Argyll and Clyde health board.

  No resident of Clydebank has been appointed to local NHS hospital trusts. The names of those residents of Eastwood who have been appointed to local NHS hospital trusts are as follows:

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust:—Mrs. Ann P. Moore

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust:—Mrs. Alison Gilchrist

  Dr. Robert Colville

  Yorkhill NHS Trust:—Mrs. Gwendoline Garner

  Information identifying the place of residence of members of the boards of management of further education colleges is not held centrally.

  I do not make appointments to the boards of local enterprise companies and so I am not in a position to give the information requested in respect of them.

  The addresses of appointees to non-departmental public bodies are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to secure greater transparency in the affairs of non-elected bodies whose membership in whole or in part is appointed by him or who exercise functions previously carried out by local authorities.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: Such action as is necessary has already been taken or is in hand. All the bodies to which I appoint members and which undertake expenditure directly either produce audited accounts or, in some minor cases, have their expenditure included in the accounts prepared by my Departments. Most also produce annual reports. These reports and accounts are laid before Parliament and they may be examined by the Committee of Public Accounts.

  In addition, the Comptroller and Auditor General may conduct inquiries into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which bodies to which I appoint members and which receive more than half their income from public funds, have used their resources. Reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General may be submitted to Parliament and the Committee of Public Accounts may question senior officials both of my Department and, in many cases, of the bodies themselves.

  Management statements have been, or will be, prepared for most executive NDPBs. These will be published and will define the role and responsibilities of the body, its relationship with its sponsor departments, its accountability, aims and objectives. In addition, executive NDPBs are expected to meet the charter standards of the citizens charter and the principles of the Government's White Paper, "Open Government". A code of conduct for NHS boards which encourages transparency about NHS activities has already been issued for consultation. It is also planned to produce a code of practice to follow up steps

  799
  already taken as part of the patients charter initiative to incorporate into the NHS the principles of the Government's White Paper, "Open Government".

  The only bodies which carry out functions formerly undertaken by local authorities, are the colleges of further education for which I became responsible on 1 April 1993. The colleges produce annual reports and audited accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General has a right to inspect their books and records and to carry out value for money studies. Again, he may report the results of these studies to Parliament and the Committee of Public Accounts can question relevant officials. This year, for the first time, each college will also be required to publish a shortened development plan, describing its forward objectives and its performance in meeting past objectives.

  Carstairs State Hospital
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received a report on the escape of two patients from Carstairs state hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 March 1994]: Yes. On 27 January two patients who were being transported from the west wing to the east wing of the State hospital, forced open the back door of the van and attempted to escape. They were in sight of security staff at all times and monitored by the hospital's close circuit television. They were apprehended within 90 seconds.

  As a result of the incident rigorous daily checks are now carried out on all vehicles used for transporting patients at Carstairs.

  The recent announcement by my noble and learned Friend to invest £14 million in the creation of the state hospital on a single site will remove the possibility of a recurrence of this type of incident.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  British Virgin Islands
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 February, c.683–84 what is the total cost per annum to the Overseas Development Administration, including accommodation and air fares of (a) the inspector of banks and trust companies, (b) the insurance services adviser and (c) the principal tax adviser in the British Virgin Islands.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is usual in this country to observe the practice of maintaining the confidentiality, on pay and allowances, between employer and employee and therefore it is not our practice to reveal remuneration details for individual technical co-operation officers. However, average costs for the British Virgin Islands were contained in my answer of 15 February, columns 683–84.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bilateral aid programmes the United Kingdom is pursuing with Vietnam; what is the level of aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are providing know-how to help prepare for investments in strategic infrastructure and assistance for resettlement of returned economic migrants.800
  Expenditure in 1993–94 will be about £3 million. We also intend to provide concessional support for £50 million worth of projects.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to, or received from, authorities and agencies in Mozambique in respect of the diversion of aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The only reported losses of British bilateral aid have been pilferage of food aid. We estimate losses of about 2 per cent. in 1993. All out bilateral food aid in 1993 was provided through British nongovernmental organisations—NGOs—who employ contractors, paid on performance, to store and transport the food to specific destinations. Distribution to beneficiaries is supervised by NGOs. Where there are losses in storage and transit, we expect the NGOs to recoup the losses from the contractors concerned.

  Regular co-ordination meetings are held between the Government of Mozambique, donors, and implementing agencies to monitor the distribution of emergency relief and food aid. Where specific cases of diversion of United Kingdom bilateral food aid has been suspected, they have been taken up by the ambassador with Ministers in the Government of Mozambique and provincial governors. In such cases assurances have been received that action is being taken to prevent further instances.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what payments were made to Biwater Berhad of Malaysia in 1986; and for what purpose.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  One payment of £48·6 million was made to Antah Biwater JV under the United Kingdom—Malaysia grant 1986 in respect of the rural water supply project, which provides clean water supplies to about 4 million people in 134 areas in Malaysia.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what payments were made in 1986 to Antah Holdings of Malaysia; and for what purpose.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what payments were made to citizens of Malaysia and Malaysian companies by the ODA for proposed aid-related projects in the years 1985, 1986; 1987 and 1988; and for what purposes such payments were made.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Computer Exports
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of United Kingdom exports of computers in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
  801
  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom exported computers worth £3·8 billion in 1992, the last full year for which data are available. Exports of computers in the first nine months of 1993 were worth £3·5 billion. Due to changes in the system of collecting trade data, figures for 1993 as a whole are not yet comprehensive enough for direct comparisons with earlier data. However, the value of United Kingdom exports of computers in 1993, as a whole, are expected to reach a record level.

  International Trade Centre
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about Liverpool as the location for an international trade centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department has received only one such representation, from a local Liverpool resident. It is being considered by officials.

  Post Office
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to complete his review of the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is anxious to complete the Post Office review as soon as possible. The Government will not however set an artificial date.

  Modems
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to resolve the legal anomalies regarding the import and sale of moderns not approved for connection to the United Kingdom public telephone network; and whether he intends to press for a Europewide solution.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department is reviewing the United Kingdom approvals regime for telecommunications terminal equipment, including the placing on the market of modems capable of, but not approved for, connection to the network. One of the main objectives of the review is to introduce a regime consistent with our obligations under the Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive —91/263/EEC. At the same time, my officials are discussing the particular problems caused by unapproved modems with the Commission and other member states with a view to developing a pan-European solution.

  Trade and the Environment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what decisions were taken at the governing council of GATT in Geneva on 22 February on the link between trade and the environment.

  Mr. Needham
  On 22 February the GATT council considered and agreed the outline of the GATT report to the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development on GATT activities following the 1992 UNCED conference. The report will highlight the contribution of the Uruguay round to sustainable development, as well as pointing to the value of analytical work already carried out in GATT. Contracting parties see the December 1993 decision on future trade and environment work as evidence of continued commitment to this important issue.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information his Department has on the benefits to date arising from regulations covering furniture foam; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, as amended, include requirements for the flammability resistance of foam filled furniture. Statistics for deaths and injuries in fires are compiled by the Home Office from data collected by fire brigades. The data records that the number of deaths caused by combustion originating in upholstery and covers in dwellings has fallen from 193 in 1988 to 117 in 1991. Though other factors, such as an increased use of smoke alarms, may have influenced these figures the fall in the death rate associated with fires in upholstery and covers was much steeper than the fall in death rate from fires in dwellings overall.

  Information Super-highways
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he has taken to promote the development of information super-highways in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A recent study, commissioned by this Department, concluded that the United Kingdom is one of the most advanced countries worldwide on a range of key telecommunications infrastructure indicators, including use of optical fibre at trunk and local level, digitalisation of exchanges and availability of advanced services such as ISDN. This position has been achieved through our policies of privatisation, liberalisation and competition. A large number of companies are now competing to provide high-capacity telecommunication services, including BT, Mercury, Energis, COLT, MFS and the cable TV operators. I hope to license more shortly.

  Aviation Services
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the progress of the general agreement on tariffs and trade regulations on aviation services.

  Mr. Needham
  Air transport services fall within the scope of the general agreement on trade in services, which forms part of the GATT agreement. The annex on air transport services notes that the agreement does not apply to measures affecting air transport traffic rights. A number of countries have made liberalisation commitments in services related to repair and maintenance, sales and marketing and computer reservation systems. There will be periodic reviews to consider whether the extent of the application of the agreement to air transport services should be expanded.

  The GATT negotiations on trade in civil aircraft will continue for a further year following the conclusion of the GATT round. The Government are keen that these negotiations should resume at the earliest opportunity, in order to allow time for the negotiation of an agreement covering the whole aerospace sector, to include balanced disciplines on direct and indirect support while protecting existing Government launch aid. Meanwhile, the Government, in conjunction with industry, the European

  803
  Commission, and other EU Governments, are carrying out an analysis of the various options for achieving such an agreement.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nursery (Official Visit)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what further plans he has to visit a children's nursery.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Milton Keynes
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Milton Keynes.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister how many public interest immunity certificates he or his predecessor have been asked to sign in each year since 1979; how many he or his predecessor declined to sign; and if he will make a statement on his policy of signing public interest immunity certificates.

  The Prime Minister
  No central record has been kept of the number of public interest immunity certificates put to Ministers since 1979, and a search of all the records in No. 10 would involve disproportionate cost. I do not recall being asked to sign such a certificate and it is unlikely that either I or my predecessor would have been asked to sign one since immediate responsibility for the relevant documents or information would normally rest with the head of a separate Department.

  USA (Official Visit)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed, and what decisions taken, during his visit to the United States of America.

  The Prime Minister
  We discussed current international issues, and established a wide measure of agreement on points for joint United Kingdom-United States action. These included sending a joint British-American civil planning mission to Sarajevo; continuing support for the process of democratic and economic reform in Russia; steps to promote the process of democratic reform in South Africa; reaffirmation of United States support for the joint declaration on Northern Ireland; and support for Governor Patten's policies on Hong Kong.

  Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister who pays for the ceremonial dress worn from time to time by the Lords Lieutenant of England.

  The Prime Minister
  On appointment, Lords Lieutenant are offered a contribution from public funds towards the cost of the ceremonial uniform worn on their official engagements.
  804

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 February, column 579, if he will place in the Library a copy of the official inventory of items given to Prime Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  A variety of gifts are received from heads of government, heads of state and others. They are all handled in accordance with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". It is not considered appropriate to provide a list.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of the official gifts he has presented on the official visits abroad he has made since November 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 March 1994]: No. The customary practice is to give official gifts to heads of government, heads of state and small numbers of officials on the occasion of each visit to a country, but it is not considered appropriate to give details of these.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  St. Winwaloe's Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to celebrate St. Winwaloe's day.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Malaysia
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Prime Minister what offers of aid to Malaysia were discussed during his visit to Malaysia in September 1993; and what were the amounts involved for each potential project.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: There was no substantive discussion of aid offers during this visit.

  However, I attended the unveiling of a plaque at the Connaught Bridge power plant for which the Government had provided £23·485 million aid and trade provision support. I was also present at the signature of a document between the Kuala Lumpur international airport Berhad and the Anglo-Japanese airport consortium, on the role the consortium would play in the Kuala Lumpur airport project.

  St. David's Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to celebrate St. David's day.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 March 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales held a reception on the eve of St. David's Day, to mark the occasion.
  805

  Cabinet Meetings
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister where the handwritten records of the Cabinet Secretary of each Cabinet meeting are kept; and how far back such records go.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 March 1994]: The Cabinet Secretary's notebooks, which contain the handwritten records of each Cabinet meeting, have been preserved since 1947. They are retained in the Cabinet Office with the approval of the Lord Chancellor under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister what rules apply to the use of air miles credited to Ministers undertaking official journeys.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 March 1994]: I have recently made it clear that I do not believe that Ministers or officials travelling on Government business, necessarily paid for from public funds, should make private use of air miles which may arise as a result of that expenditure. There is no objection to re-applying the benefits of these schemes to travel on Government business.

EDUCATION

  Colleges of Further Education
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking, and what funding is being withheld from colleges of further education, to require them to change the contracts of existing staff; whether any targets for the percentage of existing staff moving to new contracts have been proposed by him; what additional finance is being made available to colleges to allow them to offer incentive packages to existing staff to take new contracts; what limits he has placed on the scale of these offers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The holdback of grant from the Further Education Funding Council relates to newly employed staff. It is for individual colleges to decide whether they wish to move existing staff onto new contracts and how rapidly they wish to do so. It is also for individual colleges to decide what incentives they will offer their staff, within the resources available to each college and within the framework of the Government's policy on public sector pay.

  Female School Leavers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give a ranking by county of the percentage of female school leavers leaving school with five or more GCSEs at grades A to C.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table gives details of the ranking by county of the percentage of female school leavers estimated to be leaving maintained schools in England in 1992 with five or more GCSEs at grades A to C. The latest year for which the information is available is 1991–92, when the school examinations survey was undertaken with a reduced sample of 3 per cent.
  806

  Female school leavers achieving 5 or more grades A-C at GCSE in English schools in 1991–92

  Per cent.

  Rank

  Avon

  46·1

  16

  Bedfordshire

  50·2

  12

  Berkshire

  38·3

  30

  Buckinghamshire

  53·1

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  41·5

  25

  Cheshire

  42·8

  21

  Cleveland

  32·3

  37

  Cornwall

  52·4

  9

  Cumbria

  38·4

  29

  Derbyshire

  38·8

  27

  Devon

  48·8

  15

  Dorset

  43·7

  19

  Durham

  45·5

  17

  East Sussex

  49·5

  13

  Essex

  49·2

  14

  Gloucestershire

  51·5

  11

  Hampshire

  52·0

  10

  Hereford and Worcester

  34·3

  35

  Hertfordshire

  54·1

  3

  Humberside

  34·4

  34

  Isle of Wight

  52·5

  8

  Kent

  43·7

  19

  Lancashire

  32·6

  36

  Leicestershire

  30·4

  38

  Lincolnshire

  35·2

  32

  Norfolk

  38·5

  28

  North Yorkshire

  42·2

  22

  Northamptonshire

  41·2

  26

  Northumberland

  53·0

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  35·0

  33

  Oxfordshire

  44·0

  18

  Shropshire

  42·1

  23

  Somerset

  53·3

  4

  Staffordshire

  41·6

  24

  Surrey

  63·6

  2

  Warwickshire

  68·4

  1

  West Sussex

  53·2

  5

  Wiltshire

  35·4

  31

  Source: School Examinations Survey 1991–92.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to amend the regulations for mandatory awards for those students in higher education, who were abducted from the United Kingdom as children, and who therefore would not qualify for an award under the current regulations because of their limited period of residence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to amend the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations in the way the hon. Member proposes. Normally, a student must have been ordinarily resident in the British Islands throughout the three years immediately preceding the start of the first year of his course to qualify for a mandatory award. Periods of temporary absence abroad do not breach a person's ordinary residence in the British Islands. Under the regulations, it is for an applicant's local education authority to decide whether the period during which he was abroad as a result of his abduction should be considered a temporary absence in deciding if he is eligible for a mandatory award. Where a student is not eligible for a mandatory award, the LEA has the power to make a discretionary award to him.
  807

  Malaysian Students
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many Malaysian students have entered the United Kingdom in each year since 1980 for the purpose of studying; and what financial support they directly, or the Malaysian Government on their behalf, received from the Government.

  Mr. Boswell
  The following table shows the number of Malaysian students enrolled as full-time and sandwich course students at universities, polytechnics, Scottish central institutions and all other colleges maintained or assisted by local authorities or grant-aided by Education Departments in the United Kingdom. Information on independent sector further and higher education institutions is not collected centrally.

  (000s)

  Year

  Number

  1980

  12·9

  1981

  9·0

  1982

  6·5

  1983

  5·5

  1984

  5·0

  1985

  6·3

  1986

  6·5

  1987

  6·8

  1988

  6·4

  1989

  7·5

  1990

  7·5

  1991

  7·9

  United Kingdom Government support for Malaysian students is shown in the following table; figures are not available prior to the 1984–85 financial year.

  £000s

  1984–85

  3,063

  1985–86

  2,947

  1986–87

  2,836

  1987–88

  3,158

  1988–89

  2,560

  1989–90

  2,797

  1990–91

  2,874

  1991–92

  2,913

  1992–93

  2,403

  School Governors
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what assessment he has made of the amount of paperwork sent to chairmen of governors of secondary schools;

  (2) what measures are being taken to reduce the level of documentation being sent to chairmen of governors of secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  We are aware of concerns expressed about the amount of paperwork sent to schools from my Department. We have responded to those concerns by regulating, since 1991, the flow of paper so that only essential documents, mainly those relating to statutory responsibilities, are sent automatically. I constantly invite suggestions from schools of paperwork which is redundant —with a view to reducing or eliminating it.
  808

  Crook Primary School
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will place in the Library the action plan from Crook primary school governors; and if he will also place in the Library the advice to him on that plan from(a) Durham county council and (b) Ofsted.

  Mr. Forth
  I have deposited a copy of the governors' action plan in the Library. As required by section 211 of the Education Act 1993 Durham local education authority has sent its commentary on the action plan to my right hon. Friend and Her Majesty's chief inspector for schools. It is for the LEA to decide whether to make copies more widely available. HMCI's advice to my right hon. Friend is given in confidence.

  Ministerial Instructions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the occasions since 1979 when Ministers have issued written instructions to override his Department's accounting officer's objections.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: The Secretary of State has not since 1979 issued any formal instructions to override the advice of his accounting officer.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give a full list of all non-ministerial Government Departments financed from public funds in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A list of non-ministerial Government Departments is contained in the list of ministerial responsibilities produced by the Cabinet Office. Copies of the latest LMR—June 1993—are available from the Vote Office. Since June 1993, three new non-ministerial Government Departments have been established—the Office of the National Lottery, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, and the Office of the Rail Regulator.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in operation in the United Kingdom each year since 1979;

  (2) if he will list all publicly funded advisory bodies in the United Kingdom;

  (3) what has been the total cost of non-departmental public bodies to the Exchequer in each year since 1979;

  (4) how many people are employed in non-departmental public bodies in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Such information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993", and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all non-ministerial Government Departments responsible for regulating the privatised utility services.
  809
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The following non-ministerial Government Departments are responsible for regulating the privatised utility services—the Office of Electricity Regulation, the Office of Gas Supply, the Office of Telecommunications, and the Office of Water Services.

  Bacteria
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what research the Government are funding or initiating into the dangers of bacterial strains becoming resistant to available antibiotics; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) what research the Government are funding or initiating into the possibility that antibiotic-resistant strains of enterococcus may pass on their immunity to other more deadly types of bacteria; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what research has been conducted into the antibacterial resistant traits of staphylococcus aureus.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Medical Research Council attaches importance to research into the mechanisms of pathogenicity and drug resistance in bacterial infections and supports a range of studies in this area which are relevant to understanding how antibiotic resistance develops. As part of its clinical research initiative in Nottingham, the council is building up support for several groups studying a range of bacterial infections. One group has a particular interest in problems related to staphylococcal infections. The MRC is also reviewing the literature relating to septic shock, especially in relation to possible studies of monoclonal antibody therapy. In addition, the Public Health Laboratory Service, a non-departmental public body, is undertaking surveillance programmes to monitor the incidence and effects of multiple antibiotic resistance to staphylococcus aureus and to enterococcus bacteria.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those answers to parliamentary questions since 1990 that have subsequently turned out to be incorrect.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Such information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which bodies will be covered by the multi-departmental scrutiny of public sector research establishments.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I announced the terms of reference for this efficiency scrutiny on 2 February. The bodies which will be covered are listed in the table. The team will make recommendations to Sir Peter Levene, the Prime Minister's efficiency adviser, by the end of April 1994. It is normal practice for efficiency unit reports to be published.

  Science and technology establishments included in the PSRE scrutiny

  Life sciences sector

  Topic area

  MAFF

  1.ADAS

  Plant/Animal/ Environment

  2. Central Veterinary Laboratory

  Animal

  810

  Life sciences sector

  Topic area

  3. Central Science Laboratory

  Plant/Animal/Environment

  4. Food Science Laboratory

  Food

  5. Torry Research Station

  Food

  6. Directorate of Fisheries Research

  Fish/Environment

  ODA

  7. Natural Resources Institute

  Plant

  Scottish Office

  8. Marine Laboratory/Fisheries Research Services

  Fish

  9. Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Plant

  SARI

  10. Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Plant

  11. Rowett Research Institute

  Food

  12. Hannah Research Institute

  Animal

  13. Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  Plant/Animal/Environment

  14. Moredun Research Institute

  Animal

  AFRC

  15. Institute for Animal Health

  Animal

  16. Institute for Food Research

  Food

  17. Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research

  Plant/Animal/Environment

  18. Institute of Arable Crops Research

  Plant

  19. Roslin Institute

  Animal

  20. Babraham Institute

  Animal

  21. Institute of Plant Science Research

  Plant

  MRC

  22. Radiobiology Unit

  Health

  23. Toxicology Unit

  Health

  24. Dunn Nutrition Unit

  Health

  25. Virology Unit

  Health

  26. Reproductive Biology Unit

  Health

  NERC

  27. Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology

  Environment

  28. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  Environment

  29. Institute of Fresh Water Ecology

  Environment

  30. Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory

  Environment

  31. Plymouth Marine Laboratory

  Environment

  Other public bodies

  32. Public Health Laboratory Service (DH)

  Health

  33. Horticultural Research International (MAFF)

  Plant

  34. National Institute of Agricultural Botany (MAFF)

  Plant

  35. National Radiological Protection Board (DH)

  Health

  36. National Institute for Biological Standards (DH)

  Health

  37. Forestry Commission Laboratories (Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)

  Plant

  Science and technology establishments included in the PSRE scrutiny

  Physical sciences sector

  Topic area

  DOE

  1. Building Research Establishment

  Engineering

  DOT

  2. Transport Research Laboratory

  Engineering

  Home Office

  3. Police Scientific Development Branch

  Engineering

  4. Forensic Science Service

  Forensic

  DTI

  5. National Engineering Laboratory

  Engineering

  6. National Physical Laboratory

  Analytical

  7. AEA Technology (and Warren Spring)

  Engineering

  8. Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Analytical

  9. National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Analytical

  811

  Physical sciences sector

  Topic area

  HSE

  10. Research and Laboratory Services Division

  Analytical

  AFRC

  11. Silsoe Research Institute

  Engineering

  NERC

  12. Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory

  Environment

  13. Institute of Hydrology

  Environment

  14. British Geological Survey

  Environment

  SERC

  15. Daresbury Laboratory

  Analytical

  16. Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

  Analytical

AGRICULTURE,FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give the details of the public appointments she is responsible for making in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies 1993", including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fish Passes and Screens
  Mrs. Golding
  to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give the(a) number and (b) location of (i) fish passes and (ii) screens.

  Mr. Jack
  The Minister and the State for Wales are required only in certain circumstances to approve the design of fish passes and gratings—screens—installed in England and Wales. Our records show that 212 fish passes and 10 gratings have received such approval or have been granted provisional approval. The location of each is as shown. No record is kept of those passes and gratings which do not require approval.

  Location of approved fish passes and gratings in England and Wales

  NRA region and river

  Location

  GRATINGS

  North West

  Leven

  Low Wood power station

  Southern

  Cuckmere

  Arlington reservoir

  South West

  Bole

  Longham pumping station

  Exe

  Exwick mills

  Exe

  Pynes water works

  Taw

  East Yelland power station

  Thames

  Thames

  Chertsey intake

  Welsh

  Wye

  Bwlch-Gwyn

  Wessex

  Avon

  Sluice at Chippenham

  Yorkshire

  Esk

  Ruswarp

  812

  NRA region and river

  Location

  PASSES

  Anglian

  Chad Brook

  Hall mill

  Stour

  Brandon hall

  Stour

  Brandon mill

  Stour

  Cornand weir

  Stour

  Flatford mill

  Stour

  Judas Gap weir

  Stour

  Lamara weir

  Northumbrian

  Coquet

  Moor ford

  Saltburn by the Sea

  Skelton Beck dam

  Tees

  Blue House point

  Tees

  Broken Scar

  Wansbeck

  Amenity weir

  Wear

  Harelow bridge

  Wear

  Harelow weir

  Wear

  Harelow dam

  North West

  Calder

  Oakenclough Garstang

  Calder

  Calder hall

  Caldew

  Cummersdale weir

  Caldew

  Hawksdale weir

  Caldew

  Holme head

  Derwent

  Fitz weir

  Derwent

  Yearl weir

  Duddon

  Duddon hall

  Duddon

  Ulpha

  Eamont

  Brougham mill

  Ehen

  Ennerdale lake

  Ellen

  Netherhall weir

  Kent

  Burneside mills

  Kent

  Bumeside weir

  Kent

  Cowen head weir

  Kent

  Staveley mill weir

  Kent

  Stramongate

  Leck

  Cowan bridge

  Lowther

  Askam

  Lune

  Broadraine weir

  Lune

  Lower Halton weir

  Lune

  Halton weir

  Lune

  Skerton weir

  Lune

  Upper Halton weir

  Marron

  Branthwaite weir

  Leven

  Low Wood, Haventhwaite

  Ribble

  Locks weir

  Ribble

  Settle weir

  Ribble

  West Bradford weir

  Wiza

  Wigton

  Severn Trent

  Severn

  Castle weir

  Severn

  Shrewsbury weir

  Tanat

  Carreghofa weir

  Trent

  Beeston weir

  Trent

  Cromwell weir

  South West

  Avon

  Bicton mill

  Avon

  Chippenham

  Avon

  Downton

  Avon

  Lower Twerton

  Axe

  Axminster bypass

  Axe

  Tower weir

  Axe

  Westford mill

  Axe

  Weycroft weir

  Axe

  Whitford bridge

  Barle

  Perry weir

  Barle

  Sticks weir

  Bray

  Clapworthy weir

  Bray

  Skentaway bridge, Muxworthy

  Camel

  Camelford weir

  Coly

  Coles weir

  Dart

  Totnes weir

  Dean Burn

  Buckfast Leigh

  813

  NRA region and river

  Location

  Exe

  Boleham weir

  Exe

  Bridgetown weir

  Exe

  Pynes weir

  Exe

  Rushford and Witney Brooks

  Exe

  Thorverton weir

  Exe

  Thorverton weir

  Exe

  Trew's weir

  Kensey

  Ridgegrove weir

  Mole

  Head weir

  Okement

  Monkokehampton weir

  Otter

  Honiton flood alleviation

  Quarme

  Enterwell

  Rushy Ford

  Rushy Ford and Witney Brook

  Stannon

  Allenford

  Swincombe

  Swincombe intake works

  Tamar

  Gunnislake weir

  Tavy

  Abbey weir

  Tavy

  Denham bridge

  Tavy

  Evans weir

  Tavy

  Lopwell dam

  Taw

  Colleton weir

  Taw

  Eggesford weir

  Taw

  Meahay Dunsford

  Tone

  Firepool weir

  Tone

  French weir

  Tone

  Ham weir

  Tone

  Newbridge

  Torridge

  Torrington weir

  Southern

  Bull

  Leabridge farm

  Cuckmere

  Milton lock

  Great Stour

  Abbots mill

  Itchen

  Gaters mill

  Itchen

  Woodmill pool

  Itchen

  Woodmill

  Itchen

  Allbrook lock

  Little Test

  Drawing room pool

  Medway

  Eldridges sluice

  Meon

  Longwater bridge, Fontley

  Meon

  Titchfield mill

  Meon

  Wickham mill

  North

  Newhurst lane

  Ouse

  Fletching mill

  Ouse

  Goldbridge weir

  Ouse

  Pools bay

  Rother

  Coltershore bridge

  Rother

  Goldbridge weir

  Rother

  Hardman weir

  Rother

  Hardman

  Rother

  Moorland farm

  Stour

  Deans (Hookers) mill

  Test

  Abbey mill

  Test

  Nursling mill and Testwood mill

  Test

  Testwood mill

  Uck

  Uckneld mill

  Thames

  Charwell

  Banbury town

  Thames

  Cookham weir

  Thames

  Molesey weir

  Thames

  Molesey upper weir

  Welsh

  Afon Syfynwy

  Llys-y-Fran

  Bowy

  Blynpurffaith

  Brynbonian

  Llethrmadynt Rhyd-y-Bed

  Brynbonian

  Pont Brynbonian weirs

  Ceiriog

  Brynkinalt

  Ceiriog

  Clynceirlog weir

  Cleddau

  Haverfordwest

  Cledlyn

  Maes-y-Felin weir

  Clwyd

  Bala lake

  Clwyd

  Bala lake

  Clwyd

  Bala lake scheme

  Clwyd

  Nant Clwyd hill

  Clwyd

  Ruthin weir

  Clwyd

  Ruthin weir

  814

  NRA region and river

  Location

  Conwy

  Conwy falls

  Dee

  Chester weir

  Dee and Clwyd

  Tryweryn weir

  Dulais

  Talyfan

  Eastern Cleddau

  Canaston bridge

  Eastern Cleddau

  Canaston intake

  Eastern Cleddau

  Vickers mill weir

  Eddw

  Franksbridge

  Elwy

  Bont Newydd weir

  Elwy

  Nont Newydd

  Glandy

  Glandy Joint ford

  Grannel

  Penbry dam

  Gwendraeth Fach

  Old Forge weir

  Gwyrfou

  Llyn Cwellyn

  Honddu

  Castle weir

  Istrad

  Brookhouse weir

  Leri

  Talybont

  Leri

  Leri weir

  Llethi

  Llanarath bridge

  Nant Crymlyn

  Corneldu Mawr Farm

  Reidol

  Reidol falls weir

  Shedi

  Derw mills

  Solva

  Whitechurch

  Syfynwy

  Llys-Fran

  Taff

  Black weir

  Taff

  Radyr weir

  Tarvelan

  Johnstown

  Tawe

  Swanage barrage

  Tawe

  Panteg weir

  Tawe

  Tawe barrage

  Tolog

  Tolog weir

  Tryweryn

  Bala weir

  Twrch

  Penarth bridge

  Usk

  Berthin brook

  Usk

  Pentrefelin weir

  Usk

  Pentrefelin weirs

  Westfield Pill

  Neyland

  Yseir Fawr Brook

  Upper weir

  Wessex

  Avill

  Hurlypool weir

  Avill

  Loxhole bridge

  Avon

  Avon mill

  Avon

  Bickton mill

  Avon

  Bickton top weir

  Avon

  Downton

  Avon

  Great weir, Knapp mill

  Avon

  Keynsham weir

  Avon

  Keynsham weir

  Avon

  Knapp mill

  Avon

  Knapp mill works extension

  Avon

  Lower Tiverton

  Avon

  Melksham Townbridge

  Avon

  Old mill, Harnham

  Avon

  Ringwood

  Avon

  Salisbury generating station

  Avon

  Standlynch mill

  Avon

  Standlynch weir

  Avon

  Wild weir

  Chew

  Chewton place

  Chew

  Keysham park weir

  Dart

  Staverton weir

  Exe

  Exeford

  Frome

  Bindon mill

  Frome

  Welsh mill

  Nadder

  Harnham mill

  Stour

  Throop mill weir

  Tone

  Longaller weir

  Washford

  Upstream and downstream

  Wylye

  Chilhampton

  Yorkshire

  Derwent

  Kirkham abbey weir

  Don

  Thrybergh weir

  Esk

  Ruswarp weir

  Ouse

  Linton weir

  Ure

  Boroughbridge

  815

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the revised scheme for the reorganisation of the Milk Marketing Board will be sent out for consultation.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales hope to issue a consultation document on the amended reorganisation scheme shortly.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the contracts presently held for disposal of bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected carcases.

  Total number of cases by month confirmed and county—1993

  County/month year

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Avon

  82

  63

  65

  55

  59

  53

  38

  37

  31

  57

  58

  37

  635

  Bedfordshire

  11

  8

  13

  7

  4

  11

  8

  6

  6

  2

  9

  13

  98

  Berkshire

  21

  14

  14

  8

  18

  9

  8

  13

  13

  15

  17

  7

  157

  Borders

  15

  20

  15

  11

  15

  15

  5

  9

  10

  10

  13

  16

  154

  Buckinghamshire

  46

  37

  30

  23

  33

  21

  19

  27

  19

  23

  34

  21

  333

  Cambridge

  14

  15

  13

  7

  12

  16

  11

  7

  6

  9

  12

  8

  130

  Central

  3

  9

  10

  1

  5

  2

  11

  5

  3

  4

  9

  5

  67

  Cheshire

  166

  172

  136

  122

  115

  142

  98

  125

  100

  109

  166

  106

  1,557

  Cleveland

  6

  8

  7

  4

  4

  5

  0

  9

  2

  5

  3

  5

  58

  Clwyd

  48

  67

  54

  53

  39

  67

  51

  50

  48

  54

  49

  44

  624

  Cornwall

  145

  318

  222

  209

  129

  205

  156

  79

  151

  218

  135

  157

  2,124

  Cumbria

  149

  134

  117

  150

  88

  94

  79

  83

  104

  90

  145

  95

  1,328

  Derbyshire

  96

  84

  130

  75

  54

  103

  47

  64

  79

  63

  96

  50

  941

  Devon

  285

  330

  250

  242

  209

  218

  214

  281

  232

  208

  253

  190

  2,912

  Dorset

  180

  181

  162

  203

  107

  181

  110

  163

  124

  131

  178

  102

  1,822

  Dumfries

  72

  58

  68

  45

  66

  66

  36

  56

  22

  68

  68

  46

  671

  Durham

  23

  16

  14

  12

  13

  14

  3

  12

  12

  20

  16

  16

  171

  Dyfed

  190

  229

  179

  157

  151

  149

  136

  119

  133

  130

  194

  136

  1,903

  Essex

  20

  14

  21

  13

  19

  18

  14

  18

  11

  15

  22

  14

  199

  Fife

  13

  8

  7

  8

  10

  6

  3

  9

  10

  8

  9

  14

  105

  Glamorgan Mid

  5

  4

  5

  5

  3

  4

  4

  1

  4

  1

  10

  5

  51

  Glamorgan South

  8

  16

  11

  5

  9

  7

  7

  8

  9

  9

  10

  7

  106

  Glamorgan West

  6

  2

  1

  0

  6

  3

  3

  0

  2

  6

  4

  3

  36

  Gloucestershire

  95

  57

  82

  52

  50

  40

  31

  47

  41

  60

  63

  34

  652

  Grampian

  35

  43

  29

  36

  26

  34

  29

  21

  27

  36

  47

  33

  396

  Gwent

  27

  37

  31

  19

  25

  11

  16

  22

  13

  13

  23

  18

  255

  Gwynedd

  17

  20

  19

  11

  14

  12

  9

  12

  16

  17

  17

  22

  186

  Hampshire

  91

  39

  106

  51

  81

  63

  51

  49

  67

  40

  72

  29

  739

  Hereford & Worcester

  54

  77

  52

  55

  61

  38

  35

  50

  58

  50

  70

  46

  646

  Hertfordshire

  17

  9

  12

  6

  19

  22

  4

  15

  8

  14

  16

  14

  156

  Highland

  12

  7

  7

  5

  4

  9

  4

  11

  4

  6

  9

  11

  89

  Humberside

  31

  19

  19

  15

  20

  16

  12

  22

  17

  16

  13

  14

  214

  Isle of Wight

  14

  8

  24

  14

  13

  18

  3

  5

  8

  11

  13

  6

  137

  Kent

  64

  17

  34

  25

  63

  52

  23

  30

  48

  25

  35

  39

  455

  Lancashire

  158

  105

  130

  173

  103

  125

  78

  89

  104

  95

  120

  75

  1,355

  Leicestershire

  88

  38

  67

  59

  37

  68

  51

  39

  61

  38

  78

  40

  664

  Lincolnshire

  27

  5

  24

  13

  23

  31

  11

  16

  14

  34

  25

  29

  252

  London

  2

  1

  8

  3

  3

  4

  0

  4

  1

  3

  1

  4

  34

  Lothian

  8

  8

  5

  6

  3

  8

  3

  4

  3

  9

  3

  8

  68

  Manchester

  9

  3

  12

  8

  12

  12

  6

  4

  4

  8

  11

  5

  94

  Merseyside

  2

  1

  4

  5

  0

  1

  1

  1

  5

  0

  4

  1

  25

  Norfolk

  106

  25

  80

  29

  95

  107

  80

  111

  76

  64

  105

  88

  966

  Northamptonshire

  43

  15

  30

  17

  35

  23

  15

  20

  22

  19

  23

  20

  282

  Northumberland

  38

  18

  32

  13

  22

  20

  13

  23

  14

  33

  19

  35

  280

  Nottinghamshire

  19

  18

  26

  21

  27

  19

  13

  16

  19

  9

  19

  6

  212

  Orkney

  2

  4

  5

  3

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  5

  3

  3

  33

  Oxford

  66

  39

  44

  44

  33

  39

  21

  49

  20

  24

  46

  29

  454

  Powys

  56

  59

  46

  49

  33

  47

  45

  48

  56

  36

  66

  53

  594

  Shropshire

  98

  98

  80

  68

  74

  90

  59

  79

  61

  71

  101

  67

  946

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  287

  268

  270

  220

  110

  316

  163

  167

  216

  175

  227

  116

  2,535

  Staffordshire

  78

  113

  97

  67

  72

  118

  70

  96

  92

  66

  74

  49

  992

  Strathclyde

  59

  66

  47

  29

  47

  50

  19

  32

  26

  60

  61

  44

  540

  Suffolk

  56

  22

  33

  35

  48

  54

  22

  44

  28

  32

  47

  43

  464

  Surrey

  36

  11

  32

  17

  40

  24

  16

  13

  17

  16

  26

  21

  269

  Sussex East

  50

  19

  36

  26

  48

  49

  13

  26

  22

  24

  50

  31

  394

  Sussex West

  97

  36

  62

  51

  80

  66

  42

  58

  50

  40

  58

  62

  702

  Tayside

  19

  13

  11

  12

  13

  4

  12

  10

  10

  17

  11

  12

  144

  Tyne and Wear

  3

  3

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  16

  West Midlands

  3

  1

  4

  5

  3

  1

  1

  3

  2

  0

  7

  5

  35

  Warwickshire

  34

  27

  43

  27

  34

  29

  22

  35

  27

  30

  35

  27

  370

  Wiltshire

  168

  163

  166

  108

  123

  127

  79

  93

  97

  85

  145

  81

  1,435

  816
  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry presently holds nine contracts for the incineration and 65 contracts for the transportation of carcases of cattle suspected of being affected by BSE, with companies throughout Great Britain. Specific information relating to these contracts is classified as commercial-in-confidence.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of cases of BSE by county for each month from January to December 1993.

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of cases of BSE in Great Britain listed by month of confirmation and county from January to December 1993 inclusive, are as follows:
  817

  County/month year

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Yorkshire North

  181

  151

  164

  97

  160

  130

  106

  157

  97

  143

  93

  141

  1,620

  Yorkshire South

  14

  16

  24

  8

  9

  7

  12

  13

  12

  15

  5

  10

  145

  Yorkshire West

  29

  26

  20

  13

  21

  16

  17

  23

  12

  25

  18

  23

  243

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many producers failed to submit applications for hill livestock compensatory allowances by the deadline of 20 February.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 March 1994): We cannot say definitely how many producers failed to submit claims for HLCAs by the due date of 20 February. In 1993 we received some 14,151 claims in England; by 20 February this year we had received 13,066. Those producers who have not claimed by 20 February will still be eligible to receive payments if claims are received by 12 March, but under EC rules they will lose 1 per cent. of the payment due for each working day by which their claim is late. A reminder to producers and others on this was given in MAFF news release 61/94. Claims received after 12 March cannot be accepted.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the powers of the Child Support Agency in relation to deductions from an individual's salary.

  Mr. Burt
  Under section 31(2) of the Child Support Act 1991, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the power to impose a deduction from earnings order against a liable person to secure payment of the amount due under a maintenance assessment, and any arrears which may have accrued, where other methods of collection have been unsuccessful, or where the liable person specifically requests it. The decision to impose such an order will be taken in the light of the individual circumstances of each case.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether an employee must be informed before any deduction from salary is made to the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  An absent parent will always be notified that a deduction from earnings order will come into effect before any money is deducted from his earnings.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many parents with care are presently owed arrears from the Child Support Agency because sums collected from absent parents in receipt of income support have not been paid over by the Benefits Agency;

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to set up arrangements between the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency for the transfer of benefit deducted from absent parents as a contribution in lieu of child support to be paid to parents with care who are not in receipt of income support;
  818
  (3) how much money, deducted by the Benefits Agency from income support payable to absent parents, is waiting for transfer to the Child Support Agency to paid to parents with care.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) by Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of Child Support Agency on 23 February 1994 at columns 366–67.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will break down by area CSAC the cumulative summary of the Child Support Agency performance from 5 April 1993 to 31 December 1993 which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is the responsibility of its chief executive, ROS Hepplewhite. She will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 2 March 1994:

  I am writing to you subsequent to the Ministerial reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking for a breakdown by Child Support Agency Centre of the cumulative summary of Child Support Agency performance which has been laid in the Library of the House.

  The information you requested, broken down by CSAC and covering the period 5 April 1993 to 31 December 1993 is attached. As a result of ongoing validation some totals differ from those previously provided, although the differences are not significant. All figures should therefore continue to be regarded as provisional and may be subject to further amendment.

  I hope you find the information helpful.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis the figures for amounts of money recovered by the Child Support Agency are calculated.

  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 from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Mike Hall, dated 3 March 1994.

  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking on what basis the figures for amounts of money recovered by the Agency are calculated.

  Where the parent with care is receiving Income Support, a saving is recorded if action taken to arrange maintenance results in benefit reducing or ceasing. If the maintenance arranged is collected by the Agency, the figure for the amount recovered is obtained from the receipts into the Agency's bank account.

  If the maintenance arranged is instead paid directly from the absent parent to the parent with care, a total of the amount by which benefit reduces is kept clerically. Records are similarly kept of voluntary and court-ordered maintenance payments made directly to parents with care which reduce Income Support entitlement.

  Where the absent parent is in receipt of Income Support, a nominal maintenance contribution of £2·20 may be deducted from his or her benefit. Totals of these maintenance deductions are periodically reported to the CSA by the Benefits Agency.

  Where the involvement of the Agency results in benefit ceasing, because the maintenance arranged exceeds benefit entitlement or for some other reasons, a saving is calculated by

  819
  multiplying the weekly amount of benefit previously in payment by the estimated number of weeks for which the claim would have continued, in the absence of CSA involvement.

  Where the parent with care is receiving Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance savings are determined by information from periodic scans of the relevant computer data-base. If the involvement of the Agency results in benefit ceasing, savings are estimated retrospectively, by analysis of a sample of cases.

  I hope this reply is useful.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received from people in Coventry concerning the Child Support Agency being given access to personal information when approaching employers;

  (2) what representations he has received from employers concerning their duty to supply information to the Child Support Agency.

  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 from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Robert Ainsworth, dated 2 March 1994:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about representations received from the people of Coventry concerning the Child Support Agency gaining access to personal information from employers; and representations from employers on the same subject.

  There are no recorded representations from people living in Coventry concerning the Agency being given access to personal information.

  Although records are not kept of individual occurrences, we are aware that one employer has contacted the Agency concerning the duty to provide information on employees. In this case, the employer was made aware of the relevant legislation, and to date, nothing further has been heard.

  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what resources are devoted to the prevention of fraud by the Child Support Agency.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Paul Channon, dated 2 March 1994:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the resources that the Child Support Agency devotes to the prevention of fraud.

  As the Agency acts as intermediary between two parties in the arrangement of child maintenance, it has no discrete resources devoted to the prevention of fraud. Where Social Security benefits are in payment, however, and a potential fraud against the benefits system comes to light, relevant information is passed to the Benefits Agency or Employment Services to investigate.

  If an allegation of misrepresentation is made which does not involve the incorrect payment of a Social Security benefit, then the child support officer will consider whether there is sufficient evidence to review the maintenance assessment.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions he has given to the Child Support Agency as to their conduct when seeking information from an individual's employer.

  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.
  820
  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Robert Ainsworth, dated 2 March 1994:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning the instructions given to the Child Support Agency's staff when contacting employers.

  The Child Support Manual stresses the need for care and the avoidance of disclosure of confidential information when contacting employers. Normally employers are contacted only where clients are unable to provide sufficient information or verification of their income for child maintenance to be assessed. Exceptionally, an employer may be approached where all other attempts to contact a client has failed.

  A copy of the Child Support Manual is available in the Library.

  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Mr. W. J. Potts of Chelmsford (CSA Reference: 6455 WAL 1004029951) can expect a reply to his letter of 1 November 1993 to the Child Support Agency requesting a reassessment of his child maintenance assessment.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 2 March 1994:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about correspondence between your constituent Mr. W. J. Potts, and the Child Support Agency.

  I am afraid that the Agency has no record of a letter from Mr. Potts dated 1 November 1993, although correspondence was received from him dated 21 November 1993, which requested a reassessment of his maintenance. This review has now been carried out, and Mr. Potts was notified of its outcome on 25 February. Please accept my apologies for the delay.

  I understand that you contacted the Customer Services manager at the Belfast Agency Centre on 25 February about Mr. Potts' case, and that he replied to you by letter the same day.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people living in(a) each of the counties, (b) each local authority and (c) each parliamentary constituency in Yorkshire and Humberside were dependent on (i) supplementary benefit in 1979 and (ii) income support in the latest year for which data are available.

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

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families with children in(a) each of the counties, (b) each local authority and (c) each parliamentary constituency in Yorkshire and Humberside were dependent on (i) supplementary benefit in 1979 and (ii) income support or family credit in the latest year for which data are available.

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

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in(a) each of the counties, (b)

  821
  each local authority and (c) each parliamentary constituency in Yorkshire and Humberside were living in families which were dependent on (i) supplementary benefit in 1979 and (ii) on income support or family credit in the latest year for which data are available.

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

  Graham Case
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he is giving to those women inquiring about the interim arrangement pending the determination of the Graham case by the European Court of Justice.

  Mr. Scott
  Women are informed if they are entitled to an increase in invalidity benefit as a result of the Social Security Commissioner's decision in this case. Where payment of the increase is suspended they are also advised that the suspended benefit will be paid in full if the commissioner's decision is upheld; and that if they have difficulty managing in the meantime they should contact their local Benefits Agency office, so that the decision to suspend can be reconsidered.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the date when the European Court of Justice will begin its hearing of the Graham case in respect of invalidity benefit; and when a decision is likely to be announced.

  Mr. Scott
  The Court of Appeal decided on 18 January to refer the Graham case to the European Court of Justice. The European Court's procedure necessitates inviting all other member states to submit observations on the point at issue should they wish to do so. It normally takes about 18 months following a reference before judgment is handed down.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days per year the chief executive of the Prison Service agency spends on his other business interests.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the terms of his appointment the Director-General of the Prison Service is permitted to spend a maximum of one and a half days a month in normal working hours as a non-executive director of other organisations.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the actual and average amounts of child maintenance paid by absent parents through court orders in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested is not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Violence
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to help reduce racial violence; and if he will make a statement.
  822
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 25 November 1993 at column 167–69 for details of the steps taken by the Government to combat racial violence.

