Sitting of 9 March 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to British Railways (No. 2): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15 March, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to British Railways (No. 3): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15 March, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Cran: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average investment per employee per annum in manufacturing in the period from 1987 to 1991.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): During the period 1987–91, investment per employee in manufacturing averaged £2,700.
    Mr. Cran: Despite progress, does my right hon. Friend agree with the aims of the National Manufacturing Council for the need to double investment in the next few years? Does he further agree that there has never been any excuse for investment such as our competitors achieve, because of the increased level of profitability that this country has had under this Conservative Government and the previous one?
    Mr. Heseltine: I very much welcome the work of the National Manufacturing Council of the CBI and am much encouraged by the ambitious targets that it has set. I agree that the present economic statistics are as favourable as I can remember.
    Mr. Cousins: Does not the President of the Board of Trade realise that the figures for investment per employee depend on the number of employees? Is he saying, therefore, that the 600 Pirelli workers in the cable factory
    266
    at Eastleigh, who lost their jobs last year because there was no house building to support their cable production, were part of a cunning plan to improve British statistics?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that a major change is going on as British industry achieves higher levels of productivity. He would serve his country far better if he recognised the need to do that, and stopped making ridiculous party political points out of the exercise.
    Mr. Jenkin: In promoting investment, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his speech last week in which he complained of Euro-sclerosis? Is not Euro-sclerosis bad for British investment? Will he join me in congratulating our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on maintaining the blocking minority in the Council of Ministers to stop damaging legislation coming—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That does not relate one jot to the main question. The President will reply to the first part of the question, please.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to the Stockton lecture that I gave last week. It is vital that the whole of the Community addresses the issue of competitiveness. From that we will all gain.

    Small Firms (Interest Rates)
    Mr. Hain: T: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average rate of interest on loans from financial institutions to small firms and the average period for repayment.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The most recent Bank of England study shows that the average margin over base rates is slightly under 3 per cent. for businesses with a turnover of less than £10 million. For term loans, 26 per cent. were repayable over a period of up to five years, and the remainder over longer periods with 15 per cent. repayable over periods exceeding 20 years.
    Mr. Hain: It is difficult to reconcile the daily experience of small firms with the Minister's answer, because they are being strangled by short-term loans at prohibitively high interest rates that do not appear to bear any relation to the base rate. Why do not the Government establish new joint ventures with the financial institutions and the banks to provide long-term, low-cost finance, like our more successful competitor countries? Or is he happy to perpetuate the curse of the British economy— short-termism?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman prepared his supplementary question before he heard the answer. What we have seen, and what the answer shows, is that many of the long-term loans are taken out on favourable conditions. We currently have the lowest base rate for some 20 years —5.5 per cent. That is welcomed by British industry.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: While one recognises the present very low base rates and low rates of inflation, which can only be good for investment intentions for small and other companies, does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a demand among smaller companies for longer-term, non-equity finance? In that regard, will he

    267
    accept our congratulations on the new venture capital trusts and ensure that those trusts look at amounts below £2 million, which will be relevant for smaller firms?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rightly points out some of the schemes that have been taken forward—and, indeed, some that were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent Budget statement.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that as businesses benefit from the recovery, their ability to repay loans can be inhibited, because they are being squeezed by large companies by which they are owed money but which are slow in repaying it? What progress are the Government making towards presenting firm—as opposed to general—proposals to ensure that companies are not prevented from paying their debts because their customers do not pay them?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are currently consulting about the problem of late debt payments. Overall, our information suggests that the position may not be as bad as it was, but I accept that it is a serious issue. Once our consultations are concluded, we shall announce our considered opinion.

    Animal Traps
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many animal traps were exported from the United Kingdom in each of the last three years.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): The information requested is not available from official sources.
    Mr. Banks: May I remind the Minister that in this country we still manufacture snares—which slaughter large numbers of wild animals—and leg traps? I know that the Minister is an animal lover; is it not inconsistent that leg traps, whose use is illegal in this country, should be exported, and will he close that loophole?
    Mr. Needham: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He will know, however, that the Department of Trade and Industry is not responsible for the design of animal traps, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that the Department of the Environment is responsible for United Kingdom policy within the European Union. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friends in those Departments.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in many parts of the world, rodents and other pests cost countries immense amounts of money, and also have a tremendous impact on food sources? Is it not good, therefore, that British manufacturers are supplying equipment to deal with the problem?
    Mr. Needham: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I understand, however, that there are no significant exports of such traps from this country.