  Since then, we have reconvened the interdepartmental racial attacks group, chaired by the Home Office, as a forum for gathering information and sharing good practice on the multi-agency approach to combating racially motivated crime. The group had its first meeting on 25 February and is now developing a work programme of specific projects aimed at addressing the problem of racial attacks and harassment.

  In January I gave oral evidence to the Home Affairs Committee for its current inquiry into racial attacks and harassment. The Committee's report is due to be published in April, and future Government action will be informed by the Committee's recommendations.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the annual budget over the last three years of the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Commission for Racial Equality's budget over the last three years was as follows:

  £

  1991–92

  14,075,000

  1992–93

  14,996,000

  1993–94

  15,051,000

  Parole
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the statutory basis for the ineligibility for parole of those serving sentence for murder who have never admitted their guilt;

  (2) how many prisoners, serving sentences for murder, are ineligible for parole at all times having never admitted their guilt.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Prisoners serving the mandatory life sentence for murder are released on life licence, not parole. There is no statutory basis, rule or policy which automatically prevents a prisoner who denies guilt from being released from custody although a prisoner's willingness and ability to tackle their offending behaviour is an important element in the difficult process of assessing potential future risk. However, mandatory life sentence prisoners who deny their guilt can be, and have been, released on life licence if the parole board so recommends and the Secretary of State accepts the recommendation.

  Mounted Police
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police forces in England and Wales have mounted police units; and what information he has on the average cost per mounted police unit;

  (2) what consultations he has had in relation to the value for money of mounted police units; what is the most recent report from the chief inspector of constabulary on the criteria for established mounted police units; and if he will make a statement.
  823
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Eighteen police forces in England and Wales have mounted police units. These vary in size from the Metropolitan police, with 201 horses, to the Essex police, with four horses. The average size of a mounted unit is 26 horses with 34 police officers and civilian staff. The total cost of such a unit is estimated at £820,900 for the current financial year.

  I have not had any recent consultations in relation to the value of money of mounted police units. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary identifies and gives advice on good practice in the course of inspections of mounted units but there has been, as yet, no specific study of value for money or the criteria for establishing mounted units. However, the Metropolitan police is currently carrying out an efficiency scrutiny of its mounted unit.

  Taylforth Libel Case
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 19, what investigation has been made into police involvement in the release of the story which led to the recent Taylforth libel case, before the reporter from The Sun telephoned the Metropolitan police press bureau; what action will be taken against officers found to have released such items to the press if discovered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  An investigation was carried out in 1992 by the Metropolitan police, in accordance with the procedures for handling police complaints contained in part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. A report was submitted to the Police Complaints Authority which concluded that the allegation of improper disclosure of information by police officers could not be substantiated. No officer has therefore faced any disciplinary proceedings in relation to the case.

  Wheelclamping
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to make the maximum sum which can be charged by private wheelclampers the same as the fixed charge of the Metropolitan police for wheelclamping.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are still considering what action, if any, it would be appropriate to take in respect of wheelclamping on private land. Questions relating to charges for the release of clamped vehicles form part of this consideration.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which members of senior Prison Service personnel working in the Prison Service agency received bonus payments in 1992; and what were the amounts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None, though members of the senior open structure were eligible to receive performance pay increases in accordance with the arrangements for the civil service generally. The amounts of such pay increases are personal to the individuals concerned and are not published.
  824

  Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made to the extent to which reducing the use of custodial sentences contributes to a reduction in the levels of crime.

  Mr. Maclean
  Levels of crime are affected by a wide range of factors. It is possible to make some estimate of the effect of the use of custodial sentences in terms of the incapacitation of offenders. But it is not possible to make any meaningful assessment of the overall effect of custodial sentencing on crime levels because of uncertainties surrounding the effects of other factors.

  Political Parties (Election Spending)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce a limit on the overall spending by political parties on election campaigns; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to do so.

  UK Gold Television
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work the consultant, UK Gold Television, is doing on behalf of the Prison Service agency; how many companies were involved in tendering for the work; and how much UK Gold is being paid.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No consultant from UK Gold Television is doin work on behalf of the Prison Service.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firemen have been injured in Wales in the line of duty in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Numbers of firefighters killed or seriously injured in Wales in the line of duty in each year since 1980 are shown in the following table. Serious injuries are defined as those which result in absence of duty for at least one month.

  Serious injuries

  Fatalities

  1980

  37

  —

  1981

  50

  —

  1982

  42

  —

  1983

  26

  —

  1984

  21

  —

  1985

  76

  —

  1986

  51

  —

  1987

  34

  1

  1988

  50

  —

  1989

  36

  —

  1990

  59

  1

  1991

  42

  1

  1992

  50

  —

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he proposes to ensure that the fire services in the counties of Wales will retain their professionalism in the proposed reorganised local government units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On the date of reorganisation of local government in Wales, my right hon. and learned
  825
  Friend proposes to establish three combined fire authorities with responsibility for providing fire services in Wales. We believe that this will improve the strategic capability of fire services in Wales, and ensure that they continue to operate effectively and efficiently. Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services will continue to report to me on the manner in which fire authorities in Wales are performing their statutory duties under the Fire Services Act 1947. I am confident that the new brigades, and the officers serving in them, will maintain and continue to develop the high level of professionalism with which fire services in Wales are provided.

  Directorate of Telecommunications
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many firms were invited to tender in the proposed sale of DTELS; how many bids were received; how many bids were still active when the Government made their decision about the preferred bidder; between which firms the final sales decision was made; what was the sale price; and what degree of debt write-off, deferred payment or preferential agreement was involved in the sale of DTELS;

  (2) what are the public interest considerations which relate to the sale of DTELS to NTL;

  (3) what contractual obligations were written into the sale of DTELS in respect of price stability in the telecommunications contracts for Britain's emergency services.

  Mr. Howard
  The privatisation of DTELS was advertised twice in the Financial Times and copies of the information memorandum inviting indicative bids were issued to some 40 organisations. Seven bids were received by 22 October which were short-listed to three for submission of final bids by 17 December. Two final bids were taken forward from National Transcommunications Ltd. and from Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers Ltd. The latter also offered the option of a joint bid with Serco Ltd.

  The sale of DTELS was completed on 1 March. Full consideration of £6·6 million has been received in lump sum payment. In accordance with normal commercial practice, certain limited sums may become payable by the Department to the purchaser as a result of claims under the terms of the sale contract.

  Brigade casualties, England and Wales 1988–92

  Fatal1

  Non-fatal casualties

  Fire-related

  Non fire-related

  Year

  Fire related

  Non fire-related

  Total

  Of which: serious injuries2

  serious injuries2

  1988

  0

  0

  1,158

  298

  430

  1989

  1

  1

  1,462

  325

  394

  1990

  2

  4

  1,287

  317

  413

  1991

  2

  2

  1,020

  302

  620

  1992

  2

  1

  1,079

  264

  597

  1 Includes road traffic accidents.

  2 Resulting in absence of duty for at least one month.

  Information on the number of injuries to police officers is not held centrally. The number of police officers
  826
  The objectives of the sale were to:

  maximise sale proceeds consistent with preserving the best prospects for effective competition in the market for telecommunications support services for the emergency services;

  obtain reassurances that the purchaser should have the capacity to meet transferred liabilities and obligations.

  I am satisfied that sale to NTL meets those objectives.

  The stability of contract prices for telecommunications support to the emergency services is determined by the market and by the nature of the agreements with the emergency services entered into. There is competition for these contracts.

  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the sale of DTELS, formerly the Directorate of Telecommunications.

  Mr. Howard
  DTELS has been sold to National Transcommunications Ltd.—NTL. The sale was successfully completed on 1 March for a consideration of £6·6 million, subject to post-completion audit.

  The objectives of the sale, which were announced on 14 July 1993 at column 495 were:
  to maximise sale proceeds consistent with preserving the best prospects for effective competition in the market for telecommunication support services for the emergency services;
  to obtain reassurance that the purchaser should have the capacity to meet transferred liabilities and obligations.
  I am satisfied that these objectives have been met.

  I am confident that DTELS in NTL ownership and with increased commercial opportunities can continue to compete vigorously for telecommunications business i n support of the emergency services. This healthy competition will help ensure that the emergency services will get best value for their expenditure.

  Police and Fire Services
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years how many (i) firemen and (ii) police officers in each region have been injured in the line of duty.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Fire brigade casualties for England and Wales for the years 1988–92 are shown in the following table. The cost of extracting the data for each brigade area would be disproportionate.

  assaulted on duty in England and Wales since 1989 is shown in the following table. Figures for 1993 are not yet available.
  827

  Total Police Officers assaulted

  Forces

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Avon and Somerset

  543

  437

  522

  485

  Bedfordshire

  155

  241

  195

  152

  Cambridge

  175

  176

  115

  116

  Cheshire

  341

  651

  644

  715

  City of London

  34

  27

  26

  12

  Cleveland

  274

  304

  241

  183

  Cumbria

  136

  130

  154

  130

  Derbyshire

  330

  359

  370

  317

  Devon and Cornwall

  304

  416

  490

  311

  Dorset

  133

  158

  141

  138

  Durham

  274

  256

  233

  227

  Dyfed-Powys

  84

  112

  95

  76

  Essex

  141

  193

  190

  209

  Gloucestershire

  210

  189

  120

  145

  Greater Manchester

  1,067

  1,216

  1,126

  1,009

  Gwent

  65

  413

  347

  289

  Hampshire

  406

  343

  374

  388

  Hertfordshire

  246

  181

  180

  133

  Humberside

  560

  318

  282

  217

  Kent

  320

  192

  225

  207

  Lancashire

  285

  397

  439

  436

  Leicestershire

  259

  189

  179

  150

  Lincolnshire

  176

  145

  126

  106

  Merseyside

  668

  247

  231

  1,039

  Norfolk

  240

  235

  206

  223

  North Wales

  240

  193

  92

  132

  North Yorkshire

  126

  146

  149

  140

  Northamptonshire

  163

  208

  169

  136

  Northumbria

  461

  677

  872

  432

  Nottinghamshire

  207

  354

  431

  366

  South Wales

  759

  793

  688

  583

  South Yorkshire

  334

  308

  180

  197

  Staffordshire

  474

  515

  420

  401

  Suffolk

  151

  167

  186

  132

  Surrey

  145

  198

  238

  239

  Sussex

  330

  356

  348

  310

  Thames Valley

  434

  427

  380

  374

  Warwickshire

  75

  88

  82

  129

  West Mercia

  303

  286

  277

  241

  West Midlands

  1,224

  1,034

  1,347

  1,645

  West Yorkshire

  713

  650

  682

  739

  Wiltshire

  166

  261

  195

  194

  Provincial Total

  13,731

  14,186

  13,987

  13,803

  Metropolitan Police

  3—

  12,647

  3,960

  3,413

  England and Wales Total

  413,731

  16,833

  17,947

  217,216

  1 Excludes other assaults.

  2Revised figure from that previously published.

  Figures not available.

  4 Figures excludes Metropolitan Police.

  Mr. Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he removed Mr. Lorrain Osman from Brixton prison on 12 December 1992 and placed him on a flight to Hong Kong without any notice to, and entirely without the knowledge of, his legal advisers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  After protracted legal proceedings in this country lasting for seven years, Mr. Osman was extradited to Hong Kong on 15 December 1992—not 12 December —to face serious charges, to certain of which he subsequently pleaded guilty. He was returned to Hong Kong on the day on which the House of Lords finally dismissed his ninth application for habeas corpus, at which time there were no further proceedings outstanding. Throughout the proceedings, Mr. Osman's legal representatives were kept well aware of the Secretary of State's intention to surrender him as soon as there was no longer
  828
  any legal impediment to his removal. They were notified by the House of Lords as soon as his final petition was refused; and they would have been aware that, with no further legal bar to surrender, steps would immediately be taken to return him to Hong Kong.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in considering whether to order the extradition of Mr. Lorrain Osman to Hong Kong on 15 June 1992, refused the request of Mr. Osman's legal advisers that he should personally inspect documents which had been the subject of claims by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for non-disclosure on public interest immunity grounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Disclosure of the documents which were subject to public interest immunity certificates was sought by Mr. Osman in various habeas corpus applications. The High Court did not accept that they were relevant to the
  829
  arguments which he was seeking to advance. The Secretary of State therefore saw no reason to inspect the documents himself before issuing his surrender warrant. His decision to order surrender was upheld by the High Court in subsequent judicial review proceedings initiated by Mr. Osman.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Secretary of State for the Home Department cancelled the appointment which he had made with a cross-party delegation of hon. Members who wished to make representations to him on 15 June 1992 against extraditing Mr. Lorrain Osman; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 10 June 1992, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruchcliffe (Mr. Clarke) agreed to see a number of hon. Members on 16 June 1992 about Mr. Osman's case, which was then pending before the House of Lords. The hon. Members gave no indication that they were then acting on behalf of Mr. Osman; and his solicitors had stated that, apart from a covering letter from Mr. Osman, the representations submitted by them on 12 June 1992 were complete. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State saw no reason to delay making an order for return and he signed a surrender warrant on 15 June 1992. Mr. Osman's solicitors had indicated that if a surrender warrant was signed they would seek a judicial review of the decision. The meeting with the hon. Members was cancelled because the Secretary of State considered that in the circumstances then obtaining, it would serve no useful purpose.

  Safer Cities Programmes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new safer cities programmes were funded each year since 1991.

  Number of persons convicted of drug offences in the West Midlands police force area and Coventry petty sessional division by age group 1991 and 1992

  Age group and year

  West Midlands PFA

  Coventry PSD1

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Under 21

  1991

  235

  25

  66

  35

  1992

  145

  20

  29

  23

  All ages

  1991

  950

  100

  191

  100

  1992

  732

  100

  126

  100

  1 Including offenders convicted at the Crown Court who were committed by Coventry PSD.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his letter dated 25 January, concerning the application of Mr. Marendra Kumar Patel (Ref. P380877/2 (S). PO 31329/93) to Her Majesty's post in Bombay to join his wife in the United Kingdom, when Mr. Patel's wife in the United Kingdom is to be interviewed; and if he will arrange for her to be interviewed close to her home in Bradford.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Mrs. Patel will be invited for interview in March. The interview will be conducted by the immigration office at Leeds Bradford airport.
  830
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Four new safer cities projects were set up in 1991, and a further 10—which were announced in December 1993—are currently being established. Announcements on further projects are planned for 1994–95.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new safer cities programmes were discontinued through a lack of funding in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Sixteen of the original 20 projects will, as planned, cease to receive Government funding in March 1994 in order to release funds for a second phase of the programme in up to 40 new areas which have not yet benefited from safer cities funding.

  Drugs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands were convicted of drug offences in each year since 1991;

  (2) how many of those convicted of drug offences in the west midlands and Coventry in the last year for which figures are available were under 21 years of age;

  (3)what the figures are for drug-related offences committed by young people in Coventry for each year since 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information available centrally on persons convicted of drug offences by age group in the West Midlands police force area and the Coventry petty sessional division for 1991 and 1992 is given in the table.

  It is possible to distinguish centrally only offenders who have committed drug offences as opposed to drug-related offences.

  1993 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Life Imprisonment
  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions since 1985 he has imposed a minimum sentence for persons sentenced to life imprisonment of the same length as the recommendation of the trial judge or the Lord Chief Justice;

  (2) on how many occasions since 1985 he has increased the minimum period of sentence for a person sentenced to life imprisonment beyond the recommended minimum length of sentence by the trial judge or the Lord Chief Justice; and on how many such occasions the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice have subsequently concurred in the increase;
  831
  (3) on how many occasions since 1985 he has imposed a minimum life sentence on a person sentenced to life imprisonment of less than the period recommended by the trial judge or the Lord Chief Justice.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The readily available information is for the period August 1990 to July 1993 inclusive. During this period a total of 806 mandatory life sentence cases were considered. Of these, Ministers set a period the same length as that recommended by the trial judge in 409 cases—in 325 of these the Lord Chief Justice agreed with the period recommended by the trial judge. In a further 244 cases Ministers set a period in accordance with the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice.

  A period higher than either of the periods recommended by the judiciary was set in 112 cases. The question of subsequent concurrence by the judiciary did not arise, since the final decision is for the Secretary of State.

  A period lower than either of the periods recommended by the judiciary was set in three cases.

  In the remaining 38 cases, Ministers set a period between the recommendations of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice.

  Firefighters (Pensions)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to review the pension arrangements for firefighters.

  Mr. Howard
  The terms of reference for the review of the police service pension scheme require that review to include in its report an assessment of the read-across to the fire service. I propose, in addition, to set up a separate review of pension arrangements for firefighters. My officials are drawing up terms of reference for the review, and will circulate them to the fire service employers' and employees' organisations. I will consult the Central Fire Brigades advisory council on any proposals which emerge from the two reviews for change to the pension arrangements for firefighters.

  Mohammed Riaz and Abdul Raja
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 641, what decision as to the period to be served for retribution and deterrence he reached in the case of Mohammed Riaz and Abdul Qayyum Raja; what were the recommendations made to him in each case by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice; what rights both men have to make representations against his decision; in coming to his decision, what account he took of any recommendation made by the trial judge about deportation at the end of sentence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: The period for retribution and deterrence in these cases was originally set in 1988. At that time the trial judge recommended 10 years for Mr. Riaz and 15 years for Mr. Raja. The Lord Chief Justice of the day recommended a minimum period of 16 years for Mr. Riaz and 21 years for Mr. Raja. The Minister then set a period of 20 years for Mr. Riaz, and 25 years for Mr. Raja. In doing so he would have had regard to the statement by Sir Leon Brittan, as Home
  832
  Secretary in 1983, that terrorists and certain other specified categories of murderer could normally expect to serve at least 20 years.

  Following the Doody judgment of June 1993, the above details were disclosed to Mr. Riaz and Mr. Raja individually. They subsequently made representations and their cases were considered afresh in December 1993. My right hon. and learned Friend concluded that there were no grounds in either case to justify disapplying the policy set out in the Brittan statement. He therefore confirmed the existing periods in both cases. The possibility of deportation was not a factor which was taken into account in reaching his decision.

  My right hon. and learned Friend is always prepared to consider any written representations from mandatory life sentence prisoners as to the period they should serve. However, as the cases of Mr. Riaz and Mr. Raja have already received very careful consideration, further representations are unlikely to succeed in the absence of new information.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sport
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what attention he has given children's play in the course of his current review into the structure of sport in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sproat
  We are considering the Sport Council's role in relation to children's play as part of our current review of the council's structure and functions. We expect to announce fresh proposals for the reorganisation of the Sports Council around Easter.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: Of the public appointments made during 1993 to bodies for which my Department has responsibility, 31 per cent. were of women.

  Water
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to reduce the effect on the south-west tourist industry of water charges, the rate of progress towards agreed waste water directives and the level of funding required to prevent bathing being banned from local beaches.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: Water charges are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and, primarily, for the independent Director General of Water Services. My Department has, however, received representations from the tourism industry about the level of water charges in the south-west and in other parts of the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last year wrote both to the Secretary of State for the Environment and to the Director General of Water Services about the industry's concerns with regard to water infrastructure and connection charges.

  833
  The Director General is currently reviewing the price limits for water and sewerage services and is due to announce new limits in July 1994. The Government attach great importance to improving beaches and bathing water quality. A substantial programme of improvement in the south-west is already under way to secure compliance with EU standards. Many of these schemes are due to be completed in the next two years. Beach quality is important to holiday-makers, and proper attention to it will therefore significantly benefit the British tourism industry.

TRANSPORT

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 776, what was the budgeted and actual cost of each public information campaign listed.

  Mr. Norris
  The budgeted cost and estimated outturn of each of the Department of Transport public information campaigns listed in my answer of 16 February is as follows:

  Budgeted £ million

  Estimated outturn £ million

  Drink drive

  2·6

  2·6

  Kill your speed

  2·8

  2·8

  Rear seat belts

  0·5

  0·6

  Drive booklet

  0·2

  0·2

  Other road safety

  0·7

  0·6

  Coastal and Marine Safety

  0·3

  0·3

  The budgeted cost and estimated outturn of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's public information campaigns listed in my answer is:

  Budgeted £ million

  Estimated outturn £ million

  DVLA

  Road tax evasion

  0·7

  0·7

  Vehicle Reg Nos.

  0·6

  0·6

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 February Official Report, column 644, if he will place in the Library the results of independent research on his Department's major advertising campaigns during the current financial year.

  Mr. Norris
  Copies of the independent research into the Department's major advertisting campaigns during the current financial year are being placed in the Library. These cover the spring and autumn phases of the "Kill your Speed" campagin and the summer drink drive campaign. The results of research into the Christmas drink drive campaign will be available later this month when they will also be placed in the Library.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that fast trains using the channel tunnel rail link will stop at Ashford international passenger station;
  834
  (2) if he will make it his policy to secure a regular service of fast trains on the channel tunnel rail link which stops at Ashford.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is a commercial matter for the railway operator what services to run from the station. European passenger services expect about one third of the international services, and about 2 million passengers per year by the turn of the century, to use Ashford international. Provision of a junction with the rail link west of Ashford, providing access to the station for fast domestic and international services, is already Government policy.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make a further announcement on the proposed competition to select a private sector promoter for the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  The competition begins today. The first stage will be for consortia to seek to pre-qualify, and the Department is today making available to interested parties a document which provides information about the project and sets out the procedure for pre-qualification. I am placing a copy in the Library.

  Roads, Warwickshire
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 118, if he will give his reasons for deciding not to provide a means of access from the M45 to the A5 in Warwickshire.

  Mr. Key
  My decision not to provide a means of access from the M45 to the A5 in Warwickshire was because no obvious need has been demonstrated.

  Road Traffic Patterns
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the variables taken into account in calculating future road traffic patterns and projections.

  Mr. Key
  In calculating future road traffic patterns for road schemes, the starting point is a good understanding of the existing patterns of movement. This is usually obtained by roadside interviewing supported by manual and automatic traffic counts.

  Working from this basis, the future pattern of movements is derived by application of growth factors. To ensure consistency with other appraisals, these are constrained at the district level to centrally produced estimates which are, in turn, constrained to agree with the national road traffic forecasts. Within these constraints, analysts are encouraged to take account of local variations in growth, as a result of new development, and so on. The key variables involved in these calculations include projections of the numbers of households, numbers of workers, and numbers of jobs.

  Calculation of future traffic flows on roads—with and without schemes—is critically dependent upon the characteristics of the road network. The process of determining the routes that travellers take through the network depends upon the nature of the network, with congested urban networks requiring more complex methods than relatively uncongested inter-urban networks. Typically, relevant network characteristics can include

  835
  carriageway type and width, hilliness and bends, junction types and geometric characteristics, and the operation of traffic signals.

  The methods available for calculating future road traffic patterns and projections are described in detail in the Department's "Traffic Appraisal Manual". A short summary document is also available. These are available through the House of Commons Library.

  Written-off Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that motor vehicles written off for insurance purposes do not reappear in the used car market as vehicles of merchantable quality.

  Mr. Key
  Vehicles are generally written off by insurance companies for economic reasons rather than on the basis of whether they are capable of being safely repaired. Where such vehicles are repaired and subsequently relicensed DVLA automatically notifies the police so that they can make inquiries where appropriate. Many written off vehicles are properly restored to a roadworthy condition each year and so legislation in this area would be unwarranted. Information on whether a vehicle has been previously written off by an insurance company is available to prospective purchasers from specialist data collection companies in the private sector. My advice would aways be to have a car inspected by an independent expert before agreeing to make a purchase.

  Highways Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that no Department of Transport members of staff will be transferred to the new headquarters of the Highways Agency in St. Christopher house until all relevant EC directives/ regulations and United Kingdom safety law/rules have been fully complied with; and if he will make it his policy that full and open consultation will take place between his Department's officials and the appropriate trade unions.

  Mr. Norris
  Establishing the Highways Agency's headquarters in St. Christopher house will enable the agency to develop its own corporate identity and sense of purpose as soon as possible. It is my firm policy, and one to which the chief executive is equally committed, that the offices there should comply with all relevant health and safety requirements. Staff have already been consulted about their individual needs in St. Christopher house, and my officials have had a number of open and productive discussions with trade union representatives. Further discussions are planned.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to introduce legislation to prevent the sale of second-hand tyres at car boot sales.

  Mr. Key
  I propose to go out to consultation shortly on draft safety regulations to be made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to supplement that Act by making it an offence to sell or otherwise supply in the course of business any part-worn tyre that is defective. In the meantime, section 76(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which is enforceable by trading standards officers, already 836
  makes it an offence for any person to sell or offer to sell a vehicle part—including a part-worn tyre—if that person has reasonable cause to believe that it will be fitted to a motor vehicle and the use of that vehicle would thereby contravene the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, including the various requirements for tyres.

  Disabled Passengers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct Railtrack to undertake a programme of modernisation of stations to allow easy access to trains for passengers with disabilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  We wish to see improved access to train services for disabled people. These facilites are generally best incorporated into broader projects for station refurbishment, within Railtrack's overall investment programme. In designing station refurbishment projects, Railtrack will be able to draw on the code of practice for disabled passengers which the regulator will publish in accordance with section 70 of the Railways Act. This will include advice and design standards for the facilities disabled people need.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct Railtrack to include in its franchise documents a commitment to allow easy access for passengers with disabilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  All operators of passenger rail services or stations will be required to produce and implement a disabled person's protection policy, to be approved by the regulator, as a condition of being granted a licence to operate. In producing their policies, operators will need to have regard to the regulator's code of practice for disabled passengers, which he will publish in accordance with section 70 of the Railways Act after consultation with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

  Cyclists
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pedal cyclists were(a) killed and (b) seriously injured in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Pedal cyclist casulaties Great Britain 1988–1992

  Number of casualties

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  1988

  227

  4,652

  1989

  294

  4,836

  1990

  256

  4,344

  1991

  242

  3,946

  1992

  204

  3,787

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the effect on the jursidiction of the British Transport police of the Railways Act 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  From 1 April 1994, the British Transport police's jurisdiction in respect of British Rail,
  837
  London Underground Limited and the docklands light railway will be unchanged. It appears, however, that in respect of matters soley affecting Rai1track, its powers of pursuit and investigation could be limited.

  The Government regard such a limitation, which arises from a purely legal point, as undesirable and are urgently considering with BR and BTP how it might be addressed.

  Tolls
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those tunnels and bridges for which his Department has responsibility where tolls are levied which have exemptions for disabled motorists in receipt of mobility supplement and road tax exemption.

  Mr. Key
  The Department is the highway authority for the Severn bridge and the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. At both crossings, vehicles which are driven or used by disabled people and which are exempt from vehicle excise duty are exempt from tolls.

  Scaffolding (Controls)
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local authorities which have not adopted section 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 1 March 1994]: This provision requires any person erecting scaffolding on or above a highway to be authorised by a licence issued by the highway authority. We are not aware of any highway authority which is not complying with this requirement; detailed information could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  If my right hon. Friend has a particular concern he may care to write to me.

WALES

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the specific projects, and the amount which(a) has been spent and (b) will be spent to alleviate job losses from coal closures since October 1992 in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Assistance for area affected by closure of Taff Merthyr colliery

  £000

  Expenditure 1992–93

  Provision 1993–94

  Mid Glamorgan Training and Enterprise Council

  Meithyr Modern Manufacturing Training Centre

  100

  —

  Cynon Valley Technology Centre

  100

  51

  Employment Training and Employment Action (Training for Work from 1 April 1993)1

  2135

  3450

  Improved Engineering training facilities at Merthyr College

  —

  50

  Improved Engineering training facilities at Ystrad Mynach College

  —

  50

  Improved access to training for Merthyr and Rhymney residents at Alan Davies Training Centre

  —

  20

  838

  Expenditure 1992–93

  Provision 1993–94

  Increased Business Enterprise Support1

  —

  450

  Aberdare Opportunity Shop

  —

  110

  Improved Engineering training facilities at other Mid Glamorgan colleges

  —

  170

  Access to Training for the Homeless in Aberdare

  —

  10

  Women in the Workforce1

  —

  5

  Education/Business Links1

  —

  45

  Enhanced Careers Guidance1

  —

  20

  Creation of training/work opportunities for the Disabled1

  —

  15

  Urban Programme

  Merthyr Tydfil BC:

  Goatmill Road, Dowlais

  250

  —

  Repairs and Renewal to Treharris Boys Club

  53

  —

  Cyfarthfa Park

  60

  140

  Rhymney Valley DC:

  Caerphilly Business Park

  58

  —

  Infrastructure Works at Duffryn

  Industrial Estate

  100

  —

  Cynon Valley DC:

  Cwm Cynon Enterprise Centre

  100

  100

  River/Sewer Diversion, Mountain Ash

  130

  —

  Technology Centre, Aberaman

  30

  —

  1 Cannot be disaggregated to separately identify costs relating to Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

  2 Excluding participants allowances.

  3 Including participants' allowances.

  In addition, expenditure on Welsh Development Agency projects in the hon. Member's constituency is as follows:

  Expenditure October 1992 to date £000

  Planned expenditure £000

  General site improvements completed since October 1992

  103

  —

  Adoption works under construction

  18

  60

  Fitting out works at Triangle Business Park

  57

  527

  13k sq ft extension at Pentrebach

  447

  —

  Property Development Grant assistance for speculative units totalling 14k sq ft

  —

  50

  Acquisition of Whitbread Enterprise Centre, Rhymney and refurbishment

  250

  150

  Urban Development activity in Merthyr

  2,164

  1,240

  Land reclamation activity in the constituency

  6,300

  1,770

  Loans to businesses

  40

  —

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the public appointments he is responsible for making in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies 1993", including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.
  839
  Mr. Redwood
  The details of the public appointments I make are given in "Public Bodies: Appointments Made by the Secretary of State for Wales, 1 December 1993", copies are in the Library of the House.

  In addition, I appoint jointly with the Secretary of State for the Environment, the following:

  Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency —

  Advisory panel on standards

  Michael Fitzgerald, QC (Chairman)

  Jeremy Baylis

  Michael Rush, CBE

  Robin Thompson

  The members of Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments Advisory Committee were given in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), c. 946.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish guidelines on the conduct of members of non-departmental public bodies in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I expect the highest standards in the conduct of public business in Wales. General guidance is available in "Non Departmental Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments". I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House. The Welsh Office draws on this to provide members of executive non-departmental public bodies in Wales, on appointment, with guidelines

  1992–93 Allocations

  Council

  Urban Programme

  Rural Initiative

  PRNI/SP

  Total

  Alyn and Deeside District Council

  110,000

  —

  —

  110,000

  Colwyn Borough Council

  137,000

  —

  —

  137,000

  Delyn

  765,658

  —

  2,000,000

  2,765,658

  Glyndwr District Council

  225,237

  —

  —

  225,237

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  1,129,500

  —

  825,000

  1,954,500

  Wrexham Maelor Borough Council

  562,059

  —

  200,000

  762,059

  Carmarthen District Council

  £17,865

  126,500

  —

  144,365

  Ceredigion District Council

  107,163

  100,000

  —

  207,163

  Dinefwr Borough Council

  1,083,375

  125,000

  600,000

  1,808,375

  Llanelli Borough Council

  1,103,627

  —

  1,200,000

  2,303,627

  Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council

  112,439

  342,104

  700,000

  1,154,543

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  198,000

  142,000

  —

  340,000

  Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  1,692,885

  —

  700,000

  2,392,885

  Islwyn Borough Council

  852,476

  —

  —

  852,476

  Monmouth District Council

  32,724

  211,000

  —

  243,724

  Newport Borough Council

  840,426

  —

  —

  840,426

  Torfaen Borough Council

  484,436

  —

  —

  484,436

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  190,900

  617,983

  2,185,000

  2,993,883

  Arfon Borough Council

  661,932

  94,500

  —

  756,432

  Dwyfor District Council

  150,000

  156,400

  1,900,000

  2,206,400

  Meirionnydd District Council

  223,529

  100,000

  —

  323,529

  Ynys Mon Borough Council

  325,282

  135,000

  —

  460,282

  Cynon Valley Borough Council

  2,334,765

  —

  —

  2,334,765

  Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council

  1,499,581

  —

  —

  1,499,581

  Ogwr Borough Council

  1,363,902

  —

  —

  1,363,902

  Rhondda Borough Council

  1,909,285

  —

  —

  1,909,285

  Rhymney Valley Borough Council

  1,173,766

  —

  —

  1,173,766

  Taff Ely Borough Council

  1,094,591

  —

  —

  1,094,591

  Brecknock Borough Council

  252,000

  —

  —

  252,000

  Montgomeryshire District Council

  —

  196,826

  —

  196,826

  Radnor District Council

  15,836

  —

  250,000

  265,836

  Cardiff City Council

  1,099,683

  —

  —

  1,099,683

  Vale of Glamorgan County Council

  587,677

  —

  —

  587,677

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  191,047

  —

  —

  191,047

  Lliw Valley Borough Council

  439,078

  —

  —

  439,078

  Neath Borough Council

  686,811

  —

  —

  686,811

  Swansea City Council

  564,697

  —

  500,000

  1,064,697

  Wales Total

  24,219,232

  2,347,313

  11,060,000

  37,626,545

  840
  describing the purpose and function of the body, and their responsibilities as board members. The Government are also considering ways in which the approach recommended in the Cadbury committee's report could be adapted to meet the needs of non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many non-departmental public bodies there are in Wales as at 1 January; and what is their total budget.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is given in HMSO "Public Bodies 1993" which is in the Library of the House.

  Strategic Development Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was allocated to the district and borough councils in Wales by the Welsh Office out of the strategic development scheme in 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  The strategic development scheme was launched on 11 June 1993 when a Welsh Office circular invited local authorities to submit bids for support in 1994–95. The scheme brought together support previously administered separately through the urban programme, rural initiative, projects of regional and national importance and special project schemes. The allocations to the district and borough councils in Wales in 1992–93 under these separate schemes is set out in the table.
  841

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received in favour of the intention to replace the Welsh dragon with the Union Jack on Welsh Development Agency literature; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  There is no such intention. However, based on my personal experience of meeting business people from overseas while promoting Wales, I have suggested to the Welsh Development Agency that the recognition of Wales as a first-class location for inward investment would be assisted by having both symbols prominent in the literature.

  Railway Lines
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make provision, in his reorganisation of local government in Wales for specific funding for unitary authorities to underpin financially socially necessary railway lines; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No.

  Clwyd (Job Losses)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of(a) steel and (b) aerospace jobs lost in Clwyd since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested cannot be given as to do so would breach rules of company confidentiality.

  Poolside Development, Caernarfon
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to expedite the necessary decisions, currently being discussed between the Welsh Development Agency, Arfon borough council, Gwynedd county council and the Welsh Office, in relation to the Poolside development at Caernarfon.

  Mr. Redwood
  I understand that a meeting between Arfon BC and Bangor Market Company Ltd.—to discuss design proposals for this site—is due to take place within the next two weeks. Once the company has firm proposals

  1993–94 Allocations

  Council

  Urban Programme

  Rural Initiative

  PRNl/SP

  Total

  Alyn and Deeside District Council

  337,500

  —

  —

  337,500

  Colwyn Borough Council

  70,000

  36,000

  1,226,000

  1,332,000

  Delyn

  337,998

  —

  1,950,000

  2,287,998

  Glyndwr District Council

  118,131

  174,540

  —

  292,671

  Ruddlan Borough Council

  1,137,554

  27,000

  1,200,000

  2,364,554

  Wrexham Maelor Borough Council

  246,401

  —

  2,085,000

  2,331,401

  Carmarthen District Council

  17,865

  120,000

  —

  137,865

  Ceredigion District Council

  76,781

  519,000

  500,000

  1,095,781

  Dinefwr Borough Council

  427,830

  236,000

  —

  663,830

  Llanelli Borough Council

  764,057

  —

  1,500,000

  2,264,057

  Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council

  140,000

  1,007,460

  —

  1,147,460

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  221,792

  672,238

  1,000,000

  1,894,030

  Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  915,728

  —

  655,000

  1,570,728

  Islwyn Borough Council

  722,920

  —

  —

  722,920

  Monmouth District Council

  183,306

  111,911

  —

  295,217

  Newport Borough Council

  1,034,386

  —

  —

  1,034,386

  Torfaen Borough Council

  345,344

  —

  —

  345,344

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  170,450

  440,000

  —

  610,451

  842
  my officials will be happy to discuss the possibility of urban investment grant support for a retail development on the site.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what considerations underlay the issue of English language versions of material used in connection with the implementation of the national curriculum before the Welsh language versions were made available; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is my aim to issue national curriculum documents in Welsh and English simultaneously whenever possible. Where the documents are not issued at the same time, this is for practical reasons.

  Lorry Routes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration has been given to the establishment of a national network of lorry routes based on weight and speed limits; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Motorways and trunk roads form a national network of through routes in Wales. They are suitable for all classes of vehicle except where specific constraints necessitate weight, height or length restrictions.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was allocated to each district and borough council in Wales out of the strategic development scheme fund in 1993; and how this figure was reached in each case.

  Mr. Redwood
  Allocations for, 1993–94 through the urban programme, rural initiative, projects of regional and national importance and special project schemes were determined by a number of factors. A strategic approach was positively encouraged under the urban programme and bids forming part of an acceptable local strategy received priority. Voluntary sector bids under the urban programme and rural initiative were also given some priority. Other factors taken fully into account for all schemes included value for money, jobs created and sustainable economic development.

  The allocations to the district and borough councils in Wales under these separate schemes is set out in the following table:
  843

  Council

  Urban Programme

  Rural Initiative

  PRNI/SP

  Total

  Arfon Borough Council

  381,854

  590,000

  —

  971,854

  Dwyfor District Council

  121,475

  501,300

  1,000,000

  1,622,775

  Meirionnydd District Council

  157,595

  457,500

  —

  615,095

  Ynys Mon Borough Council

  116,291

  165,000

  —

  281,291

  Cynon Valley Borough Council

  1,725,532

  —

  —

  1,725,532

  Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council

  987,046

  —

  —

  987,046

  Ogwr Borough Council

  1,165,412

  —

  —

  1,165,412

  Rhondda Borough Council

  2,799,766

  —

  —

  2,799,766

  Rhymney Valley Borough Council

  744,720

  —

  —

  744,720

  Taff Ely Borough Council

  533,282

  —

  —

  533,282

  Brecknock Borough Council

  —

  110,000

  720,000

  830,000

  Montgomeryshire District Council

  —

  262,000

  —

  262,000

  Radnor District Council

  15,836

  —

  —

  15,836

  Cardiff City Council

  1,305,692

  —

  —

  1,305,692

  Vale of Glamorgan County Council

  760,882

  —

  —

  760,882

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  330,809

  —

  —

  330,809

  Lliw Valley Borough Council

  338,504

  8,344

  —

  346,848

  Neath Borough Council

  310,285

  —

  —

  310,285

  Swansea City Council

  964,804

  —

  165,000

  1,129,804

  Wales total

  20,027,828

  5,438,293

  12,121,000

  37,587,121

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of domestic water disconnections in Wales for 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The collection of statistics on water disconnections is a matter for the Director General of Water Services, who publishes this information on a half yearly basis.

  The data for the period 1 April 1993 to 30 September 1993 are held in the Library of the House. The results for the period 1 October 1993 to 31 March 1994 will be published in May.

  Rural Roads
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available extra resources to enable highway authorities to improve the maintenance of rural roads.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Resources for local authorities' responsibility for highway maintenance are provided through the local government revenue settlement. They determine the level of expenditure in the light of total resources available and local needs.

  Social Services (Charging)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from representatives of people with learning difficulties concerning county personal social services charging policies.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received six letters on this subject.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the Clwyd People First Committee to discuss charging policies.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. The charging policies to which the hon. Member is referring are entirely a matter for Clwyd county council.
  844

  Children's Play
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about his policy on children's playing fields and children's play; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The main planners and providers in this field are local authorities and the voluntary sector. Central Government support is provided by way of grant to help meet the costs of Play Wales, an advisory body made up of representatives from county and district councils and the voluntary sector.

  Private Patients
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total income from private patients in the national health service in each year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 10 February, column 433–35.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the income from private patients of each trust hospital in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There were no NHS trusts in operation in Wales prior to 1992–93. In that year the Pembrokeshire NHS trust came into effect and received 155,000 income from private patients. However, separate figures for each of the trust's hospitals are not available centrally.

  Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of(a) finished consultant episodes and (b) private patient finished consultant episodes in each year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information in Wales is collected on the basis of in-patient cases treated in NHS hospitals and is given in the following table.
  845

  Total number of in-patient cases

  of which private patients

  1989–90

  475,515

  1,994

  1990–91

  482,473

  1,760

  1991–92

  500,336

  1,558

  1992–93

  503,657

  1,257

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he will use in directing what to include in the summary documents to be submitted to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the aid support given to the Pergau dam project in Malaysia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The summaries of documents which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has provided with his memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee on Pergau and aid and trade provision were drawn up in line with the long-standing conventions relating to the release of documents to Select Committees.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the(a) planned costs and (b) actual spending on GCHQ civil servants' travel expenses for the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hurd
  It is not the Government's policy to give detailed information about the expenditure of individual security and intelligence agencies. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 30 November 1993,Official Report, columns 419–20, figures for the aggregate expenditure on the security and intelligence agencies will be published with main estimates.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are applied by civil servants at GCHQ as to what class of air-travel they use.

  Mr. Hurd
  In determining travel arrangements for GCHQ civil servants, use is made where practicable of RAF flights, economy fares and MOD charter. Otherwise, normal commercial carriers are used with class of air travel determined in accordance with the following criteria:

  Structure

  1Grade 3 and above

  Other grades

  First/Economy

  (a) Economy

  Economy

  (b) First

  Economy

  Business/Tourist1

  (a) Business

  Tourist

  (b) Business

  Business

  First/Business/Tourist1

  (a) Business

  Tourist

  (b) Business

  Business

  1 Or equivalent.

  Note: (a) relates to flights up to 2.5 hours long;

  (b) to longer flights.
  846

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made as to the implications of the United Kingdom Government failing to implement the chemical weapons convention before July 1994.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are unlikely to be any significant implications if the Government do not implement the chemical weapons convention by July 1994, as the earliest the convention can enter into force is January 1995.

  Mr. Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why his Department issued a fresh public interest immunity certificate on the seventh application by Mr. Lorrain Osman for habeas corpus in January 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A public interest immunity certificate was signed in the course of Lorrain Osman's seventh application for habeas corpus to reassert the public interest in non-disclosure of documents sought by Mr. Osman.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will specify the reasons why he, on 26 October 1990, applied for a court order to strike out from affirmations made by Mr. Lorrain Osman all passages referring to nine FCO documents already disclosed to his advisers and the removal of copies of all nine documents from the possession of Mr. Osman and from the record of the court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The order was applied for on the grounds that the documents in question were subject to public interest immunity and irrelevant.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will specify the reasons why the disclosure of documents which were the subject of a public interest immunity certificate issued by the former hon. Member for Warwickshire, North on 12 June 1990 was thought likely to prejudice relations between Her Majesty's Government and an overseas Government or affect the efficiency of the officers concerned in carrying out negotiations or other diplomatic duties overseas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Confidential diplomatic communications are a well-established class of documents whose disclosure would not be in the public interest.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will specify the nature of the relations, dealing or negotiations between the Government of the United Kingdom and other Governments referred to in paragraph 4 of the public interest immunity certificate issued on 12 June 1990 by the former hon. Member for Warwickshire, North in connection with communications between the Hong Kong Government, the United Kingdom high commissioner in Kuala Lumpur and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and if he will make a statement.
  847
  Mr. Goodlad
  No. Our relations with other Governments are confidential.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times since 1979 a public interest immunity certificate has been issued by a Government Minister in a criminal case affecting the liberty of the subject; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As regards Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers, the information sought is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in respect of how many documents the former hon. Member for Warwickshire, North, then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, claimed public interest immunity by a certificate dated 12 June 1990 in connection with communications between the Hong Kong Government, the United Kingdom high commissioner in Kuala Lumpur and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Sixty-nine.

  Dependent Territories
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current rate of(a) income tax, (b) capital gains tax and (c) corporation tax in each British dependent territory.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman shortly with the information requested.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was(a) the total revenue received from off-shore financial activities and (b) the total expenditure on regulating such activities by the locally elected administration of each British dependent territory in the Caribbean in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information is as follows:

  Caribbean Dependent Territories: Offshore Finance Financial year 1992–93

  Total Revenue (£)

  Total cost of regulation (£)

  Anguilla1

  155,750

  77,500

  British Virgin Islands1

  12·66 million

  733,333

  Cayman Islands

  19·52 million

  1·16 million

  Montserrat

  159,000

  33,000

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  1·54 million

  200,000

  1 Estimate.

HEALTH

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many kidney patients died in 1992 while awaiting a suitable donor organ.
  848
  Mr. Sackville
  There is no information about the number of people awaiting a kidney transplant who died of kidney disease during 1992. Kidney failure is fatal unless treated with dialysis or transplantation. People on dialysis awaiting a transplant may live for many years and may die from causes other than kidney failure.

  Minimal Access Surgery
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with which bodies her Department is consulting as to the implications of the Cuschieri report on minimal access surgery; what plans she has to implement the report's recommendations; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have referred Professor Cuschieri's report to the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee for advice.

  Discussions are taking place with the competent authorities regarding standards of training of doctors in relation to minimal access surgery. The Department of Health and the Wolfson Foundation are funding the establishment of two minimal access therapy training units in England. Minimal access therapy has been identified as a priority for research to obtain better information about outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of new treatments.

  Regional Offices
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to reorganise the regional offices of the national health service; what criteria will be applied to potential locations in the north-eastern region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in her statement on managing the NHS on 21 October 1993 her intention to abolish regional health authorities and reorganise the National Health Service Management Executive to include eight regional offices. As a first step towards the new structure she has decided, following consultation, to reduce the number of regional health authorities from 14 to eight, creating common boundaries with the regional offices. Decisions regarding the location of the new regional offices have yet to be reached.

  Generic Substitution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the proposal to allow pharmacists to substitute cheaper non-branded drugs for the drug prescribed by the general practitioner; whether the general practitioner would be consulted; and how patients would be protected from fake and substandard drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has opened discussions with the medical and pharmaceutical professions about generic substitution. We are seeking a way forward which would leave the clinical decision about whether a generic substitute was appropriate, to the prescribing doctor.

  All medicines, whether branded or generic, have to meet the standards of safety, quality and efficacy required by the licensing authority.
  849

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed by trusts in each region in each year since 1991–92; and what are these figures as a percentage of the total number of NHS provider staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of staff employed by trusts in each region is shown in the table. The total number of national health service provider staff cannot be separated from aggregated figures including all staff in regional and district health authorities. The growth in numbers of trust staff between 1991 and 1992 reflects the 57 trusts created on 1 April 1991 and a further 99 which came into being on 1 April 1992—replacing units formerly directly-managed by health authorities. Figures for September 1993 will not be available until later this year.

  NHS staff numbers in trusts by region in England as at 30 September 1991

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  4,090

  12,910

  Yorkshire

  11,060

  23,500

  Trent

  5,790

  20,570

  East Anglia

  1,600

  5,220

  North West Thames

  5,380

  23,410

  North East Thames

  11,850

  16,930

  South East Thames

  5,860

  18,750

  South West Thames

  7,600

  13,910

  Wessex

  2,760

  13,360

  Oxford

  550

  5,980

  South Western

  19,740

  35,480

  West Midlands

  3,660

  11,020

  Mersey

  15,570

  25,310

  North Western

  5,460

  16,590

  Total

  100,970

  242,950

  Source:

  DoH non-Medical Workforce Census, Medical Workforce Census and form KM 49.

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what inquiries her Department has made into the use of the financial assets of NHS trusts(a) generally and (b) with particular reference to currency speculation.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Trusts account for the use they have made of their assets in their annual accounts which are subject to external audit.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how NHS trusts' annual accounts are publicised; and to whom they are distributed.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service trusts must present their audited accounts at a public meeting. For accounts covering the financial year 1993–94 onward it is a mandatory requirement that this meeting, and the availability of copies of the accounts, must be advertised in the media local to the NHS trust no less than 14 days prior to the date of the meeting. Previously this was regarded as good practice and the procedure was followed by most trusts.

  NHS trusts are required to distribute a copy of the audited accounts to any member of the public who requests one. A reasonable fee to cover copying costs may be charged. It is a matter for trusts themselves who they distribute copies of the accounts to without such a request having been received.
  850
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she has given to board numbers of NHS trusts regarding use of NHS resources for purposes other than for health care provision.

  Mr. Sackville
  No specific advice has been given to trust board members regarding the use of national health service resources for purposes other than healthcare provision. Trusts are expected to use resources effectively, efficiently and economically whatever authorised purpose they are applied to. Advice on the use of resources generally is contained in the trust finance and capital charges manuals which are issued to trusts and are available to board members. Copies of these manuals are available in the Library.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statutory provisions govern the use by NHS trusts of resources for purposes other than those related to health care provision; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Paragraph 15 of part II of schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 specifies that trusts shall have the powers specified in section 7(2) of the Health and Medicines Act 1988. These powers enable trusts to engage in activities, some of which may not be directly healthcare related, for the purpose of generating additional income to enable them better to perform their healthcare functions.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statutory provisions specifically prevent NHS trusts using financial assets for current speculation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The statutory provisions relating to the use of financial assets by national health service trusts are contained in schedule 3 to the National Health Service and Commuity Care Act 1990. Paragraph 1(3) of the schedule prohibits trusts from borrowing in any currency other than sterling except with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No such consent has been given. Paragraph 7 of the schedule limits the manner in which trusts can invest any money held to securities of the Government of the United Kingdom or such other manner as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, approve. Approval has been given for investment in certain United Kingdom public sector institutions, banks which are authorised under part 1 of the Banking Act 1987, and building societies authorised under the Building Societies Act 1986.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which legislative provision limits the uses to which the financial assets of NHS trusts may be put.

  Mr. Sackville
  The principal legislative provision relating to the financial assets of trusts is in schedule 3 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990: paragraphs 1 and 2 of the schedule govern trust borrowing, including the provision that a trust may not use its assets as security for loans, and paragraph 7 governs investment.

  Paragraph 6(2)d of schedule 2 to the Act provides for the Secretary of State to make directions restricting or prohibiting the disposal of an asset worth in excess of a value specified in trust establishment orders. All trusts have £1 million as the specified amount in their establishment order.
  851

  Community Care
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimate of the annual cost of providing publicly funded residential care for people in England who have been returned to, or retained within, the community under the community care policy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  This year in England we estimate that between them local authorities and the Department of Social Security will incur net expenditure in the region of £3·5 billion supporting people in residential care and nursing homes. It is not possible to say how much of this is supporting people who have been resettled from long-stay hospitals or who might, under other circumstances, have entered such hospitals.

  Family Health Services Authorities
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of(a) FHSA administration and (b) FHSA medicines in the latest available year.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available, family health services authority administration amounted to £161,881,000. Expenditure on drugs by the family health services was £2,641,332,000.

  FHSAs manage the introduction of general practitioner fundholding, the monitoring of GP prescribing, and the development of clinical audit in primary care—all initiatives aimed at improving the effectiveness of patient care and value for money.

  Number of dentists deregistering patients and number of patients deregistered July 1992 to February 1994

  Number of dentists deregistering adults

  Number of adult patients deregistered

  Number of dentists deregistering children

  ' Number of child patients deregistered

  London FHSAs

  338

  39,127

  15

  85

  Barnet

  42

  4,858

  2

  8

  Brent and Harrow

  7

  1,542

  2

  2

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Houslow

  1

  35

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea

  15

  2,256

  —

  32

  Barking and Havering

  13

  3,842

  3

  7

  Camden and Islington

  12

  295

  —

  2

  City and East London

  31

  546

  3

  11

  Enfield and Haringey

  3

  978

  2

  3

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  9

  2,192

  1

  14

  Greenwich and Bexley

  23

  4,355

  —

  —

  Bromley

  39

  13,175

  1

  2

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  29

  446

  —

  —

  Croydon

  69

  1,889

  —

  —

  Kingston and Richmond

  9

  972

  —

  —

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  36

  1,746

  1

  4

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of increases in the costs of dental treatment in(a) London and (b) England as a result of the Government's changes in the payment framework for dentists treating NHS patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There have been no changes to the system for paying dentists since October 1990, when continuing care and capitation payments were introduced. The consequences of these changes, and other relevant factors, were considered at the time by the dental rates study group and were reflected in its recommended dental fee scale.
  852
  In 1992–93 FHSA administration expenditure represented only 2·5 per cent. of the £6·5 billion of taxpayers' money spent on the FHS.

  Dentistry
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the impact of dentists deregistering their patients on the level of dental health in(a) London and (b) England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Dental treatment under the national health service is available throughout England. Over the period July 1992 to December 1993 there was a net increase in the number of patients registered with dentists and in the number of dentists in contract with family health services authorities, in both London and England.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been deregistered by their dentists in each of the London health authority areas during each of the last five years; and how many dentists in each of the London health authority areas have been involved in the deregistration.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table. In the London area 338 dentists deregistered 39,127 adult patients and 15 dentists deregistered 85 child patients between July 1992 and February 1994. Some dentists will appear in both counts. Over the period July 1992 to December 1993, in the London area there was a net increase of 168,000 registrations and a net increase of 21 dentists contracted to family health services authorities.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when she will publish her Department's response to the oral health strategy; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will publish the Government's response to the Bloomfield report on dental services; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 18 February at column 1042.
  853

  Asthma
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence has been presented to her Department about the incidence of asthma and other respiratory illnesses in the London borough of Lewisham.

  Mr. Sackville
  None, as far as I am aware.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she proposes to protect the health of asthma sufferers in London; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Whilst no specific initiative is proposed for London, last July the Department of Health launched the chronic disease management programme, which is an organised programme of care run by general practitioners for people with asthma. The national health service management executive wrote to health authorities, GP purchasers and hospital providers last December, EL(93)115, asking them to work towards providing services based on the British Thoracic Society's "Guidelines on the Management of Asthma". Copies are available in the Library.

  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 £1·5 million on research into asthma and areas which may be relevant to the condition. Moreover, we attach high importance to the prompt and appropriate treatment of people with asthma.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy concerning the allocation of resources to the treatment and prevention of asthma; and what studies her Department has made of its incidence in childhood.

  Mr. Sackville
  The care of asthma patients is provided for through resources made available to the national health service.

  It is for individual health authorities to determine the level of service provision required to meet the needs of people with asthma in their area. Priorities are determined in the light of local circumstances.

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring her Department is undertaking of the current performance of the West Midlands regional health authority; and what oversight is being conducted of its attempts to clear up past problems identified by the Committee of Public Accounts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The performance of all regional health authorities is monitored by the national health service management executive—NHSME—through a process of continuous review, including quarterly meetings and an annual review by the chief executive of the NHSME. Performance is measured against progress being made on objectives agreed each year between the NHSME and each regional health authority set out in their regional corporate contracts. With regard to the past problems in west midlands identified by the Public Accounts Committee, actions have been taken by the RHA to resolve these problems and these actions have been closely monitored by the NHSME.
  854

  Leeds Health Authorities
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the combined administrative costs of the Leeds East and Leeds West health authorities in 1988–89; and what is the administrative cost of Leeds healthcare in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The combined total administrative costs of Leeds East and Leeds West health authorities in 1988–89 were £5,907,495. The administrative cost of Leeds health authority in 1992–93 was £4,308,416. The 1992–93 figures are provisional and are not comparable to those of 1988–89.

  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 1048, if she can now supply the figures for press and public relations officers employed by the NHS in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not available centrally on the numbers of press and public relations officers. After 1990 the method of collecting staffing figures changed and it was no longer possible to disaggregate staff engaged in particular areas of work.

  Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths have occurred as a result of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths from hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (ICD 425.1)1 in the United Kingdom 1988 to 1992

  Total

  1988

  79

  1989

  76

  1990

  64

  1991

  77

  19922

  78

  1 International Classification of Diseases 9th revision.

  2Data for 1992 are provisional.

  Wandsworth Health Authority
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the present number of psychiatric nurses employed within the Wandsworth health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Wandsworth health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Dr. Enid Vincent, the chairman of the authority, for details.

  Long-term Care
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will give details of the guidelines issued by her Department to local health authorities on their responsibilities to provide long-term care for people who need it for reasons of ill-health; and what monitoring is done by her Department on provisions;

  (2) what guidelines have been issued by her Department to local health authorities defining their responsibilities to

  855
  provide long-term care for people who need it for reasons of ill-health; and what monitoring is done by her Department on availability of provision.

  Mr. Bowis
  The "Caring for People" White Paper makes it clear that the provision of continuing care for those who need it for reasons of ill health remains the responsibility of the national health service. It is a matter for district health authorities to determine in consultation with local social services authorities the level and type of care required. As part of the new community care arrangements we have required health and local authorities to agree their respective responsibilities for long-term care. This was a pre-condition of the 1993–94 and 1994–95 special transitional grant and covered by guidance in executive letters EL(92)82 and EL(93)97, copies of which are in the Library. There has been an extensive programme of monitoring of the new community care arrangements including the operation of agreements on continuing care responsibilities.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been given by her Department to opticians on the content of a standard eye test.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  An optician who carries out a sight test is required, by regulations, to perform (i) an examination of the external surface of the eye and its immediate vicinity, (ii) an infra-ocular examination, and (iii) such additional examinations as the optician considers clinically necessary.

  Bassetlaw Hospital
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the nature of the recent incidents which resulted in(a) the calling of an inquiry at Bassetlaw hospital, Worksop, and (b) the calling in of the Nottinghamshire police;

  (2) how many (a) members of the public and (b) members of the staff and of the latter in which grades, and which departments, were involved in the inquiry at Bassetlaw hospital;

  (3) what consultations will take place between trade unions at Bassetlaw hospital and the hospital trust and the North Nottinghamshire regional health authority following the recent inquiry.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Bassetlaw hospital and community services national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Mrs. Valerie Dickinson, for details.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of. State for Health what has been the involvement of her Department in the inquiry into the security of the intensive care unit at Bassetlaw hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the report of the inquiry into the intensive therapy unit at Bassetlaw hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  We understand that the Bassetlaw hospital and community services national health service trust has conducted an internal investigation and a report has been handed to the police.
  856
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department first learned that an inquiry into the security and tampering of equipment in the intensive therapy unit at Bassetlaw hospital was taking place.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department was notified on Friday, 25 February.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has received a report from the South West Thames regional health authority showing the progress made in implementing the recommendations of the 1993 inquiry report into the failure of the computer-aided dispatch system at the London ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that the South West Thames regional health authority—RHA—is today publishing a report of progress by the London ambulance service—LAS—in implementing the inquiry team's recommendations. The report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, will be considered at a public meeting of the RHA next week.

  As the Government announced in December, a further £14·8 million is being invested in the LAS in 1994–95 to help it improve its services. This money will enable the LAS to buy 120 new accident and emergency vehicles and recruit 240 additional staff. The extra money is being tied to specific targets for improving ambulance performance against national patients charter standards.

  Hospital Security
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures she has taken to prevent the abduction of children from hospital maternity wards;

  (2) what resources are available to NHS trusts and district health authorities to improve the security of hospitals;

  (3) what guidelines she will issue to health authorities and NHS trusts following the recent abduction of a baby from the Royal United hospital in Bath.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 26 May 1993 at columns 577–78. Security arrangements at all health service premises, for the protection of patients and the staff who care for them, rests with local managers. They are in the best position to decide what is needed to cope with the local situation and what proportion of their resources should be directed to security matters.

  To help them in this task, in March 1992 the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts—NAHAT —published, with financial assistance from the Department, a revised edition of the "National Health Service Security Manual". The Department provided copies for each unit and commended it to them as an excellent source of advice and guidance, copies of which are available in the Library.

  National health service managers have a difficult balance to strike between allowing access to visitors, families and staff, while ensuring that there are satisfactory arrangements for the security of all those who use the hospital for lawful purposes.
  857

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent general practitioner fundholders may vary national terms and conditions of employment for directly employed staff; and whether such conditions of employment or any applicable professional code of practice take precedence in the event of conflict.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Like all general practitioners, GP fundholders are independent contractors who employ staff on the basis of statutory employment legislation.

  Staff Relations (Public and Media)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps have been taken to ensure that primary care staff are aware of the guidance on staff relations with the public and media;

  (2) if the guidance for staff on relations with the public and media is applicable to staff directly employed by general practitioner fundholding general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 25 February at column 525.

  Private Health Insurance
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had in the last 12 months with the Chancellor of the Exchequer of(a) extending tax relief on private health insurance to those aged under 60 years or (b) abolishing tax relief for those aged over 60 years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The tax relief on private medical insurance enables those with insurance to retain cover at a time when income falls and premiums rise and also reduces pressure on the national health service.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will recommend that the schedule for the 1995 general household survey contain questions on private medical insurance in British households.

  Mr. Sackville
  Questions for possible inclusion in the 1995 general household survey have yet to be agreed.

  Pay Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each dedicated national health service pay bed unit and its total income from private patients in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the local provision of pay beds is held by health authorities and national health service trusts. The income raised is used to improve services for all patients.

  Hospital Equipment
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards exist to protect patients from unauthorised interference with equipment in hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is a matter for the local management to ensure that appropriate strategies and procedures are in place which will ensure a safe and secure environment for patients.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the scope of the NHS Supplies Authority research in the summer of 1993; and what was the circulation of the results.

  Mr. Sackville
  An extensive survey of customers was carried out by national health service Supplies last summer covering a wide cross-section of almost 2,000 people within the customer base, ranging from chief executives to ward sisters. The results were communicated to staff, customers and the media.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average length of time between orders being placed with the NHS Supplies Authority and the delivery of goods.

  Mr. Sackville
  Between three and five working days for stock goods. All distribution centres operate a two to three-hour emergency service.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts contract with the NHS Supplies Authority; and what percentage the NHSSA has as its sole supplier.

  Mr. Sackville
  National Health Service Supplies has contracts to provide a supplies service to 99 per cent. of NHS trusts. There are no trusts that use NHS Supplies to supply every item they purchase.

  Sulphamethoxazole
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths linked to the use of sulphamethoxazole have been reported by doctors to the Committee on Safety of Medicines; what research the committee has undertaken into the number of unreported cases; what action has been taken; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Sulphamethoxazole has not been available as a single constituent product since 1977. Prior to this time, no suspected adverse reactions with a fatal outcome were reported in association with Sulphamethoxazole alone. Since 1977, it has been available only as a multi-constituent product in combination with trimethoprim, as co-trimoxazole. The Committee on Safety of Medicines—CSM—has received 135 reports of deaths suspected to have been associated with the use of co-trimoxazole. Such reports do not necessarily mean that the drug was responsible. Co-trimoxazole has been very widely used. Some 87 million prescriptions have been dispensed since the drug was first marketed in the United Kingdom.

  No specific research has been undertaken by the CSM with respect to under-reporting of suspected adverse reactions to co-trimoxazole.

  Reports of serious and fatal adverse reactions to co-trimoxazole have been kept under review by the CSM. In July 1985 an article was published in "Current Problems", its regular drug safety bulletin, informing doctors of deaths, predominately due to blood dyscrasias and skin reactions, reported in association with co-trimoxazole. In addition, the data sheet for cotrimoxazole, produced by the manufacturer and authorised by the licensing authority, fully reflects its known side-effects.
  859

  Out-patient Consultant Episodes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of out-patient consultant episodes for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table:

  Consultant out-patient activity 1987–88 to 1992–93

  All out-patient attendances

  First out-patient attendances

  1987–88

  36,846,100

  8,513,700

  1988–89

  36,117,800

  8,389,400

  1989–90

  36,305,200

  8,519,400

  1990–91

  36,111,500

  8,501,800

  1991–92

  36,893,700

  8,941,500

  1992–93

  37,527,000

  9,342,300

  Source: Department of Health return KH09.

  Social Work Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the expected cost of her proposals for a national care curriculum for social work training; and whether extra funding will be made available to meet this cost;

  (2) when she will introduce her proposed national care curriculum for social work training;

  (3) if she will list the organisations that will be consulted on her proposals for a national care curriculum for social work training.

  Mr. Bowis
  We know of no such care curriculum. Perhaps the hon. Member will write to me.

  Finished Consultant Episodes
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations underlie the publication of the total number of finished consultant episodes in national health service hospitals in 1992–93 and not of the number of private patient finished consultant episodes.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on private patients treated in national health service hospitals is not collected separately via aggregate central returns, but is obtainable from "Hospital Episode Statistics". These data are not yet available for 1992–93. Information on patients in private hospitals is not collected by the Department.

  Rampton Hospital
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many and what percentage of patients have been injured by other patients in each of the past 10 years at Rampton hospital;

  (2) how long the review of the management of violence and aggression at Rampton hospital is estimated to last;

  (3) what assessment she has made of reasons for variations in the annual number of attacks on staff by patients at Rampton hospital;

  (4) how many recorded incidents there were of attacks on staff by patients at Rampton hospital in each of the past 10 years;

  (5) what changes there have been in the training of staff in restraint in the past five years at Rampton hospital; and what was the expenditure on restraint and control training in each of those years;

  (6) how many working days were lost at Rampton hospital in respect of staff suffering from violent attacks or stress-related illness in each of the last five years;
  860
  (7) if she will give the reasons behind the withdrawal and non-replacement of defence shields at Rampton hospital.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Special Hospitals Service Authority.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings there have been in the last 12 months between herself, a Health Minister, parliamentary private secretaries or parliamentary under-secretary and representatives of private health insurance companies.

  Mr. Sackville
  Five meetings.

  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the allocation of merit awards to consultants is dependent on whether a consultant is employed by the national health service in a part-time or full-time capacity; and how many consultants earn less than £1,000 annually in private sector work.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Eligibility for distinction awards is not dependent on whether a consultant is employed in a part-time or whole-time capacity. The actual amount payable to a part-timer is determined on a pro rata basis. Information on the number of consultants with private earnings of less than £1,000 per annum is not available. However, in 1988–89 it is estimated that about 25 per cent. of hospital consultants had no private earnings.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has held with the Home Office and the Department of the Environment regarding the need to improve co-ordination between the Department, the police and social services in the treatment of her mentally ill in the wake of the report of the inquiry into the care and treatment of Christopher Clunis.

  Mr. Bowis
  We fully endorse the importance placed by the inquiry on co-ordination in this area. The Department works closely with the Home Office to encourage effective liaison between the police and other criminal justice agencies and the health and social services.

  Amenity Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service patients paid a charge for an amenity bed in 1992–93; and what percentage of them were receiving national health service treatment in NHS hospitals, excluding trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 4 February at columns 985–86.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total cost for the recent market testing of Employment Service job clubs, including the staff time of those involved in preparing the bids.
  861
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The costs of running the market test, including the staff time of those involved in preparing the bids has been estimated to be £132,000. The full annual value of the services prior to testing was £8·4 million and following the market test the equivalent cost is anticipated to be £8·1 million. The competition costs should be recovered within six months.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 644, what was the budgeted and actual cost of each of the public information campaigns listed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Campaign

  1993–94 Budgeted spend £

  Make it your Business

  2,000,000

  1993 National Training Awards

  564,000

  Career Development Loans

  1,870,000

  Careers Service

  150,000

  New Horizons for Women

  300,000

  Just the Job/New Measures

  1,800,000

  Employer Campaign

  1,300,000

  Disability

  1,300,000

  Employees in Employment: Great Britain (seasonally adjusted)

  Thousands

  Full-time males

  Percentage of male working age population

  Full-time females

  Percentage of female working age population

  1973

  12,824

  77·2

  5,530

  36·6

  1979

  112,390

  73·0

  5,598

  35·9

  1989

  10,814

  60·3

  5,936

  36·3

  19932

  9,405

  52·2

  5,485

  33·3

  1Employees data relates to 1978.

  2September 1993; latest data available.

  Full-time employees data are unavailable prior to 1971.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentage the number of weekly hours worked by all operators in manufacturing industry has fallen since 1989; and when he expects the number to recover to the 1989 level.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since 1989, the index of total weekly hours worked by all operatives in manufacturing fell by 29 per cent.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what statistics are available on the construction industry regarding(a) fatalities and (b) injuries that were directly the result of negligent employers breaking criminal health and safety laws over the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not available in the form requested. The number of fatalities and other injuries occurring in the construction industry over the last five years was set out in tables 2., 3 and 4 of the Health and Safety Commission's 1992–93 annual report.
  862
  As these campaigns are ongoing and will continue after the end of the current financial year, actual costs are not yet known.

  Campaign

  1993–94 Budgeted Spend £

  Actual cost £

  Workstart

  15,000

  14,079

  Jobfinders Grant

  35,000

  18,419

  Work Trials

  15,000

  13,541

  Community Action

  15,000

  12,403

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the number of full-time(a) male and (b) female employees in 1968, 1973, 1979, 1989 and 1993 in numbers and as a percentage of the population of adult working age in each case.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information is given in the following table:

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the estimated cost of occupational ill-health in the construction industry during 1993.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No estimates are available of the specific cost of occupational ill health in the construction industry during 1993. However, a recent study by the Health and Safety Executive shows that in recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the direct cost to employers of work-related ill health in Great Britain.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in the last five years in reducing the. accident level in the construction industry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Both the numbers and rates of injuries to employees have continued to fall over the last five years; the trend for every category of injury and for each year is downwards, more sharply in the last two years. Injury rates among the self-employed are also improving, the last three years' figures being generally lower than at the end of the 1980s.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the Health and Safety Executive regarding predictable and
  863
  preventable construction fatalities that were directly a result of negligent employers breaking health and safety laws.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive has periodically briefed Ministers on the preventable nature of construction industries and the need to improve health and safety management in the industry. With this objective I expect shortly to receive proposals from the Health and Safety Commission for new Construction (Design and Management) Regulations.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people over the past five years have died in the construction industry due to accidents on site and industrial-related diseases.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The hon. Member will have the Health and Safety Commission's 1992–93 annual report, published last November, tables 2, 3 and 4 of which contain the detailed injury figures. Figures for work-related ill health in construction or any other industry are not generally available due to the difficulty in relating deaths to possible fatal exposures occurring years before. However, for the five-year period 1987 and 1991, about 20 per cent. of the people whose death certificates mentioned mesothelioma as a cause of death had a last full-time occupation in the construction industry.

  Upper Limb Disorders
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures his Department has undertaken to provide information and appropriate occupational health expertise to employers who have employees that are in high-risk work related upper limb disorders occupations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Measures taken by the Health and Safety Executive in recent years have included:

  General guidance for employers on preventing work related upper limb disorders published in 1990;

  A four-year campaign to raise employer awareness of work-related musculo-skeletal harm, including workplace visits, presentations, and leaflets. The final phase will be launched in April;

  Guidance to family doctors on identifying any workplace dimension to upper limb disorders in patients, through a booklet and audio cassette;

  An expansion of ergonomics training for HSE's employment medical advisory service staff and inspectors;

  HSE ergonomic advice in workplaces identified as high risk.

  An action programme recently agreed by the Health and Safety Commission included further plans for a simple guide for supervisors on assessing risks of these disorders; a booklet of case studies of practical solutions to ergonomic problems and guidance for the ceramics, food processing, and rubber sectors.

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the annual cost to his Department of administering the operation of the career development loans scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Administration costs associated with the career development loan programme were £212,000 in 1992–93, compared with £206,000 in 1991–92.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements exist for writing off the debt incurred by those applying for funding under the career development loan scheme.
  864
  Miss Widdecombe
  There are no arrangements for writing off career development loan debts. CDLs operate similar to normal unsecured personal loans and, as CDL literature points out, borrowers are responsible for repaying to the bank the loan and interest on it at the end of the repayment holiday period, currently the period of training and up to three months afterwards.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many loans made under the career development loan scheme in each year since the introduction of the scheme were for courses with a duration of(a) less than three months, (b) between three and six months, (c) between six and 12 months and (d) more than 12 months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following table sets out the number of approved career development loans by course duration, for each of the financial years since the scheme was introduced nationally in July 1988.

  Career development loans by course duration

  Financial year

  Less than three months

  Three months and up to six

  Six months and up to 12

  More than 12 months1

  1988–89

  401

  188

  1,787

  —

  1989–90

  842

  369

  5,286

  —

  1990–91

  1,033

  498

  6,073

  —

  1991–92

  1,543

  788

  8,233

  —

  1992–93

  1,237

  935

  8,172

  —

  21993–94

  1,153

  889

  8,321

  26

  1 CDLs for courses lasting longer than one year and up to two years were only available from April 1993 through local sponsorship by training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies. From April 1994 the criteria for all CDLs will be extended to courses lasting up to two years.

  2 Figures for 1993–94 are as at 1 March 1994.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the annual cost to his Department of meeting interest charges on interest-free loans awarded under the career development loan scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Department currently pays the interest on career development loans whilst the borrower is undertaking training and for up to three months afterwards. From April this year the Department will pay the interest during the period of training and for up to one month afterwards. Borrowers who are registered unemployed one month after completing training may apply to the bank to defer repayments for up to a further five months. During 1992–93 the cost to the Department of meeting interest charges was £3·4 million, compared with £2·8 million in 1991–92.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which financial institutions operate the career development loan scheme in conjunction with his Department; and what remuneration they receive for this service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department operates career development loans in partnership with three major high street banks—Barclays, the Co-operative and the Clydesdale. Under the conditions of the scheme the Department agrees to pay interest charges on loans while the borrower is training and for up to three months afterwards. From April this year, the Department will pay the interest during the period of training and for up to one
  865
  month afterwards. Borrowers who are registered unemployed one month after completing training may apply to the bank to defer repayments for up to a further five months.

  In addition, the Department agrees to pay the banks the value of defaulted CDLs up to an agreed percentage limit of the bank's CDL lending portfolio.

  The Department also pays the banks a small administration charge, £45 plus VAT in each case, in connection with loans of less than £300 and costs associated with recovering moneys on defaulted loans. Total costs since the scheme began have been modest, £3,491 and £1,532, respectively.

  Number of approved career development loans

  Value of approved loans

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–95

  1993–941

  Up to £500

  211

  347

  334

  658

  609

  613

  £501 to £1,000

  467

  1,410

  1,049

  1,467

  1,383

  1,286

  £1,001 to £2,000

  612

  2,064

  2,906

  3,068

  2,752

  2,379

  £2,001 to £3,000

  306

  594

  894

  1,501

  1,360

  1,476

  £3,001 to £5,000

  780

  2,082

  2,421

  3,870

  4,240

  4,622

  Over £5,0002

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  Total number of loans

  2,376

  6,497

  7,604

  10,564

  10,344

  10,386

  Average value of loans

  £2,401

  £2,417

  £2,477

  £2,643

  £2,778

  £2,911

  Notes: 1Figures for 1993–94 are as at 1 March 1994.

  2CDLs for loans over £5,000 and up to £10,000 were only available from April 1993 through local sponsorship by training and enterprise councils (TECs) and local enterprise companies (LECs). From April 1994 the loan criteria for all CDLs will extend to £8,000.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the career development loan scheme; what assessment has been made of the employment status of applicants to the scheme; what assessment has been made of the employment status of those who complete the scheme; and what types of courses were founded under the scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The career development loan programme is monitored closely and includes follow-up questionnaires being sent to a sample of trainees three months after they have completed their training. The 1992–93 annual report on CDLs shows that with total public expenditure costs for CDLs amounting to £15·27 per training week, costs are much smaller than those associated with other publicly funded training programmes.

  Currently, 30 per cent. of trainees are employed full-time at the time of applying for a CDL and a further 30 per cent. are registered unemployed. More than two out of three obtain jobs as soon as they finish their training.

  A wide variety of courses are supported by CDLs, ranging from postgraduate to sport and tourism. Further information on CDLs, including a list of the varying types of courses undertaken, can be found in the 1992–93 annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Freephone and Freepost
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the annual cost to his Department of running freephone and freepost facilities related to the career development scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost of the Department of freephone and freepost facilities associated with career development loans were £10,000 and £4,500, respectively
  866
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been accepted under the career development loans scheme for each year since its introduction; what was the average amount of loan made; and how many loans were made(a) up to £500, (b) between £500 and £1,000, (c) between £1,00 and £2,000, (d) between £2,000 and £3,000, (e) between £3,000 and £5,000 and (f) and over £5,000 in each year since the introduction of the scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following table sets out the number of approved career development loans by loan value, for each of the financial years since the scheme was introduced nationally in July 1988.

  in 1992–93. The further costs of handling the freephone and freepost responses and dispatching the requested literature amounted to some £145,000.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many decisions calling for the reinstatement of employees dismissed by their employers have been given by industrial tribunals; and how many of these have been(a) acted on and (b) not acted on by those employers in each of the last five years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The details, which are for both reinstatement and re-engagement orders, are as follows:

  Complied with

  Not complied with

  Total

  1988–89

  1—

  1—

  59

  1989–90

  1—

  1—

  59

  1990–91

  1—

  1—

  64

  1991–92

  70

  1

  71

  1992–93

  65

  8

  73

  1 Not available.

  I regret that figures showing the numbers of orders complied with or not complied with are not available for the years 1988 to 1990.

  Labour Statistics
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women between the ages of 16 and 59 years there are; and what percentage of them are economically active in(a) Cornwall (b) Devon, (c) East Sussex, (d) Essex, (e) Hereford and Worcester, (f) the Isle of Wight, (g) Merseyside, (h) Mid-Glamorgan and (i) West Sussex.
  867
  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates from the summer, June to August, 1993 Labour Force Survey show that 65.5 per cent. of women aged between 16 and 59 in Merseyside were economically active. LFS estimates, by sex, for this specific age group are not available for levels below region or metropolitan area.

  Population estimates and economic activity rates for each area, relating to women aged 16 to 59 are available from the 1991 census of population and can be obtained via the NOMIS database in the Library. In addition, the population estimates are updated annually and the most recent figures, relating to June 1992, are given in the following table:

  Estimated resident population at mid-1992

  thousands

  Counties

  Women aged 16–59

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  131·6

  Devon

  289·2

  East Sussex

  196·8

  Essex

  453·3

  Hereford and Worcester

  199·3

  Isle of Wight

  33·0

  Merseyside

  418·2

  Mid-Glamorgan

  155·6

  West Sussex

  195·9

  Source:

  Population Estimates Unit, OPCS.

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 to allow workers who are paid by and contracted to a temporary employment agency, yet classed as being self-employed, to claim redundancy payments if the employment agency goes into liquidation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Payments under the redundancy and insolvency provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 can be made to employees, as

  Places allocated

  Resources allocated £

  Percentage of places taken up after six months Per cent.

  1 Cost of scheme after six months £

  East Kent

  250

  660,000

  39

  61,880

  South London

  250

  660,000

  32

  48,550

  Tyneside

  250

  660,000

  18

  25,440

  Devon and Cornwall

  250

  660,000

  2

  2,280

  1The figures given are the amounts paid to employers under the scheme. In addition each pilot will have Incurred marketing and administration costs from within its total allocation of £660,000.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Privy Council
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Lord President of the Council to which bodies the Privy Council makes appointments; what is the total membership of these bodies; how many members of each are appointed by the Privy Council; and 868
  defined in the Act. Workers contracted to a temporary employment agency are not excluded from the legislation and may be eligible for payments provided that the facts of their contract with the agency are consistent with employee status, whether or not the agency classified them as self-employed. Whether a particular individual is an employee for these purposes is therefore a question of fact to be determined where necessary by an industrial tribunal. The courts have laid down criteria for distinguishing employees from the self-employed. There are no plans to change the legislation.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of participants on the former youth training scheme found subsequent employment as a result of a placement on the scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Of all those who left the former youth training scheme in its last full year of operation—April 1989 to March 1990—in Great Britain, 67 per cent. went into full-time or part-time employment or self-employment.

  Workstart
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places were allocated to each of the four workstart pilot schemes and the North Norfolk Action pilot scheme; how much money was allocated to each scheme; what percentage of places was taken up on each of the five schemes after the first six months of operation in each case; and how much each scheme has cost after the first six months of operation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of £750,000 was allocated to the North Norfolk Action pilot scheme. One hundred and eight work experience opportunities are available. After six months, 125 have participated in the work experience part of North Norfolk Action. Currently 58 per cent. of the places are filled. The cost of these places is some £114,000.

  The informtion requested on the Workstart pilots is as follows:

  if he will list the bodies according to the Government Department or other organisation that makes the recommendations for appointments.

  Mr. Newton
  In respect of the first and third parts of the question, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply of 27 January 1994 at columns 359–60, to a question from the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright).
  869
  The full information relating to the second part of the question is not held centrally and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. The remaining information requested is as follows:

  Body to which appointments are made

  Recommendations/comments sought from

  Council and Academic Advisory Committee of the University of Buckingham

  The University

  Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  Health Departments

  Court of the University of Kent at Canterbury

  The University

  General Optical Council

  Health Departments

  Court of the University of Lancaster

  The University

  Council and Statutory Committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  The Society, and Health Departments

  Council of the University of the South Pacific

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Court and Conference of the University of Stirling

  The University

  General Convocation of the University of Strathclyde

  The University

  Court of the University of Sussex

  The University

  Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Council of the Royal Veterinary College

  The College

DEFENCE

  Operation Sharp Guard
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the continued progress and effectiveness of Operation Sharp Guard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Royal Navy ships and aircraft and RAF Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft continue to contribute to operations in the Adriatic to monitor and enforce compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions on trade sanctions and the arms embargo against the former Yugoslavia. NATO/WEU Operation Sharp Guard continues to be highly successful. Since enforcement operations began, there have been over 27,000 challenges of suspected violators and over 1,900 instances of ships being stopped and boarded, with over 450 diversions for inspections.

  Environmental Damage
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been carried out by his Department on the costs of damage to the environment caused by its activities.

  Mr. Hanley
  In line with Government policy, the Ministry of Defence seeks to identify, assess and, where practicable, minimise the environmental impacts of its activities. The identification and, where appropriate, rectification of environmental damage attributable to past defence activity, principally soil contamination, is 870
  undertaken where there is considered to be a risk to health and safety, where water quality is threatened or where land is being sold.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent additions there have been to the contracts for supplying military equipment to Indonesia.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter for the customer and the supplier.

  Soviet Nuclear Submarine
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for his Department of the sunken Soviet nuclear submarine Komsomolets.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am not aware of any specific implications for my Department.

  Radar Installations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask. the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation has been made of the possible health risks of siting Ministry of Defence radar installations within close proximity to settlements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department sites radar installations in accordance with national guidelines. However, where there is concern about possible health implications from facilities in close proximity to settlements, my Department commissions independent consultants to carry out a full evaluation in accordance with DOE circular 15/88, Welsh Office circular 23/88—"Assessment of Environmental Effects"—and Scottish Office circular SDD 3/88.
  871

  Hercules
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected cost of replenishment of the current fleet of Hercules aircraft in use by the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  It would not be appropriate to release sensitive cost information particularly during the competitive procurement process that we are pursuing for the Hercules replacement/refurbishment programme. I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House in closing the debate on the Royal Air Force on 27 January,Official Report, columns 506–7.

  Air Training Corps
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been received on the question of the future of the Air Training Corps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has received a number of representations on the future of the Air Training Corps. I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave during the Adjournment debate on the future of the Corps on 23 November 1993,Official Report, columns 421–28, and in my answer to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 21 February 1994, Official Report, column 68.

  C-130J Aircraft
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the total cost of purchasing 30 C-130J aircraft for use by the Royal Air Force; what proposals there are to purchase such aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  It would not be appropriate to release sensitive cost information particularly during the competitive procurement process that we are pursuing for the Hercules replacement/refurbishment programme. As I explained to the House in closing the debate on the Royal Air Force on 27 January, columns 506–7, the C-130J aircraft is only one of the options under consideration.

  Anti-ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the development of a British or collaborative European anti-ballistic missile capability.

  Mr. Aitken
  We are considering whether the United Kingdom might have a future requirement for ballistic missile defence and are about to embark on a two-year programme of pre-feasibility studies to determine what options might be available. The United Kingdom is also fully involved in a number of international studies.

  Live Firing Exercises
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what notice was given to local fishermen before the live firings exercise involving the RAF and HMS Fearless, conducted outside the established exercise areas in the Minch in the week beginning 7 February; and if he will make a statement on future policy regarding notice for such exercises.

  Mr. Hanley
  The activity in the Minch involving HMS Fearless and the RAF took place on 10 February.872
  It was not a live firing exercise; only inert practice bombs were used and the activity was conducted wholly within the Clyde exercise areas. The firing was carried out in full accordance with established safety procedures which ensure the safety of other vessels. Since there is currently no requirement to inform mariners of this type of activity, no formal notification was given of the firing, although notices had been issued indicating that HMS Fearless would be operating in support of exercises in the area. There are no plans to alter the requirements governing the issue of formal warning notices, but we intend shortly to introduce a system for broadcasting details of firing intentions in local sea areas.

  Defence Review
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to conduct a review similar to that being conducted by the Director General of Testing and Evaluation, for all service ranges not under the director general; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The future requirements for MOD ranges are being reviewed as part of the defence costs study "Front Line First". The study is progressing well. As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces made clear in his written answer of 18 February to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), the study is due to report in March, but it will not be until some time after this that final conclusions will be reached. Decisions taken as a result of the study will be announced in due course.

  Woolwich Arsenal
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were employed by his Department or its agencies at the Ministry of Defence Woolwich arsenal in each of the years 1964, 1970, 1980 and 1990; and how many are employed there currently.

  Mr. Aitken
  The number of staff currently employed by the MOD and Defence Research Agency at the Royal Arsenal is 413. Records do not exist for years prior to 1975, but available figures are: 1975–3,799;, 1980–2,823; 1990–1,544.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel are presently in Mozambique; and what tasks they are performing.

  Mr. Hanley
  As well as the defence attaché and his supporting staff of one, there are currently 14 British military personnel in Mozambique making up the Mozambique short-term training team. Their role is to supervise and monitor Mozambican instructors, previously trained by the Mozambique training team at Nyanga, Zimbabwe, in the training of the unified Mozambican army.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the value to United Kingdom companies of defence contracts following the establishment of memoranda of understanding with(a) Bangladesh, (b) Ecuador, (c) India, (d) Indonesia, (e) Jordan, (f) Nigeria, (g) Oman, (h) Pakistan and (i) Thailand in each of the last five years.
  873
  Mr Aitken
  It is not generally Government policy to comment on the value of defence sales to individual countries.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to appoint the new head of the Defence Export Services Organisation; when the post was advertised; and how the successful candidate will be chosen.

  Mr Aitken
  The post was advertised on 29 September 1993. Executive search consultants were employed to help to identify suitable candidates. A decision on the appointment will follow in due course.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with which countries the Government have a protocol on arms sales; and when each one was entered into.

  Mr Aitken
  Her Majesty's Government signed protocols on arms sales with the Government of Malaysia in 1988 and with the Government of Brunei in 1989.

  Desert Storm Syndrome
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish an independent scientific inquiry into reports of the existence of a medical condition peculiar to service in the Gulf conflict; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  We have no plans to do so as there remains no clinical evidence that members of the British armed forces who served in the Gulf conflict are suffering from any unexplained medical symptoms which would call for such an inquiry. My Department continues to monitor all the available information on the alleged syndrome and continues to offer medical assessments for those United Kingdom Gulf war personnel who are concerned about their health. Of the 11 so far assessed—of the 14 who have come forward for examination—all have been found to be suffering from separate but recognised medical conditions unconnected with their service in the Gulf.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent communications he has received from legal firms concerning Desert Storm syndrome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence has received correspondence from two firms of solicitors concerning the reported effects of the so-called Desert Storm syndrome. One is acting on behalf of an individual; the other wrote on behalf of a group of solicitors who have indicated that they will be acting for a number of service and ex-service personnel. We have not yet been informed how many individuals this group will represent.

  Yugoslavia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to send additional British troops to Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 120 additional British troops were deployed to UNPROFOR Bosnia-Herzegovina 874
  command last month. The Government have no plans at this stage to send further troops, but will continue to keep developments in Bosnia under review.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 1054, whether those British service personnel in the former Yugoslavia who will be participating in the two-month trial of the United Nations system of supply are volunteers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  British personnel stationed at Tomislavgrad have been chosen to participate in the United Nations food trial. Tomislavgrad is a staging post for convoys and as such is subject to a fluctuating complement of personnel. This unit has been chosen, therefore, as it represents a rigorous examination of the United Nation's ability to maintain the quantity and quality of rations demanded by the British contingent in Bosnia. Since the trial must involve a complete unit, seeking individual volunteers would be impractical.

  Mountain Rescue
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost per hour of operating the RAF search and rescue mountain rescue teams based at Scottish airfields.

  Mr. Hanley
  No charges are recovered for assistance given by the RAF mountain rescue teams except when provided in connection with civil aviation incidents. The cost per hour of operating the RAF MRTs is dependent upon the manpower and resources utilised in undertaking the task and costs vary in accordance with the number and grade of personnel involved, and the number and type of vehicles used.

  Sea King Helicopters
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost per hour of operating a Sea King helicopter on search and rescue duty.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of operating an RAF Sea King search and rescue helicopter on duty is £5,210 per hour at full cost.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 24 February,Official Report, column 383, in the case of which countries with whom memoranda of understanding were agreed such agreement was preceded by the drawing up of a protocol.

  Mr. Aitken
  Malaysia is the only country with which the Government have signed a defence procurement protocol prior to a memorandum of understanding.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Playing Fields
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee when hon. Members will be given full access to the "Register of Playing Fields in England and Wales"; and what has caused the delay in access for Members.
  875
  Mr. Waller
  In answer to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 12 January 1994,Official Report, column 209, the Department of National Heritage stated that the Sports Council would be providing the register's database on diskette to the Library of the House. Unfortunately the database has been supplied in a form which is not usable with existing Library software without significant programming effort, and the volume of data is too great to be provided in the form of a print-out. The Library has, however, made arrangements to obtain sample data in spreadsheet format from Birkbeck college, which maintains the database, and will continue to explore alternative means of access for Members.

  7 Millbank
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what was the cost of the initial refurbishment of 7 Millbank; if he will identify the cost of building the canteen and kitchen area; what is the estimated cost of further refurbishment of 7 Millbank; and if he will identify the cost of expanding the canteen and kitchen area.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The cost of the building works at 7 Millbank will be some £6·3 million. The cost of the canteen and kitchen area is not separately identified in the contract. £100,000 is provided in the estimate for 1994–95 for an extension to the cafeteria and servery—there are no plans to expand the kitchen.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the total revenue raised by VAT in the current financial year; and what will be the likely take in each of the next two financial years.

  Sir John Cope
  A total of £38½ billion, £43 billion and £48 billion respectively.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the average family paid in VAT in 1979; and what is the most recent figure.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 23 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) earlier today.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss interest rates.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I meet the Governor regularly to discuss a range of economic and monetary issues, including interest rates.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average rate of interest over each of(a) the past two years and (b) the average between February 1974 to May 1979; and if he will make a statement.
  876
  Mr. Nelson
  (a) In 1992 the average level of interest rates was 9.6 per cent. In 1993 the average level of interest rates was 6 per cent. Between March 1992 and February 1994 the average level of interest rates was 7·4 per cent.

  (b) Between February 1974 to May 1979 the average level of interest rates was 10½ per cent.

  Interest rates are set to achieve the Government's inflation objectives. Base rates now stand at 5.25 per cent. and are among the lowest in the EC.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much British industry has saved from the reduction in interest rates in the last 18 months.

  Mr. Portillo
  United Kingdom base rates have fallen by 4¾ percentage points over the past 18 months. It is estimated that, when fully passed on, that will have reduced United Kingdom companies' interest bills by over £6 billion a year.

  City of London
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is proposing to take to ensure that the City of London remains the dominant financial centre in Europe.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government remain committed to providing an environment which will enable the City to maintain and enhance its position as a leading world financial centre and the pre-eminent financial centre of Europe.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received encouraging him to increase the size of the public sector borrowing requirement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I do not believe that any reputable organisation would recommend that we increase the level of public borrowing.

  Taxation
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the total income tax take was being contributed by top rate tax in 1979 and the latest available year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The higher rate of tax currently accounts for 24 per cent. of total income tax compared with 9 per cent. in 1978–79.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the cost to the average family from (i) April 1994 and (ii) April 1995 of the cumulative tax increases announced since last March.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the increase a typical family will have to pay over the next two years in taxes announced in last year's Budgets.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the cost to the average family from(a) April 1994 and (b) April 1995 of the cumulative tax increases announced since last March.
  877
  Mr. Dorrell
  The Budget measures restore sound public finances. This is the only basis for a sustained recovery that will create more jobs and higher living standards.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to compensate families on 75 per cent. or less of average earnings, following the changes announced in last year's Budgets concerning income tax and national insurance.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to compensate families with two children and one spouse working on average male earnings, following the increases in income tax and national insurance coming into effect in April 1994.

  Mr. Portillo
  Since 1979 families on three quarters of average earnings have enjoyed an increase in real net income of over 62 per cent.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people with earnings below the income tax threshold will be affected by the increases in indirect taxation announced in November's budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 23 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 14 December 1993 at column 579.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's tax policies on the income of a family with two children and one spouse on average male earnings.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 23 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) earlier today.

  Landfill Levies
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies the Treasury has commissioned on the effect of inflation on landfill levies.

  Sir John Cope
  None.

  Family Incomes
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average income of a family of four in 1994; and what it was in 1979 at 1994 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The real take-home pay of a one-earner married couple on average earnings with two children has risen by £83, over 40 per cent. since 1978–79.

  Public Assets (Sales
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue he is expecting from the sale of public assets during the next three years.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am expecting privatisation proceeds of £5·5 billion in 1994–95 and £1 billion in each of 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Economic Demand
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the level of total demand in the economy.
  878
  Mr. Portillo
  For domestic demand, the most recent figures available are for the fourth quarter of 1993. By then, it had risen for seven successive quarters, to a level over 4 per cent. above its trough in the first quarter of 1992. Its growth is forecast to strengthen in 1994.

  Drugs
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the street value of drugs seized by Customs and Excise last year.

  Sir John Cope
  The street value of drugs seized by Customs and Excise during the calendar year 1993 was about £518,500,000

  This included:

  £(Thousand)

  Heroin

  97,955

  Cocaine

  110,244

  Cannabis

  176,033

  Synthetic drugs

  134,210

  Sport (Taxation)
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to decrease the taxation burden on sport in the United Kingdom.

  Sir John Cope
  A new VAT exemption for the supply of certain services by non profit-making organisations to persons taking part in sport will be introduced shortly. Copies of an information paper giving further details including a draft Treasury order have been placed in the Library.

  Inland Revenue (Inquiries)
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many counter callers and telephone queries the Inland Revenue has had in the period January and February in 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is in the table. The figures relate only to tax offices and there is no available data for specialist or collection offices.

  Counter callers

  Telephone callers

  mid December-mid January 1992

  219,889

  1,224,936

  mid January-mid February 1992

  493,927

  2,521,731

  mid December-mid January 1993

  270,589

  1,891,875

  mid January-mid February 1993

  380,439

  2,212,201

  mid December-mid January 1994

  235,969

  1,857,123

  mid January-mid February 1994

  343,349

  2,579,192

  There has been an increase in the aggregate number of counter and telephone callers in the reporting period to mid-February this year, compared with the previous month, but this follows the pattern in previous years, as the table shows.

  Hotels and Boarding Houses
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 890, why in carrying out the national

  879
  revaluation 1995, hotels and boarding houses' district valuers required a detailed breakdown for each of the items requested to establish rental values; if he will give respondents more than 21 days to carry out the work involved; and if he will introduce a simplified form.

  Mr. Nelson
  Forms requesting the supply of information served by valuation officers on the occupiers or owners of hereditaments have been designed to enable those officers to obtain the information they require in order to compile and maintain rating lists.

  A general form requiring rental details is used in most cases but for some types of business information is required about receipts because rental details are scarce. Hotels and boarding houses fall within this category.

  The law requires that the form seeking information is returned to a valuation officer within 21 days. However, where there are particular difficulties in complying with this time limit, a longer period may be agreed.

  It is not considered appropriate to introduce a further simplified form. Any ratepayer who is having difficulty with the form should approach his or her local valuation officer who will offer guidance on its completion.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the public appointments he is responsible for making in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies 1993" including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.

  Mr. Nelson
  In addition to the public appointments he is responsible for making which are identified in "Public Bodies 1993", my right hon. and learned Friend is also responsible for appointments to the following bodies:

  Building Societies Commission;

  Friendly Societies Commission;

  Crown Estate Commission;

  Public Works Loan Board;

  Retail Price Index Advisory Committee;

  Securities and Investments Board;

  Treasury Academic Advisory Panel;

  National Savings Board;

  Central Statistical Office Management Board;

  VAT Tribunals;

  Central Statistical Office Advisory Committee;

  Royal Mint Management Board;

  Financial Services Tribunal

  Spouse's Transitional Exemption
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer of the spouse's transitional exemption in 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 in constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The legislation which introduced independent taxation for married women provides for two transitional allowances. One enables a husband who has been unable, since 1989–90, to use all his allowances effectively to transfer to his wife as much of his personal allowance as is necessary to bring the total allowances usable by the couple to the level of the allowances they could set against their income in 1989–90. The other 880
  transitional allowance protects the entitlement of husbands aged under 65 whose wives are entitled to age-related allowances. The Exchequer cost of these provisions is not available centrally.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government agencies and Departments currently subscribe funds to the International Monetary Fund, and what is the level of subscription for each agency and Department.

  Mr. Nelson
  As a member of the International Monetary Fund, the United Kingdom pays a subscription, its "quota", by placing a proportion of the reserves at the IMF's disposal. These funds are available for use by the United Kingdom in the event of balance of payments need. The quota is transferred to the IMF by the Bank of England acting as the Treasury's agent for the management of the reserves. In addition, the Overseas Development Administration makes an annual contribution to the interest subsidy account of the enhanced structural adjustment facility—ESAF—which is a trust fund administered by the IMF.

  Details of the level of these payments were provided in my response to a question from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 10 December 1993 at columns 403–4, to which I refer the hon. Gentleman. In addition, the ODA has made a one-off pledge of up to £50 million towards the enlarged ESAF and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 3 December 1993 at columns 795–96.

  Annuality
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the rules on annuality for nationalised industries; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have decided that from 1994–95 nationalised industries should, as a general rule, be allowed to defer spending equal to up to 5 per cent. of their capital investment from one year to the next. This will be achieved by adjusting the industries' external finance limits, so that extra spending in the later year is matched by reduced spending in the earlier year. This change should make it easier for nationalised industries to manage their capital expenditure programmes.

  Low Incomes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's tax policies on the economic well-being of people on low incomes who are below pension age.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 23 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) earlier today.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Milford— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father

Hallmarking System
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made to ensure the continuation of the British hallmarking system in view of the proposed European Community directive on the harmonisation of hallmarking.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, negotiations are continuing on the European Commission's proposal for a draft directive. The Government are determined to preserve as much of the British hallmarking system as possible and to ensure that consumers are afforded the high level of protection to which they are presently accustomed.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is the Minister aware that under Article 12 of the draft directive, manufacturers will be allowed,
"to strike existing traditional marks"?
Can he assure us that the famous British hallmarks which have guaranteed absolute standards since 1300 will continue to be able to be used correctly in this country and not misused by other European countries?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the proposed directive as it stands would generally permit only two marks: the sponsor's mark denoting both the manufacturer and the notified body; and a fineness mark. Therefore, British assay officers would not be able to use their existing hallmarks. However, the draft directive would allow the continued use of so-called traditional marks so long as they do not confuse. We are seeking clarification from the Commission, and we shall continue to argue for existing hallmarks to be included.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, does the Minister agree that negotiations on the draft directive have now entered a critical phase? If so, will he please arrange for their conduct to be carefully supervised in his department, bearing in mind that the present text of the so-called Annexe 4 does not safeguard adequately the interests of consumers and would also undermine seriously the hallmarking arrangements which have existed satisfactorily in this country for seven centuries?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government have strong reservations about the conformity procedure proposed in Annexe 4 of the draft directive— the manufacturer's declaration of conformity that he has properly struck the sponsor's and the fineness marks on
1126
the article. We believe that Annexe 4 is a weak form of control which is open to abuse. We shall argue for changes in the draft proposals.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has correctly stated the case? Any reduction in the standards relating to traditional hallmarks in this country may well open the door to sharp practice, which we can do without. It may also lead to a reduction in consumer protection. Along with other noble Lords, I hope that the Government will resist any diminution of those standards.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that the Government recognise fully the strength of the British hallmarking system; and they support it. We should not wish to see lower standards of consumer protection 'which must remain the priority in any such arrangements.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if subsidiarity means anything at all, it should cover this subject? This kind of nonsense risks alienating those of us who remain committed to the European ideal.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as regards subsidiarity, the Government's position must be to satisfy the subsidiarity provisions by achieving a system which satisfies UK objectives without an unnecessary proliferation of new rules or unnecessary costs for business while maintaining the extremely high UK standards in that area.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in his original reply the noble Viscount said that the Government would endeavour to maintain the British position sc far as possible. Is he aware that that is not at all adequate? Who in the Commission dreamt up this idea out of the blue? Why do they not mind their own business and get on with something that is really important for the people of Europe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have stressed that the Government sympathise with the anxieties expressed while recognising the desire for harmonisation; and that is shared by industry. That is why we are continuing to press for the maintenance of the highest standards.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could inform the House under what article of the Treaty of Rome this absurd directive is proposed; and whether we are in a position to be outvoted on it, whether we like it or not.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the directive has been proposed as a single market measure under Article 100A of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the deputy warden of the London Assay Office has achieved considerable progress in the preparation of a draft European standard? Can he assure

1127
the House that the interests not only of the consumer but also of those involved in the precious metals and related industries will be looked after?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the industry recognises the need for some form of harmonisation; but all sections of the industry— manufacturers, assay officers and retailers— support the existing arrangements which are easily comprehensible and which offer a very high level of protection to the consumer.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am stupefied by the suggestion of a desire for some form of harmonisation. Does the Minister not recognise that we have an extremely satisfactory system of hallmarking in this country which protects the consumer? Perhaps the noble Viscount will address himself to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I speak, as the Minister knows, as a strong supporter of the Community, but I should like to know on what grounds the Community is involving itself in a state of affairs which is currently more than satisfactory. The present system offers an extremely good measure of consumer protection. The Government should not be negotiating on this issue. They should be saying no.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I endorse entirely the views of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the strength of the existing UK system. But at present, a number of differing systems are in use throughout the European Union for marking precious metals. Member states, as well as the Commission, see the benefits of harmonisation. We shall continue to press for the maintenance of the present extremely high standards.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I could press my noble friend to answer the second half of my question as to whether this country can be outvoted on this absurd directive, whether we like it or not.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my understanding is that the directive is governed by the principle of qualified majority voting.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that five other European countries each have their own satisfactory hallmarking standards? Can we not call upon them as allies to support the idea of retaining our own individual hallmarking standards?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government are aware that a number of other member states including France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain also have reservations about the Annexe 4 procedure. They also seek to maintain the high standards which they have in their industries.

Equine Medicines
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will oppose the proposed European Union regulations concerning equine medicines.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, there are no current proposals for European Union regulations on equine medicines. The noble Viscount may, however, have in mind Council Regulation 2377/90 under which maximum residue limits (MRLs) must be established by 1996 for active ingredients in veterinary medicines used in food producing species. The European Commission has confirmed this morning that, in line with existing UK policy, if a horse is not destined for human consumption, maximum residue limits will not be required.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and indeed for the reassurances that it brings. I believe everyone will be pleased at what he has said. However, until such time as a firm and practical agreement is in place within the European Commission, does he not agree that horse owners may be deprived of the ability to carry out their legal responsibility properly to care for their animals? Similarly, veterinary surgeons may be unable fully to carry out their professional responsibilities. Finally, does the Minister agree that potentially curable animals could well face premature slaughter?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in the light of my initial Answer, I believe that the noble Viscount will find that his fears are quite groundless. Any suggestion that only high value horses will be covered by MRL exemptions is a misinterpretation of what the Commission has said. It has merely given some examples among which high value animals are featured. UK policy applies to all horses irrespective of value.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, do the Government or the Minister's department consult closely with the British Veterinary Association, as that body can give them proper and worthwhile guidance on these matters?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government's links with the British Veterinary Association are indeed close. We have worked closely with the association on this matter and I am sure that we have found an acceptable solution.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, while this issue is of particular concern to the United Kingdom, it is a problem for the whole of the European Union. The volume of sales of equine products is such that it is unlikely that many pharmaceutical houses will go to the effort or expend the funds involved in determining MRLs in these products. Therefore, as has been mentioned, a number of products may be withdrawn not only as regards equines of high value but also equines of low value. I refer to both economic value and value to riders. In this respect will the Minister

1129
support efforts by bodies such as the BVA and the veterinary medicine directorate to join with the European Community bodies of comparable status in seeking to have some derogation applied to this measure at the source from whence it came; namely, Brussels?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in certain countries of the European Union the consumption of horsemeat is a regular occurrence. That is not the practice in this country, which is why I gave the initial Answer that I did. The principle behind the regulation is not one with which, in logic, one can argue. Where meat enters the food chain, we must be able to ensure the safety of the consumer and we must give the pharmaceutical industry a proper framework in which to operate. It is to everyone's advantage to know what the safety levels are. I shall, however, reflect on my noble friend's suggestion to see whether there is anything that we in the UK can do to assist other member states.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, is there any evidence of public health problems arising from the residues of current animal medicines, either in the EC or elsewhere?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware of any particular incidents in the UK, but incidents have arisen in other member states— for example, Spain and Ireland — in other species arising from the misuse of medicinal products. It is only right that the Community should take appropriate action to safeguard human health.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, if the Commission had not changed its stance on MRLs, the effect of the original proposal would have been devastating for the race-horse industry? Will the Government ensure that the Commission does not resile in any way from the policy which, as the Minister mentioned, was confirmed only this morning?
Earl Howe: My Lords, had the Commission not issued the clarification that it did, I would have told the House that we were confident that a full and adequate range of veterinary medicines would be available for treating horses. Nevertheless I take note of what the noble Lord has said. As far as I can see, the Commission's clarification is quite unequivocal and we shall proceed on that basis.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are certain veterinary medicines which may legally be used for other animals but which may not be used legally in the context of horses? In this context might it not be desirable that the horse should be classified as a goat or a rabbit, which we sometimes believe it resembles, and in that case would not be subject to these regulations?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think that my noble friend's point is somewhat academic in that, under the rules as we now understand them, the horse will effectively be exempt from the rules surrounding MRLs anyway.

Sugar: CAP Support Prices
3.16 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What reductions in the price of sugar they are seeking in the current annual common agricultural policy price settlement.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Commission has proposed no changes in support prices for sugar this year apart from a reduction in the amount paid for storing sugar. Proposals have to be made later this year to address the reform of the regime and the measures needed to implement the Community's GATT obligations in time for the 1995– 96 marketing year. The Government, however, believe that there is no reason why some reduction in prices should not be made now to help redress the growing imbalance between this sector and that for other arable crops.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. In asking this Question I declare an interest. While my noble friend's Answer is welcome so far as it goes, does he not think there are sufficient technical issues involved to enable us to ask the Commission to reduce the price still further in the light of the out-of-date situation regarding the sugar regime?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is ample scope to reduce prices even before the reform of the regime. As regards this year's price fixing, we have made it clear in the Council that a price cut is essential.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if there is a reduction in the price of sugar, what mechanism exists to ensure that the consumer benefits and that the reduction is not used to increase the profits of the sugar industry? Do the Government anticipate that the change in the reimbursement of storage costs— the Minister mentioned that— proposed for 1994– 95 will be reflected in prices generally?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the reduction in the storage refund will lead to a reduction in the level of the storage levy which should in turn reduce the price of sugar. 'That is good news for consumers. However, in processed products such as cakes and biscuits, sugar represents only a relatively small proportion of the total cost and the impact of any cut may therefore be modest. Nonetheless, if it occurs it will be welcome.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not an exercise of extreme optimism to believe that the Commission will reduce the price of any commodity?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I remind my noble friend that the Community has signed up to the GATT agreement and sooner or later those targets will have to be addressed. It is likely that the targets will be met by a combination of quota cuts and price reductions. That combination cannot yet be determined, but we will press hard for price reductions to take the weight.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if one reduces the price of sugar, very little

1131
of that reduction will reach the consumer? Over 70 per cent. of the price of the product goes to manufacturers and retailers and very little to the farmers who produce the sugar?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is no doubt that the consumer bears a large proportion of the cost of the sugar regime. In that respect what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, says, is correct. However, if, as I indicated, prices come down— if not this year, then as the regime is reformed— it would be a great surprise to me if there were not some effect on retail prices in the shops.

European Parliament: Accommodation
3.19 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take immediate action, either at a specially convened meeting of the European Council or at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, to veto the proposal for the construction in Strasbourg of a new building to accommodate the European Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, no. A decision was taken at the Edinburgh European Council in December 1992 on the question of the seat of the European Parliament and other Community institutions. It is for the European Parliament itself to decide policy on buildings in the light of that decision.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, this is a matter of the utmost urgency. Is the noble Viscount aware that discussions are taking place, both unofficially in COREPER and in the circles of the European Parliament, concerning this matter? Is he also aware that the French, with their usual felicity in such matters, have already indicated that there will be a withdrawal of co-operation with some members of the European Council in the event of a new Parliament not being established in Strasbourg? Is the Minister further aware that there are three Towers of Babel which at present accommodate the European Parliament: one in Luxembourg which was never used for the purpose after it was built, a further building in Brussels which is used for only about 10 days a year for ordinary parliamentary purposes, and another one in Strasbourg which was built only about 25 years ago and is far from written off? Can the Government not take some action in order to avoid this lush expenditure which at present, in terms of rental, is costing the Community £ 1 million a week? Will the noble Viscount see that something is done about it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord describes as lush expenditure. Certainly, in 1993 the expenditure net of receipts for the European Parliament was over £ 456 million. I cannot differ altogether from the noble Lord over his estimate of the total cost of renting the nine buildings in Brussels, the five buildings in Luxembourg and the five buildings
1132
in Strasbourg, to which he referred rather elliptically. The Edinburgh agreement to which I referred in my original Answer confirms the status quo, and so far as I am aware the French have signed up to that agreement. I remind the noble Lord that that status quo was confirmed in exchange for what was seen by all members of the Community as a greater good, namely the enlargement of the Community, which I believe noble Lords feel is in British interests.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend gain the same impression as I do on every visit to Brussels of an ever-increasing number of Community buildings, all having in common the fact that they look very expensive and are rarely used? Can my noble friend tell the House what contribution we are making towards the building programme in Brussels, Strasbourg and elsewhere?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend has the advantage of me in that he has visited these buildings and I have not, so I must accept his description of them. It is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to say precisely how much they contribute towards the cost of building, running and renting these buildings, but they form an integral part of the overall Community budget to which Her Majesty's Government make a contribution, as my noble friend knows.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it true that the estimated cost of the new building is some £ 230 million? Is it also true that the French Government have threatened that if the building is not built and occupied by the European Parliament they will block the European elections which take place in June? If that is so, is it not disgraceful and downright blackmail?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I cannot confirm the estimate which the noble Lord gives of the cost of the new building that is proposed for Strasbourg. That is a matter which must lie between the European Parliament and the Government of France, which is the sovereign state in which Strasbourg is situated. As I emphasised a few moments ago, the Edinburgh agreement was an agreement among all members of the European Community and as far as I am aware France is fully signed up to that agreement.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that this is a sheer waste of public money? Taxpayers not only in this country but throughout the Community are contributing to this extravagance. Does my noble friend also agree that it is not only the cost of the building that we should be worried about but also the cost of shuttling the various bureaucrats and so on between the three centres, which is costing the European taxpayer millions and millions of pounds quite unnecessarily?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government would be the last to deny that the present arrangements are anything but ideal. My noble friend will be aware that under the arrangement which at present obtains in this matter the secretariat of the European Parliament is separated from both seats of the

1133
European Parliament. It may well be that our friends and allies in other parts of the Community know better how to deal with these matters than we do, but I observe that in this country the learned clerks of both Houses of Parliament are collocated in a way which is clearly not considered desirable in the European Parliament.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the recent decision to enlarge the Community by inclusion of the Scandinavian countries and the wish in future to see further enlargement of the Community by inclusion of countries located in Eastern Europe, would it not be logical to think of the future and recommend that the European Parliament is located in Berlin?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that is not a suggestion that I have heard before this afternoon. I can confirm that the plans for the new building in Strasbourg encompass enough space to accommodate new members from EFTA who are at present negotiating to join the Community as well as new Members of the European Parliament from former East Germany.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind that it has just been estimated that each active Member of your Lordships' House costs the British taxpayer some £ 38.000 per annum, that each Member of the other place costs the taxpayer about £ 250,000 per annum and that each Member of the European Parliament costs just under £ 1 million per annum, does my noble friend think it would be a good idea to hold up the construction of this new white elephant until the latter figure— £ 900,000 per annum per European Member of Parliament— was divided by about, say, six?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I must point out to my noble friend that if he wishes to discuss these matters he must take them up with the European Parliament itself and perhaps with the Government of France, who are responsible for the construction of the building and for relations directly with the Strasbourg project.
Lord Richard: My Lords, am I right in assuming that there are two issues? The first relates to the site of the European Parliament; the second to whether the European Parliament in Strasbourg needs a new building. Am I also right in assuming that on the question of whether the site should be in Strasbourg, the Government have already agreed with the French and others that that is where the building should be sited? So far as I can understand today, the Government take no position on the second issue. If they take no position on whether there should be a new Parliament building in Strasbourg, does the Minister agree that if anything is not needed it is a new European Parliament building in Strasbourg? Those of us who have seen the to-ings and fro-ings and the size of that building, and have worked in a parliamentary House in this building, have envied the facilities in that building. Does the Minister accept from me that the last thing the European Parliament needs is a new building? Would it not be a good idea if the Government said so?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am well aware of the great experience of the noble Lord in matters
1134
European. I certainly defer to what he described as the to-ings and fro-ings associated with having different sites for the European Parliament.
But I can only repeat what I said at the beginning of these exchanges. All members of the European Community in this matter are bound by the status quo which was the decision of the Edinburgh agreement would be the last to deny that in principle it would be desirable to have a single venue for the European Parliament. And I cannot comment on the building. The noble Lord has been there; I have not.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Viscount convey to his right honourable friend the general sentiments on the matter and ensure that a veto is imposed on this quite unnecessary expenditure? Is he aware that if he considers Chapter 20, Title 2, of the European Parliament's budget for the current year he will find under item 2000 a rental of £ 49 million, of which the British bear approximately £ 6 million? That is without rates or any other expenditure. When will the Government take some active, positive steps to bring this travelling circus to an end?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I shall convey to my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary the sentiments that the noble Lord has expressed.

National Parks Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the establishment of new authorities to carry out functions in relation to national parks; and to make provision with respect to those authorities and such parks. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. — (Lord Norrie.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Priorities for the Science Base: Select Committee Report
3.32 p.m.
Lord Flowers Lord Flowers rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Priorities for the Science Base (2nd Report, HL Paper 12).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Members of the sub-committee who joined me in preparing our report, Priorities for the Science Base. Several of them are speaking today and I thank them for that too. All of us would wish me to thank our clerk, Mr. Andrew Makower, whose ability to turn a mass of tangled undergrowth into a trimly pruned garden is phenomenal.
Warm thanks are also due to our specialist adviser, Dr. Peter Collins, and to the Royal Society for seconding to us someone as experienced as he in science policy. Last, but by no means least, perhaps I may thank

1135
our many witnesses from industry, Government and universities. That includes our first witness, Sir David Phillips, who has since retired as chairman of the now defunct Advisory Board of the Research Councils after many years of distinguished service to the administration of science.
The report is both wide-ranging and technical. It is wide-ranging because it examines within given resources how choices are made about scientific research, whatever the objective, conducted in universities and research council laboratories, no matter who funds it. It is about the science base.
It is technical because it examines the problem in the particular light of last May's White Paper, Realising our Potential. That White Paper promised many reforms of the system of government support for science and technology. Some of the recommendations were proposed in earlier reports of your Lordships' Select Committee and I gladly acknowledge that we have been listened to.
We did not consider the special problems of medical research, nor the European framework programme, nor the role of government research laboratories. They had been dealt with in earlier reports. We did not try to set priorities ourselves. Nor did we attempt on this occasion to make a case for increased resources. I do not mean that we considered present levels of spending on science and technology sufficient; we would like to see them increased. In particular we should like to see industry spend more on research; it is not just a matter for Government.
However, the chief purpose of a policy for basic science and engineering is to maintain a creative tension between excellence and utility. The best of British research is still first-class by world standards, although there may be less of it than once there was. We can no longer afford to support all the research our scientists and engineers consider important, no matter how first-class they may be. No country can. We should also support research which offers hope of fruitful application. In no circumstances, however, should we support second-class research, no matter how desirable its objectives. That leads nowhere. Instead we need to identify areas of particular significance to the progress of science or to its eventual applications and in which the practitioners are themselves excellent, and give those practitioners in those areas a measure of priority.
I am saying nothing new: that is the policy of selectivity and concentration which has guided the funding of basic research for 25 years or more. Where has it got us? Counting London and Wales as one university each (and ignoring the raucous protests of their more powerful colleges), there are now 87 universities in the United Kingdom including the former polytechnics. The research councils are open to proposals from all of them. Yet the largest and most general of the councils— namely, the Science. and Engineering Research Council (soon to be a blessed memory)— awards 60 per cent. of its grant money to just 16 universities. The other councils concentrate their resources even more densely. This de facto concentration shows that basic research has become a very
1136
competitive business. We thought that it had become a mite too competitive, and we recommended accordingly.
University people know why they want to do research. They find the pursuit of knowledge exciting, their teaching is enriched by the heightened understanding that it gives them, and they believe that they are contributing to human progress by the results and applications of their discoveries and by the training they offer through research. But since the taxpayer meets so much of the cost of basic research— it is about £ 2 billion annually— it is also right to ask others what they think the science base is for. Our industrial witnesses had a very clear message for us: the science base provides something important but different from what they themselves provide through in-house training and applied research. For example, British Aerospace stated:
"[It] makes an important contribution to the long-term technology investment which is needed by industry".
What the CBI wanted was not particular competences which can be learned on the job, but,
"scientists and engineers of world-class training with a capacity to solve fundamental … problems".
Above all, there was a rejection of the idea that the science base could be substantially funded through industrial research contracts. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry put it very firmly:
"It is not the function of universities … to undertake research which has as its sole aim the production of marketable products and commercial inventions, but rather to provide the infrastructure on which UK industries can build".
The Government, for their part, in their White Paper, explain that they want the science base to contribute to the improvement of,
"national competitiveness and quality of life".
The means are, "a closer partnership and better diffusion of ideas between the science and engineering communities, industry, the financial sector and Government".
In particular, every government department is to receive a science and technology mission statement and every research council is enjoined to meet the needs of users and to support wealth creation. There will be a partial reorganisation of the research councils with more industrial involvement in their management and a director general of research councils to oversee them. Your Lordships briefly debated aspects of the reorganisation only last month.
There is to be a Technology Foresight programme under the direction of the new Office of Science and Technology. Government science and technology spending is to be the subject of an annual forward look. The Advisory Council on Science and Technology, with its independent chairman, is to be replaced by a council for science and technology with a Minister of Science as chairman and the chief scientific adviser as his deputy. Its remit is to receive reports from the foresight programme and to advise Ministers on the balance and direction of government-funded science and technology.
There is to be a new committee, bringing together the research councils and the higher education funding councils, chaired by the chief scientific adviser, so that the two sides of the dual funding mechanism will at last

1137
have to talk to each other. In general terms, we welcome all those measures, and I hope that some of my noble colleagues will tell your Lordships why.
In the time that remains to me I shall comment on the Technology Foresight programme and on structural arrangements within the Office of Science and Technology. In the words of the White Paper, the Foresight programme will attempt to influence the setting of priorities by means of a,
"systematic, well-informed assessment of the match between potential research outputs and the likelihood that they can be appropriated by firms and organisations".
It is not a new idea and the UK is late in the field. A recent report of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology makes revealing comparisons with fore-casting practices of other countries. Nevertheless, we welcome it.
However, there appears to be some confusion of purpose. A long-term sharing of vision between the science base, industry and government and a resolve to achieve that vision by acting in partnership is one thing. We welcome it. The process of short-term resource allocation is quite another. There are three timescales involved in government planning of research and each needs its own objectives and its own methods. There is next year's definitive public expenditure survey, for which procedures are well established. There is the Forward Look at government funded research and development, looking forward five to 10 years, which is a welcome development of the Cabinet Office's annual review, itself a response to an earlier suggestion of your Lordships' committee. And there is now the Technology Foresight programme which attempts to see what the future might hold 15 or 20 years ahead.
It is the last that is the natural timescale for planning and thinking about: basic research. We felt that we had to issue a sharp warning. Any suggestion that the outcome of the foresight exercise may be implemented — that was the word used— by top-down means or in response to short-term considerations should be resisted, we said. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure your Lordships that that confusion has already been resolved.
Many of our witnesses had a further message. It was that the foresight programme should not be used in the manner of yesteryear to select private sector projects for preferential public support. At best, it might indicate a set of generic technologies, as they have become known, which might be pursued preferentially. In technology foresight, the process is more important than the product. As Professor Howard Newby, outgoing chairman of the Economic and Social Research Council, put it:
"The value of technology foresight does not come from the particular recommendations that are on offer but from the actual understanding which is developed through the process of what each has to contribute".
We have, on earlier occasions, told your Lordships that we greatly welcome the creation of the Office of Science and Technology with Mr. William Waldegrave, a senior Minister, in charge as Minister of Science. We were concerned, however, that responsibilities at the top of the office were not more clearly defined. Mr. Waldegrave invited us to image a troika, pulled by
1138
himself, the chief scientific adviser and the director general of the research councils. That somewhat rustic metaphor became politically intriguing when we were later invited to imagine the Permanent Secretary at the reins. Of course, we were exploring the accountabilities of the various persons involved and the apparent overlap of functions. I must confess that we found the confusion rather bewildering. I have no doubt that, with the most welcome appointment of Sir John Cadogan to the post of director general, matters have already become clearer, but I should still be grateful if the Minister would explain how the arrangement is to work in practice.
In particular, I wish the Minister to elaborate on the powers of the director general. Mr. Waldegrave said that Sir John's role would be purely advisory. He would not be the accounting officer for the research councils, as we would have wished because that would have given him an important measure of executive power which we wished him to have. That function will belong to the Permanent Secretary as the holder of the reins.
We were also concerned that Sir John's advice should be published and normally accepted and that if not accepted the Minister should explain why to Parliament. Otherwise, the chief executives of the research councils could readily marginalise, the director general. I have been the chief executive of a research council and I know how that is done.
We also wanted the director general to have personal control over a small proportion— perhaps 2 per cent. — of the Science Vote, so that he would have genuine powers to initiate. In short, we want the Minister to assure us that the director general will have the authority generally to direct.
In the last chapter of our report, we collate our conclusions to address the Government's concept of a strategy for the science base. Conflicting objectives and confusing structural arrangements are interesting and great fun for a committee, but our prime concern must be with the integrity of the science base and its relations with the other members of the partnership created by the White Paper.
Our main conclusions are set out in the summary. As far as the science base itself is concerned, the strategy must, first, leave room for new people who have not yet made their mark and for ideas too novel to have been awarded priority. That is the seed-corn; that is above all else what the science base is about. Secondly, it must be focused on long-term needs and not on the solution of short-term problems.
Thirdly, the science base cannot itself reverse our industrial decline, although it makes a vital long-term contribution. Many of the changes that are being urged upon the science base in the White Paper in the name of wealth creation have in fact long since taken place. Industry and government must now play their part in the partnership, and the Office of Science and Technology must monitor their progress through Forward Look.
Fourthly, inflexible concentrations of university research must be prevented. That means that those outside the big battalions must be carefully nurtured. The ratchet effect of funding formulae operated by the higher education funding councils must somehow be

1139
mitigated. If noble Lords will overlook a brief lapse into jargon, the "DevR element" in the funding formula should evolve from being merely a transitional measure to assist the former polytechnics into a permanent measure applicable to any university that is genuinely trying to develop its research potential. I should be interested in the Minister's comments on that suggestion.
Recent trends, I have to say, have been different. There has been increasing emphasis on income generation and the fashionable and too much reliance by many institutions on short-term industrial contracts. There is an urgent need for fresh strategic thinking. The introduction of even more industrial participation in the affairs of the research councils may be desirable; it is certainly not sufficient. If industry were so good at applying science there would be no problem; and if the science base were so bad at choosing the right research, its practitioners would not be so well regarded and their discoveries exploited abroad. That is why we ended our report on such a sober note, warning that if no fresh thinking is forthcoming the science base may go into decline. But I am encouraged by the general tone of the White Paper, by the quality of recent senior appointments to the Office of Science and Technology and to the research councils and by the support which the Prime Minister has consistently given to science and technology since he first came to office. There is a window of opportunity, and for a little longer I remain optimistic. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Priorities for the Science Base (2nd Report, H. L. Paper 12)— (Lord Flowers.)
3.53 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, the House is deeply indebted, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, for introducing this report so clearly, and indeed for steering the sub-committee so successfully through what I believe he described as a "tangled garden". I must pay tribute also to the noble Lord's very distinguished tenure as chairman of the Select Committee itself. I know that he will be watching his successor trying to grapple with the problems. It is a daunting prospect for myself as his successor. Indeed, I follow at some years' remove the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who also chaired the Select Committee with such distinction. I consider it a great honour to have been invited to take on the post.
As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, reminded us, the report is far-ranging and comprehensive. It helps to shed light on the purpose, the nature and the funding mechanisms of the science base. It certainly helps us to understand the nature of the recent changes— those in government organisation so far as the science base is concerned and science policy and also the changes of emphasis that we detect in the White Paper. The, noble Lord ended on a sense of optimism. I share that optimism. I believe that the creation of the Office of Science and Technology, with a Cabinet Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, at its head, has
1140
been an enormous help towards promoting the role of science and government. I welcome the co-ordinating role that the chief scientific adviser has bringing together the research and development strategies of each of the government departments. I believe that the Office of Science and Technology can do much to bring science into playing a more central role in determining policies in government.
Having said that, I should like to strike a note of caution. As so often, this White Paper diagnoses the problems that we run into in this country in failing to exploit what is clearly by any standards a science base of high quality. The diagnosis follows fairly familiar lines. We have heard it many times before. The short-term approach of industry is referred to, as is the lack of links between research and industry. But I do not think that sufficient note is taken of the fault that government have fallen into in adopting over the years a short-term approach to science itself. That is a major problem which needs further exploring. By its very nature, fundamental and strategic research, whatever else it needs, needs continuity and a long-term approach.
Many noble Lords will remember,20 or more years ago— certainly the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, will remember— the debates at the time of Lord Rothschild. His particular concern was to involve spending departments that were responsible for executing policy more in the determining of research priorities. His solution to that problem was to give four departments a share of the science Vote fund. In practice, I believe that that approach has demonstrably added to the short-term, unpredictable nature of the funding of science in our research institutes and establishments of one kind or another. The departmental mission statement which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, will certainly not resolve this matter.
Perhaps I may refer to the evidence of Professor Blundell, who is chief executive of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. His research council is one of those which have been required to work closely with the funding department— in his case it is of course the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Having been chairman of that research council I know how difficult it has been to detect a common strategy from one five-year period to the next— one could almost say from one year to the next.
Professor Blundell is quoted as saying (at paragraph 2.40 of the report):
"It is no good saying that this year we want this expertise and expect to close down another area and to pick it up in five years' time; it is not there".
The report continues,
"meanwhile, retraining or releasing a scientist, if an expected contract is not awarded, usually costs the Science Budget a year's salary".
In other words, chopping and changing is a very expensive activity.
Professor Knill, who was then chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council, had precisely the same complaint. Incidentally, he gave the Overseas Development Agency recognition that it did in fact operate from a "long-term horizon". But he criticised other government departments for,

1141
"failing to provide for their own long-term strategic needs … leaving the NERC too dependent on small, short-term contracts".
On the very day that the White Paper was published, the DTI announced that it was to cut back on research and development and move more into technology transfer. Technology transfer may be a very laudable area for the DTI to move into, but clearly it raises the question once again as to whether those departments are the proper repository of these research funds. I believe that while it is clearly the responsibility of the Office of Science and Technology to try to co-ordinate and achieve strategic thinking between departments, I have my doubts as to whether an adviser rather than a fund-holder will be able to operate more than at the periphery.
I myself would not necessarily be averse to seeing the Office of Science and Technology operating a science Vote itself derived at least perhaps from the Rothschild funds which were moved into the departments. Where it seems appropriate and there is a common interest between departments, it may well be wise to put it into the Office of Science and Technology rather than keep it in the departments.
Another aspect of short-termism arises from the operation of the dual support funding system. Again, witness after witness referred to the problems faced by the universities through the collapse— total collapse in some cases— of the dual support system. Sir Mark Richmond, chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council, said that dual support had virtually broken down. Professor Andrews from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales pointed out that it was the research element that enabled departments in universities to experiment and go off on research ideas of their own. At that point in time they may not tempt research councils but they will enable departments to build up research teams and encourage young scholars to take up post-doctoral research and nurture young lecturers. He said that it was absolutely vital that that research should continue.
But it is not continuing. As we have heard so often from the universities, there is a real problem there. Again, I ask the Government to take account of it.
What came out very clearly from the written evidence of the Wellcome Trust, and indeed the oral evidence that we took, was a further lack of stability arising from the level of remuneration of scientists and particularly younger scientists. We had informal meetings on two occasions with younger scientists and were struck by their dedication. We also noted the precarious way in which they had to live from hand to mouth on short-term contracts. They were very poorly rewarded. The written evidence from the Wellcome Trust stated that there was:
"evidence to show that salaries of UK scientists have declined by about 30 per cent. in relation to other comparable professional groups over the past decade".
It went on:
"At the same time, career stability has been undermined, and established posts have been lost and replaced by short-term contracts".
Again and again we were faced with evidence of a short-term approach to what must be a long-term activity; namely, the funding of the science base. It is a
1142
matter of great regret that the White Paper attributes that to just about every other organisation, from the research institutes to research councils to industry, all of which are accused of failing to make the right linkages; while the Government themselves have not recognised that chopping and changing from the customer-contractor system to the near market research, which the Chancellor now recognises was perhaps over-zealously pursued to the loss of vital parts of the science base. Those changes of direction have clearly been damaging and caused a lot of anxiety. The review of research institutes, which I understand is taking place at the moment, does nothing to allay those fears.
I hope that we can now have a period of stability. The Government have produced an excellent White Paper in many respects. The Foresight technology exercise and the Forward Look are important elements that are needed if we are to secure stability. I hope that the Government will now build on that very firm base. commend the report to the House.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, it is a pleasure as well as a privilege to follow the immediate past and present chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology and to be the first to welcome this excellent and timely report. I also thank them for their clear exposition of the content and recommendations of the report.
When the White Paper, Realising our potential, was debated in this House, it had a favourable reception from all sides and indeed from me. It would have been inconsistent for me to take any other view, since in essence the document accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee's Report, Science and Government, which was published in 1983 and subsequently followed up by the committee.
It is true that we were rather tentative in our recommendations about the research councils. The White Paper has produced a far more radical and fundamental arrangement for the research councils which is now on the statute book. Nevertheless, it is entirely consistent with what we said on that subject.
This report is timely for two principal reasons. The White Paper set out a broad strategy and structure, but much depended on how these were applied or filled in and put into practice. The report comes out at a moment when the modus operandi is still being worked out. It switches on some yellow lights and points out some possible pitfalls before anything has been set in concrete.
Secondly, the report gives in clear and encapsulated form the views of the principal players, past and present, in this field: administrators, academics and industrialists. I hope that the views expressed and the committee's recommendations will be taken seriously, especially by government departments, industrialists and the City. The concept of partnership that lies at the heart of the system, which is strongly supported by the weight of the evidence and fully accepted by the research councils, will require complete reciprocity between all the parties concerned if it is to be successful.

1143
One of the beneficial effects of the creation of the Office of Science and Technology and publication of the White Paper has been to push science policy much higher on the Government's agenda. Already this year there has been the very encouraging speech by the Prime Minister at the annual lunch of the Parliamentary Scientific Committee. That coincided with the debate on the research councils in another place in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made an interesting and informative speech. Then came a similar debate in this House, to which the Minister made a positive reply. We are promised the first Forward Look next month and the first Technology Foresight report at the end of the year. It seems to me that both the Forward Look and Technology Foresight initiatives will have the effect of keeping science policy issues high on the parliamentary agenda and in the public eye.
The Technology Foresight programme is a relatively new concept in this country. It was fully discussed in Chapter 3 of the Select Committee's report and was dealt with this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. I therefore need not say much about it. It has been well described and analysed in a document published in January by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST for short), which is now happily and securely incorporated into the parliamentary system. I may say, en passant, that the report is a good example of the useful work and help which POST can give in the future.
Although there are differing opinions about its value, it seems to me that Technology Foresight could be used to involve a large number of firms and individuals and so increase the awareness, especially in many parts of industry, of the importance of sustaining the science base. I am also encouraged by the emphasis laid on the public understanding of science by the Chancellor of the Duchy in another place. In spite of the efforts of the Royal Society, the Academy of Engineering and the British Academy in this field, progress in the public understanding of science, particularly in the areas affected by radiation, is slow. Mr. Waldegrave referred to a new initiative which he called Megalab UK. That was scoffed at by some of the Opposition speakers. But the matter is so important that any new initiative taken in this field is to be welcomed.
The report is not about funding. Indeed, we were given assurances that the size of the science budget will be maintained in real terms over the next two or three years. Nevertheless, total government expenditure on civil research and development across the board is set to decline. If a recent report is correct, that the DTI is dispensing with its chief scientist, that may be a symptom of what is in store for other departments. The right structure and organisation can ensure that the available funds are applied efficiently and to best advantage. But if adequate resources are not provided, our performance relative to our competitors— already poor— will decline further.
In conclusion, I hope the Minister will be able to give a positive reply to the debate and that the warnings in the report will be heeded on all sides. However promising, influential and effective the new scientific
1144
set-up may be, the old demons of short-termism, industrial indifference, lack of investment and underfunding are still lurking in the bushes.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, although I am a member of the Select Committee, I was not a member of the sub-committee that produced the report and I can therefore welcome it. All members may not be aware that the sub-committee, with only nine members, contains a former President and three other Fellows of the Royal Society, two former chairmen of research councils, five long-serving vice-chancellors, a former chairman of the University Grants Committee and an experienced chairman of a major scientifically based industrial corporation— a positive galaxy of talent and experience. I do not find it surprising therefore that I am in total agreement with almost everything that they said. Indeed, I find it difficult to add anything of great significance.
The Government's White Paper, Realizing our Potential, promoted a partnership between the science base, industry and government in a tripartite effort to improve national prosperity and the quality of life. It seems at first sight to be a wholly unexceptionable objective with which we can all agree. The views of the three partners on the proper strategy for the science base have been explored in detail in the report. First, as has already been stated, every government department has a mission statement that gives as one of its objectives wealth creation.
Secondly, industry naturally targets its own in-house research and development towards wealth creation. But — and it is an important "but"— on the evidence in the report at paragraph 227, industry appears to think that academics in the science base should not do so, but should concentrate mainly on training the high-quality scientific personnel that industry needs, and on carrying out "blue skies" research that every so often may throw up new insights, new techniques or new knowledge that will provoke industry to open up new fields of research and development.
Thirdly, the report quotes a great deal of evidence given by academics working in the science base both in universities and in research councils. In summary, at paragraph 5.4, it says,
"no-one is compelled to be an academic research scientist, and no-one does it for the money. So what is it that attracts bright young people to research careers in the Science Base?"
In paragraph 5.5 it gives an answer to its own question by quoting Professor Housley of Glasgow University as follows:
"Academics are geared to following research ideas that most excite them in essentially a 'blue skies' fashion; hence new ideas arise. Usually this is why people stay in academia rather than industry, i. e. they do not wish to be directed".
It is quite clear that if research in the science base becomes so directed, then the supply of bright young men well trained in research, the very recruits which industry needs, will dry up.
At present the research councils are expected to undertake such research as government departments request of them, and academics working for the research councils must combine such directed research with their

1145
own blue skies research. The same is true of academics in those universities which undertake contract research. The essential problem in both cases is how to maintain a balance between blue skies research and directed research. When I worked many years ago for a research council there was in fact a very reasonable balance, and I believe that that is still true. I also believe that it is a precarious balance.
On reading the report, I was struck by the fact that the views of industry that were quoted supporting blue skies research in the science base were drawn, again in paragraph 227, from Courtaulds, Celltec, Unilever, British Aerospace, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and Sharp Laboratories. Those are all extremely large companies and all devote large sums to in-house research and development. On the other hand, if one looks at the evidence presented by the CBI, which represents some quarter of a million companies of all sizes, one gets a slightly different view. In their oral evidence— question 1009— they welcomed an increasing industrial representation on the research councils, and stressed the need to measure the success of research by its output. In other words, they were looking much more for wealth creation and a close co-operation with industry. I would myself guess that the demands of many of the smaller industrial companies would be very different from those of the bigger ones that are quoted in the report. We are all agreed that there is an enormous need for many more industrial companies to devote resources to research and development, but many such companies will be relatively small. In my view, most would want to get their research done not by building vast in-house resource but by contracting the science base to do it for them. I have a great fear that this may impose an increasing burden of directed research on the science base, and thus upset the present precarious balance.
The message I want to stress this afternoon is that the science base, by producing trained personnel for industry, is making a very important contribution to wealth creation. This tends to be overlooked by simplistic economic analysts. I would also maintain that the occasional vital contribution of a brilliant new idea more than compensates, in terms of wealth creation, for the expenditure involved in the large amount of blue skies research that is wholly unproductive.
I conclude by saying that this report treats a very complex problem with great wisdom and I believe that the Government should pay the most careful attention to it.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, it goes without saying that I endorse all that de noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has said so eloquently in opening this debate. My endorsement also includes his more personal remarks about the sub-committee's Clerk, the specialist adviser and witnesses; and to this I would add my personal gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, himself for the skilful way in which he has conducted our deliberations and our interrogation of witnesses. It is a sad fact that, under the rules of this House, the Select Committee on Science
1146
and Technology is now, I hope only temporarily, deprived of his membership and therefore his wisdom and experience.
I shall not recapitulate the arguments for the Select Committee's recommendations, which I fully support. They are clear enough in the report. Indeed I intend to concentrate on a few underlying themes and start by reminding your Lordships that what we call the science base comprises those natural scientific, engineering and technological activities carried out in universities and research council institutions, all supported by government funds.
As it happens, when I was thinking of this speech, suddenly thought that my lifetime spans the period in which almost all that has happened in the formal arrangements between the Government as paymaster and the science base as performer has taken place. The MRC, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the UGC were founded just before I entered primary school; the Agricultural Research Council just before I left secondary school. For almost 34 years thereafter they were left undisturbed. But the 30 years following the Trend Report in 1963 saw the pace of organisational change quicken, and the proportion of our gross domestic product spent on the science base first rose and then entered a period of decline.
To the original trio of those research councils were added the Natural Environment Research Council and the Social Science Research Council, which is now the Economic and Social Research Council. The Council for Science Policy was created to advise the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to whose department responsibility for funding the five research councils was passed. Seven years later, in response to the Rothschild and Dainton Inquiries, to which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred, the relations between the research councils and government departments were revamped and the Advisory Board for Research Councils replaced the Council for Scientific Policy. In the 1980s the UGC was replaced by the Higher Education Funding Councils, now territorially based and which operate an a priori based formula funding. Then, two years ago, the Government appointed a Minister for Science, which we all welcomed, with a budget and an Office for Science into whose care the five research councils were put and whose first decisions are in the White Paper, Realising Our Potential, the consequences of which are another major upheaval in progress, the possible effects of which on the science base were the subject of the Select Committee's report now being debated.
There must be many in the House who will ask why this section of our government-funded activity is subject to so much repeated scrutiny and change. The answer lies in some fundamental relationships. Natural science is now the knowledge base on which advances in engineering, which were originally based on empiricism, have in the past two centuries become almost exclusively dependent. It is the rapid advance of science which dictates the need for many other changes. Furthermore, technology, which provides the means

1147
nowadays of producing all that we need to ensure health, transport, communications, food, shelter and so on, is dependent on engineering.
That is why the science base which generates first-class, well-educated scientists, engineers and technologists, and a corpus of knowledge in these fields which is both fundamental and later applicable, is so important to the well being of this country. Nothing must be done to damage the quality of work which it does. But since the United Kingdom cannot cover in depth more than a limited number of areas of science and engineering, one has to ask how choices are to be made which maximise the benefits which can be derived from the amount of money that Parliament is prepared to invest in the science base.
There are two complementary methods which are referred to in the report. The first is the maintenance of excellence, which means funding first-class people with good ideas; the bottom-up responsive approach. The second is to identify desirable technologies and ensure that the base can give adequate support to those technologies. This is the Technology Foresight or top-down approach. In passing, I should like to join in the congratulations to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on making a start with that latter process of technological foresight.
Getting the balance right between those two processes, which is the job of the Council for Science and Technology, is bound to be difficult and we expect — at least I expect— that the balance will vary over time. But with all this change one thing remains certain. If the science base produces enough people of high quality and relevant experience to go into and be properly used by industry, then UK Limited will prosper. Therefore the universities must have the resources to identify and educate such able people who will be the seed corn of the future, and funding mechanisms must adapt themselves to achieve this and give some stability. By the same token, mechanisms to ensure that useful ideas become a practical reality must be devised, and this in turn requires more partnerships replacing existing barriers to permeability of ideas across the boundaries separating industry, government and the science and engineering communities.
Mention of the word "boundaries" causes me to comment that there are boundaries within the science base which give cause for concern. These are the boundaries, now increased by five, which separate research councils from one another. Because scientific principles are universal and transcend boundaries between scientific subjects— and many of these subjects such as chemistry, physics, biology, geology and so on are very interdependent— and because many practical problems, such as the preservation of global biodiversity, require for their solution input from many subjects, it is essential that these boundaries do not become impenetrable ring fences. Otherwise some multi-disciplinary areas will become nobody's business and therefore be neglected. Systematic biology, which was the subject of another inquiry by the Select Committee, is just one such case which has arisen recently, and chemistry, so vital to the health of so many
1148
other subjects, could easily also suffer a similar fate. Therefore these demarcation lines between the research councils must be permeable and variable over time.
I think your Lordships know that my view has always been that this calls for a unified national research council, the responsibilities and resources of the various divisions of which, not being set in tablets of stone and not protected by Royal Charters, can easily be varied. But the Government have decided otherwise. All we are to have is a Director-General of the Research Councils. In those circumstances it is absolutely essential— and here I speak from my experience as the first chairman of the Advisory Board for Research Councils, just as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, spoke retrospectively of his chairmanship of the Science Research Council in that period, so as poacher and gamekeeper— that from the beginning this new Director-General of the Research Councils should not be merely decoratively marginal but have the clout to make what territorial changes he regards as necessary in the missions of the research councils after proper study of issues, and taking account of changes in national need and developments abroad as well as at home.
Make no mistake, my Lords, the pace of change will not decrease; and only an adequately funded, easily steerable and flexible science base will prevent the United Kingdom from being left behind. I hope that the Minister can reassure us in the way suggested in Chapter 3 of the report on that vital point. I also hope that she will clarify the basis of the less than completely transparent working relationships and responsibilities involving what has been referred to as a troika, but in fact I think of the English analogy of the four-in-hand because it consists of the Secretary of State, the Permanent Secretary, the Director-General of the Research Councils and the Chief Scientific Adviser. Any confusion or ambiguity of the relationships and functions at this level could be very damaging to the whole enterprise.
A little earlier I referred to the dependence of technology on engineering and of engineering on the natural sciences. That sounds like a linear relationship; but in fact it is a circle, because developments in technology and in engineering often provide the tools for the further advancement of natural science and engineering. So that circle has the potential of becoming the dynamo for change which, if properly exploited, can be the means of achieving the twin goals which the White Paper addresses. I mean by that the enhancement of the quality of life and the creation of national wealth.
Those developments are not going to happen automatically. There must be in place effective brokerage mechanisms to ensure that what is in the science base and of practical use to industry and Government, can be identified, drawn out and exploited. While the appointment of a part-time industrialist as the chairman of each research council will assist industry in its perception of the research councils, it is more important to increase awareness in industry of what the science base has to offer. The Economic and Social Research Council has already shown that it could have

1149
a valuable role here, although industry must also be ready to interact and to develop and exploit wherever it can.
To achieve good results between the science base and the government departments which have a large stake in the use of science, engineering and technology, it will be necessary for each side to know the other's capabilities and limitations. This is not a matter which can be left to chance, and here I see a key role for the Chief Scientific Adviser, whose position and duties give him an unrivalled vantage point to see both sides and to effect the necessary brokerage. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Chief Scientific Adviser's influence will penetrate the government departments to the degree which is necessary to achieve that end.
A 100 years ago it was possible for an inventor to say, as Edison is reputed to have responded when asked what use was all his experimentation,"Damned if I know. But sure as Hell they'll tax it one day". I have tried to emphasise matters are now somewhat more expensive and complicated; but two things will always be true. First, if the UK science base falters in quality or in effective interdigitation within industry and government, we shall all be worse off. Yesterday's articles in the Financial Times show how far the United Kingdom and Europe have slipped in the 1980s behind the USA and Japan.
Secondly, in a country of this size the science base cannot effectively do everything; choices must be made, as we all know. What the Select Committee on Science and Technology has tried to do in its recommendations is to state what is needed to keep the science base healthy and to make good choices within the new structures which have been put in place by the Minister, and I commend these recommendations to the Government.
I have no doubt that the research councils which have to bear the brunt of these major upheavals, will accept them with good grace and work well within the new system, not least because they were consulted in early discussions in an entirely admirable manner. What they need now more than ever before is, as has been said, a period of stability. But they— and here I speak of the scientists themselves within the science base— are at present much disturbed by the intrusion, either actual or in immediate prospect, of the efficiency unit into the affairs of the research council institutions. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has already mentioned that. Once again, those scientists feel that change is imminent and this has set back morale. Can the Minister assure this House that the period of stability so necessary to carry this next step forward to fruition and for first-class scientific work is not now again at risk?
4.36 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, my contribution today is that of an industrialist with a long association with the science base, having been a member of the Science and Engineering Research Council and of the Advisory Board for Research Councils; later chairman of the Advisory Council on Applied Research and Development (ACARD) and then the Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACOST), in the formation
1150
of which an earlier report of your Lordships' Select Committee played an important part. ACOST has now been succeeded by the Council for Science and Technology, which is to be chaired by the Minister rather than by an independent chairman, as was the case for ACARD and ACOST. I am not convinced of the desirability of that change.
This may be an appropriate time for me to say a few words about the work of ACOST, a much underrated body in some quarters. Its many reports and conferences are of course well known, but its influence in government circles is not, since the advice which it gave to government remained confidential.1 make no criticism of that practice; indeed, much of the influence which ACOST had depended on the fact that its advice was not published. But there is certainly an increased awareness in government circles of the importance of science which owes much to the activities of ACOST and to the support which that body received from the then Prime Minister. I hope to be convinced that that role can be as effectively performed from within the government machinery.
The general thrust of the White Paper is welcome, as is the fact that the science base has become a subject of government anxiety. The Select Committee draws attention to a number of respects in which responsibility is not clearly defined as yet and we must expect that experience will rapidly lead to the remedying of those defects. However, I believe that almost any organisation can be made to work, given the right people in the key posts, and we have made a good start in the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Director-General of Research Councils.
So I am less concerned about organisational shortcomings than I am about what seem to me to be excessive expectations of the role of industry in the process of the selection and exploitation of science. There is, to be sure, a need for a close understanding between scientists and industrialists if the potential value of our scientific activity is to be realised for the national benefit. But, that is no new discovery; closer links between researchers and industry have been developing over the past two decades and I shall not weary your Lordships with the many examples of this, some of which are mentioned in the report.
But it is certainly not the case that industrialists are omniscient— an assumption which seems to me to pervade much of the argument in the White Paper. There are many examples of academic researchers whose contribution to the exploitation process is as good as that of leading industrialists, and so I find undesirable the notion that research council chairmen should necessarily be industrialists. We are looking for a partnership in which the best talents are employed, irrespective of label.
The role of industrialists in all parts of the process is an important one, but one has to recognise the regrettable fact that much of industry is indifferent to scientific research. There are many ways of tackling this serious shortcoming, but it does not follow that involvement of that part of industry in the management,

1151
selectivity and predictions envisaged in the White Paper will be fruitful. We may be putting the cart of involvement before the horse of awareness.
Of course, there are industrialists, many from large companies, who are well aware of the processes and promises of research. But such people are already deeply involved in the science base both personally and through their companies and are certainly not to be looked to to represent the views of the uncommitted sectors of industry.
Perhaps, therefore, the pendulum has swung a little too far in the belief that industry can produce the changes which the White Paper seeks. I believe it to be of the utmost importance that the contribution of industry at large to the process of realising our scientific potential should be continuously evaluated so that, if the process requires adjustment, as I believe that it will, it can be achieved at an early stage in the development.
The White Paper was an important document, signifying the welcome commitment of the Government to the development of science and its contribution to national prosperity. I wish it every success and I hope and believe that the report of the sub-committee of which I had the honour to be a member will help that development.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, since the White Paper Realising our Potential and our own report were published, the new structural arrangements for science have gradually been taking shape. Only this week, for instance, we have learnt that the Technology Foresight programme is to have 15 sectors; that each sector will have a panel led by a chairman and a deputy chairman and that, wherever possible, one will be an industrialist and the other an academic. That is a move which points up the systematic partnership between the science and engineering base on the one hand and industry on the other. I think we are all agreed that if it is to be successful, Technology Foresight needs to be driven by such a partnership.
Another piece of the machinery which I hope is taking shape is the new Science and Engineering Base Co-ordinating Committee, the creation of which was welcomed in our report with the words:
"It has important work to do".
That committee will bring together the heads of the research councils and the chief executives of the higher education funding councils.
It is my understanding that the co-ordinating committee has already been set up and has, in fact, had several meetings. I was therefore surprised to be told in the Times Higher Education Supplement by Dr. Lewis Moonie, the Opposition spokesman for science and technology in the other place, that almost a year after the publication of the White Paper, the membership and remit of that important co-ordinating committee has still to be formalised.
I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the matter and let us know whether or not that important committee is operating because its creation impacts upon a crucial aspect of our debate: the importance of
1152
effective co-ordination between the research councils and the funding councils to make sure that the two streams of university funding truly complement each other.
While I am in this area, perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the dual support system, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selborne. I do so because many of us are concerned about the training of young scientists, especially those not yet senior enough to make their own applications to the research councils. It was the White Paper of 1991 which brought about the important change in the dual support system by saying that the research councils would become responsible for the full costs of research, including overheads. As a consequence, a once-for-all transfer of resources is being made from the funding councils to the science budget. When it is complete in the year 1994– 95, that transfer will amount to no less than £ 150 million. In our report we state that there is some suspicion in the universities at any rate at this early stage that the research councils are not returning the whole of that money to the universities. Our report recommends that if that exercise continues and the research councils find themselves with more money than they need, the surplus should be returned to the funding councils.
I think that I would now be inclined to go even further. Ought we not to admit that the dual support transfer to the research councils was a mistake and reverse it? It is clear from the evidence that we now have that the dual support system has virtually broken down. It has virtually ceased to exist. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that he regards the continuance of the dual support system as important and has no plans for further transfers.
If the money were handed back from the research councils to the funding councils, it would have to be distributed by them with due regard for their new principles of selectivity, but that would have the advantage that more funds would be managed by those universities which are already regarded as excellent in scientific research. It is no good saying that we should practice subsidiarity in Europe and not practise it at home. The nearer that the management of cash takes place to the coalface of science, the greater the opportunity for management to apply those funds in ways which will ensure that young scientists are given the opportunities and the training that they need. The primary responsibility for young scientists under our present set-up remains with the universities rather than the research councils.
Finally, I refer briefly to the problem of the constitutional roles of the chief scientific adviser and the director-general of research councils. I too very much welcome the appointment of Sir John Cadogan as director-general, but I am not at all convinced that it is constitutionally appropriate or wise that the advice of a civil servant should mandatorily be published. I shall be glad to hear in due course what is the Government's reaction to that recommendation.
Secondly, there is need for clarification of the division between the roles of the chief scientific adviser, Professor Stewart, and the director-general. Professor Stewart, as the administrative head of OST, did much to

1153
deliver the White Paper, which our committee warmly recommended. However, his White Paper is coy on the division of responsibility between the two officers. It states:
"The Chancellor will in future be supported in exercising these statutory functions by a new Director General of Research Councils located within the Office of Science and Technology, enabling the Chief Scientific Adviser to concentrate upon his responsibilities for the lateral science and technology issues across all government departments".
The paper goes on to detail the responsibilities of the director-general. I am afraid that our report could have been clearer. Paragraph 3.57 states that,
"the Chief Scientific Adviser must be seen to leave Research Council matters to the DGRC".
Yet in paragraph: 5.12 it states:
`The Chief Scientific Adviser must be given a degree of authority over the science spending plans of Government departments".
I hope that the committee is not inconsistent on that matter. I would welcome anything the Minister can say on the relationship between the two officers. In my view, they should be encouraged to achieve the greatest possible interaction. They have become two of the most powerful advisers in Whitehall. I am happy to know — or I have been given to understand— that they work together exceptionally well.
In view of the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that we expect, in real terms, that science funding will not remain the same, I wish to make one point. The Prime Minister referred to the problem at the function of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. It is important to put his comments on the record. He said:
"Despite the absolute necessity of restraining public expenditure, we expect spending on the science base to rise in real terms next year. And science will remain a high priority in the future".
I hope that I too have concluded on a note of optimism.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, today I wish to refer to only two points in the report before the House, embellished slightly with my personal prejudices. Together with my colleagues on the committee, I welcome the White Paper Realising our Potential. It contains much wisdom and provides a useful starting point for further progress. Unfortunately, both the starting paint and the undercurrent of some of what follows show a misreading of the problem that is addressed.
The importance of wealth creation is beyond dispute. The story that has been received wisdom for several decades is that our basic science in the UK is very good yet our industry is not competitive and that our science is exploited for wealth creation by foreign companies rather than by ourselves. But we cannot complain at one moment that our basic science has got its priorities wrong and in the next sentence say that foreign companies are exploiting those ideas. As the Daily Telegraph put it:
"Britain appears devoted to destroying its science base to save the embarrassment caused by its inability to exploit ideas".
1154
As we have heard, for most of this century this country has had the best science base in the world. I do not believe that that statement is over the top. Why is it then that at the height of our scientific prowess there are still those who would have scientists change their ways towards short-term exploitation, even if it means that ultimately we shall have no science to exploit? Once a base of knowledge and skill has been removed, the cost and the time factor involved in its restoration make it virtually impossible to catch up with the uninterrupted competition.
Sir David Phillips told us:
"If one wanted to reform the state of UK industry it is al least arguable that one would not start by worrying about the science base".
Sir Mark Richmond said:
"The piece that is missing, I think, is the White Paper, sponsored by the DTI, on how the science base is pulled through into industry".
Sir Geoffrey Allen, Head of Science at Unilever, said that it is industry that needs to be made more aware of science rather than vice versa. Dr. Lackie of the Yamanouchi Research Institute rather mischievously suggested that the reason why the Government focused on the science base is that this is the bit that can be manipulated easily.
The White Paper Realising our Potential contains a number of proposals for managing the science base. The main new proposal, about which we have heard this afternoon, is the technology Foresight programme. However, we must not expect too much from that. First, it has been done before in the United States, Japan, Germany, Holland and other countries, and there have been numerous think-tanks, seminars and brainstorming sessions in this country too. Of course, the technology that we try to foresee is not significantly different in the United Kingdom from elsewhere. Science and technology are the most international of human activities and therefore it is unnecessary for every country to go through these exercises separately.
The fact that forward looks and foresight programmes of the past have not led to directives that were implemented is perhaps fortunate. If such programmes led to short-term directives to the science base, irreparable damage might be done, as my noble friend Lord Flowers has warned. But to be fair, the White Paper reassures us that the Office of Science and Technology is not in the business of picking winners. So what is the use of technology foresight? It is more than might appear from my negative remarks so far.
There was general agreement among our witnesses that, although the results would be meagre and soon forgotten, there was value in the process of discussion which would provide an important bridge between industrialists and scientists. It is to be hoped that when the bridge is crossed there will be somebody on the other side.
In conclusion, I wish to comment briefly on a rather different point concerning the proposal that research graduates should do a MSc before they get stuck into real research. There was very little support for this as a general proposal and quite strong opposition from the

1155
Royal Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry and the many industrial representatives, which saw no need for it.
I understand that the Government have promised to look again at that point. For years many university departments have insisted on an MSc as a preliminary to a PhD. It serves the useful purpose of finding out whether the student is likely to be successful in subsequent research studies, and sometimes it is a useful stand-alone degree for further training in some ancillary to the subject of a first degree. For example, in engineering it can be a valuable bridge between academia and industry. But for many students the MSc serves little purpose. Those going into industry are often better off learning their trade there, and for those going on to a PhD in the university, the best way to learn how to do research is to do it under the guidance of a good research scientist, and to begin as soon as possible.
The genius of Newton, Einstein, Davy and Maxwell was apparent before they were 21 years old. That genius could well have been sacrificed on the altar of yet more lectures. The talented young scientist is a delicate plant which matures early and does not flower for long. In nurturing these talents flexibility must be paramount in our minds.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Flowers for his work and the work of his committee, and for the report that we are debating this afternoon, I note that most of the speakers have been members of that committee and have consequently dealt with points of detail which are of interest to them. I hope that your Lordships will indulge me if the matters I raise this afternoon are in rather more general terms.
Our dramatis personae are the universities which I regard as self-governing communities of scholars dedicated to knowledge as good in itself; the preservation of knowledge in compendious libraries— a university without a library is almost unthinkable; the dissemination of knowledge— their teaching function; and the expansion of knowledge— their research function. Here I would endorse everything said by my noble friend Lord Porter on the representations of the Royal Society of Chemistry in paragraph 2.64 about the four-year MSc degree.
One must not tamper with the education of chemists. The chemical industry is a science-based industry from the very beginning. It produces a surplus of £ 3.8 billion towards our balance of payments and it lives entirely off the educated young chemists, many of whom attained PhDs at the universities. More MScs of a four-year standard for the same sum of money means fewer PhDs and the robbery of the input of highly qualified people to the chemical industry.
The Achilles' heel in our universities is equalitarism. Parity of esteem in senates between disciplines is accepted, but that does not mean parity of expenditure in councils. Different universities have different words for senates and councils. I simply use the terms of the university of which I have the honour to be Chancellor.
At this point I should like to quote three obiter dicta
1156
by distinguished scientists in the context of paragraph of 2.68. The late Sir Thomas Merton, treasurer of the Royal Society, often used to say to me that scientists are of two types, explorers and colonists, and the explorers are very few and the colonists are very many and much dispersed. The late Lord Blackett's words on this subject were, "The research does one of two things: either trying to understand something or trying to do something". As an example of something we understand but do not know what to do about, take the JET laboratory where we are trying to make nuclear fusion work in a finite apparatus. We understand the principles of nuclear fusion very well, but we do not know how to accomplish it.
The third principle was that of my late friend Lord Robbins who taught me that all decisions are concerned with the application of limited means to competing ends. My noble friend Lord Flowers said that we can no longer do all that we should like to do. We never have been able to do all that we should like to do. This is a perpetual state.
Perhaps I may now deal with the various councils involved. I may say that I have lived through a large number or reorganisations and redeployments in the course of 45 years' involvement with the research councils. That is over half my lifetime. I sat on two of them, was a party to setting up a third, and their appurtenances have occupied a very great deal of my life.
We have the funding councils on the one hand and the research councils on the other. The distribution of responsibilities between them, to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, referred, is to some extent the subject of our debate this afternoon. Let me then make clear in what respects the Government are responsible for research.
There are certain things which a government must do because nobody else can do them; for instance: a bureau of standards, miscalled the National Physical Laboratory; the ordnance survey of the country; collating the geological survey of the country with the various geological surveys produced by interested parties; the Meteorological Office; defence research where it involves a security problem. The Government must do all those because nobody else is in an authoritarian position. The ordnance survey can be the basis for litigation and what the courts will accept as a plan of the country.
Now I come to what the Government should not do. They should not do anything that is better done by somebody else. Let research be done where its side effects can be exploited by people who have vision into what those side effects are — that is, in industry. For one industry to license another industry and find a licensee is a very different matter from a government employee trying to do the same.
I come now to what the research councils should not do. As patrons of universities regarded as clients, they should not compete with their clients by running their own laboratories. To give an example of that, I am very interested in work done at the National Institute of Medical Research, but I am not sure whether it ought not to be decentralised and its various sections become the

1157
outstations of various medical schools. They would then be subject to peer review. At present, every establishment run by a research council in the executive sense is not subject to the peer review that obtains in the applications from universities for research of "special timeliness and promise"— the sacred words which were used to set up the original Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
The appointments to research councils raise a very difficult matter. I have very strong views on the fact that you can delegate authority but you cannot delegate responsibility. You cannot make somebody else answerable to the source of your authority for that for which you are answerable. I mistrust the appointments of chairmen of councils of one kind or another, compared to what I am used to in industry. Under the Companies Act, the chairman of the board is appointed and elected by the board. In the eyes of the shareholders, he is merely a director— one of those whom they re-elect from time to time at annual general meetings every three years or so, or whatever the Companies Act or the articles of association provide.
I well remember an incident in the career of my noble friend Lord Flowers when I was sent as an emissary, by the council of which he was a member, to the Secretary of State— I believe: that it was Tony Crosland— to say, "We want Brian Flowers as our next chairman". The council authorised me to do that and sent me as an ambassador to the Secretary of State. He obliged his council. Therefore, my noble friend was first among equals because we made him so. The morale was enormously heightened by the feeling that our chairman was a colleague and an old friend.
I am worried about appointed chairmen and appointed members from the standpoint of my doctrine — if it is my doctrine; I do not know— of the exercise of authority and collective responsibility.
There are a number of what I call "fad" words in circulation. Such words are fashionable for a time. They are said to assist ore's thinking, but I believe that they are a convenient escape from thinking. Some of those words can be found in the report. Once upon a time "automation" was a fad word. "Fifth generation computer" was another fad phrase which spread into Europe. "The customer-contractor principle" was a phrase which sorted out nothing and did nothing. "National competitiveness" and "quality of life" take us into the sphere of my noble friend's report, as do "the generation of national prosperity" and "wealth creation". I do not believe that the consideration of wealth creation in the abstract will have the slightest effect on the decisions that one takes. That brings me to "technology foresight". I do not believe that much will come of that.
I should like to conclude my remarks by giving your Lordships a history of real development; that is, the history of the Torotrack transmission system, which was invented by a German called Hoffmann in 1890. He never put it into practice and it was forgotten about. In 1958— 36 years ago— a couple of young engineers who were running a vehicle repair business reinvented it. It was the reinvented bicycle. It was a continuous variable speed transmission. I was then managing director of
1158
BTG and I backed that scheme because I felt that those young men had some fire in their bellies and I thought that their proposal was extremely elegant. There are various solutions to the problem of a continuously variable gear but none of them is elegant. In electronic engineering it is represented by the Ward-Leonard set. In hydraulic engineering, it is a couple of swash-plate pumps back to back, one acting as the drive and the other as the driven. But they are very noisy. The proposed scheme seemed to be extremely elegant. Of course, I did not know that it had been invented before.
I skip now to about 1970, and the drive was installed in the Harrier vertical take-off plane. That is 12 years after I had initiated the scheme as fit for NRDC sponsorship. Then in the middle 1980s, there was a partnership with Rover. That partnership was dissolved but from it came a prototype vehicle which could be driven around a test track. That vehicle is now driving around the motor industries of Europe, demonstrating its paces.
I come to 1994. There is now a contract with Ford for a demonstration set-up as a possible design feature of a new model of the Ford motor car. To date BTG has coughed up £ 6 million. That would all have gone down the drain but for two key constituents contributed by other technologies which were never imagined when the work began. One was the development of the negatively thixotropic Newtonian lubricant. These lubricating oils go solid in the nick of a roll so that the two metal sliding pieces never come into contact with one another, because the lubricant solidifies to prevent them from doing so. When the stress is relieved, it liquefies again. The other contributor is the silicon chip. The transmission has taken 36 years to develop and it is not finished yet. What would Technology Foresight have done to that 36 years ago? In the report, there is reference to that under what is called a "hunch". I have a hunch that if I had done my work more thoroughly, I should have found that it was an old invention by a man called Hoffmann in Germany in 1890 and I would have said, "There is nothing new about that". It is terrible to confess but sometimes hunches are better than scholarship. The Toro track gear is lighter, cheaper and 15 per cent. more effective than any other competitive continuous gearbox. On that note, I thank my noble friend Lord Flowers and I shall resume my seat.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to noble Lords who have commented on the report. There has been a galaxy of talents; and, surprisingly, the debate has ranged extremely widely. In his skilful introduction of the report, the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, mentioned the vital necessity of greater financial support from industry. That is one of the few themes which has come through the debate. But he stressed also the importance of the creative balance between excellence and utility.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, welcomed the creation of the OST; but he struck a note of caution about our continued failure to exploit our research and the short-termism still to be found both in government and in industry.

1159
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, pointed out that there must be— I use his phrase— "complete reciprocity" between all the parties if progress in British scientific research is to be made. He mentioned with approval Technology Foresight and the public understanding of science, although he felt that little progress is yet to be seen in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, agreed. He stressed the problems of the proposed parties to the partnership. From blue-skies research to blue-chip research is a very wide spectrum and a very long haul. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, demonstrated the complex links between the government office and the research laboratory, and the difficulties created by the rate of change. He felt that the identification and nurture of excellence and the development of a Technology Foresight movement is fundamental to the creation of the balance. He saw a key role for the chief scientific adviser.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, has great industrial experience. He defended ACOST and mourned its passing. He pointed out that it may be that the White Paper expected too much from hard-pressed British industry. He asks whether the pendulum has swung too far.
I greatly enjoyed the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, who considered that the dual support transfer was a mistake. He believes that the dual support system has real value, as I do. Science needs subsidiarity.
The noble Lord, Lord Porter, accepted the importance of wealth creation but warned us that we must not destroy the science base because we cannot exploit its ideas. He asks where is the White Paper emanating from the DTI.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, took the widest view. He told us of educated young chemists who are the salt of the earth. He reminded us that universities are not about equality; quite so. There are certain things which only the Government can do.
Your Lordships' House is extremely fortunate to have some of Britain's most distinguished scientists on its Benches. I wish there were many more of them here, especially on the Benches behind me.
Any fair-minded person reading the Government's White Paper on science policy would find little to quarrel with there. Indeed, he or she would find little there to bite upon. It is full of high hopes and unexceptionable generalisations, noble aims and cheerful optimism. It would be unfair to say that reading it is like eating candy-floss; it is more like chewing cotton wool in that it is unsatisfying, tasteless and extremely low in nourishment.
The Select Committee's response to it is grave and takes the White Paper seriously; but I think I am not alone in detecting beneath its measured tone an underlying feeling of exasperation, not unakin to that we might expect from a grandmother being told at great length how to suck eggs. The heart and centre of the White Paper is the pious hope that someone, somehow, somewhere can create a partnership between the science
1160
base, the Government and British industry. That is the way ahead which will solve all our problems and give us all,
"a happy issue out of all our afflictions".
Unfortunately, the White Paper fails to tell us how this desirable consummation is to be achieved. The Select Committee's report, with devastating understatement, states the bleak truth— it will not happen by itself. I quote the report's words at paragraphs 2.4 and 2.7:
"On 13th July 1993 we met the Minister responsible for the Science White Paper, Mr. William Waldegrave, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for Science … He agreed with us that basic science cannot be justified by pretending that it can all be applied; but, he insisted, when times are hard the taxpayer cannot be expected to fund basic science 'unless the wealth creators in society see the value of it—.
He continued:
'There is only so much that Government can do to bring the horse of British industry to water. If the horse refuses to drink, the horse will die. It is essential to get across the message that industry must take its own responsibilities. We are trying to build a proper networking with them … but ultimately the industrial side must, I hope, respond".
Thus spoke Mr. William Waldegrave. It sounds a shade shrill. There is no evidence that the industrial horse wishes to drink. British industry is simply not responding to the Government's request. It has not done so in the past, or there would not be any need to exhort it now, and it will not do so in the future because it does not see the need. Either the OST must convince British industry and convert it to the truth or it must offer it such tax incentives or access to risk capital as are necessary to entice selected, targeted industrial companies into this partnership so devoutly to be wished.
Unfortunately, our Minister for Science— who is also and principally in charge of the Citizen's Charter — rules over a small department, with comparatively little money and no powerful influence over how we manage our scientific and technological resources. The OST cannot force industry to take action but, as the Select Committee report suggests, the DTI quite possibly could. Yet the omens are not propitious. The report states at paragraph 2.73:
"The DTI might offer inducements from its Innovation Budget, but the closure of the Advanced Technology Programmes suggests that it will not".
It seems that the besieged and beleaguered OST cannot expect the DTI cavalry to come charging over the hill to rescue it.
So the central hope of the White Paper seems doomed to be frustrated. The report's sober recommendation at paragraph 2.75 sums up the situation. It states:
"If the new partnership only operates in one direction, it will do more harm than good; it must be even-handed. We recommend that the response of industry to the White Paper initiatives be monitored carefully by the OST".
Industrial firms in this country must be trembling in their boots. Their response is to be monitored! If the monitoring reveals that their response is minuscule, irrelevant or inadequate, what will happen? The "industrial horse" cannot be forced, beaten or shot. It will simply plod on in its own way, with a supreme disregard of both government and the science base, except where those bodies assist firms to develop or make a profit. Market forces rule; self-interest reigns supreme; each of us must look after number one. The Government cannot cover their nakedness with the rags

1161
of their discredited ideology and beg industry and the science base to buy them a new suit as an act of social charity.
The solemn tone of the Select Committee's report arises from its experience of the past. Across all government departments expenditure on science and technology has suffered for the past 10 years. It is argued that the science budget— that is, the budget of the research councils— has not fallen in real terms. That is true. Let us not hear it again. But the money has been stretched to breaking point by the new demands placed on the research councils year by year, and by the steadily rising costs of carrying out research. And in other areas of government spending on research and development there has been an undeniable collapse in funding. Civil research and development is only just over half in real terms what it was 10 years ago. Can it be denied that Britain is the only OECD country apart from New Zealand. and Turkey that has seen a decline over the past decade in expenditure on R&D as a proportion of GDP? If it continues, British applied and pure science research will become shabby, second-rate and uncompetitive
The wet-nurse of all scientific research in this country is the British university system and the institutes of the research councils. The Select Committee's report makes, at paragraphs 4.76 to 4.86, a number of clear-sighted and practical recommendations about selectivity, about the R-T-X model, about "hot spots" of excellent research, and so on. But all these are simply means of arresting decline. Let us look back over the past decade. Professor Steve Jones states:
"Ten years ago, universities basked in a `dual support' system. There were two channels for government funds. Through one which still exists came sustenance for fully planned projects, formally proposed to the research councils and often involving hundreds of thousand of pounds.
The other, less well known, was just as crucial. Each laboratory had a modest but guaranteed income which allowed it to maintain its basic services and even to keep its researchers supplied with enough resources to pursue novel ideas.
Now, allegedly in the interests of efficiency, one of the channels is being blocked. Dual support is breaking down: only those capable, fashionable and lucky enough to win endorsement for a formally presented application win any backing at all. Under the new system, every new thought must be referred up the administrative chain for approval before it can be pursued."
The previous 220 words are not mine, nor are they the Labour Party's. The words are those of Professor Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London, a Reith lecturer, and a scientist of international renown, who speaks, I am certain, for the overwhelming majority of his colleagues in scientific research. The CVCP makes the same point when it states:
"Money left in the HEFCs' grant for research is too small to enable universities to initiate "blue skies" research and to adequately support the "well-found" laboratory".
As a former Professor of English I could have done without that split infinitive but I take the point. And of course university research staff have now come to be regarded as little more than gifted shop-assistants, to be hired and fired at whim, less secure in their profession than any good garage-mechanic.
The position of contract researchers has also worsened as universities come to depend increasingly upon external research contracts as a source of income.
1162
Such contracts are mostly fixed-term arid project-specific, and as such, potentially a cause of great exploitation of researchers. The number of fixed-term contract researchers has more than doubled since 1979 from 8,000 to well over 17,000. That has repercussions on career patterns. Any discussion of the future of the science base must take account of the most important resource of all— the people who work there.
The Select Committee's report is published many years after the Government withdrew from near market research, that ideological experiment that went disastrously wrong. Yet it is still the market that is expected to drive, fuel and fund our science and technology policy. As my honourable friend Dr. Lewis Moonie has recently written:
"The OST has managed to shed some ideological baggage but only on its own territory. There is no indication that anyone else in Whitehall has followed suit".
The OST, waving its little White Paper, is looking increasingly forlorn. The Select Committee's report deals comparatively gently with it. We on these Benches endorse every word in that report.
5.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is no exaggeration to regard the issue of priorities for science, which is the subject of today's debate, as crucial to the future of this country. Therefore, I should like to put on record the importance of this debate. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, on his committee's report. It provides a clear and cogent analysis which reflects the considerable knowledge and experience of the subject of members of the committee. I have also listened with great interest to the contributions to today's debate, and I am sure that both the report and the record of the debate will repay careful study.
The importance of the science and engineering base was recognised by the Government in last year's White Paper on science and technology, Realising Our Potential. I am pleased to see that at many points the report welcome the policies in that White Paper. it is rightly concerned that the spirit of the White Paper is carried through in the implementation of those policies. The Government share that concern and we shall want to consider carefully what the report has to say.
This is the second debate on the subject in the space of a month. I recently had an opportunity to report to the House on the progress made in taking forward the policies in the White Paper on a major part of the science base, the research council system. Although I regarded it as a serious event, I understand that the media found some parts of it amusing.
The House approved the draft orders creating three new research councils, and I am pleased to say that the orders have now been approved on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Counsel. We are well on course to have the new research council system up and running from 1st April.
A number of important points have been raised in the report and in the debate this afternoon. There will, of

1163
course, be a full published response to the report in the normal way when the Government have been able to consider the recommendations further.
The report's overall message is that strategic thinking is needed for the science and engineering base. The Government agree. That is why the White Paper was subtitled:
"A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology".
The Government also agree with the committee's main conclusions about the nature of that strategy: in particular, that it must leave room for new people and new ideas; that it must be focused on long-term needs; that industry and government must play their part in the new partnership, and must be flexible enough to support excellent research throughout the science base.
A major theme of the White Paper was the need for a new partnership between the science base, industry and government. Chapter 2 of your Lordships' report addresses the way in which that partnership will be taken forward and is generally supportive of the measures we have proposed. To quote from paragraph 2.71 of the report on this subject:
"We warmly welcome the White Paper 'Realising our potential'. It acknowledges real problems, and proposes real measures which if implemented in the right way could bring benefits to science and industry alike".
This debate has been concerned with making sure that that is implemented in the right way.
The Government believe strongly that that partnership between science and industry is vital to our success as a nation. Some noble Lords have been concerned that we have placed too much emphasis on the science base and not enough on industry. I can assure the House that we fully recognise that for the partnership to work there must be commitment from both partners, from industry and the science base. That point was very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. We are not concentrating only on the science base. We shall be looking for a clear response from industry to our policies.
The noble Lord, Lord Moms of Castle Morris, if I may put words into his mouth, appeared to regard the approach which the Government have taken as a toothless tiger. I want to pose a number of questions to him, although clearly I do not expect a response to them. But what does the noble Lord suggest: compulsion? A research levy on companies? I believe, and the Government believe that the way forward must be to engage interest, involvement and investment but on a voluntary basis.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I do not want to interrupt the flow of her speech. I would find it extremely irritating to be interrupted all the time. I promise not to do it again unless hideously provoked.
What I should like is tax incentives and access to venture capital. Those are two aspects. They were mentioned in the report and they took my eye and captured my imagination.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not think that there is a great deal between us and I shall do what I can not to provoke the noble Lord during the course of the debate. I have a vested interest in not doing that.
The central theme of the report and of this debate is the way in which decisions are made about priorities in the science base. Some anxiety has been expressed that the effect of our policies, in particular the restructuring of the research councils and their new missions, will lead to a damaging move away from long-term, basic research.
I remind the House that the White Paper made clear the Government's continuing commitment to basic research. Paragraph 3.17 explained that in the new research council structure all five natural science councils will support the full range of underpinning disciplines appropriate to the pursuit of their missions and that individual councils will undertake the lead responsibility for the health of particular disciplines. The Director-General of the Research Councils will be responsible for keeping under review the boundaries between councils to ensure that all disciplines are properly covered.
In that regard, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that the director-general will not be purely decorative. He will have real powers to enable him to carry out his important responsibilities, as I shall mention later.
However, we want to ensure that systems for setting priorities within the science and engineering base take proper account of the prospects for practical application of research. Some of your Lordships have suggested that this risks turning our universities into a kind of contract research agency for industry, focusing on short-term research with immediate applications. I can assure the House that that is not our intention. We agree with the committee that such a policy would not be in the best interests of the science base, of industry or of the United Kingdom. It is industry's job to support short-term research with immediate application; the focus of the science base should be on the long term and on excellence in basic and strategic research.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, raised two specific points on the setting of research priorities, first, in relation to the technology Foresight programme and, secondly, on structural arrangements in the Office of Science and Technology and the role of the director-general.
The purpose of technology Foresight is to identify areas of research with the potential to lead to a range of commercial applications in the medium to long term — up to 20 years ahead. Perhaps I should alter that to 26 years in the light of what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said. I can assure the House that we do not expect the results of the Foresight programme to translate directly into decisions about short-term research programmes. Rather, we see it as one aid to making decisions about the overall balance of programmes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, acknowledged, no country can afford to support all the research its scientists and engineers consider important, no matter how first-class they are. Difficult decisions need to be made about the areas which need to be nurtured in the

1165
medium to long term and those which may be of reducing importance. We expect the results of the Foresight programme to be one of the factors which will influence the research councils and the higher education funding councils in their decisions about priorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, also asked for clarification of the role and position of the Director-General of the Research Councils. The new director-general is indeed a vital post, and the Government have been very fortunate in securing the services of Sir John Cadogan. In terms of his responsibility versus that of Ministers, it is inherent in our parliamentary system that ultimate responsibility should rest with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. But the director-general is clearly in the line of authority over the policy, resource and management questions on the research councils system within government.
The noble Lord. Lord Flowers, expressed regret that the director-general is not the accounting officer for the science budget. It is, however, standard government accounting practice that the accounting officer role should rest with the permanent secretary of the department, in this case with Richard Mottram as head of the Office of Public Service and Science.
That Sir John has the real authority needed to carry out his duties effectively has already been demonstrated in the announcement last month of the science budget for 1994– 95. My right honourable friend made clear that the redistribution of £ 15 million for new programmes was attributable to advice from Sir John, notwithstanding his short time in the post. Sir John has already, to use the excellent phrase of the Select Committee, shown that he has the flexibility to touch the tiller of the science base.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, was concerned again about the role of the chief scientific adviser and the relationships between the permanent secretary, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the chief scientific adviser. He referred to four.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, have questioned the role and relationships, and the appointment of the Director-General of Research Councils will have the effect of freeing up the chief scientific adviser to advise on science and technology issues across government. Several noble Lords have mentioned the importance of that function: that it should not be departmental. We should look right across the pistes in these matters. The chief scientific adviser remains the adviser to the Prime Minister and will have the new role at his disposal through the new Forward Look and the Council of Science and Technology.
The report also looks at priorities for the universities, which form the major part of the science and engineering base. The universities are independent institutions, free to pursue their own missions in research as in other areas. There is no value, as the Select Committee recognises, in a rigid hierarchy of research or teaching universities. That would only impose a mission on each institution, stifle innovation
1166
and discourage diversity. Nor would spreading funds more thinly provide value for money or promote excellence.
Some universities engage in basic research, others concentrate more on applied research, often commissioned by industry for specific purposes. Both have their place. If we are to secure the most effective use of resources, it is essential to encourage universities to recognise their individual strengths and to play to them. The framework of research selectivity which has been developed by the Higher Education Funding Councils is designed to promote that.
Yet the system also allows flexibility. Funding is related to the quality of individual departments rather than institutions. A few universities have high quality across the board. But the system also allocates funds to individual high quality departments in institutions which otherwise have middle or low ratings. Moreover, all the funding councils have included provision within their research allocations for funds to support the development of research outside the traditional centres. I am sure that they will want to consider carefully what your Lordships have to say about the continuing importance of these development funds in maintaining the health of the system.
Because funding is allocated as a block grant, universities are free to decide how to spend it— for example, by funding promising individuals in otherwise low-rated departments. They can also encourage co-operation between departments and with other institutions. All these factors should protect the seedcorn of the future, allow innovation to flourish and new research and new research centres to develop
The block grant from the education departments and higher education funding councils is one side of the dual support system for supporting university research. The other side is the research grants available for project funding from the research councils. My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to the importance of the dual support system and the role of the research funding channelled through the higher education funding councils. The Government agree that universities need to have access to funds which they can use at their discretion, for example, to fund seedcorn research. The White Paper made clear the Government's continuing commitment to the dual support system for university research. It recognised the need for good working links between the funding and research councils within the system. To that end the Government announced the creation of a new Science and Engineering Base Co-ordinating Committee. At this stage perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating him on taking up the mantle of chairmanship of the Select Committee following the work of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers.
The committee brings together the chief executives of the funding and research councils, the Director-General of Research Councils and representatives of the four United Kingdom education departments under the chairmanship of the chief scientific adviser. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Butterworth that the committee has met several times since it was established last summer. It has made arrangements to involve other

1167
funding bodies such as the Royal Society and the charities in its work and to have discussions with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and other representatives of higher education institutions. It is proving an effective forum for discussion and co-ordination of science and engineering based issues.
The dual support system has been queried by a number of noble Lords in the course of the debate. The purpose of the transfer was to achieve greater clarity over the responsibilities for project funding. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been monitoring the research councils' spending to see that the funds are being used as intended. The British Universities Finance Officers Group accepted in its report for the CVCP last year that the transferred funds were being channelled back to the universities.
Arguments that the transfer should be reversed ignore the problems which led the Government to introduce the change. It is important that there should be clarity over funding responsibilities. There is inevitably a learning process as all those involved, researchers and administrators, understand and properly apply the new rules. It will take time for the new system to bed down.
The Government are committed to making the new system work as effectively as possible. They accepted the recommendations in the report from the Universities Finance Group, including the recommendation that there should be an independent review of the arrangements after two years of operation. That review will be carried out later this year.
The report singles out as one of the key roles of the universities the training of future scientists and engineers. Your Lordships reported that many industrialists regarded people as the most important output of the science base. The report identified the supply of researchers trained to international standards as a priority, and, in welcoming the White Paper's proposals for improving the career structure of contract research workers in universities, the committee asked for a commitment to the funding of individual fellowships to be carried forward on a large scale. I am pleased to report progress in meeting these points.
Last month the Office of Science and Technology published a consultation paper on the White Paper policy that research students supported by the research councils should normally complete an initial year of Master's training. The Master's year is intended to provide the students concerned with the skills and knowledge not only to tackle further research training more effectively but also to enter a range of careers outside as well as inside academia.
The purpose of the consultation is to see that we take full account of the views of universities and employers in taking forward this policy. The consultation paper makes clear that our aim is phased, not forced, implementation. The policy will need to take account of the different patterns of course provision in different subject areas and also differences between industry sectors in their demand for trained researchers.
Beyond the training stage, the White Paper suggested a range of measures to help the universities develop
1168
their role as employers of new academic researchers. The Government have begun to implement these measures through the announcement by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, of extra money for the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering to expand their fellowship schemes. That will help ensure the supply of highly qualified people to fill academic vacancies as they arise.
To turn to just one or two additional points made in the course of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Porter, and others referred to the issue of postgraduate training. Our aims of broadening postgraduate training generally and making it more relevant to employment have been well received. They were based on the widespread view, well expressed by the Royal Society, that some degree of flexibility and versatility should be incorporated into PhD training. That should include elements of non-science specific training, and at the very least should include communication skills and, where appropriate, the management of human material and financial resources.
The policy says that students supported by the research councils should normally complete a Master's year. This will help to assess the student's suitability for further research training but also provide a valuable qualification for those who, for whatever reason, do not proceed. The year will probably need to include some experience of research, the acquisition of further specialist knowledge and communication and other skills of use, both in research and other careers. We have already had helpful spontaneous comments from industry and academia. The White Paper indicated that there would be further widespread consultation and the Office of Science and Technology has now issued a consultation paper inviting comments by the end of April.
The White Paper made clear that implementation of the policy would need to be phased and flexible; for example, to take account of some four-year first degree courses which might fit students for direct entry to PhD.
A comparison was made between the United Kingdom, America and Japan. I thought it might be at least worth putting on the record that the figures are quite interesting. In terms of expenditure on R&D, if one takes the total figures, Japan and the United States of America come top of the league tables. Even if one takes the civil proportion of that expenditure, Japan will come first and the United States of America third. In the first table on total expenditure, the United Kingdom is fifth, followed by Canada and Italy. The same is true on the civil proportion. The point that I think needs to be re-emphasised again and again in terms of the Government funding of research and development, whether one takes the total amount of money or that spent on the civil proportion, is that Japan comes at the bottom of the list in both columns and the United States of America, high on Government defence-related research, is right at the bottom of the list on civil research. There is a real message for industry, if it is listening.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and other noble Lords again highlighted the balance between blue skies and near market research and that point is well

1169
taken. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in his as always fascinating contribution to the debate, reminded me personally of my own children, my son and daughter who are twins. My daughter is now an air traffic controller and the aeroplane for which she is responsible is that wonderful example of technology, the Harrier. My son is a young chemist in his final year of studying for a PhD. What the noble Earl had to say struck quite a chord with me.
The other point that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, made, as did other noble Lords in the debate, was to warn us all of the dangers of short-termism. That point is well taken. The final point on the additional matters was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. He mentioned Forward Look. The system is now transparent. The item of science and technology is on the agenda; we will be reminded of it annually, and the House will have opportunities to return to it. We have a Prime Minister who has shown considerable commitment to science. We have a separate department, the Office of Science and Technology, specifically established and concerned with science, headed by a Minister of Cabinet rank. The annual Forward Look, the Foresight programme and much greater transparency will all serve to keep science and technology well and truly on the agenda. In conclusion, let me return to the overall theme of the report, the need for a national strategy for the science and engineering base. The Government see science and engineering as vital to the health of the nation. The creation of the Office of Science and Technology and the publication last year of the White Paper are evidence of its importance.
We also agree that strategic thinking is needed. The Government's role is to put in place structures which encourage and enable such strategic thinking. That is the purpose of the new arrangements now being put in place. The Council for Science and Technology, chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will advise the Government on matters of national importance in science and technology. The Forward Look of government-funded research and development will bring together each year the programmes of individual government departments to give an overview of the totality of funding of science and technology. The Technology Foresight programme will help to identify where long-term investment is likely to be most beneficial, and assist in forging a closer partnership between the science base and industry.
Within the science base and the universities, we believe that the structures now being put in place will provide a sound framework for development of that partnership. The committee has in general welcomed the structural proposals, and has done some valuable thinking about how they should in practice be developed.
We will consider the report very carefully and provide a formal response to it in due course. We will also take account of the analysis and recommendations in the report as we continue to implement our policies for the science and engineering base. As expected, the debate will prove a valuable supplement to the report
1170
and a contribution to the important subject which. as I said at the outset of my remarks, is crucial to the future of the country.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I must not make another speech and I cannot, if only because I can no longer read my notes. At any rate, perhaps I may thank noble Lords for their support and their kind remarks about me personally, not least my noble friend Lord Halsbury, who seems to have been of greater service to me in the past than even I had imagined. It was a great pleasure also to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who has now succeeded me as chairman of the Select Committee. I wish him much joy on it. I also enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, under whose inspiring chairmanship I served for so many years. They both expressed the importance of reciprocity between the partners—industry, Government and the science base— and the damage caused by short-term attitudes towards the support of science and technology. I very much agreed with what they said.
It is not for me to comment on all the speeches made, but perhaps at least I may say how much I also welcomed the contribution of my noble friend Lord Tombs, the only industrialist to speak this afternoon. He spoke well, but the absence of other industrial participation today is perhaps symptomatic of the problems we have been discussing. Of course, they are busy people, but then so are the rest of us.
My chief thanks, however, must go to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, whose reply was, as usual, comprehensive. We shall all study what she said with great care, I think she clarified some important points. Naturally, I was particularly pleased that the noble Baroness seemed to be taking the long-term view and to be saying that the Government would seek to gain the real co-operation of industry in this vital partnership. I shall study her remarks on those points with particular care.
It has been an interesting and important debate. I hope that it will be seen to contribute to the new emphasis that the Government wish to place on science and technology and may therefore be regarded as a contribution to work in progress. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994
6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, many of your Lordships will recall last year the House approving the Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) Order 1993. That order gave effect to the Sangatte protocol between the United Kingdom and French Governments

1171
concerning frontier controls and policing, co-operation in criminal justice and certain other matters, and it modified the Immigration Act 1971 in order to apply it to the Channel Tunnel. The purpose of the order we are considering today is to provide the legal framework for measures to protect the Channel Tunnel, the international train services and related facilities from acts of terrorism.
The Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 sets about that task in two distinct ways. First, it creates a number of new and serious offences against the safety and security of the Channel Tunnel, the trains and associated facilities. Secondly, it provides powers for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to direct the concessionaires (Eurotunnel) and other users of the tunnel to take appropriate measures to protect the tunnel system, the trains and associated facilities, people and property against acts of violence. The order will apply a framework of law to the fixed link which closely parallels that now applying to aviation and shipping under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. Hereafter, I shall refer to the Aviation and Maritime Security Act not by its full title but by its common acronym, AMSA. That might cut some minutes off the length of my remarks.
The building of the fixed link was authorised in 1986 by the Treat of Canterbury. It was accompanied by an agreement between Eurotunnel and the United Kingdom and French Governments granting Eurotunnel the concession for 55 years. Under Article 5 of the treaty and Clause 23 of the concession both Governments have required Eurotunnel to put in place the measures necessary for the security of the fixed link and to submit proposals showing how they propose to do that. The concession agreement also requires Eurotunnel to secure the observance of those same requirements by other rail users; initially British Rail and its French partner, SNCF.
In the United Kingdom the responsibility for the security of all forms of transport rests with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is, however, established UK practice to place a duty on the transport operator to put in place the necessary security procedures and facilities. In the civil aviation sector the Secretary of State gives directions under the 1982 Aviation Security Act and the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act to airlines, airport operators and others, requiring them to carry out specified procedures and to install physical security measures and equipment. The same happens at the ports and with ferry and shipping lines under the 1990 Act. This order places Eurotunnel, British Rail and others connected with the security of Channel Tunnel trains on the same legal footing as their aviation and maritime competitors. Each of these transport sectors is from an operational perspective very different and they require security arrangements tailored to suit those operating conditions and the nature of the threat; but the legal framework underlying the arrangements can be, and should be, very similar.
In France, by contrast, most transport security functions are undertaken by state agencies, not the
1172
transport operators. At the Channel Tunnel and at railway stations and freight terminals served by international trains most security functions will be undertaken by the frontier and air police and the customs, although French transport operators usually provide the security infrastructure and equipment.
Noble Lords will know that the legal basis in the United Kingdom for building and operating the tunnel system is provided by the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. When Parliament considered the Channel Tunnel Bill it recognised that there would be a need, near to the time of opening, for wide-ranging order-making powers to provide for the regulation of the tunnel system and for applying and enforcing provisions of the law. It was not possible to do that in the Act itself because much of the information required was not available at the time.
The powers for making this order are contained in Section 11 of the Channel Tunnel Act, in particular in subsections (1) (a), (1) (c), (1) (d), (1) (h) and (2). For the purposes of subsection (1) (a), the relevant international arrangements are those contained in the,
"Special arrangements between the UK and French Governments on security matters relating to the fixed link",
Article 3(a) of which requires both Governments to ensure that the security of the fixed link, including the terminal areas, other sites and essential services, is satisfactorily provided and organised and that the responsibilities are properly defined and exercised.
I should like now to focus more closely on the main provisions of the order and say a little about how they will function in practice. The main provisions of the order are contained in Parts II and III, which correspond closely to Parts II and III of AMSA. Part II of the order creates a number of new offences against the safety of the Channel Tunnel and Channel Tunnel trains. These are serious offences, including hijacking, seizing control of the tunnel system, destroying or damaging Channel Tunnel trains or the tunnel system and other acts likely to endanger safety, including issuing threats. All of the offences created in Part II of the order provide that a person found guilty is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life, which in each case is the same as the corresponding penalty under AMSA.
The primary purpose of Part III of the order is to provide for the protection of Channel Tunnel trains and related facilities, the Tunnel system, persons and property from acts of violence. It does so chiefly by giving the Secretary of State powers to direct Eurotunnel, British Rail and others to put in place appropriate physical security measures and to carry out sensible security procedures. All of the articles in Part III, including the related offences for failing to comply with the directions, are based on the corresponding sections of AMSA.
Unfortunately— or perhaps from your Lordships' point of view, fortunately— I do not have time here today to go through the order article by article—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes, you have.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think that I might be tempting the noble Lord's patience if I tried to do that. But I would like to focus on just a few of the articles. Article 11 gives the Secretary of State the

1173
power to obtain information, although this is limited to the purposes of Part III of the order. The ability to obtain accurate and up-to-date information is essential to achieving the objectives of the order: in particular it will enable the Secretary of State to judge what other directions, and their terms, may be necessary under other articles.
Article 12 allows the Secretary of State to designate restricted zones. These are an important means of protecting sensitive areas. Normally they are used in conjunction with perimeter security and controls on access. They also provide a secure environment for people, vehicles and goods waiting to board trains. Following discussions with the operators, the intention initially is to designate restricted zones within Eurotunnel's terminal at Folkestone, at Waterloo international terminal and a number of other railway facilities to be used in connection with Channel Tunnel trains.
Articles 14 and 15 are particularly important. They empower the Secretary of State to require searches to be carried out of people and goods before they enter the tunnel system or board a Channel Tunnel train; that includes searches of passengers' property and vehicles, of trains and of the tunnel system itself. Outside the tunnel system it would include searches of premises used in connection with Channel Tunnel trains, such as Waterloo international terminal, and people and property on those premises.
Both articles identify the circumstances and conditions under which searches may be carried out. For this to occur without a warrant it is first necessary for a direction to be in force under the relevant article; and then for the person specified in the direction, or a constable, to have reasonable cause to suspect that firearms or explosives are in, or may be brought into, the tunnel system or the building or train concerned. Regrettably, at the present time there remains good reason to suppose that such articles may indeed be brought in.
It is therefore the Secretary of State's intention to give directions under both articles. The searches may be carried out by the persons specified in the direction or by constables, although normally it will be done by trained personnel employed by the operator, which is the case now at most United Kingdom ferry ports and airports.
Article 16 provides general powers to direct other security measures to be taken. Examples of the type of measures that may be required include the preparation of contingency plans, for example to deal with bomb threats; they may require the implementation of access controls and security pass systems, usually in conjunction with other measures to control access to restricted zones. They may also require the installation of physical security measures or set minimum standards, for example in respect of perimeter fencing or closed circuit TV. Eurotunnel and British Rail are aware of the specific measures that will be required of them under this article and most are already in place. As with AMSA, a number of new offences are created of failing to comply with a direction.
Articles 17 to 28 contain supplemental provisions concerning directions given under the preceding
1174
articles. For example, Article 17 allows the Secretary of State to specify the manner in which searches are carried out and the training of those involved. Article 18 places limitations on the scope of directions. It precludes, for example, a direction being given which requires or authorises the carriage of firearms.
Article 20 allows the recipient of a direction given under Article 16 requiring him to carry out works to lodge an objection within 30 days, and it provides a procedure for objectors to present their case to the Secretary of State. Articles 21 and 22 deal with the service and content of enforcement notices to redress any failure to comply with a general requirement of a direction.
In Article 26 provision is made for directions to override other contractual or statutory duties and thereby preclude persons complying with a direction from becoming liable under those other provisions. Its purpose is to ensure that the measures required to counter the threat to the Channel Tunnel, to the trains or associated facilities are not frustrated or delayed by normal restrictions imposed by law. The same approach is taken in AMSA.
The remaining articles of the order underpin the preceding provisions. For example, they provide for Department of Transport officers to carry out inspections. New offences are created of unauthorised presence in a restricted zone; of making false statements concerning the contents of any baggage or goods, or in connection with an application for, or use of, a security pass. Here, as throughout Part III of the order, the maximum penalties available to the courts for each of the offences created correspond to those available under AMSA.
Finally I should like to say a few words in praise of all those who have steered this project from the drawing board to its realisation. Even though the original planned opening date had to be deferred by Eurotunnel, the task of commissioning the tunnel system and the shuttle trains is now approaching the point at which the two Governments, the safety authority and the intergovernmental commission will decide on the grant of an operating certificate. It is by any measure a momentous achievement by those who have brought this extraordinary and exciting project to completion.
It has not been possible today for me to do more than to focus your Lordships' attention on the main provisions of this order, but I hope that I have identified the most important aspects. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]. — (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish).
6.12 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all be grateful to the noble Lord for the careful and clear way in which he has outlined the history and the substance of this order. I ought at once to declare an interest as the holder of a modest number of shares in Eurotunnel. I hope that it will restore my

1175
reputation for impartiality if I add that I have an equally modest number of shares in one of the the cross-Channel ferry operators.
My noble friends and I regard the tunnel not simply as being a quite extraordinary and imaginative engineering achievement and certainly not simply as being an additional means of transport across the Channel. We regard it as even more important: as providing this country with a fixed link to the Continent of Europe, to which we believe this country will be irrevocably committed in the future.
Of course the security of this enterprise is a matter of vital importance. It is and has been talked about frequently. Indeed, the very fact that the matter has been talked about may prove something of a temptation to the occasional maniac of one kind or another who seeks to test that security. I suppose that it would be idle to point out that this is not the first time that trains have run in tunnels of some considerable length, whether those tunnels be under mountains or under London. The fact remains that certainly in the early stages, before everybody begins to take travelling through the tunnel totally for granted, as I believe will happen very soon, it is particularly important that special care should be taken over safety and security issues.
For that reason a vast amount of attention has obviously been given to those issues. The British and French Governments have been concerned with the subject; Eurotunnel, BR and SNCF have been involved; there has been an intergovernmental commission with a safety authority and there is a safety directorate inside Eurotunnel. All of them have been studying these matters. I have no reason to query the ability and competence of any of those people. I have no doubt that they are fully aware of the risks involved and the steps that should be taken to meet them; hence, this order.
It is true that I have been provided, as I suspect other noble Lords have also, with briefing material which outlines various other risks. It is idle to pretend that those matters have not been considered by those who are responsible for ensuring the safety of passengers through the tunnel. I must confess that I am not impressed by some of those— I do not for one minute suggest that they are those who have been supplying us with material— who have been tempted to scaremonger in that regard. Whether or not that is their intention, I know not. I say at once that I exempt entirely from that observation the cross-Channel ferry companies. As one would have expected, they have shown complete restraint. Indeed, it must be obvious to them and to the Eurotunnel operators that any form of advertising war that breaks out which might endeavour to claim to offer more safety and less danger than any competitors would be a campaign doomed to backfire and, I believe, totally unproductive.
But the subject is one that is capable of enabling people who wish to do so to obtain cheap publicity. We have seen over the past months examples of that. in the press. Taking up a purely fanciful example, I suppose that if I wanted to get my name in the papers (which I do not), I could make up some story for your Lordships about the grave risk that an AIDS victim might go
1176
berserk, run through the tunnel carrying a syringe of contaminated blood and plunge it into the sides of motorists or passengers waiting in compartments beside their cars as they travel through the tunnel. One could say that. It is long odds that if I put that about seriously, there would be some story in one of the newspapers tomorrow about the grave AIDS risk to travellers in the Channel Tunnel.
For very much the same reason I do not feel that it would be helpful to pry across the Floor of your Lordships' House into the details of how security will be operated. There are matters about which I should like to know, such as where searches or checks will be made and how they will be carried out. But I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for that sort of information to be requested publicly and, if so, certainly I do not believe that it should be answered publicly. It would only be a temptation for people to see whether they could evade the checks which were thereby disclosed. Therefore I am certainly content with the subject matter of this order.
The only other matter to which I want to refer is a rather different one; namely, the parliamentary procedure that is involved in the making of the order. It is made by virtue of Section 11 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. As the Minister made clear, it largely follows the various sections of AMSA of 1990. It is clear that Part II of the order creates a whole series of totally new criminal offences which are very largely punishable, and quite properly so, with life imprisonment.
But I find it an unattractive procedure that an Act of Parliament should give to a Minister, through a statutory instrument, the power to create totally new criminal offences. I do not believe that Ministers should possess that power, whether the order is subject to the affirmative or negative procedure. In practical terms there is perhaps not a great deal of difference. As your Lordships know, by convention— though it is not always complied with— this House has no power to vote against an order and certainly does not have the power to amend one. If it had the power to amend an order I should be tempted to refer to Article 7 which, in subsection (3), makes it an offence,
"for any person intentionally to communicate any information which he knows to be false in a material particular, [which) endangers the safe operation of any Channel Tunnel train".
Quite right too ! Subsection (4) goes on to say that,
"It is a defence for a person … to prove … that he communicated the information in good faith in performance of those duties".
I must confess that my mind boggles at the scenario of anybody who has communicated information intention-ally, knowing it to be false and endangering safety, attempting to put up a defence that he was doing it in good faith in performance of his duty. But that is merely an incidental illustration of the fact that it is impossible to debate to any practical purpose the details of the order.
The answer which the Minister is fully entitled to make is that my point has no relevance today. It may have had a point six years ago when the principal Act — or Bill as it then was— was being debated in your Lordships' House, and that is certainly correct. Nevertheless, it is worth making the point that six years

1177
ago there was no Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in your Lordships' House. Had there been such a committee, grave doubts would have been expressed as to whether it is right in any circumstances to give such extensive powers to a Minister by statutory instrument to allow the creation of new criminal law. I make that observation in the hope that anyone who is tempted to seek to do this again in some other Bill may hesitate as to the probable consequences when it comes before your Lordships' House.
I wish this vast enterprise well. I too congratulate all those concerned in it and I can only say that I look forward to travelling through the tunnel on many occasions in complete safety.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, Perhaps I can first explain that it is in the absence of those who normally speak from these Benches on transport that I have this opportunity of taking part in what I hope the Minister will agree is not merely another order on another aspect of primary legislation, but one of the most crucial orders. When one looks at the scope and listens to the fair, full, frank and helpful exposition, it is more like a Bill than an order. If the Minister agrees with me that clearly what we are looking at is the product of consultation and reflection, it is a model that I hope some of his colleagues in other departments will choose to follow. hope that in future, before we are presented with Bills, there will be as much care taken by those involved in obtaining agreement on what is acceptable as was clearly obtained here.
The noble Lord quite fairly asked the House to accept that substantially we are looking at an extension of the powers, the provisions and regulations that apply to other major forms of transport. That is absolutely right. But I am sure that the Minister will recognise in this instance, because it is so new, revolutionary and far-reaching, that a great interest has been taken in the matter. He must accept also that it only needs what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, described as a "maniac" — I would use the term "nutter"— or a fanatic, someone with no responsibility but imbued by zeal of one kind or another, wanting to make a name for himself or his organisation, and one could be faced with a catastrophic situation.
We are considering what the Minister and those who advise him say is needed in the legal framework to give peace and security of mind to the many people— I agree in that regard with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder— who will want to give this new mode of travel from England to France and beyond a fair try. The Minister certainly satisfied me as to the seriousness of the Government's intent. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that one may be accused of scaremongering by asking questions. But the function of this stage is to ask questions— not in order to produce headlines but in order to ensure that those people outside the House who have genuine anxieties have those: anxieties put to rest.
The briefing for Eurotunnel in regard to safety and security states that its philosophy is,
"To integrate safety with every stage of planning, design and operation. The safety of passengers and staff is paramount".
1178
That is a fair objective. However, I should like the Minister to satisfy me and others that, in order to compete effectively with other forms of travel across the Channel, risks are not being taken in the: interests of speed; that is, turn-round, which will mean more passengers carried and therefore more profit. I trust the Minister will say that he and his colleagues have been guided and advised that all the elements in place have the philosophy of passenger safety as paramount. The question of security must be considered along with the overall safety of the system. It is a general point, which, among others, concerns the Consumers' Association. We believe that the safety of passengers must be paramount. In fact, there should be no other consideration such as speed, commercial viability or being the best among the other forms of transport entitling it to take precedence.
The Minister may be aware that there is not complete public unanimity that the tunnel will be safe or secure. That is not an exaggeration because I am told that in some surveys the public believe that the tunnel will be almost as vulnerable to terrorist attack as flying, and much more vulnerable than ferries. Under half— 44 per cent. — thought ferries were vulnerable compared with 61 per cent. for the Channel Tunnel and 64 per cent. for flying. In a later survey Mintel, which has a fine reputation as a market analyst, found that three out of four adults said that they are never likely to use the tunnel, with many saying that they would be frightened of venturing inside. Half of the respondents were worried that the tunnel would be a target for terrorists.
In the general domain, all those matters 'will only be tested in practice. The Minister must assure the House that the question of safety is something which he and his colleagues took fully into account. The viability of the Eurotunnel project hinged from the start on approval being given for the non-segregation of cars and passengers. The safety authority claimed that it always kept an open mind on the question. But it would have been difficult not to give approval because that could have placed the whole future of the project in jeopardy. I know that the Minister will take the point fairly and kindly that the fact that cars and passengers are not segregated, which may be safer, in the minds of the general public means that there may be a little more danger.
I was interested when the Minister spoke to us about the arrangements for security. I wonder whether the noble Lord can satisfy the House and those outside as to the quality and standards of the training which will be carried out. In the recent past we have had some experience of hitherto state-provided security in the prison service being superseded by a private security arrangement, Group 4. By comparison, the quality of the training has left much to be desired. The Minister may tell us that that was unfortunate, that it will not be repeated, and that the Government are looking at the matter very closely. The noble Lord has an obligation to assure the House and, I hope, the millions of people who will travel that the Government have made absolutely certain that the quality and content of the training are

1179
such that they can feel absolutely confident that their lives are safe in the hands of those who operate the tunnel.
My noble friend Lord Ewing is not here but he asked me to raise a matter. Is it correct that certain goods carried in bulk will be prohibited? My noble friend mentioned that gas, fuel and whisky are among the goods that cannot be carried in bulk. What is the rationale for denying the ability to transport such products in bulk through the tunnel?
The noble Lord has satisfied me that the Government take fully on board their responsibilities in these matters. At the end of the day, if there is a major disaster, despite all that has been done, the Government will carry the blame. It will be no good saying that it was some authority's responsibility; they will say it of course, but it will be no good saying it. It will be no good saying that they made every endeavour. Tragically, if a maniac, a nutter or a fanatic causes terrible damage, we— Parliament and the Government — will carry a major responsibility. We recognise that this is a major development which is welcomed by many people. But there are still many others who will have to be persuaded that travelling by this mode will be as safe as travelling by ferries, air and so on. I am not talking about a safety record. They all have a good record. However, the Minister needs to go some way to assure us on the safety aspects.
Rabies is part of the context of this matter. I am told that in Europe only foxes are known to transmit the disease and that there has been an EU-wide inoculation programme for several years now. Its success can be judged by the fact that the cases of rabies reported in France in 1993 were 80 per cent. less than in 1992. That is all very well, but if the figure has gone down from 5,000 to 1,000, which is 80 per cent. less, a figure of 1,000 is still worrying. What are we talking about— the number of cases falling from seven to two, or from 15 down to three? Rabies is still a feature of life and the possibility of rabies coming through the tunnel is there. I have read the excellent Explanatory Memorandum and I know that there are steps designed to prevent animals coming through. The systems are all in place. What the Minister has to tell the House and the public, however, is that the Government will make sure, even when it will mean money, time and men, that people travelling through the tunnel have had their best interests looked after. We certainly give the order a welcome and we look forward to the Minister's answer.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Graham of Edmonton, for their welcome not just to the order before us but also to this project which is coming to fruition and for which the order is a major, almost second last step, before we can try out a day trip to France through the Channel Tunnel.
The noble Lords asked a few questions and I shall try to answer them as quickly and as best I can. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, exercised the usual judicious balance of a lawyer and hedged his bets by
1180
having a small number of shares in both surface and underground systems of getting between the United Kingdom and France. He rightly drew attention to some of the scaremongering that goes on from some quarters around the project and he rightly pointed out how absolutely unfounded it was. I shall return to one or two of the specific issues that perhaps deserve an answer, and I hope that I shall be able to do that.
As the noble Lord rightly said, it would be wrong to ask— and I certainly would not answer— a question on how the security will work. We have a lot of experience of security at airports and security at the ferry ports. A lot of the experience we have gained in those two fields of transportation has been used in constructing the system for the Channel Tunnel. Indeed, as I mentioned, the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 has been very closely followed.
I fully understand the noble Lord's argument about such a fairly substantial piece of secondary legislation coming before your Lordships' House. As one of the original members of the scrutiny committee on these matters, I well understand the argument. Perhaps I may say in defence that this piece of legislation was well foreshadowed in Section 11 of the 1987 Act and it follows very closely the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. So there is good precedent for what is in the order. We are breaking a lot of new ground in the fact that it is a tunnel, but we are not breaking very much new ground in the security aspects because we have attempted to translate the principles of one into the practice of the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised a number of points. On the question of rabies, for example, which is a little away from the kind of security the order refers to but is probably one of the issues that people most often raise with me, considerable steps have been taken to ensure that animals do not enter the tunnel, and, if they do, that they will not get very far into the tunnel. The constructors have invested around £ 500,000 in experimental work on rabies defence measures. The CNVA centre in France and our own Wildlife Laboratory Centre at Worplesdon in the United Kingdom have carried out various items of research into matters concerning deterring not just foxes but also rodents. We believe, as do the operators, that they have designed a fairly elaborate system which ought to protect the tunnel against animals. Should animals get through the fences and so on which will surround the exterior entries to the tunnel, they will then come across some electrified grids inside the tunnel which one hopes would deter them from going any further. But the fact that trains will be passing through the tunnels at very frequent intervals and at quite a high speed is perhaps a good guarantee against animals progressing very far into the tunnel. We are well aware of that problem, but we believe that it has been seriously and successfully addressed. The whole question will be kept under careful review as the tunnel begins to operate.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked me about the training of security staff. We have a lot of experience on the training of security staff. On my trips up and down to Scotland I am subjected all the time to the security at Heathrow and other airports. I can assure the noble Lord

1181
and your Lordships that proper training is being carried out and that training is being approved by government officials.
The noble Lord asked me an interesting question about gas, fuel and whisky on behalf of his noble friend Lord Ewing. I am not very sure whether or not gas and fuel are used as a cover for the more serious question of whisky. I could not find the answer, but my recollection from some of the papers that I have read is that gas and fuel will not be carried through the tunnel. I am not sure about whisky which is not quite such a volatile liquid as gas and fuel. As there is not too much time for people to consume whisky in the quick journey through the tunnel, I do not believe that there will be much of a security danger in that regard. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord on that question.
I believe that have covered most of the points raised. Perhaps I may deal with the general point about the use of the tunnel and the survey which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned. I also read the survey and how people appear to be frightened of the idea of being in the tunnel. I can quite understand that. My wife takes the view that when she passes through the Clyde tunnel, which is a good deal shorter than the Channel Tunnel, she ought to do so as quickly as possible. She has not yet put that defence to the local constabulary when she passes through the tunnel in the car. I can understand that many people will feel that the Channel Tunnel is different from the long tunnels which one can drive through in, for example, the Alps and Northern Italy.
The difference is that one realises that above there is not just rock but the English Channel and a great deal of water both from the North Sea and the Atlantic. I can understand the fears. I believe that they will quite quickly disappear. Some people remain frightened of flying. Many people were afraid of flying at the beginning, but now fly without any trouble. The same is true of ships. Some people are quite frightened of them. I do not believe that such fear will be a lasting factor in keeping people away from the tunnel, although I fully accept that there will always be some who would prefer to go to the Continent by other means. Equally, there will be a great many who will be more than happy to try the tunnel as a method of getting to France and experience the excitement of being one of the first to make a journey in a fixed link between these islands and the continent of Europe. My history is not very good and nor is my geology, but I believe that this is the first time that that has been possible for many thousands of years since we were once linked to the Continent.
I believe that the problems of people being slightly nervous about crossing the Channel will disappear. I am sure that, as with other forms of transport improvement, the number of people crossing the Channel one way or the other will increase with this additional link between us and the mainland of Europe. As the noble lord; Lord Wigoder, mentioned, it is an important psychological step forward for this country to be connected directly to the Continent. I believe that it will act as an important sign to people that we are now fully part of the European
1182
Union. It will enable us to think in a more European way which will be to the benefit of us all, both economically and socially.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. A number of his remarks have certainly given me comfort. Can he help me on one point? It is the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority which has responsibility for making sure that the safety measures are adequate. Responsible organisations have great difficulty in discovering the basis and validity on which the measures have been taken. I am not talking about commercial confidentiality or security. As the noble Lord, Lord. Wigoder, said, those aspects are not in question. It will ease the minds of many people if it were possible either to vet, consult or prove the basis on which measures have been taken. At this stage the Minister may be unable to reply fully. Perhaps he can write to me in answer to that question.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall see what I can do about that question. A great deal of engineering work has gone into the construction of the tunnel. Among those who understand the technicalities of the civil engineering in the tunnel the safety measures which have been incorporated are fairly common knowledge. I can assure the noble Lord that both ourselves, the French Government and the company itself, for its own interest, have attempted to ensure that the highest modern standards of safety have been built into the construction of the tunnel and into the way in which it will be worked.
To some extent the fear about the safety aspects— if that is the word— which exists in some sections of the population who are potential users, leaving aside the security question, is a fear that tunnel travellers themselves will have to work to dispel in much the same way as in previous years people had to work to dispel a fear of flying, of trains and at one stage, a fear of the motor car itself. I was about to say that noble Lords will recall that, but obviously they will not. However, they will know from the history books that when the motor car first appeared a red flag was used to warn everyone away from it. I do not believe that we are quite at that stage as regards the Channel Tunnel. I do not think that a red flag is necessary. If I can say anything more positive to the noble Lord, I shall certainly write to him.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I do not doubt for a moment that everything which has been done has been done correctly. It is a question of openness. Perhaps publicity is the wrong word. But the question is the ability or the willingness to have that which has been done in the name of safety looked at by bona fide organisations. I shall be grateful if the Minister would write to me on that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I certainly shall. Eurotunnel will read these remarks and realise that it has a job to do to satisfy some people that everything has been done in a proper and safety-conscious way. With those remarks, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Iran
6.48 p.m.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy with regard to recent developments in Iran.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I take this opportunity first of thanking all those who are going to participate in this debate. I am looking forward to their contributions. We had a debate on Sudan not very long ago. At that time we had the benefit of the views of Members of your Lordships' House who had been in Sudan. We do not have that advantage this evening regarding Iran; but I am looking forward to hearing about the different aspects of the subject which noble Lords will bring to the debate. I have spoken to a number of right reverend Prelates and although they expressed support for this debate, I am disappointed that none was able to rearrange his commitments in order to participate.
The prime motive for this debate is the murder of the reverend Haik Hovsepian-Mehr who was both chairman of the Council of Protestant Churches in Iran and superintendent of the Assemblies of God. He was often called a bishop. I should have liked one of our right reverend Prelates to have participated in this debate tonight.
However, I shall be particularly looking forward to the response of my noble friend the Minister to the questions which I am sure that a number of us will be raising as well as for his statement as regards the Government's general policy today.
Reverting to the murder, I have seen in the media no evidence of a wholehearted investigation into its cause or to find out who actually committed it. Can my noble friend tell us whether he has any knowledge of an investigation or whether any genuine effort is being made to uncover the murder? It is a very strange coincidence that the murder occurred a very few days after the release of Mehdi Dibaj which was largely the result of the work of the man subsequently assassinated. He was one of the last great voices in Iran who was fearless in promulgating the truth of what was going on in that country at that time.
First, perhaps I may make a few remarks about the background. I hope that my facts are accurate, but they are not always easy to elicit. The last execution of a Christian pastor in Iran took place in December 1990. It is now some 15 years since the revolution, and I have seen it alleged that the government have executed some 95,000 of their political opponents during those 15 years. While that has not occurred at regular intervals, according to my calculations that is an average of more than 17 per day, which seems quite a high figure. However, let us put that into context. That figure is very small in comparison with what Hitler did; and with certain new films around, we are thinking again of the Holocaust and the 6 million who were murdered by Hitler in a much shorter period of time.
In quoting that figure of 95,000— obviously, it is not an official figure— I should like to put another aspect into context. I refer to the persecution of the Christian
1184
minority in Iran. A great deal more is done in terms of breaches of human rights against those who are opponents of the regime in Iran than to those who are just Christians. We need to put those different aspects into context.
I should like to make a few hesitant remarks about the question of the death penalty in Iran which is exacted for what Iran chooses to call apostasy— for changing one's religion from Islam to Christianity. As I understand it from the books that I have read by Islamic authors, the Koran does not decree the death penalty in this life although it says that there will be extreme punishment in the life hereafter. I have also read that the prophet Mohammed never put apostates to death, but there are plenty of ancient documents containing arguments for exacting the death penalty.
We need to understand the situation in Iran because it is right outside our ken here in England. Because of the inter-relationship of the government and the Islamic religion, to change one's religion from Islam is disloyalty to both the nation and the Islamic religion. That is something beyond our understanding. England is not a theocracy, as I believe that one might argue that Iran is. We need to have some understanding of the different situation there and to look with some measure of sympathy on the way in which Iran considers things.
Having said that, because Iran's 1979 constitution prescribes freedom of religion, I do not believe that a wholehearted dedication to freedom of religion would allow the way in which the courts there exact the death penalty on Moslems who change their religion to the Christian or another faith.
There are probably some 350,000 people who would call themselves Christians in Iran. That is quite a sizeable number; but the vast majority of them are members of the Armenian and Assyrian Churches, which conduct their services in their own languages. Because those languages are not spoken by the normal Iranian, they do not provide the same threat to the Iranian Government as the Protestant Churches, the services of which are conducted in Farsi, the natural language of the Iranians. Those Protestant Churches, of which the bishop was the chairman, are therefore much more open for Moslems to join. That is a threat to the Iranian authorities. Many people in Iran are calling for the death penalty for all those who started life as Moslems but have now become Christians or members of other faiths.
I turn secondly to certain current episodes and incidents. First, in 1989 the Bible Society, which had been functioning in Tehran since 1816, was closed. That was approximately four years ago. The society had been in Iran for almost two centuries. The effect of its closure was not only to hurt Christians, but to hurt Jews also because they used to obtain their own scriptures from the society which was the one organ which imported bibles for Christians and scriptures for Jews. Bibles cannot now be imported into Iran. Can my noble friend the Minister inform us why the Bible Society was closed and whether representations are continually being made by Her Majesty's Government and the European Union to apply pressure on Iran to permit the Bible Society to re-open its store in that country?

1185
In 1993— just last year— the restrictions on non-Moslems were increased; for example, their faith has now to be noted on their identity cards, which are greatly used. Non-Moslem shopkeepers have to put a notice on their shop stating their religious affiliation. There are also increasingly strong prohibitions on evangelising Moslems. Threats, arrests, prison and torture are common not only for Christians, but for opponents of
the regime. I emphasise that my understanding is that the Christians there are not opponents of the government. As commanded in the Bible, they pray for the government and are not in opposition to them. They are not trying to attack the government. They wish to exercise their right under the constitution to freedom of religion and to be allowed to conduct themselves in that way without hostility to the government.
Thirdly, looking at the future, can my noble friend tell us what further steps the UN special envoy, Professor Reynaldo Galindo-Pohl, is going to take about the situation in Iran? He made a damning report in November 1993 which hurt the Iranian Government. Will Her Majesty's Government ask him to enter the country and to investigate the allegations of torture and murder that are currently being made there? Will my noble friend try to check on whether the Iranian Government actually treat their opponents with justice and fairness?
As I draw to a conclusion, I should like to quote a couple of paragraphs from an article by Bernard Levin in The Times on 15th February, which illustrates a certain amount of what I have been saying. He writes:
"how insubstantial must the grasp on a religion be, if it has to be propped up by hangings and woundings and beatings and murderings? True, in centuries gone by, our forebears burnt heretics at the stake, or stretched them on the rack, or threw them into dungeons for the rest of their lives, all for the faith. But that is the point, surely? We are not in centuries gone by, but in this century, and very shortly we shall be in the next; how many more centuries have to pass for the mullahs of Iran to believe their own religion?"
I come to this topic as a Christian with humility and repentance for the wrong things that have been done by those who profess to be Christians, both in the past and in the present. I believe that we as Christians are by no means guiltless; but we need to press for justice where we can in every nation.
In the same article Bernard Levin refers to the death of Bishop Haik and states:
"Nevertheless, this evil satrapy of Iran should be called to account over the murder of the bishop, even though such denunciation would be ignored by the country's rulers".
These are important issues. To those in the Judaeo/Christian religion, all people, whatever their religion or faith, are respected because they are made in the image of God; all are part of the common humanity. But that was not the attitude of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, who published a book vilifying all non-Moslems in a way that I find totally unacceptable. We are to love our neighbours and to pray for those in authority that they should exercise justice and bring peace.1 pray that that will happen in Iran. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's response as regards the Government's policy.
7 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I greatly welcome the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, decided to introduce this Question and I appreciate the way in which he did so. Without doubt, Iran is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Much of that was stated by the noble Viscount, perhaps in a more interrogatory way than I intend doing.
I too wish to comment on the case of Bishop Haik. It was a terrible case not just because he was a Christian but because of all the circumstances. He was the superintendent of the Assemblies of God Church in [ran and disappeared while on the way to the airport to pick someone up. On the morning of Sunday,30th January,11 days after his disappearance, the Tehran Office of Police Intelligence asked the family of Reverend Haik Hovsepian Mehr to report to the station in order to identify his body.
As Chairman of the Council of Protestant Ministers in Iran, the Reverend Haik Hovsepian Mehr had spoken out courageously against the persecution of Iranian Christians and the closure of the Iranian Bible Society, as well as a number of churches across Iran. Despite government pressure, he had refused to sign an undertaking promising not to allow Moslems into Assemblies of God churches— thank heavens he refused — and he also refused to sign a letter stating that the Assemblies of God enjoyed full constitutional rights as Christians in Iran. He had been campaigning for the release of Reverend Mehdi Dibaj, who, after nine years of imprisonment, had been sentenced to death for apostasy. As a result of international pressure, Reverend Mehdi Dibaj was released on 17th January. Only two days later Bishop Haik went missing.
There is, of course, widespread suspicion that the Iranian authorities were responsible for the death of Bishop Haik. I agree with the noble Viscount that there should be a thorough inquiry. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government have been active in making representations. During the past week I have written many letters to the Chargé in London and to Ministers and officials in Iran making my own protest against what has been done.
But, as the noble Viscount said, it is not just a question of the oppression of Christians. I wish to congratulate the all-party Parliamentary Human Rights Group on a report that it published yesterday entitled The Tehran Murder Machine, an account of terrorist assassinations by Iranian agents. It reminds us of the resolution passed on 17th August 1993 by the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. It strongly condemned:
"the continuing flagrant human rights violations of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including … the continuing execution of political prisoners and the assassination of opponents abroad".
The UN Special Representative on Iran, Professor Galindo Pohl, who was referred to by the noble Viscount, reporting on 8th November 1993, detailed:
"assassinations and attempts on the lives of Iranians living abroad, remarking that 'in the absence of conclusive data, the Special Representative has included in this analysis only those

1187
cases in which the participation of Iranian agents has been noted by competent judicial or administrative authorities, or by parliamentary bodies'".
The noble Viscount said that he had seen estimates showing that 95,000 Iranians had been killed in recent years. I have seen higher estimates but others have seen lower ones. If representatives of international organisations, such as the UN Special Representative on Iran and Amnesty International, were allowed to make inquiries we should know something of the truth of what goes on behind the closed doors and in the prisons in Iran.
The report of the all-party Parliamentary Human Rights Group deals especially with more than 100 assassination attempts made on the lives of Iranian dissidents living abroad. That is almost unprecedented. I know of no other country which on such a massive scale and with such organisation has assassinated people on the streets of foreign countries. Nearly 300 people have been killed or injured in such attacks, which are totally in breach of the law.
As chairman of the parliamentary group, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was greatly involved with the report and I hope that he will say a little more about it. I propose to concentrate on the way in which Britain can best use its influence to bring about change for the better. Of course, diplomatic initiatives are important in Tehran, in the UN, in association with our fellow members of the European Union, with the United States, and so forth. However, I wish to look a little more deeply into the matter. Since Ayatollah Khomeini's regime took power in Iran our policy towards Iran has been conciliatory. Following Khomeini's death, there were wide expectations in the West that Iran, under President Hashemi Rafsanjani, might adopt a more moderate attitude. Five years on, such hopes are seen to be largely illusory. The violation of human rights in Iran has continued unabated. The religious dictatorship has adopted a more active role in sponsoring international terrorism. I hope that the Minister will comment on that aspect of the regime. The decree to murder Salman Rushdie, the fatwa, has been renewed and the bounty for his head has been increased. Instead of it being withdrawn it has recently been re-emphasised.
At the same time, the Iranian regime has been actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles as well as accumulating chemical arms. In addition, the Iranian regime is strongly against the Middle East peace process, which is experiencing enough difficulty as it is. But here we have a constant, deliberate attempt to undermine the initiative. The Iranian Government consider themselves committed to destroy that process by helping extremist groups. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise on a global scale. Sudan is already in the hands of the fundamentalists and has become a platform for the support of terrorism in the region. Algeria and Egypt are increasingly facing the same problem. There is no question that the rise of fundamentalism in those countries has an objective base but it would be naive to neglect Iran's considerable provocative role in this respect. It would be equally naive to think that this evil problem will go away on its own.
1188
There is a difficulty in adopting a balanced policy which would not be misinterpreted as opposition against Islam. This would be a terrible thing for our country to be involved in. We have always enjoyed good relations with Islamic countries, and many of us have great respect for Islam and what it preaches. We would naturally wish to maintain those good relations. However, we should appreciate that the circumstances have entirely changed. Islamic fundamentalism is a strategic and real threat to friendly countries in the Islamic world, and we cannot come to a compromise with that.
I strongly believe that our policy towards Iran is at the heart of the problem. Experience has proved that our conciliatory approach has often been counter-productive in the past. Therefore, in my view we should adopt a decisive stance. It is not sufficient merely to condemn Iran's violations of human rights in the United Nations Human Rights Commission or in the United Nations General Assembly — a very small step. I believe that Britain must take firmer practical steps in that respect.
It so happens that, not knowing that this Unstarred Question was going to be on the Order Paper today, I went last week to Paris to meet Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, who was unanimously elected last October by the Iranian National Council of Resistance, a 350-member opposition parliament, as the future president of Iran. I found the meeting extremely illuminating and very reassuring. At a time when Iranian women are the prime victims of severe repression in Iran, the very fact that Mrs. Rajavi has been elected to the highest leading role in Iran is a reassuring factor, as it is clear that the opposition is a democratic alternative. I was very impressed with the people I met, with the constitution they have prepared, with the plans that are ready for the time, which we hope will not be too far off, when this disastrous and oppressive regime will fall by one means or another. Certainly, there is a great deal of dissent inside Iran, and it is growing.
It is not our job to interfere in internal affairs, but I believe that it is our job to understand and have contact with oppositions. I understand that there are certain countries that recognise the Labour Party as being the opposition in the United Kingdom and they freely come and talk to us. I know the circumstances are different, but I believe that we should recognise the value of a democratic alternative ready to take power if and when the circumstances arise, and that it is a democratic alternative which places great respect on the rights of women and those of religious and ethnic minorities, in addition to committing itself to conducting free elections not later than six months after the downfall of the clerical regime.
I believe that an active dialogue with the resistance, with its popular and religious roots in Iran, is the most serious step in confronting fanaticism and fundamental-ism and that that should form an inseparable part of our foreign policy. That will create the necessary balance in our relations with the present regime in Iran. If they know that we recognise the nature of the opposition and the constitutional role that it would play, I think it would be a healthy warning to the Government of Iran that in this moving world those who defy international human

1189
rights rules must expect that they will be challenged. We should therefore take the initiative and, concurrent with a more decisive stance against Rafsanjani's government, improve our relations with the National Council of Resistance for Iran. I believe that that is a constructive way forward.
There are other circumstances in which we should do the same thing. For instance, I have recommended that we should have a dialogue with the Dalai Lama and those who represent Tibet from outside, because there is a similar situation of total oppression in Tibet. I think it is healthy that the governments concerned should understand that governments such as our own are prepared to have not a formal but an informal and useful constructive relationship with those who stand in opposition. The governments concerned, the Chinese and the Iranian Governments, will not like it, but that is not our worry. They cannot expect to like it if they breach all the rules of civil conduct in the world coming towards the turn of the century. Those who breach human rights must expect others to recognise a constructive alternative. I hope that the British Government will consider this seriously.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I too should like warmly to welcome the debate which has been initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and to thank him for giving us this rare And useful opportunity of looking at Britain's policy on [ran and at the possibilities which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned of getting back on to a more amicable basis with them. I am very much in favour of closer links with the Iranian people, with whom we have historical ties of friendship and of mutual interest, although I think that, while this regime lasts, that is going to be very difficult, if not impossible.
The noble Viscount talked particularly about the persecution of religious minorities and the atrocious murder of Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr, on which I have written to the Government, as has the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I hope, as he does, that they are going to press for the fullest possible inquiry. But let me say first that I have no quarrel with the religion of the Iranian regime. I have no quarrel with fundamentalism as such. If people wish to believe that every word in the Bible or in the Koran is literally true that is their privilege. What I do not like, and what we must resist with all the strength at our command, is the use of fundamentalist doctrines for terrorist purposes against either the people of Iran or against those who oppose the Iranian regime abroad.
When you look at the murder of Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr in the context of all the other murders of dissidents against the Iranian regime abroad and the 92,000 executions which are being carried out by the regime, as the noble Viscount reminded us, you can reach but one conclusion; that is that the Government in Tehran have adopted a deliberate policy of using murder to eradicate their political opponents, not just at home but in every country where the victims of their persecution have sought exile. That is the conclusion of the report by the Parliamentary Human Rights Group
1190
which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was kind enough to mention. I shall go into that in a little more detail later on.
First, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that I entirely agree with him on cultivating better relationships both with the Iranian and the Tibetan opposition in exile, but I think this policy has to be generalised. I believe that the Foreign Office must devise mechanisms for doing that, as the United States is beginning to do with their Track Two diplomacy through the United Nations Institute of Peace. I wish that the Foreign Office would have a look at that experience in the United States to see whether parallel mechanisms could be devised here which would enable us, without committing the Government, to enter into dialogues with opposition bodies that are in resistance against dictatorships and regimes such as that in Iran.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that another interesting case is the Kurds in Northern Iraq with whom it seems to me the British Government have at least a speaking relationship?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that is an interesting case. I agree with the noble Lord that it provides us with something of a precedent. One can think of many others such as the Southern Sudan resistance movement, the SPLA and the Kashmiris who have been involved with the dialogue started by the United States Institute of Peace.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, also mentioned some of the comments that have been made by the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and the United Nations Special Representative on Iran, Professor Galindo-Pohl. That supports the case that has been made in this report for saying that the Iranian regime is indulging in a campaign of systematic murder.
The Iranian Representative at the UN in his statement to the Third Committee in December 1993 complained about those references, but the Special Representative, in his more recent report of 2nd February 1994, said that he,
"cannot but mention cases in which there are statements by judicial, political or administrative authorities containing specific indications of the involvement of Iranian agents".
Perhaps I may mention one other authority. The Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, M. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, reported in December 1993 that,
"extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions continue to occur on a large scale in … Iran".
He says that he,
"received numerous reports concerning attacks against members of the political opposition to the Government outside … Iran. It has been alleged that those responsible are agents with links to the Iranian security forces".
I agree with the noble Viscount that we should ask professor Galindo-Pohl to follow up those allegations to see whether he can produce further evidence.
As we point out in our report, human rights violations are seldom provable to the standard that would be required in a court of law. In a letter to me, Mr. Douglas Hogg, says:
"It would be a very serious matter indeed if the Iranian government were shown to be behind these murders".

1191
I submit that the volume of evidence is sufficient for us to conclude that they are. I should like to know what the Government's attitude is going to be and what policy they believe we should adopt when it is proved, as we believe it is, that the Iranians have been adopting a consistent and deliberate policy of using murder as an instrument of policy.
We show that over the past 15 years over 100 assassination attempts have been made on the lives of Iranian dissidents living abroad in 18 countries. Nearly 300 people have been killed or injured in those attacks, half of which have occurred during the four-and-a-half years of Rafsanjani's rule, which gives the lie to those who claim that there has been some liberalisation since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini. The operations of the state terrorists sent out by Tehran have not been limited to Iranian citizens. The fatwa against Mr. Salman Rushdie has been reiterated by President Rafsanjani himself as recently as 2nd February 1993, and the reward offered for his murder increased to 2 million dollars, plus an unspecified additional sum if the person who commits the murder is engaged in arrangements for Mr. Rushdie's travels.
The Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Mr. Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri, said on the fifth anniversary of the fatwa that:
"every Moslem is religiously duty bound to kill him whenever and wherever he is able".
The British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union received an invitation from that gentleman to send a delegation to Tehran, although I understand that they very wisely pigeon-holed it. Several of the translators and publishers of his book have been subjected to terrorist attacks. The Japanese translator of the Satanic Verses was murdered in 1991; the Italian translator escaped an attempt on his life, as did the Norwegian publisher, and an arson attack was made on the hotel where the Turkish translator was staying in 1993.
The use of terrorism as an adjunct to foreign policy has developed into an organised and professional activity over the past 15 years. It has been used as a lever to gain advantages from western countries or to exert more pressure on surviving opponents of the regime. Many of Iran's diplomats have a record of previous service with the Guards Corps and other security organs. Hossein Sheik-ol-Eslam, Minister for Arab and African Affairs, Mohammadi Ehraari-Mostafavi, Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry, and Maalck, former ambassador to Switzerland and now a senior official at the Foreign Ministry, all played leading roles in the occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The UK refused Mr. Maalck as chargé d'affaires for that reason.
The Iranian regime has close links with organisations in other parts of the Middle East and north Africa which are themselves using terrorism to promote their political objectives. Among those are Front Islamique de Salut (FIS) in Algeria, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (General Command) in Syria and Hizbollah in Lebanon, all of which are financed by Iran. There is also co-operation with the regime of General Omar
1192
El-Beshir in Sudan, which promotes terrorism in north Africa and is spreading subversion in Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia.
It is important to understand that the doctrine of Velayat-e-Faghieh, or guardianship of religious jurisprudence, on which the regime is based, places Tehran above all earthly laws and rules in its own eyes. The regime claims authority from God, and this divine sanction justifies any activity which is considered to uphold the law of God, as they interpret it. Hassan Rohani, Secretary of the Supreme Security Council, says that Iran would not hesitate to destroy its opponents' centres of activity and assembly abroad, and adds that to do so would not in his opinion contravene international laws and human rights. This is not a personal view but a logical deduction from Velayat-e-Faghieh, accepted by the Iranian Government as a whole.
Therefore, we have a member state of the United Nations that is dedicated to subverting international law and carrying the infection of its own brand of religious terrorism into the four quarters of the globe. The inference of the Special Rapporteur's comments and of the General Assembly resolution which followed is that the Iranian Government are indeed organising an international murder machine. The United Nations has so far developed no mechanism for dealing with a member state which deliberately and systematically carries its violations of the right to life into other countries where its exiles have sought refuge, or where people write and translate a book that state dislikes. If the case against Iran is supported by that evidence, the task of countering the infection has to be addressed without delay.
Time prevents me from giving details of the cases in our report where evidence of Iranian state involvement exists, and I can only ask that the Government look at all the circumstances and draw their own conclusions. I also ask them to consult with our allies, particularly the Twelve, to ensure if possible that we agree on a far more robust stand against Iranian state terrorism than we have taken so far.
At the end of 1993, the French authorities controversially handed over to Iran two suspected assassins of Dr. Kazem Rajavi, an action they claimed was justified as necessary to protect their national interests. The German Government took steps in October to prevent the federal prosecutor from arresting Mr. Ali Fallahian, the Iranian intelligence minister, believed to be the mastermind responsible for several murders, including that of Dr. Sharafkandi. The pattern of assassinations described in the report, in which opponents of the Iranian regime were killed by terrorists, provides the strongest imaginable grounds for believing that those appalling crimes are planned in Tehran, and many well-informed sources directly accuse the regime; yet the international community has yet to present a solid and united front against those who threaten to spread their rule of the gun and the knife across the whole world.
Repeatedly the work of investigators is frustrated by the cowardice of western governments. They fear terrorist reprisals, such as those perpetrated in France in

1193
1986, or, even more ignoble, they allow the murderers to escape lest their prosecution and conviction might damage their commercial interests. In the long run, this is a dangerously short-sighted attitude, since it has the effect of encouraging the Iranian regime to believe they will suffer no real penalties for the export of terrorism. The epidemic of killings of moderate intellectuals in north Africa, the use of explosives against passenger aircraft and the repeated public threats against the life of Mr. Salman Rushdie all show that international terrorism not only undermines law and order but endangers freedom of expression. The need for the utmost firmness against the terrorists and their sponsors is obvious.
The international community must now take firm and decisive action against Iranian terrorism, as they have done against Libya on far less evidence. The UN Security Council should demand that Iran hand over the two alleged killers of Dr. Kazem Rajavi, so that they can be brought to trial in Switzerland. The trials of those who killed Dr. Shapour Bakhtiar in France and Dr. Sharafkandi in Germany should be completed as soon as possible and Iran should be called to account for the role of her agents in those and other crimes. The Security Council must make it clear to Iran that acts of terrorism will not be tolerated and that both the criminals themselves and their masters will face the penalties they deserve.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, for drawing the attention of your Lordships' House to recent developments in Iran. Apart from his sensitive and informative speech, we have heard two contributions which I found extremely interesting. I wish to add my concern at the abuse of human rights of Christians in that country.
The treatment of the Reverend Mehdi Dibaj— this was referred to by the noble Viscount— his imprisonment for nine years before being brought to trial, and his solitary confinement for two of those years in an unlit cell measuring only three feet by three feet, was a serious breach of human rights. The sentence of death on someone whose only so-called crime was to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour— he did that 45 years ago— was completely unjustified.
Any joy at his release was shortlived, being dispelled a few days later by the disappearance of the Reverend Haik Hovsepian-Mehr and his subsequent presumed murder. In December he had, as Chairman of the Council of Protestant Ministers and General Secretary of the Assemblies of God, met with the Ministry of Islamic Guidance for Minorities to protest that the rights of Christians had not been protected under the 1979 constitution. This action prompted the ministry to require all Christian denominations to sign declarations stating that they enjoy full constitutional rights as Christians in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Some churches, under coercion, signed the declaration but not the Assemblies of God and one brethren Church.
Copies of the declaration were faxed by the ministry to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in
1194
Geneva in an attempt to show that Iran's religious minorities enjoy full protection and fair treatment. The Reverend Haik then issued an invitation to either Professor Reynaldo Pohl, the UN special envoy, or a delegation of the UN Human Rights Commission to come and see for themselves. But now the Reverend Haik is dead.
These two cases are just the tip of the iceberg. The persecution of Protestants in Iran has been increasing for many months. Arrests, imprisonments, torture and church closures are becoming more frequent. Moslems have been forbidden to enter churches and Church services are not allowed to be conducted in Farsi. This affects all Protestant Churches which in Iran are largely composed of converts from Islam for whom it is natural to worship in Farsi.
Other restrictions introduced recently include the following. In May 1993 non-Moslem shopkeepers were ordered to put up notices announcing their religious affiliation. That brings back shades of Nazi Germany. In June 1993 all Christians were ordered to sign a statement declaring that they would not evangelise Moslems. In October 1993 religious affiliation had to be stated on identity cards which are essential for doing any business. Since 1988 six Churches have been closed down and another one has been closed except for one meeting per week. As we have heard, four years ago the Bible Society in Iran was closed down.
These decrees are moderate in comparison with demands from fanatic elements in Iran who are seeking the execution of all converts to Christianity who refuse to return to Islam. Islamic law— Shari' ah law— states that all male apostates should be killed. There are estimated to be at least 10,000 Moslem converts in Iran. Given that approximately 95,000 political prisoners have been executed since the revolution in 1979, the Protestant Churches take this threat seriously. It adds up to a dreadful picture. Human rights— especially that of freedom of religion which is a basic right recognised as such by Article I of the United Nations Charter— are being ruthlessly trampled on.
I hope that when the Minister replies to this Question, he will be able to say that Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can in the international community to get Iran to recognise its responsibilities to members of all religions. In particular, I would suggest that the Government should encourage the United Nations special envoy or a delegation of the UN Commission on Human Rights to go to Iran to find out the position of religious minorities there. As a test of the Iranian Government's good will, I believe that our Government should approach them to ask whether the Bible Society can recommence its activities in Iran. That would be a litmus paper as regards sounding out the attitude of the Iranian Government.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, for tabling this Question this evening and for giving us an opportunity to discuss these mainly distressing matters.
In Iran it remains an offence to sell the Bible. The offices of the Iranian Bible Society were closed in 1990

1195
by the state authorities, as the noble Viscount mentioned in his cogently argued opening address. Churches are also being forced to close by the state and three churches were closed in 1993, in Kerman, Ahwaz and Gorgan. In June 1993, the Iranian Government issued ultimatums, requiring churches to sign statements declaring that they will not evangelise Moslems. This was to include refusing entry to Moslems who wished to sit in on church services. The Assemblies of God were one of the few denominations which refused to comply and have since faced an escalating wave of intimidation from the Iranian authorities.
The superintendent of the Assemblies of God church in Iran and chairman of the Council of Protestant Ministers, Bishop Haik Hovsepian-Mehr, was brutally murdered in January this year. He was an outspoken advocate of religious freedom and was murdered only a few days after he successfully campaigned for Reverend Mehdi Dibaj, a Moslem convert to Christianity, who had been sentenced to death for apostasy. Mehdi Dibaj has since been released on the condition that he be available for further investigation if required. He had spent nine years in prison for apostasy, two of which had been in solitary confinement and he had had to endure a number of mock executions.
Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr was not the first Iranian Christian to die for his faith in recent times. In December 1989, Reverend Hossein Soodmand, a Moslem convert to Christianity, was executed for apostasy. He left a blind wife and four children. Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr had declared before his death that there was no religious freedom in Iran and had urged the United Nations Human Rights Commission to send a delegation to investigate the situation of the church there. The Jubilee Campaign reports that there is strong and widespread suspicion that Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr was murdered by the Iranian authorities because of his outspoken advocacy of religious liberty. When the Jubilee Campaign went to see the Chargé d'Affaires at the Iranian Embassy, Mr. Gholamreza Ansari, they were told that a villager had found the body of Hovsepian-Mehr but for about 10 days was to afraid to report it to the police. This contradicts the explanation given by the Government in Tehran, who claim that the police found the murdered bishop's body but for several days were unable to identify it. Where does the truth of the matter lie?
The Iranian Chargé d'Affaires also told the Jubilee Campaign that, with the exception of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Iran, Mr. Galindo Pohl, there would be no problem in having anyone else from the United Nations Human Rights Commission visiting Iran to investigate the murder of Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr and the situation of the church in that country. However, this appears to be contradicted by the fact that the present United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, made a request to the Iranian Government last summer, asking for permission to visit that country to carry out his investigations, but he has yet to receive any reply from the Iranian authorities and he has mentioned this matter in his recent report on religious intolerance.
1196
In conclusion, I ask Her Majesty's Government to encourage the Government of Iran to invite the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance to their country to enable him to carry out his mandate, which should include an investigation into the Iranian church with regard to religious freedom and the murder of Bishop Haik Hovsepian-Mehr.
7.40 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the break. I did not put my name down to speak because I was not sure whether I would be able to be here in time. I shall be brief, but I felt that it was important that someone should speak up on behalf of the members of the Baha'i faith in Iran who, since the Iranian revolution in 1979, have faced with enormous bravery the most terrible persecution and oppression.
The Baha'i faith arose out of the religion of Islam and now has adherents in more than 100 countries. A list of major tenets of the Baha'i faith reads like a prescription for the most civilised, tolerant and enlightened society one could imagine. Tenets such as the harmony of religion and science and equality of education for men and women are wholly unexceptionable, indeed laudable, to us. How is it, then, that such people have to endure such a degree and intensity of persecution?
Beliefs such as I have described are, of course, the very antithesis of the policies and attitudes of the Iranian Government, but not, I would imagine, of the religion of Islam itself. Can one imagine a situation in a civilised country in which people who kidnap and murder someone would escape the full penalty of the law because of the religion of the murdered person? That is what happened after the murder of Ruhu'llah Ghedami, a member of the Baha'i faith.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make clear in representations to the Iranian Government that they are keeping a close watch on the treatment of all groups of non-Moslems.
I shall finish by quoting from a letter from Mr. Adamson, the Secretary General of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom, to an official of Her Majesty's Government dated November 1993:
"The fact remains that Baha'is in Iran are persecuted solely on the grounds of their religious beliefs. Indeed, the Iranian Government's intention, as clearly stated in the Iranian Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council … document of 25 February 1991 … is to strangulate and uproot the Iranian Baha'i community. This has not changed.
"The situation of Bah'i will remain precarious until the [Iranian] Government recognises the right of the Baha'i community to exist as a distinct entity and allows the re-establishment of the Baha'i administration in Iran. The dissolution of Baha'i administrative institutions, as was ordered by the Government in 1983, is equivalent to uprooting cardinals, bishops, and parish priests in Christian communities".
7.42 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I hope that those of your Lordships who were anticipating at this stage an intervention by my noble friend Lady Blackstone (who unhappily cannot be present) will forgive me for not being my noble friend.

1197
The House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, for according us this opportunity to discuss the situation in Iran and especially the tragic death of Bishop Haik Mehr, and for expressing so movingly what many Christians, and members of other faiths, in this country would have liked to hear said on their behalf.
I invite your Lordships for a moment to consider two aspects of the context against which this Question arises. Iran is undergoing an economic crisis. Oil revenues provide some 85 per cent. of the country's exchange earnings. Last year those revenues fell short by about 20 per cent. of what had been expected. The total international debt is the equivalent of about £ 20 billion, at a time when the regime is still ordering warships. Two consequences domestically follow from that external position. First, the spending boom, which has kept the more materialistic sections of the population happy, is endangered. Secondly, prices and unemployment are rising at an alarming rate.
Iran needs urgently to reschedule her external debts. But that may depend upon edging her way back into the mainstream of the international community. That requires some reversal of the impression which the regime has given over the past 15 years of being totally indifferent to how the rest of the world views its behaviour. It means revising its policies on human rights, its behaviour towards its neighbours and the position referred to by my noble friend Lord Ennals and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which it seems formerly to have relished as a centre for international terrorism.
So we have seen, for example, the re-establishment, amid eulogies to traditional good relations between Britain and Iran, of the Iranian embassy in London which was closed in such unattractive circumstances in 1980.
I referred to two aspects of the context. The second is that the regime is concerned to secure its own position domestically. There is talk of a possible takeover by the military. There is speculation about revolution centred on one or more of the groups in exile. A number of us hear from time to lime with gratitude from the National Council of Resistance, and its publications are an important source of our information about what is happening in Iran.
Furthermore, about a third of the population of the country are Azeris who, understandably, have some affinity with Azeris in Azerbaijan. There are Azeris in Azerbaijan who would like to enter Iran as refugees from the conflict there.
Fifteen years ago virtually every grouping within the country was looking for change. Peasants were suspicious of industrialisation, which had depopulated the countryside, drawn population into the cities, imposed a new, brash, western culture and destroyed the traditional certainties. They wanted to see the country purged of western corruption and the restoration of religion and purity. On the other hand, those who wanted to see Iran brought into the 20th century were tired of the repression and despotic rule.
John Simpson, in the Guardian of 1st February, wrote of a millenialism which swept the country with the return of Ayatollah Khomeini. He was virtually
1198
identified with the 9th century Imam Muhammed-al-Mehdi, whose return is foretold in traditional folklore, bringing righteousness and judgment. Unlike the majority of revolutions, that one was spared the need to bring about an immediate rise in material prosperity. It was welcomed because it promised something for which to offer service and sacrifice.
That ecstatic sense of a parousia has evaporated. Mr. Simpson describes how the chanting fundamentalist mobs are not typical of the population. Most people want simply to share in the material benefits of the modern world and to partake of normal enjoyments. The poor and dispossessed, who were promised a new respect, are tired of the unemployment arid perpetually rising prices. Those who cherish their religious faith have lost their respect for the majority of mullahs. Everyone is tired of the corruption. There is a widespread sense of disillusion, and of course half the population is too young to remember anything about the revolution.
Therefore the regime has to walk a tightrope between presenting a more attractive face to the rest of the world and preserving its position at home. Perhaps, on reflection, that is the wrong metaphor. A tightrope usually proceeds in a straight line. A crooked tightrope is outside the experience of most of us. But there are two complications. One is that if Iran cannot present the rest of the world with a picture sufficiently attractive to induce extensions of credit, that will exacerbate the government's internal problems. Secondly, its domestic population is not homogeneous. Those who incline to Islamic fundamentalism are unlikely to be attracted by measures designed to please the less puritanical elements in the population.
One can feel a flutter of sympathy with President Rafsanjani's dilemma. Normally, from this Bench, I would be encouraging the Government to respond to those advances. It would be good for Iran to be received again into civilised circles which might act as an encouragement to behave accordingly. If there were benefits for Britain's trade with Iran, that would be an additional argument.
However, that would be too simple a reaction. I agree with noble Lords who say that it ought not to be too easy for a regime with a record of being a bad neighbour externally, and with a reign of terror internally, to be accepted as a civilised member of the international community. History is compelling us all to concentrate on making the world a safer place. In the past few years we have had to address our minds to peace-keeping and to international action against terrorism, not only out of compassion for the immediate victims, but in our own interests. Uncivilised behaviour anywhere tends to export itself and to spread infection elsewhere. Amnesty International has recently issued a publication on human rights and peace-keeping making the case that there is no hard and fast distinction between the two. If Iran wishes to be received into full membership of the international community, it should be required to establish its qualifications for that privilege.
The most recent information we have on human rights, as a number of noble Lords have remarked today, suggests that the situation may be deteriorating rather

1199
than improving. That information is far from complete. When I was active in Amnesty, there were many regimes which would try to mislead investigators and to ensure a more favourable report than the facts would merit. But there were very few, however repressive, which refused access to Amnesty representatives. Iran is one of the few regimes which since 1991 has closed its door to Amnesty representatives either for discussions with officials or to observe Government trials.
It is fair to say that after what appears to have been years of delay designed to ensure that its record was not discussed in the United Nations Human Rights Committee, Iran submitted its periodic report in 1992. The committee considered that report and in July 1993 made its comments. It stated that it,
"deplores the lack of respect for due process of law, particularly before the Revolutionary Courts, where trials in camera tend to be the rule and where apparently no real possibility is provided to the accused to prepare a defence".
The committee stated that all complaints of torture and ill treatment should be properly investigated. It commented on,
"the extent of the limitations and restrictions on the freedom of religion and belief',
noting particularly that conversion from Islam, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords, is punishable as a special offence of apostasy— to which we could add the persecution of the Baha'i community. The committee deplored the extremely high number of death sentences. It referred to the,
"punishment and harassment of women who do not conform with a strict dress code".
It recommended investigation into the many cases of what prima facie are simply extrajudicial executions, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, my noble friend Lord Ennals and other noble Lords. It referred to the threat to Salman Rushdie. That is a truly appalling record and there is no time in this debate to refer to the individual cases set out by Amnesty International in its paper of November of last year.
However, as recently as 31st January, The Times referred to the murder of Bishop Haik Mehr which has been referred to by many of your Lordships. How he died is still not clear. Christian Solidarity International learned from his son that he had simply been summoned to attend the coroner's office to identify his father's body. He was not shown the body; he was shown a photograph. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, mentioned, there are conflicting reports of the 10 day delay before his family were informed. His offences appear to have consisted, first, in making representations against the impending execution for apostasy of the Reverend Mehdi Dibaj; and, secondly, in declining to subscribe to the public relations statement— it was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson— required by the regime from all the non-Moslem religious groups to the effect that they are not suffering any form of oppression. His justification for refusing to sign seems to have been amply demonstrated by his own fate. I echo what was said by my noble friend Lord Ennals and others.
We shall all be interested to learn from the noble Viscount, on behalf of the Government, how they view
1200
the situation; and in particular what view they take as to the prospect of the Government entering into a dialogue with those who are clearly in the position of an official Opposition. I wish to seize the opportunity of indicating from these Benches that there would be no great criticism if the Government were cautious in according to Iran full membership of the club, membership of which should carry with it some certificate of acceptability to the civilised world.
7.55 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we owe a considerable debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Brentford for raising this extremely important topic today. As a number of your Lordships have recognised, Iran is an important country with a significant role to play in areas of interest to the United Kingdom. It has long commanded international attention for its position on the Persian Gulf and on routes to India and China. Now it does so again as a gateway to the newly independent republics of Central Asia. I certainly have found that in the course of my own travels before taking the Queen's shilling.
Persian culture and Shi'a Islam— especially after the 1979 Islamic Revolution— have left their mark far beyond the confines of modern Iran. It is also a country with which we have important commercial and cultural ties, established over many centuries, and a political dialogue which, though not easy, is essential. I should like to return to that point. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords when I say that relations between the United Kingdom and Iran have their difficulties. The long history of foreign intervention in Iranian affairs has left an understandable legacy of suspicion in Iran. But the era is long gone when this country would wish to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. The fate of Iran is for the Iranian people themselves to determine.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, the country has suffered much in recent years. I refer to the turmoil of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and an eight-year war with Iraq. The challenges of economic reconstruction, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred during the course of his most interesting remarks, have imposed many strains and much suffering on the Iranian people. Despite that, in some matters they have shown that traditional Iranian hospitality is alive and well. They have taken a leading role in providing refuge for those fleeing from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a testament to the generosity of the Iranian people. Recently they have added to that burden by helping refugees from the fighting across their northern border in Azerbaijan, a matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
As noble Lords are obviously more than well aware, there remain a number of aspects of Iran's behaviour which are of more than concern to the United Kingdom and to the wider international community. Iran's poor human rights record has been highlighted by successive resolutions at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, as noble Lords have pointed out today, and at the United Nations General Assembly. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his concern — it is an anxiety of more direct relevance to the United

1201
Kingdom—with regard to the wholly illegal death threat to Salman Rushdie, a United Kingdom subject. It is a threat which I suspect is more redolent of the savagery of the Dark Ages in Europe than the behaviour of a people who have, given the world some of its greatest literature, painting and architecture. As noble Lords have pointed out, the reality of that threat was underlined by the recent attack on his Norwegian publisher. The reports of Iranian involvement in terrorism overseas, again referred to this evening by many noble Lords. only serve to reinforce our concerns on the point.
We understand and accept Iran's right to defend itself, as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. After all, who can forget the horrors of the Iran-Iraq war and the neighbouring invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, a little later? Nevertheless, we are concerned that Iran's arms build-up should not threaten regional stability. Here I very much take the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. Her Majesty's Government view with considerable concern the acquisition of Kilo class submarines by Iran. We are in touch with other countries in the Gulf area on regional security issues, including the threat that that Government pose.
It seems to us that some of the weapons that Iran has bought recently appear to go far beyond the legitimate demands of self-defence. We and our European partners have made crystal clear to the Iranian Government that the extent to which closer relations with Iran can be developed— a point which a number of noble Lords made this evening— will be determined by improvements in Iranian behaviour in such areas of concern.
Perhaps I may turn to the particular points which noble Lords made during the course of this most interesting debate. I begin with a general point about human rights and Islam. It seems to me as a non-Islamic that what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said about his respect for Islam is widely shared in your Lordships' House. It is one of the great religions, one of the Religions of the Book. I wholly agree with what the noble Lord said about the desirability of having good relations with Islamic countries and the good record that we have for that.
It is worth pointing out that international standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms are enshrined in the universal declaration and codified in the two international human rights covenants. Those rights are universal. They transcend national, religious, cultural and ideological differences. I believe that the great religion of Islam should and does subscribe to that general proposition.
Therefore, the general abuse of human rights to which all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate — my noble friends Lord Brentford and Lord Ashbourne and the noble Lords, Lord Robertson, Lord Avebury and Lord McNair— have drawn attention deeply concerns all of us, including Her Majesty's Government. I hope that noble Lords are aware that we have made our anxieties extremely clear to the Iranian authorities on many occasions in the past and we shall continue to do so, both bilaterally and with our European partners. That adds strength to our efforts.
1202
We believe that action through the human rights machinery of the United Nations is an effective way of keeping up the pressure on Iran and we and our European partners, with that in mind, co-sponsored a resolution critical of Iran's record which was adopted at the 1993 United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We are taking an equally robust line at this year's Commission on Human Rights and fully expect this year's resolution to reflect our anxieties at all aspects of Iran's human rights record, including its treatment of religious minorities. I shall return to that in a minute.
I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for letting me have copies of two iterations of the remarkable document to which a number of noble Lords referred this evening. I read it with the greatest of interest and anxiety. I wish to make one point about the remarks that come out of it. The choice of an individual special representative is a matter exclusively for the Commission on Human Rights, through its bureau. In our view, it is out of the question for Iran to influence the choice. If the Iranians are so concerned at the information used by Mr. Galindo-Pohl, they should let him visit Iran to see for himself. I am delighted to hear expressions of approval from noble Lords of that view which we will endeavour to maintain at every possible opportunity.
In terms of the Christian persecutions to which noble Lords have referred, both we and our European partners repeatedly underline to the Iran Government the importance we attach to their record on religious minorities. Like many noble Lords, we have received several reports about the position of Christians in Iran from Christian groups in the United Kingdom and from the United Nations Special Representative. Our embassy in Tehran also monitors the situation. That is one of the benefits of re-establishing some form of diplomatic relations in the country.
Of course we are concerned about the recent reports of persecution, especially of the members of the Assemblies of God Church. The European Union, with our full support, expressed its concern to the Iranian authorities at the reported death sentence on the Reverend Mehdi Diaji. We understand that Mehdi Diaji was subsequently released pending further investigation of the court, and that accords with the understanding of many of your Lordships. We and our European partners have also told the Iranian authorities that we were more than disturbed at the circumstances surrounding the recent death of Bishop Haik Hovsepian-Mehr. The Iranians have told us that Bishop Haik's death is still being investigated and we shall continue to monitor the situation extremely closely. I am sure that noble Lords will be pleased to hear that Foreign Office officials attended the memorial service in London for Bishop Haik and that messages of condolence were read out on behalf of both my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble friend Lady Chalker at the ceremony.
I cannot let this evening pass without reference to the Baha'is. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, both referred to that and I am well aware of the outstanding record of the noble

1203
Lord, Lord Ennals, on the subject. As regards the Baha'is, we and our European partners have made a number of representations to the Iranian authorities, as I am sure your Lordships know. Most recently there were representations about the death sentences passed on two members of that faith, Messrs. Mithaqi and Khalayabadi. We are monitoring the situation extremely closely. I am sure that noble Lords are aware of the concern of the 1993 United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the subject.
Many noble Lords have also referred to the question of executions. I can only concur with your Lordships that the continuing high number of executions in Iran is extraordinarily disturbing. As noble Lords will be aware, this was also highlighted in the recent report by the United Nations Special Representative.
I turn my attention now to terrorism. I have already referred to the author Salman Rushdie, a British subject, and our anxiety about him. We have also noted with concern the recent indictment in Germany of an Iranian secret agent in connection with the killing of four Kurdish opposition leaders in Berlin last September and the reports of Iranian Government involvement in the 1991 murder of a close friend of mine, the former Prime Minister, Dr. Bakhtiar, in Paris. It would be a very serious matter if the Iranian Government were proved to have been involved, as my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office observed. But I add that we have good reason to be suspicious. We must await the outcome of the trial in Germany of those alleged to be involved in the Mykonos murders in Berlin and of the French investigation into the murder of the former Prime Minister, Dr. Bakhtiar. There is no proof as yet beyond reasonable doubt that the Iranian Government is involved in the murders of Iranian dissidents. Of course we would not like to compromise our own standards in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also referred to the question of German-Iranian relations. We have made known to the German Government our views on the visit to Germany last year of the Iranian intelligence Minister and our concern at the apparent involvement of the Iranian Government in the murder of the four Kurdish opposition members to whom I have just referred. It is equally worth saying to the noble Lord that we understand Switzerland's concern at France's decision to return to Iran two Iranians whose extradition had been requested by the Swiss in connection with the murder of an Iranian opposition figure in 1990. We have indeed— I am sure that noble Lords would expect us to do no less— made our views known to the French Government.
Iran is and will remain a major regional power, as I have already said, with an important role to play in contributing to security and stability. Iran's policies on major issues of the day are important to the international community, for example the Middle East peace process, Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Nagorno Karabakh and Afghanistan. The United Kingdom also has direct interests to pursue through its relations with Iran: a resolution of the Rushdie issue, improved human rights
1204
compliance and a commercial relationship which is of growing importance to both countries. In these circumstances— I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Ennals, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in particular will agree— it is absolutely right to attempt to maintain a dialogue with the Iranian Government: our outstanding problems with Iran can much more easily be resolved if we talk to each other on something other than a basis of a dialogue of death. We and our European partners have said that this must be a critical dialogue with the aim of achieving a real improvement in Iranian behaviour across the board. As always in these matters, it does take two to tango. It is vital that the Iranian Government understand that if they are to benefit fully from membership of the international community, both politically and economically, then they must show by their deeds that they respect their international obligations. If I may say so, I suspect that this debate and its contents and contributions will have been read with considerable interest and approval in many quarters this evening.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I did not expect the Minister to answer the main purport of my speech, which was a dialogue with others than the Government. I think it would be sensible for me to write a letter to the Foreign Secretary following my meetings in Paris, and that I propose to do.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. All that I can say is that I listened to his suggestion— and indeed the suggestions of other noble Lords— about this subject. I would greatly encourage him to write to my right honourable friend along the lines that he suggested.

Northern Ireland: Opsahl Report
8.13 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenhamrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the Joint Declaration, they intend to act upon any of the suggestions in the recently published Opsahl Report on Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Question for debate for two reasons: first, it is a chance to debate the Opsahl Report on Northern Ireland or, as it is very properly entitled, A Citizens' Inquiry. It has been debated in the past six months in the Dail in Dublin and in the European Parliament. But before this evening it has not been debated at Westminster. I am very happy that we have the opportunity to repair that omission.
Secondly, this Question gives the House a chance to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland at what is a very timely moment. Although we deal with a good deal of Northern Ireland legislation in this House, often at this sort of hour of night, we only rarely have the opportunity for a more considered discussion of the continuing crisis in the Province. I am very happy to see from the names of those noble Lords who put their names down to speak this evening that a considerable weight of experience and insight will be available to us. In the three years during which I had the responsibility

1205
to speak from these Benches on Northern Ireland matters, I noticed that whatever Northern Ireland debates may lack in quantity they invariably make up in quality.
I should like to say a few words first about the origins of the Opsahl Report. Torkel Opsahl, who was a distinguished Norwegian human rights lawyer, agreed to chair what was a broadly based and extremely eminent commission which had been established by the independent citizens' group, Initiative '92, to continue and to crystallise the process of public consultation about the future which it had initiated in 1992. There were many good people involved in that process. But I should like to single out for special mention Mr. Robin Wilson, Mr. Andy Pollak and Professor Simon Lee, together with the Joseph Rowntree charitable trust which helped finance their work. Sadly, as some noble Lords may know, Torkel Opsahl died last autumn and has thus been unable to see the effect that his report has had.
For those of us who find that the official political leadership of Northern Ireland is too often populist in appeal and attitudinising in style, it is very good to see genuine civic leadership emerging in Northern Ireland, responsible and far-sighted, drawn from both traditions, and confident enough to take the initiative. Incidentally, I fear that the somewhat cool reception that this report received from Northern Ireland politicians has much to do with some jealousy at this stirring of the grass roots, as with the resolutely ecumenical approach of the commission itself. The commission received 554 written submissions, and it held discussions and hearings all over Northern Ireland.
It is a very difficult report about which to generalise. It is something of a plum pudding of a report; it is stuffed with nuggets of information and insight. I do not pretend to agree with every one of its recommendations, but I agree with its general thrust and I certainly defy anyone who cares seriously about the future of Northern Ireland not to take this work seriously. Certainly for those of us who believe that the creation of a civil society in Northern Ireland, with a less one-dimensional politics, is part of the solution that is needed, this initiative has been very heartening indeed.
One recommendation received a notably chilly response from the Government when the report was published in May last year. It was the recommendation that informal channels of communication should be opened with Sinn Fein with a view to persuading the IRA first to move towards a de-escalation of violence and then eventually to a ceasefire, thus facilitating both a return by Sinn Fein to the fold of constitutionality and participation in talks about the future and a drastic reduction in the level of security forces deployed in Northern Ireland. I think we can all understand better now what was the Government's sensitivity last summer, since it emerges that this is precisely what they themselves had been doing at the relevant time, and indeed subsequently.
I should like to deal with two other specifics from the report. The first I find very useful. I do not know whether other noble Lords who have read the report share this view. The report lists seven notions about the
1206
future of Northern Ireland which it is believed should be discarded by anyone who wants to get anywhere. I shall recite what they are. The seven useless notions, according to the Opsahl Report, are: first, that Northern Ireland is just like every other part of the UK (a useless notion); second, that either community in Northern Ireland would agree to independence (a useless notion); third, that the UK will withdraw under pressure of violence (another useless notion); fourth, that the republic will somehow renounce the aim of Irish unity (another useless notion); fifth, that Irish unity is a realistic prospect in the foreseeable future (another useless notion); sixth, that majority rule could be reinstated in Northern Ireland (a non-starter); and seventh, that the unionist community will accept an administration for Northern Ireland which implies an executive role from someone outside Northern Ireland.
It is useful to accept reality by discarding those notions. That could be a first step on what is a very narrow path out of the ravine. Perhaps I may add one more useless notion of my own; namely, that government in detail from Westminster can be anything more than a short-term expedient. Paternalism does not help people in coming to terms with their own shared reality. If we are to move on from posturing to problem-solving in Northern Ireland, a greater measure of local self-government is essential.
There is one specific Opsahl proposal on which I should like to detain your Lordships for a moment and on which I shall press the noble Baroness hard. I believe that it is crucial to establishing the conditions on which devolved government and executive power sharing could have any chance of working. It is the proposal for a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland, which features prominently in this report. The suggestion is that it should be a Bill of Rights probably based on the European Convention on Human Rights.
As the Minister will know, that is not a recommendation unique to Opsahl. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights virtually every year from 1977 onwards has been consistent in recommending a Bill of Rights. The year before last, in 1992, it proposed incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights as the way to do it. Interestingly, it proposed that, regardless of what happened in the rest of the United Kingdom. In a society where there is so much division, it is noteworthy that the proposal for a Bill of Rights is one which all parties accept and most parties positively support.
In the light of that, I believe that the inaction of the Government has been baffling. As a long-term advocate of the measure, I have recently been greatly heartened both by the reference of the Irish and British Governments at the time of the Joint Declaration to the need to respect the rights of all in developing ways forward; and by the specific reference of the Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, in his recent speech, two weeks ago to the Birmingham University Debating Society, to the entrenchment of human rights in Northern Ireland as— I am more or less quoting him — perfectly practical and a step forward which could be sensibly envisaged today. That is most encouraging. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies, she will be

1207
able to say whether the Government will at last be able to overcome their fears of setting a precedent for the rest of the United Kingdom— I believe that that is what has inhibited them in advancing the proposal for a Bill of human rights— and whether they can now help by setting what would be a climate of mutual respect for further talks. I ask her to be as specific as possible when she replies to that point.
Finally, I should like to say a few words on the situation as a whole. We have a very healthy tradition of bipartisanship on Northern Ireland matters in this House and in another place. That is right, given the sensitivity of the problems in the Province. But within that spirit of bipartisanship, I fear that in recent months the Government have advanced three steps and retreated two steps. In other words, there has been a small advance, but nothing like the advance that people had been led to expect and hope for.
I believe that it was at the beginning of February — the noble Baroness will know— that the Secretary of State promised that he would put down proposals in two weeks' time. Four weeks have already gone by since he made that commitment. I suggest to her that, with the battle lines being drawn in Northern Ireland for the European elections, we shall see many weary weeks go by before constructive inter-party talks are resumed. The talk of peace before Christmas— it is difficult to remember now— looks more and more like the glitter of discarded decorations and tinsel which I fear it always was.
Perhaps I might venture to give two pieces of advice to the Government in their very great problems of advancing the cause of peace and political progress. First, I believe that they should use the admirable Joint Declaration, which is indeed admirable and has substantially advanced the position of both the British and Irish Governments. But I wonder whether they should use the Joint Declaration as a basis for what I call incremental negotiation and abandon the all-or-nothing approach. The principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed seems to me to be one which makes it almost impossible to achieve any form of progress in Northern Ireland.
The second piece of gratuitous advice which I shall venture to give to the Government is that I believe that the Government should never again get themselves into the position of appearing to put an accommodation with the terrorists as a higher priority than accommodation between the peaceful and constitutional communities of Northern Ireland. I fear that that was a great mistake. The round that we are just leaving has given far too much to Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness without getting anything whatever in return. In the process it has distracted from the real task of making the two communities in Northern Ireland find ways of coming together.
I give that advice, but I recognise that the Government labour hard and we all need patience in this matter. The Opsahl Report is a candle in a dark world. It is yet another demonstration of the most hopeful aspect of what often seems to be an intractably difficult situation. I believe that there is an increasingly robust
1208
determination on the part of the citizens and residents of Northern Ireland to make a better and more sensible future for themselves. In that mood the British Government should build and in that task we must all wish them good fortune.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I welcome the debate tonight which takes place at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Holme. Picking up his words, we get a great deal of Northern Ireland legislation in this House in the form of orders, all of which are very important, but rarely do we have a chance to look at the broader pattern. However, I could wish, as when we meet in Dublin and London with the Southern Irish politicians, that there were more Unionist politicians of the North present. Without them we get nowhere and without the republicans and nationalists we get nowhere either. We can talk until the cows come home and will not solve the problems of Ireland or Northern Ireland. That does not mean that we should not play our part in the slowly developing process which has gone on for many centuries and particularly in the past 20 years.
Tonight the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is on one side of the divide, though he manages as always to straddle it, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, whose father and grandfather played such a notable part in Northern Ireland, is on the Unionist side. I want to remind myself that we are asking the Government whether they intend to act upon any of the suggestions in the Opsahl Report. I shall take my cue from that.
The report is a remarkable document. I know well only two members of the commission: Eric Gallagher, a Methodist, who was one of the Feakle ministers of religion who met the IRA in 1974 just before Christmas; and Lucy, Lady Faulkner, who a long time ago was at one time private secretary to Lord Brookeborough. I greatly respect those two people in particular because I know them. As I said, the report is a remarkable document. It is not for immediate action and not in every case for action, but the wisdom of the report is great. It influences and should influence the steps that are to be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, listed what I call the political realities— the substantive proposals— that were put down in Opsahl. I shall not go through them all. I shall pick out those that help my argument. First, majority rule in Northern Ireland in whatever form is not currently a viable proposition. The nationalist community has no obligation to agree to it and has the critical mass to prevent its imposition. The Unionist community would not accept an administration of Northern Ireland that gives an executive role to anyone outside the United Kingdom.
So there are two vetos and whatever arises on this side of the Irish Sea— or St. George's Channel, depending on which community one comes from; they seem to use whichever they want in that respect— we must find an accommodation between them. The statement went on to say that, while Northern Ireland was a constituent part of the United Kingdom, it is not like any other part. Taking that a step forward, one often wonders whether there is a way of drawing more

1209
realistic boundaries so that that statement would not be as true. But there is not. I had in the office an orange and green map made of Northern Ireland with the aid of a computer. It was not a pleasant orange and green with nice lines so that one could redraw the Border, however silly the border turned out to be after the Irish troubles, after the First World War. I remember saying to my noble friend Lord Fitt in the kind of conversation one has, not really meaning it but testing out a discussion, "Why not let County Armagh go into the South?" My noble friend told me in no uncertain terms that that was not on. I must say that I tried it on with a Southern politician who told me what I could do with County Armagh. But that is another matter. There is no simple answer.
In regard to the Joint Declaration, I approve of the statement that there is no selfish, strategic or economic interest. There is certainly no economic interest to the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of value. However, there was a great strategic value in the war. The airfields were a great help in the Battle of the Atlantic, which we nearly lost and about which my noble friend Lord Fitt knows a great deal. There was no strategic advantage in the Cold War, in my view. The submarine base at Londonderry closed a long time ago. The Coastal Command, as it was called, the airfield at Ballykelly, went a long time ago and there was no Cold War value in it despite what people said. The bases had been shut a long time ago and the Ulster workers' strike made sure that a number of them of a supply nature were closed down pretty quickly afterwards because they had been shown to be useless.
The way forward is difficult. It is easy enough to put the sprag in the wheels as to what one can do; but it is difficult. I notice this week that the Unionist Party statement, Blueprint for Stability, made its view clear on the future of Northern Ireland. It wants an internal solution to the Northern Ireland situation. The Irish Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, said no; Mr. John Hume said no. Whether we like it or not the step taken today— a logical step by the Government— to set up a Select Committee makes good sense. The only point is that it is not welcomed by the Nationalist community, certainly at this point of time when the discussions and agreements are yet to be concluded.
Therefore in terms of timing, taking it easy seems to be the best approach until after 9th June. An "incremental" approach is the phrase which was used. It has been tried before; it is a slow step-by-step approach. We must never forget that Dr. Paisley is an extremely powerful man. He gets elected, and with the biggest vote, which is more than the provisional IRA do. We have no representatives in the Irish Doyle, which did have one Member of Parliament at one time. It makes Dr. Paisley a much more powerful, person— because he is an elected representative— than either Sinn Fein or the IRA. There is no way that he will move far and neither will others in Northern Ireland until the European elections are over.
So there are two vetos. I am certainly not suggesting that there is an easy way forward. I found something the other day of which I was previously unaware, though other noble Lords may have come across it before. I was
1210
looking at the new book by Tim Pat Coogan on de Valera. He would not be the least surprised if he ever read what we said here and I regard him as very much a republican sympathiser. In the book on de Valera he raised the question of why de Valera had closed hi. s mind to the needs of the Unionists, given the victory that had been won by the Nationalist Republicans in the South after the First World War. And he told a story. He said that before he finished as President he invited representatives of Erskine Childers' family to his house in Dublin. Erskine Childers had been put to death by the British Government.
De Valera gave a private dinner for the family of Erskine Childers and after the dinner he ordered the servants to leave the room. It was said,
"Then, alone with the family and speaking with obvious emotion, he told his hearers for the first time that Erskine Childers had written a letter to him on the night before his execution. In it he had warned de Valera that his greatest challenge would be Northern Ireland. Childers had advised him that the Northern Protestants could not be coerced, saying that they were a special people with special fears and ideals which needed to be understood and allowed for. De Valera told his listeners, who included Erskine Childers junior, that he deeply regretted not having followed Childers' advice".
However, it is not only that the South ignored for many years the position of the Northern Unionists in that part of Ulster, in the six counties. It is also the other way around. The Unionists forgot the specific position of the Nationalists. So if there are two vetos it will only come from the two vetoers that each understands the position of the other. The fact that de Valera realised too late the position of the Ulster Protestants I hope does not mean that that situation will continue. Reading the Joint Declaration one can see that a great change has taken place in the South at any rate over recent years.
I want to raise just two other issues. On the military side, in terms of the future, I have no doubt that the long-term aim of the Government should be— and I believe still is— to reduce the role of the Army. We have depended on the Army, particularly in the past— not so much now because of the different role of the police. The police force is largely Protestant though in my day it had up to 17 per cent. Catholics in the RUC, as my noble friend Lord Fitt will recall. But the number decreases because of the threats on their lives. Who will join the RUC and then go home to a Catholic area afterwards?
Nevertheless, the police must take over. I can only quote from one section of a White Paper, which I believe was extremely well written. It was written in July 1974 and in it I wrote,
"The effectiveness of any police service sterns from the fact that it lives within the community which it serves and draws its strength and support from that community".
I said further that,
"Nothing would transform the security situation more quickly than a determination by the whole community to support the Police Service".
I said that if that happened it would have an effect on the emergency powers in Northern Ireland, including detention— that went a long time ago— and,
"It would also enable the Army to make a planned, orderly and progressive reduction in its present commitment and subsequently there would be no need for the Army to become involved again in a policing role".

1211
The determinants of that are the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. The IRA could remove the Army from Northern Ireland in six months if it stopped the violence, because the police cannot deal with it by themselves. In that respect I raise one other point. In the summer of last year — time marches on— I went again to the London theatre to see Juno and the Paycock. I had not seen it for years and I looked at it with new eyes. The play showed the violence in the Republic of Ireland after the 26 counties got their independence. The number of casualties was far greater than when the British were there. Civil wars are always bloodier than ordinary wars. That was true of the United States in its civil war. In the play one saw the violence that took place. I believe that if there is to be a political breakthrough in the years ahead the violence will not go away. The violence will still go on afterwards.
My advice to the British Government and to the Irish Government is not for now; but they ought to be talking about what they would both do if the Joint Declaration bears fruit. They would both have to deal with violence because the political ways forward that I hope will come will not prevent the killings by the paramilitaries on both sides. They will go on. The new government in the North, if that is the way it is going to happen, will have to deal with it as well. But they will not be able to deal with it themselves.
I welcome Opsahl. I welcome the Joint Declaration and wish it good fortune in the months ahead. But think always of the unknown situation that may arise. Unknown it may be to us at the moment, but nevertheless, in some form, it will be there. The violence will continue and the job of a government is to deal with it.
8.41 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for giving us the chance to debate recent developments in Northern Ireland. To the two topics mentioned in the Question must be added the Ulster Unionist party's paper Blueprint for Stability, which was launched on Monday.
I should like, first, to look at the Opsahl Report and then come back to the Joint Declaration and the Blueprint for Stability. It is certainly possible to say that the Opsahl Report seems to contain something for everyone but I think that there will be nobody who could accept all the conclusions. They vary from, as can be seen in Chapter 10, paragraph 1.2, a Westminster model government to the endorsement in paragraph 2.2 of a proposal that,
"the security forces and the IRA each should make exploratory unilateral moves towards reducing the violence".
I wonder what the security force chiefs would think of that. It is very naive. Who causes the violence? The security forces have not killed anyone since the declaration was declared. Even the IRA know that if there is a cessation of violence on their part the activities of the security forces will change dramatically. We debate that every year in the emergency provisions.
1212
One of the interesting facts is the number of people from such diverse backgrounds who have contributed to the report. It shows that there is serious peaceful and constructive political awareness in the Province. However, it begs the question: where are some of these people when it comes to social and political activities in Northern Ireland as opposed to putting their views to a commendable but powerless citizen's inquiry? There are many who, it would seem, continue to opt out, and that must change if we are to have a healthy, thriving society.
On page 111 the report talks about the desire for a more accountable government. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us how the Government view this and what if anything they will do to bring it about? On page 112 the report talks about a commission to be set up by the two governments to put forward views. My view is this. Please let us not have another debating forum to bring forward, for the umpteenth time, the same ideas all over again, raising hopes of yet another "peace by Christmas" or some such thing. The two governments are already talking and submissions were requested from the Irish Government last September in connection with Strand 2 talks. Most Northern Ireland parties have put in submissions but it is my understanding that our Government are still waiting for the Irish Government to respond even after the marvellous but fully expected sporting results at the Twickenham summit! Let us finish one thing before we start the next.
I am very happy to see that Opsahl supports changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. Whether that is possible is another matter. As to training of politicians, I am not quite sure, looking at the governments at the moment, which, if any, to use as a role model.
Page 114 of the report deals with my pet subject. I support the point that people and groups should get together to,
"contribute to an improvement of law and order".
Stop shouting from the sidelines and get more involved.
I could go on commenting for hours on the report since it covers 450 pages and contains many other good points on subjects such as human rights and justice. I would, however, make a general point on cross-Border co-operation. Everything which has been said over the past 10 to 20 years would make people believe that there never were any economic or cultural links. That is quite simply not true, although there is, and was always, need for improvement. After all that is one of the main aims of the European Community within its own boundaries.
I should now like to look briefly at the Joint Declaration. Many might say it is a failure and is dead. I do not fully agree. I feel that it has had limited but significant successes but I think that, so far as the IRA is concerned, it may have run its course. It is notable that for the first time an Irish Government have declared their true views of the IRA and they have done this to the world. Worldwide, and especially in America, people can no longer pretend that, by giving money and support to the IRA, they are supporting the aims of the Irish people and the Irish Government. I believe that that is a real achievement, although we continually underestimate the importance of international opinion.

1213
Another success is more directly in relation to the IRA and Sinn Fein Their aim was a united Ireland by any means— and it still is— but because of the Union and the so-called Unionist veto they resorted to the violence, destruction and murdering that we have seen over the past 25 years. Both Prime Ministers have said, and most people— even President Clinton it seems— agree that there is no reason left for the IRA to continue. However, they do continue just as before: there have been more than 40 incidents since the declaration; among them the murdering of two friends of mine, Constables Drew Beacon and Ernie Smith in the local village of Fivemiletown.
I believe that the violence continues for the following reasons. The IRA are terrorists. They are not freedom fighters. They have a stated aim which I believe they thought was almost unobtainable and so they could continue with their main aim forever; racketeering, fraud, protection rackets and every possible way of making huge sums of money illegally. The declaration has wrong-footed Sinn Fein and the IRA by saying that, with reference to an all-one Ireland, both governments will abide by the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. That is not a Unionist veto and Sinn Fein cannot reasonably deny this right which the world applauds. However, it undermines Sinn Fein and the IRA because, regardless of the parties they support, not only do almost 100 per cent. of the people other than Roman Catholics support the Union, but, shock of horrors for the IRA, according to an Irish Times poll done by Coopers & Lybrand as revealed on 3rd December, only 14.7 per cent. of all people support a united Ireland and only 17.7 per cent. support Northern Ireland under joint sovereignty. This is not the first such poll and they all give similar answers. So Sinn Fein and the IRA are left with a heavy democratic defeat or admitting that the real justification for their horrendous activities is lucrative fraud and racketeering. They are now trying to find an aim but there can be no justification for terrorism.
11 wish that they would go down the democratic road and accept the ballot box instead of the Armalite. The key then — and a danger to Sinn Fein as a political movement— would be the SDLP. Should they play their cards right then Sinn Fein would virtually lose all support. However, the SDLP looks not a little split with John Hume getting too close to Dublin and Sinn Fein for many of his party members' liking. John Hume seems to think that the SDLP vote is in support of his all-Ireland Nationalist view when every poll tells a different story. Many people vote for the SDLP on religious grounds or/and because they are socialists. He does not seem to accept that only 32 per cent. of Catholics look to a united Ireland, and that is split between his party and Sinn Fein. Therefore, it is my opinion that Sinn Fein and John Hume's policies cannot survive in the long term.
I have one other point to make about the cessation of violence by the IRA. Shooting and bombing is by far the most tragic activity of terrorism, but it is not the only one, as I have already mentioned. The financial part involves far more time and people in petty and large criminal mafia-style operations. If they were to cease violence an interesting problem would be posed as to
1214
how the lifestyle of those people could change from living on their ill-gotten gains. In addition, in a peaceful environment there would be much more evidence forthcoming to convict them. There is a great deal of pressure from the grass roots. Those people will not want violence committed by others to stop and leave them vulnerable.
I will now turn to the Unionist Blueprint for Stability for just a moment. The first point is that the press have labelled it as pulling the plug on progress. I do not believe that is true. The three-strand circus was terminated by both governments in 1992— not by the Unionists. As far as I am aware, Mr. Molyneaux's party still stands by its undertaking to talk given to the Secretary of State on 26th March 1991. At the moment there are no such talks envisaged and they are still talking to their own government. They will no doubt consider it if and when it arises. The Irish Government are largely to blame for the stalemate, as I have said" for not having tabled their proposals, which everybody is waiting for.
I believe that there is a great deal of common sense in the Blueprint, but I am not going to go into it in detail. Apart from the assembly proposal, which would have a certain amount of opposition, especially from John Hume, who would possibly boycott it, the key to this, as I have said before, is the unfortunate Northern Ireland Act 1974, which, by its annual re-enactment, provides instability. It should be longer term, but that is for another debate.
The value of the remainder of the conclusions is that all the aims are achievable because the structures already exist and the SDLP is already taking part— for example, the local councils and Westminster. Such things as more accountable power to councils and the Select Committee which we have just heard about should work very well. In closing, I ask my noble friend the Minister to respond not only to the Opsahl Report, but perhaps briefly to the Unionist Blueprint.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, is to be commended for bringing the Northern Irish issue once again to the floor of the House. Over many many years there has been a whole series of reports which have sought to inquire into the position in Ireland. They have come forward with recommendations, many of them controversial. But at the end of the day none of those reports or recommendations was accepted by any significant section of the Northern Ireland community. The Irish Forum was accepted by the Nationalists but totally rejected by the Unionists. The Irish Government and the Nationalists in Northern Ireland regarded the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement as a good victory; it was regarded as a terrible defeat for the Unionists in Northern Ireland.
Here we have another report. I am very happy tonight that we have had a speech from a former Secretary of State in Northern Ireland. I believe that there are now eight or nine ex-Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland in this House and when we debate Northern Ireland they are always notable for their absence. It appears that once they leave Northern Ireland they want to forget all about

1215
it. That is why I am so happy to see my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees here this evening. He was there at a very volatile time for Ireland. He will remember that 20 years ago, in March 1974, we read in the press that the Loyalist extremists were getting together to cause an industrial strike which would bring to an end what I regarded as the most hopeful political development since the creation of the Northern Ireland state; namely, the power-sharing executive which we had created in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees was there. He saw, as I did, all the bitterness, violence and hatred generated by the Sunningdale Agreement. I have never had any doubt in my mind, and to my dying day I shall always cling tenaciously to the belief, that that executive could have remained because the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, albeit reluctantly, would have accepted power sharing. From the contacts which I had with hundreds of people in the Protestant community, I know that they would have been prepared to share power with the minority population, but under no circumstances were they prepared to accept what was then the Council of Ireland proposal.
Perhaps there was no logical reason for them to take such an attitude. But, in a situation when one's whole way of life, ethos and culture has been thrown into the melting pot, reason does not prevail. Those people were frightened. They were very fearful that the Council of Ireland was the thin end of the wedge which would drive them into an Irish republic. These words were spoken by one of the SDLP assembly men at that time; those who were opposed to the Council of Ireland proposals— namely, Dr. Paisley, Mr. Craig and Harry West (as they were then). They were running up and down having all kinds of meetings in Northern Ireland. They were saying that the Council of Ireland proposals were the thin end of the wedge. Unfortunately, one of the SDLP assembly men went to a students' debate at a university in the Republic. He was challenged by someone in the audience that the Sunningdale Agreement really meant nothing. The actual words he used were, "Do you not realise that the Council of Ireland proposals are the vehicle that will trundle the Unionists into a united Ireland?". When that statement was reported in the Belfast newspapers the next day it in fact signalled the end of the executive.
As I say, since then we have had numerous reports. I was a member of that executive and I again repeat that I am totally convinced that an accommodation can be found in Northern Ireland between the communities— what people call the "internal solution". I would rather have an internal solution which may encounter great difficulties and obstacles in its lifetime than wait for years and years until there is some other development in the cross-Border situation.
I left the SDLP in 1979. I had formed that party. I left it because it was becoming clearly evident to me that that party was more concerned with Irish nationalism than it was with social democratic concepts. When that party was formed it was called, at my insistence, the Social Democratic and Labour Party. I do not believe anyone in these islands now would refer to it as being
1216
social and democratic. It is a constitutional nationalist party. What is worse, it is a constitutional nationalist party which still supports and succours another political party which is not constitutional; namely, Sinn Fein, the spokesmen for the greatest crowd of murderers that we have seen in Irish history.
After I left the SDLP in 1979, the next hope that there could have been to bring the parties together was the assembly created by Jim Prior, who was then Secretary of State and who is now Lord Prior in this House. When the results of the elections were declared we saw for the first time a coalition of Sinn Fein and the SDLP. They said that they were not going to take their seats in that assembly and that they were going to boycott it. So anyone can boycott. People talk now of the Unionist boycott, but the Nationalists have also had a boycott during the past 20 troubled years. That Assembly failed because of the non-participation of the Nationalists in Northern Ireland.
Sometimes I get fed up listening to myself repeating this, but one has only to read Hansard to realise that in 1985 I stood in this House when everyone else except me was saying what a wonderful innovation the Anglo-Irish Agreement was and how it would bring peace to Northern Ireland. The Foreign Office here and those responsible for foreign affairs in Dublin got their embassies to work together. I was inundated with all sorts of congratulatory messages from all over the world, even from darkest Africa and the jungle, telling me what a wonderful thing the Anglo-Irish Agreement was. The only one who did not write to me or congratulate the Government on it was Idi Amin. Everyone told us what a wonderful thing the agreement was, but I stood in this House and said that it was not wonderful at all because I was born and reared in Northern Ireland and I know the feelings of the two communities.
That 1985 measure did more to cause a great division in Ireland than anything else. It totally alienated the majority community. People wondered whether it would help to do away with the alienation of the Catholic Nationalist community, but it alienated a far greater proportion of the people of Northern Ireland.
If we jump over many years, many speeches and, tragically, many deaths in the 10 years from 1982 to 1992, we find that Peter Brooke then became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I do not know how he did it, to whom he listened or what civil servant came up with the phrase, "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". I am inclined to think that it was John Hume. Where in the name of God that came from in relation to Irish politics, I do not know. You do not use that formula. That is a formula that can lead only to the defeat of the whole operation— "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"— because the Sunningdale Agreement showed us that we could have an agreement and power-sharing in Northern Ireland although we could not agree on Strand 2. By the way, Strand 3 does not really matter. There will be no difficulties between the sovereign Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland. They will have all sorts of happy relations, particularly now that both are members of the European Union. So, there is no difficulty with

1217
that. It is Strand 2 that will cause all the difficulties. It has done so in the past and will undoubtedly do the same again in the future.
I now turn to something that I bitterly resent. I resent it as someone who is involved in politics. I resent it bitterly as an Irishman. I resent it as a Catholic. I resent it as a human being. I refer to the claim that is made by Sinn Fein to speak on behalf of the Nationalist people of Ireland. Sinn Fein gets under 2 per cent. of the total vote in the island of Ireland. It represents no one. Sinn Fein is the spokesmen of a behind-the-scenes organisation which nobody has met: the seven-man Army Council of the IRA. They claim that they are the legitimate government of the people in Ireland, but they have never had any votes. They have never had any support. They refuse to emerge into the daylight to let people see who they are, yet those are the people who are dictating to the whole island of Ireland. They have less than 2 per cent. of the vote.
In 1992, Sinn Fein's well-known spokesman, Gerry Adams, who formerly held the seat of Belfast, West, was defeated in a legitimate democratic contest by Dr. Joe Hendron of the SDLP. I thought that there was a glimmer of hope to be seen when the result of that election was announced. But what did we see arising from that? We saw John Hume, the leader of the SDLP, beginning to have confidential meetings with Gerry Adams, the leader of an organisation that apologises for the most vicious murderers who ever contaminated Irish soil. I bitterly resented that.
However, John Hume can now be credited with the fact that he dragged Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams from the political gutter and put Gerry Adams into a position where he is now claiming some credibility as the leader of an organisation that is seeking peace in the island of Ireland. Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein would have stayed where they should have stayed if it had not been for the intervention of John Hume. So, a constitutional political party is giving support and succour to a party which represents nothing except a seven-man Army Council of the IRA. When people in Ireland see that, they wonder what John Hume is about and what he is trying to do.
Something that has not been mentioned tonight but which has been mentioned since 1992 and particularly in the run-up to the Anglo-Irish Declaration is the question of whether anyone has seen the Hume-Adams document and proposals. What is in it? Why are they so reluctant to make it public so that people in the island of Ireland, the United Kingdom and further afield can see what they were concocting among themselves? I have heard rumours to the effect that the Government have seen the document. I have heard that the Irish Government have seen the document. I have heard that John Hume has the document, as have others. Why not make that document, which has caused such controversy, available so that everyone can see it? I believe that that document has caused more trouble and more bitterness in the island of Ireland than anything else. It has elevated Gerry Adams and given him all sorts of credibility.
Is there anyone here who would not believe that it was John Hume who made representations to the Kennedy family, asking them to make representations to
1218
the President of the United States to allow Gerry Adams into America? He went there proclaiming that he was only there to bring about peace. We saw the hysteria in America. Those people did not even realise what Gerry Adams was doing at home. I believe that it was a particular disservice of John Hume, the alleged leader of a constitutional Nationalist party, to get involved to such an extent.
Since the Downing Street Declaration billions of words have been written and hundreds of television interviews have been given. In some of the television interviews which gave credibility to Sinn Fein and the IRA the interviewers did not acquit themselves very well. It was sickening for me to sit and watch the party which represents murderers proclaiming that it wanted peace.
What is the active position today? The Government should take note of it. Perhaps I may take as an example a newspaper interview that was given by a Sinn Fein activist, as he was called. When interviewers do not want to identify such people they describe them as "a senior member of Sinn Fein" or "a Sinn Fein activist". I have an idea who this particular activist is. A report of the interview appeared in the Irish Times on 25th February and stated:
""The key to it all has been calling for clarification. When we call for clarification, we are effectively calling for negotiation. We are asking the British to give us what we want, what they know it will take to end the war— and that is a withdrawal'.".
Nothing could be clearer than that. That is what they want. Is it any wonder that that frightens the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland. The newspaper report continued:
"Although he recognises that Sinn Fein was unlikely to make substantial electoral gains in the Republic, the speaker said that the lifting of Section 31 had helped 'humanise' republicans for southern audiences and was important in terms of the propaganda war".
Again, that is explicit and we understand the aims. The report of the interview continues:
"By 'spinning things out', Republicans had reduced the dramatic impact of the Major-Reynolds initiative … the declaration wasn't 'worth the paper it was written en—.
I totally disagree; I believe that the declaration was a result of the two Governments getting together and trying desperately to find a formula which would bring some form of sense into Northern Ireland.
The Government should take note of the most important part of the article, however, which was written by Suzanne Breen. After asking questions, she writes:
"The republican activist accused the SDLP deputy leader, Mr. Seamus Mallon (who has continuously stressed the similarities between Hume-Adams and Major-Reynolds on self-determination) of 'hampering the peace process' and deeply embarrassing his party leader, Mr. John Hume.
"The Hume-Adams agreement was between 'Sinn Fein and John Hume, and not Sinn Fein and the SDLP'.".
There we have it. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, was right in saying that there is great dissatisfaction in the ranks of the SDLP at what has been happening between John Hume and Sinn Fein IRA.
There are four SDLP Members of Parliament at the other end of this building. They include the MP for South Down, Eddie McGrady, the MP for West Belfast, Joe Hendron, who has been shabbily treated by his own party and is in danger of being defeated by Gerry Adams

1219
come the next election, and Seamus Mallon. Seamus Mallon is a man of great integrity and credibility and he questioned the closeness of the affair between John Hume and Sinn Fein. All three MPs have expressed grave reservations about the conduct of John Hume and Sinn Fein. The Government should ask the SDLP what it sees as the future for Northern Ireland. Is it a constitutional political party? As was said by my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, we are running into a period when we shall fight a European election. What will Sinn Fein and the SDLP say on their election addresses? Surely, they cannot say that they are fighting for different objectives, because they have been so closely aligned during the past two years, and particularly since the announcement of the declaration, that people will find it hard to differentiate between the two. I advise SDLP members to be very careful because Mr. Adams, as the newly-created statesman, may gain extra votes — more votes than John Hume. The election is run on the basis of proportional representation and we may find Gerry Adams in Europe.
That is the position in which we find ourselves. The declaration has been totally and absolutely rejected by Sinn Fein. I agreed wholeheartedly with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and was able to throw away a whole page of my notes. For all its claims to be a party of freedom fighters, of Irish patriots, Sinn Fein represents gangsters and hoodlums, the scum of the earth in Ireland. Young lads who are in that organisation have been born since the outbreak of the present troubles in 1969. They are engaged in protection rackets, robbery and thieving. Is there any way that Sinn Fein can go to them and say, "We have accepted this declaration"?
Perhaps I may put it even more dramatically. On the other side of the Armargh border there is a one-shot sniper. There are many ideas about who he may be and how he must get paid for being such an accurate sniper. He shoots from the Republic of Ireland, from about a quarter of a mile away, into Northern Ireland. From that distance and with whatever weapon he is using he has killed 10 members of the security forces through the neck and through the head. Can you imagine any member of Sinn Fein saying "This declaration is all right. We will go down to this sniper and say, 'Thank you very much. There is your P45. '"? Does anyone really believe that people who have been engaged in such murder and violence are going to accept the declaration?
On the day that the declaration was announced in this House I deliberately stayed away because I would have said then what I am saying now. I never believed that there was any possibility of Sinn Fein and the IRA accepting that declaration. I can say it now because of the time which has elapsed, and it must be completely obvious to anyone who has any interest in Northern Ireland that Sinn Fein is not a factor in the future of Ireland. Sinn Fein consists of 1.5 or 2 per cent. only.
I am sure that the Taoiseach, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, Mr. Reynolds, feels as much despair and disappointment as I do, and as does everyone who seeks peace in Northern Ireland. I believe that there will
1220
have to be a security crackdown both north and south of the border. There must be no bolt-hole for murderers to seek sanctuary and escape justice for what they have done in Northern Ireland. The Government will have to take that as a main reason. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, was totally right in saying that alongside that we must take the declaration as a starting base and build on it gradually. It must be gradual, taking into account all the fears and suspicions that exist in Northern Ireland. We must build on it gradually, but in the name of all that is sensible in Northern Ireland forget about the three-strand approach. The three-strand approach, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, means in effect that nothing will ever be agreed under those parameters.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in recent speeches this debate has been used as a hook on which to hang various thoughts on the situation as it is and as it might be in Northern Ireland. I should like to return a little closer to the subject of the report, which I welcome, as I welcome anything which adds to Parliament's knowledge of the hopes and fears of people in Northern Ireland.
It is some time since we have had as comprehensive an exposition of these views as can be found in the Opsahl Report. To that extent and on that basis I find it very encouraging. It is a report that should commend itself to members of the Government, not only those in the NIO but those in the Cabinet Office as well. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to say that she and her colleagues have not only read it but that it is informing their thinking on Northern Ireland. As has been pointed out, no one will like all of it and some will not like any of it. The noble Lord may laugh, but nevertheless it is there and I believe that it could well inform their thinking on Northern Ireland.
I am sure that noble Lords will remember what is almost certainly an apocryphal story from the trenches in the First World War. A message was passed by word of mouth down the trenches, "Send reinforcements, we are going to advance". This finally arrived at battalion headquarters as, "Send three-and-fourpence, we are going to a dance". Most views coming into Stormont, and still worse to London, have been through so many hands that it is inevitable that on the way they occasionally become muddled and misconstrued.
We had an example of that the other day on the subject of the IRA apparently wishing to know how to tone down violence. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, referred to that. I am not blaming the middleman, whoever he may be, whether councillor, doctor or priest, or possibly a whole chain of them who make up the conduit, but I believe that this happens and that we should take a report such as this, if not at face value, certainly seriously. We should do more than a little lateral thinking. I do not say that the Opsahl Report contains everything that is sweetness and light, far from it; yet it shows an overwhelming desire for peace and fairness.
I was struck too by the idea of a gradual ratcheting down of violence on all sides, including on the part of

1221
the security forces— although my noble friend Lord Brookeborough seemed antagonistic towards that— and by the idea that there should be training of politicians. I should welcome the views of my noble friend Lady Denton.
At least two parts of the report make depressing reading. The first is Chapter 10. The first substantive part refers to the fact that the commission believes that if the current or resumed round of political talks should fail, the British Government should take various steps. It is almost as though the commission expects the talks to fail. I should not be so sure about that.
The Government have had their ups and downs, but I do not believe that a man who comes away from Maastricht with not one but two derogations is a poor negotiator. He is a man who saw that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was deeply mistrusted by the majority in Northern Ireland and he negotiated the Downing Street declaration late last year. And he made sure that that was accepted in Parliament by the representatives of that majority. He came up with an acceptable form of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Therefore, he is no slouch when it comes to negotiations.
In my time in Northern Ireland there were no formal meetings with Unionist MPs. I was not even allowed to go to a concert at Belfast City Hall, so vehemently did the councillors feel about what they saw as being let down by the Government. "Betrayed by the Foreign Office", is how they expressed it to me. It is ironic that just as I left the MO that opposition was fading. But if my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had got his declaration just slightly wrong, we should have been back in the same soggy morass.
Therefore, I remain hopeful. None of us is close enough to the action to see exactly what is going on, but prejudging that man is best left to the ephemera of the newspapers and not to this House or, indeed, to the other place.
I found depressing also the evidence of Sinn Fein and especially an outsider's view of it given in the last chapter. We read that it was an opportunity for Sinn Fein to propose conciliatory initiatives, but all that emerged was that Northern Ireland could not be made a stable democratic entity and that the solution was an all-inclusive democratic framework. I am not sure how those two sentences can be put together but the members of Sinn Fein achieved that. On being questioned, the commission was answered in slogans rather than by arguments: only the British Government could break the log-jam of Unionists "sitting on their hands"; "Negotiations would bring peace, not peace negotiations". To me, that is the most depressing line of all. They are still stuck in a time warp in what is called, in the horrendous jargon of Northern Ireland, "bombing their way to the conference table".
I am sufficiently charitable— perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, would say that I am green enough— to believe that they are more intelligent than that. But so long as those aphorisms continue to issue from their lips, so long will they be unacceptable to any negotiating table.
My initial reaction to some of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is to say that if Sinn Fein is irrelevant
1222
to the future of the developments in Northern Ireland in the way that we now see them, so too is the IRA. I really cannot believe that.
There is a third thought running through the report which I find wrong rather than depressing, not only in the report but also in the thinking of commentators on Northern Ireland, including the Government. You would have thought that by now all the politicians, both in Northern Ireland and Westminster, would have reached the conclusion that to have a regional government in Stormont— a phoenix rising from the ashes— was a non-starter. But no; everyone seems to be totally hooked on what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, described as— although he put a particular gloss on it — a history of failed policies. The noble Lord may be right. There may eventually come a time when an internal solution along the lines of a regional government, whether in Stormont or anywhere else, could come about, but I would venture to suggest that we are miles away from it at the moment. A much more satisfactory development was the announcement today by my right honourable friend Mr. Newton that there would be a debate on the setting up of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland affairs.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, I believe that this is the right approach and it is probably the right time to suggest it. However, a little bird whispered to me that the Labour Party is not happy with this at the moment, and perhaps never will be. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will explain his party's reaction to the proposal when he speaks in a moment.
But of course the report is about lots more than political development, as the conclusions show. It has always seemed to me that as regards the multi— faceted problems of Northern Ireland and doing something about them, it may seem to us that small steps are involved but it is rather like standing under the decaying Gardens of Babylon where at any minute a piece may drop off and knock one flying. The suggestion which is not new— indeed my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross advocated it in his previous report— that terrorist interviews should be televised is a case in point. There is no future in televising them if the pictures will not be seen. There will inevitably be demands for the interviews to be shown at trials' and for them to be viewed by defence lawyers. If the offence was a one-off — as normal offences tend to be on this side of the water — that would not matter. But as the suspects I am discussing are members of a team, the word that a particular police officer was involved, or perhaps that a particular suspect had revealed more than other members of the team wished him to reveal, would result in an almost automatic increase in violence both to the officer and to the suspect, albeit at the expense of civil liberties.
Another aspect that strikes me is the concept of jealousy, and not only that of the Unionists or the SDLP either. For example, the Republic, being a less favoured area, has done well out of the European Community, or the European Union as we should now call it. Hence, the result of the Maastricht referendum in the Republic came as no surprise at all. Northern Ireland on the other

1223
hand, although it is a less favoured area of the United Kingdom, does not have the same advantages of direct funding from the European Union. Everything goes through London, and the United Kingdom as a whole is anything but less favoured. Although considerable extra moneys go from Whitehall to Belfast, based on a complex formula involving morbidity, policing and many other factors, resulting in around 40 per cent. extra in public spending per head higher than in the rest of the country, the additionality rules mean that that expenditure cannot be identified as European Union money. I think the time has come for the Government to find a way round this. That said, I am sure I shall be told that this is yet another chunk dropping from the Hanging Gardens.
The Housing Executive in Northern Ireland has achieved great things for the good of many people all over the Province since its inception. The stock of unfit housing has fallen from just over 14 per cent. in 1979 to under 8.5 per cent. today. The Housing Executive has righted many of the wrongs done to the minority within its sphere of influence. When I first went to Northern Ireland 20 years ago, the Falls Road and its immediate surroundings were a shambles, suffering from years of discrimination and neglect. Today the boot is on the other foot and it is the Shankill Road which is the more depressed of the two. Housing is another area where times have changed and where a different sort of jealousy rears its head.
I could go on referring to each conclusion one by one. However, like my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, I shall resist the temptation to do so at this late hour. I shall contain myself by urging everyone with even the slightest desire to improve the situation in Northern Ireland to read and consider the report, even though they then damn it to Hell and back. I await the force of gravity of my noble friend Lady Denton with more interest than usual.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I should like to pay my personal tribute to Professor Opsahl, who died so recently after carrying out this work.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for giving us an opportunity to reflect on matters concerning Northern Ireland at rather greater leisure than is normally possible. I feel a sense of something approaching shame that there are so few of us present on these occasions. It is always the same noble Lords. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that of those who have held high office in Northern Ireland only my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees is present, is an extremely good one.
I have tried to put my mind to the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, put down. It is intended to provide an opportunity not for grandiose statements or empty platitudes, but for detailed— and I hope constructive— questioning of what the Government have in mind. It seems to me, and I believe to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that the very least we owe to our colleagues in Northern Ireland is a decent questioning of the Government's intentions. I stress, as
1224
I know the Minister accepts, that this is not done in a partisan way and all of our questions are intended to be helpful.
It seems to us that the real achievement of the report is that it has recorded views from a very wide spectrum of opinion in Northern Ireland, not all of which have been apparent or vocal in political dialogue in the past. That point echoes the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to the subject. I entirely agree with him that there will be no one in this world who agrees with everything that the report offers by way of conclusion and recommendation.
Our stance is that internal settlement of itself is not necessarily the solution to the long-term problems. Although it is relatively recent, the report itself has been partly overtaken by events. It has been overtaken in part by the Joint Declaration. Speaking for myself, whatever one's views about the personalities involved, it is right to recognise and record that both the Taoiseach and the United Kingdom Prime Minister have taken risks, which are signs of courage. Whether their courage is rewarded in the end should not obscure the fact that what they have done has been risky.
What is to become of the three strand policy? On 1st March this year Mr. Molyneaux recorded the view that his party would not engage in three stranded talks because that would be as big a fiasco as it was last time. Dr. Paisley's view is well known, and is to the same effect, but would probably be rather more bluntly expressed.
If Mr. Molyneaux maintains that stance after the European elections and therefore the three strand policy cannot continue, what will the Government's approach be? Our hope would be that no party in Northern Ireland would be able to derail the negotiations and the progress that has been made so far, limited though it has been.
I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said. It seems to me that the specific questions need to be directed at particular conclusions and recommendations. As noble Lords who spoke earlier said, they are fairly limited. The bulk of the report, not surprisingly, is a recitation of submissions, and the recommendations do not start until page 111.
There is a very important question in Conclusion 2.4. That is the recommendation that a Bill of Rights should be incorporated into domestic legislation. It is noteworthy that the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have this in common: neither of them has incorporated the European convention into domestic legislation.
In relation to another aspect which has overtaken the Opsahl Report, it is also interesting that earlier this week Mr. Molyneaux, in his blueprint, specifically recommended the introduction of a Bill of Rights into Northern Ireland domestic legislation. It seems to us that its incorporation into Northern Ireland, as a part of the United Kingdom, would not be sensible or practical. If a Bill of Rights is to be introduced, it should be introduced for the whole of the United Kingdom. I see great practical and legal difficulties in any other course. Again without being tendentious, we would welcome the Government's views about the recommendation of

1225
the Opsahl Report together with its endorsement— or the arrival at that point by a different route— of Mr. Molyneaux's
If a Bill of Rights were to be incorporated domestically, it gives protection to citizens of various camps. Whatever are the views of the Government in this country, have there been discussions with the Government of the Republic about those matters, in particular on the incorporation of the Bill of Rights? No one expects confidential discussions at this stage to be disclosed. But these are matters of quite broad principle on which we should like answers.
One of the bedevilling features, as we see it, about Northern Ireland is that there is deep suspicion, sometimes well-founded, that negotiations are continuing about people's futures on the basis of subterfuge. I do not wish to put these matters too highly. Are discussions continuing with representatives of Sinn Fein, either directly or indirectly, by people authorised by or on behalf of the British Government? Many people in Northern Ireland suspect that there are. Those suspicions may be ill-founded or well-founded but they do nothing to aid the cause of reconciliation.
Is there a timescale in mind if there is no unambiguous acceptance or rejection by Sinn Fein of the joint declaration? It does not seem to us that those who live in Northern Ireland can be left in limbo for ever. The alternative of all-Ireland unification is not ruled out by the Government of the United Kingdom. It has not been ruled out since November 1990 when Mr. Brooke made the famous statement about no selfish strategic or economic interest. If there were to be all-Ireland unification, on what constitutional basis would that be? There are indications in the Opsahl Report that a federal constitution for a united Ireland needs to be considered. Have the Government been discussing such details with the Government of the Republic?
The answers to those questions are important and may affect the response of those in Northern Ireland from whatever political camp. If there were a united Ireland, has there been discussion about the basis of voting? Should it be proportional representation? Would there be entrenched safeguards in an all-Ireland constitution as well as the incorporation of a Bill of Rights?
I accept that noble Lords opposite may think that those are premature questions. I respectfully do not believe that they are. I am of the view, although I hear dissent from behind me, that those are questions which must be addressed. The issues will not go away, and to pretend that they will does a great disservice to the people of Northern Ireland.
What are the Government's views about the broadcasting ban? I refer to Recommendation 1.5. It is a legitimate view to hold (I hold it myself) that the broadcasting ban on Mr. Adams and his colleagues has played into their hands. It gave Mr. Adams the best propaganda coup and victory on his visit to Washington that he could possibly have looked for.
Paragraph 1.5 of the Opsahl Report recommended that the Irish Government reconsider the broadcasting ban. That has been done. Whatever one's views about
1226
Mr. Adams and his colleagues— again, I hear dissent from behind me, and I dare say that many of the doubts are shared by all of us— is it of ultimate practical benefit to hand him that propaganda weapon on a plate so that he gets away with saying things in interviews time and again which are never effectively challenged? The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to that. Mr. Adams can go to the United States of America, a country which has entrenched constitutional rights about freedom of speech, and say, as he said time and again, "I am not allowed to be heard in my own country". What is the Government's view on that at this stage?
These are questions of detail, but I hope honouring the spirit of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Holme. On paragraph 2.6, have the Government any view on the Diplock courts, the single non-jury judge? The suggestion there is not to go back to juries, for obvious reasons, but that there should be one or two assessors sitting with the judge in the Diplock courts. What is the Government's view about the recommendations for the improvement of inquest procedures which have undoubtedly— whatever political view one has— caused great distress and concern to a number of people in Northern Ireland with their delays and inefficiencies?
What is the Government's view about paragraph 2.6(d)? It is the suggestion that there should be an independent review commission on exactly the same lines as were recommended in the Royal Commission of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, on criminal procedure in this country. In effect, the Government have been silent about whether or not England and Wales will have an independent review body. Have they come to a conclusion about Northern Ireland? I take the question of my noble friend Lord Fitt. Have the Government of the United Kingdom seen a document or documents which could fairly be described as the Hume-Adams proposals? If yes, is it to be published?
The question of the Select Committee, it seems to us, needs to be approached with caution. It depends on what will be its composition, which at present is not known to me. I do not think that it is known to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, because he helpfully indicated that there is to be a debate in the other place quite soon about its composition. We wish to see the composition. We would not want it to be a device which would cause further suspicion in certain sections of Northern Ireland, nor would we wish it to be used simply as a device to stall and cause no further progress to be made.
Those are the questions that I have sought to put to the Minister. I repeat that they are not put in any tendentious sense, particularly coming from one who does not live in Northern Ireland and will not collude in the indecency of trying to make things worse there rather than trying to be helpful. Whatever our views and differences, that is the one point that unites us on this occasion: we all have a genuine desire for some improvement for people who have suffered far too much for too long.
9.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I should like to add my thanks

1227
to those of others to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for enabling us to debate this extensive and unique report. I also endorse his view that when it comes to Northern Ireland debates what is important is not the quantity but the quality of the participation. I start by expressing my gratitude for the messages of support for the Joint Declaration which I have heard this evening.
The work of the Opsahl Commission has proved valuable in stimulating the submission of views from a wide range of individuals and organisations. The commission itself made a number of recommendations, some controversial, others which have provoked dissenting comment, as tonight's debate reflects. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, the Northern Ireland political parties generally gave the report a cool reception.
The Government believe that the main value of the report lies in the way that it has enlivened and developed informed public debate throughout the community in Northern Ireland and outside. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will be pleased to know that we believe that it provides an important source of ideas, emanating not only from the commission itself but from the many submissions made to it.
I know that the Secretary of State was pleased to be presented with a copy of the report. He also met members of the commission last November and was interested to hear of the various responses to it. He was then able to explain the state of progress in the political talks at that time— though, as has been said on several occasions tonight, the speed at which those move on means that as soon as one is briefed something else has happened. He also commented on the report in some detail during an Adjournment debate in another place last November. The report was also debated in the Irish Senate, when it provided a platform for a wide-ranging debate on Northern Ireland issues.
The recommendations are not just addressed to government, but also to the Churches, the Northern Ireland political parties, the trade unions and the Irish Government. The viewpoint of Her Majesty's Government is just one among many in this area.
The report's main conclusion is that, if political talks fail, the Government, in consultation with the Irish Government, should establish a commission to study the situation and to make recommendations for further consultation with political parties— and if necessary, directly with the people of Northern Ireland.
On the face of it, that seems a plausible objective. It is, however, premature. The talks process is continuing. Although round table talks have not taken place since November 1992, the talks process has nevertheless continued in the form of private bilateral meetings with the Northern Ireland parties and meetings with the Irish Government. The opinion poll on the Opsahl Commission report showed that the majority questioned in Northern Ireland believed in the importance of the talks; and we shall continue to promote them in every practical way. We are at one with the Irish Government on that. Both governments remain committed to the talks process based on the Statement on 26th March 1991. The Joint Declaration by the Prime Minister and
1228
the Taoiseach set out a balanced statement of principles for the future. The statement complemented and underpinned the talks process, which addresses all the main relationships. It provides a firm foundation for future political development. Only recently, when the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach met on 19th February — the meeting that was referred to by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough as the "rugby summit"— they reaffirmed their joint commitment to the talks process.
The Government have noted that the report refers to the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland and to the widespread desire to have a government and administration which is more accountable to the people in Northern Ireland. That view has been expressed to the Government by many people, and it was raised this evening by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to know, as will my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, that for our part we fully share the desire to see greater responsibility returned to Northern Ireland's own locally elected representatives. That is enshrined in the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
However, as the report recognises, for any new structures to be both fair and workable, they must command wide support throughout Northern Ireland. That means that all the relevant relationships must be addressed. The best forum for that is a talks process involving the main constitutional parties and the two governments, based on the Statement of the previous Secretary of State on 26th March 1991.
Another recommendation that has been raised this evening is that the Government should open informal discussions with Sinn Fein with a view to persuading the IRA to move towards de-escalation in the level of violence and eventually to a cease-fire. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, pointed to the exchanges between the Government and the IRA last year as evidence that such discussions have already taken place, or that they would be only another small step which a government should be prepared to take.
I must say to noble Lords that that argument is deeply flawed. As my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State said in another place, the Government had a clear duty to respond to the message from the IRA last February that the conflict was over. The consequent exchanges spelt out, as the Downing Street Declaration has done since, that the first step must be a permanent end to violence— not a de-escalation but a complete end. Then and only then can Sinn Fein expect to begin to play a part in the ordinary democratic life of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the issue of the Government's views on the talks. As my right honourable and learned friend explained in another place on 29th November, while it is useful to have a means of communication by which messages could be exchanged indirectly between the Government and the Provisional movement, such a chain could function only if its secrecy were respected on both sides. Accordingly, we do not propose to divulge any further information about messages sent or received or to comment further

1229
save— I would stress this— to give the assurance that any communications from Her Majesty's Government will be consistent with their publicly stated policies.
The issue of a Bill of Rights which was brought forward by the report has been raised this evening by several noble Lords. Her Majesty's Government take the view that a Bill of Rights falls within the remit of the political talks process. In his speech at Birmingham on 23rd February the Secretary of State said that among the possible features of a political accommodation:
"there might well be some form of entrenchment of human rights to provide additional built-in safeguards against discrimination and disadvantage. That is widely supported already".
Several commentators have recognised that a Bill of Rights is one possible way to strengthen the protection of human rights. It is one of several possibilities. That has been the Government's position throughout the political talks. A Bill of Rights is not the only way to achieve better protection of human rights. Our objective — effective practical measures which build confidence and trust in future political arrangements— means that we must be willing to explore that possibility.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. This is an extremely important point and I want to be sure that I have understood what she said. Am Ito understand that if the talks were to arrive at the view that there should be a Bill of Rights, however expressed— as a charter of rights or the entrenchment of the European Convention on Human Rights into at least Northern Ireland law— if that were a conclusion of the parties to the talks, the Government now have no objection of principle to that and would not stand in its way? Would that be correct?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps the noble Lord will let me continue and I shall clarify the Government's view on this matter. As I said, the message of the speech made by my right honourable and learned friend in Birmingham was that some form of entrenchment of human rights is perfectly practicable. A Bill of Rights is one form of entrenchment which is known to raise difficult issues. Nevertheless, we are prepared to examine it as a possibility.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, identified, devising a measure for Northern Ireland alone, especially if it is based on our international obligations, raises further problems. Is it really practicable to create a measure which allowed legislation applying throughout the UK to be challenged in only one part of the UK? More importantly, it is unclear whether a Bill of Rights could effectively be framed for Northern Ireland alone and deal with the full range of human rights issues, many of them covered by Westminster legislation.
Several practical questions need to be answered: in what ways would incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law significantly strengthen existing safeguards against abuses of human rights? In what way would they build confidence in constitutional arrangements?
We may have to devise some additional forms of human rights protection to add to the package of measures that the Government introduced over the
1230
period of direct rule. But the availability on paper of additional legal remedies is of less practical value than the creation of a healthier political system. While acknowledging the value of ideas which will help to build confidence and trust between the political parties, we believe that we are more likely to make effective progress by giving priority to the need for lasting constitutional arrangements being addressed in the context of the political talks involving the two governments and the main constitutional parties. But I hope I have given the noble Lord some reassurance that, as my right honourable and learned friend said, there is a possibility of discussing this issue.
I want to address one other point raised by the noble Lord. He was anxious that my right honourable and learned friend had promised to bring forward proposals to give focus and direction to further talks. I can say to the noble Lord that the Secretary of State recently met the leaders of the three parties who have been engaged in bilateral discussions with the Government and showed them a document containing our ideas across all three strands of the talks process.
Perhaps I may refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, which, as usual, was filled with wisdom and experience. It made me conscious that my direct relationship with Northern Ireland extends to exactly six weeks. I agree with much of what he said regarding policing Northern Ireland and the need for the Armed Forces. The Government would like to see the maximum support for the RUC from all parts of the community. We also look to the day when the violence ends and the current security measures, including the use of the Armed Forces in support of the RUC, become unnecessary. I heard messages of some pessimism from noble Lords as to when the end of that violence could be foreseen. I trust that they will not mind if hope that they are proved wrong in their pessimism.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough commented on the political proposals that are awaited from the Irish Government. The position is that both governments agreed in September to work on a framework to allow further progress on the talks. Work on that framework is continuing and, following the recent meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, to which the noble Lord referred, it is proceeding with renewed emphasis. Progress will be reviewed at the next intergovernmental conference.
I was delighted to hear my noble friend encourage people in Northern Ireland to become involved in the process of returning to law and order. Perhaps I may add a personal comment that I was extremely impressed by the involvement of the community and the voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland which I believe sets a standard throughout the whole UK as being of great leadership. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, covered the scene as no one else could. In regard to the worry that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, about which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, was also concerned, the Government take the view that it was a sensible maxim to adopt at the time that the talks process began. Whether it will apply to future multilateral talks will be a matter for all those who participate in them.

1231
Perhaps I may also take the opportunity to comment on the Hume-Adams document. The Government have not seen anything purporting to be the Hume-Adams agreement. Noble Lords then raised the question of publication. Publication of any such document would be entirely a matter for those who produced it. But I would stress that we have not seen anything purporting to be that. We have studied carefully what the leader of the UUP said on Monday. His party took the decision to present certain proposals in the Blueprint for Stability. That is a matter for them. One noble Lord raised the fact that there is now an agenda which is based on the European elections. We should bear that in mind. We were very glad that Mr. Molyneaux said on Monday that contact will continue on the same basis as before.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale raised the complicated question of European Union funding for the Republic and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has Objective I status and will be receiving about £ 1 billion in structural funds over the period up to 1999. In addition, Northern Ireland receives public expenditure — the subvention— from the United Kingdom Exchequer of £ 2.3 billion for 1992–93, maintaining parity with Great Britain standards for health, education and other public services. As Minister with responsibility for agriculture, it is certainly my intention to make sure that my voice is heard in person in Brussels on behalf of our farmers and our fishermen. I believe it is important— and the Minister of Agriculture agrees— that we should make quite certain that Europe is aware of the needs of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked a number of detailed questions about the substance of discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government. I stress in answering that I understand the manner and nature of his asking the questions and I accept totally that it is not based on a desire to attack but to deal with the subject in a way that all of us involved in Northern Ireland feel it should be dealt with. By convention, the detail of the discussions is confidential. I would remind the noble Lord of the widespread view that a united Ireland is unlikely for the foreseeable
1232
future. Specifically, I would also answer that it has been reaffirmed by Her Majesty's Government that the broadcasting ban here should be retained. But I note with some sympathy the comments made by your Lordships on the responsibility, or perhaps the lack of it, of some of the interviewers who have participated in interviews with Gerry Adams in the past.
On the three-judge court issue, the Government have said repeatedly as a matter of principle that they do not accept that the standard of justice is lowered in any way because only a single judge is presiding. There is no evidence to suggest that the present system has led to perverse judgments or a lowering of standards.
Many points were raised. We all have reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that the House has found time to discuss and debate issues relating to Northern Ireland in a rather fuller manner than the normal order procedure allows. I have found it valuable as a relatively new Minister. I shall of course look closely at Hansard and shall write as soon as possible to noble Lords on any specifics I have missed.
We all recognise the difficulties in resolving the problems which exist in Northern Ireland. We all have great anxiety and love for the Province. That can probably be said for all Members of your Lordships' House. Northern Ireland has lived in the shadow of terrorism, both Republican and Loyalist, for too long. There is a desire for peace. I was delighted to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, that my visit to Cookstown last night and West Belfast this morning, would not have been possible in his time. That was news that pleased me.
There is also a yearning for political progress. The Opsahl Report provided a valuable contribution to the public debate. This House may be assured that the Government will continue to place Northern Ireland at the head of their priorities. We set no time limit for a solution but we are committed to continuing to work steadily towards our goal of a widely acceptable political accommodation aimed to secure peace and stability which Northern Ireland so truly deserves.
House adjourned at six minutes past ten o'clock.

  SARAJEVO MARKET MASSACRE
  SARAJEVO MARKET MASSACRE
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: PAYMENT OF COMPLIANCE COSTS
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: PAYMENT OF COMPLIANCE COSTS
  BOSNIA: AIR SUPPORT FOR UNPROFOR
  BOSNIA: AIR SUPPORT FOR UNPROFOR
  SUDAN
  SUDAN
  LIBERIA
  LIBERIA
  HOUSE OF LORDS: RADIO AND TELEVISION COVERAGE
  HOUSE OF LORDS: RADIO AND TELEVISION COVERAGE
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE SUPPLIES
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE SUPPLIES
  HIGHER EDUCATION: QUALITY ASSESSMENT REVIEW
  HIGHER EDUCATION: QUALITY ASSESSMENT REVIEW
  BANANA INDUSTRY: PIPELINE INVESTMENT
  BANANA INDUSTRY: PIPELINE INVESTMENT
  INNOVATION IN INDUSTRY
  INNOVATION IN INDUSTRY
  BOSNIA: ARMY RATIONS
  BOSNIA: ARMY RATIONS
  ARMED FORCES PENSI ON SCHEME REVIEW
  ARMED FORCES PENSI ON SCHEME REVIEW