    Gas Industry
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the regulation of the gas industry.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Together with the Office of Gas Supply, I will shortly issue a consultation paper on the future regulation of the gas industry.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that, for a little more than 10 years, British Gas has operated a domestic meter replacement programme, which has undoubtedly been in the interests of the domestic consumer? Will he assure the House that, as that programme has begun to slip, he will take steps to ensure that the consumer interest is served, and British Gas returns to the programme that it originally promised?
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, which relates particularly to a factory in his constituency. As he knows, this is a matter for British Gas and Ofgas, and I understand that discussions are in progress.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: How has regulation of the gas industry compared with the days of public ownership, in terms of the delivery of better service and lower prices? Can anything be learned from our other denationalised industries?
    Mr. Eggar: Since privatisation, domestic gas prices have fallen by more than 23 per cent. and industrial prices by more than 30 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister fully committed to ensuring that the Energy Saving Trust works effectively? If so, what steps will he take to ensure that the gas industry contributes financially to the trust, so that it can save energy, rather than allowing it to go on being wasted as it is now?
    Mr. Eggar: I understand the importance that is attached to energy efficiency. The achievement of carbon savings by that means is one of our Rio commitments. Discussions are in progress with all interested parties.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Minister aware of the widespread disappointment that three of British Gas's five new business headquarters are located in the south-east, and that the furthest north is in Nottingham? Can he think of any reason, for business purposes, why British Gas should not put one of its headquarters in the region from which the gas comes, or where the majority of consumers are? Will he press British Gas—if it does not wish to become South-East Gas—to distribute its new area headquarters in the north, Scotland and Wales, to provide a regional identity that matches some of its loyal customers in those regions?
    Mr. Eggar: Coming from the party that set up many of the nationalised industries, all of which had their headquarters in London, that is pure humbug.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his plans to assist manufacturing industry in the regions.
    Mr. Heseltine: All United Kingdom manufacturers will benefit from the underlying strength of the economy and the best set of economic indicators for many years. Our

    269
    new initiatives for integrated regional offices and business links will help to ensure that manufacturers in the regions can take full advantage of this.
    Mr. Milburn: Are not the 200,000 British manufacturing jobs that have been lost since the last general election a sign not of success but of Government failure? When will the Secretary of State take positive action to stem the haemorrhage of skills, talent and enterprise from regions such as the north, or is he content, as usual, merely to sit back and see the country's future being poured down the drain?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman does not understand that most of the jobs have been lost because of the drive for efficiency and improved productivity on which the future of those companies depends. There is no choice but to make our industries competitive. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to see this country's economy cut to ribbons, all they have to do is say that we should overman it and have levels of productivity that are not world-competitive.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. Friend continue with his splendid set of policies, which have played an important part in the spectacular resurgence of British manufacturing in the past two years, and which have led to an increase of 1 per cent. in manufacturing output in the month of January alone?
    Mr. Heseltine: In the spirit of your instructions, Madam Speaker, the answer is yes.
    Dr. Bray: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that, as the recovery gathers momentum, the new jobs will occur in the areas of high service employment, not in the manufacturing areas of Scotland, Wales and the north? Does he not realise, therefore, that special incentives are needed for manufacturing industry in those regions?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not believe in the overly simple generalisations in which the hon. Gentleman dressed his question. Large parts of our manufacturing industry are extremely competitive today and stand poised to seek the upturn in world trade which is evidently on its way.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I recognise the immensely improved economic climate that has been brought about as a result of the Government's policy for manufacturing industry—not least the base rate, interest rates and the establishment of business link, one of which is, I am pleased to say, in Macclesfield—will my right hon. Friend accept that the reintroduction of capital allowances would be of immediate benefit to manufacturing industry and would perhaps bring investment based on success, which this country needs?
    Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks about business link, and I am delighted that Macclesfield is one of the first centres to have such a facility. He will remember, however, that manufacturing output in the fourth quarter of 1993 was 2.2 per cent. higher than a year ago, and that continued opportunity exists without any change to the fiscal arrangements, which must be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade is aware that, for many purposes, the
    270
    Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Office have a dual role in attracting inward investment to Wales. I am also sure that he, as a good European, will accept that many regional authorities in Europe are playing an increasing role in attracting inward investment. Does he agree that the Welsh Office should have the lead role in attracting that investment to Wales?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the remarkable achievements that have taken place in Wales as a result of the activities of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency in the past 10 years. I should have thought that he would support and build on them, without looking for structural change.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what most assists manufacturing industries in the regions is long-term low inflation, which we now have, low interest rates—we now have the lowest since 1972—and the fact that we have the lowest level of strikes since 1891? Does he agree that those three trends would be reversed if the Labour party ever got back into power?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has little to worry about, because it is evident from Labour Members' questions that there is not the slightest chance of that party ever getting back into power. The fact is that the economic circumstances are now as good as any that I can remember. We must all back British industry in its quest for increasing world markets, enjoying the fact that exports are at an all-time record level.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the President of the Board of Trade examine closely the opportunity to keep our highly skilled engineers in the shipbuilding industry at work by making available for ship conversion the small element of assistance that is available in other European Union countries?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is a complex issue. Broadly, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to seek to eliminate those subsidies, not to increase the numbers available. However, we must always consider what specific effects they may have on British shipyards. Recently, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry was able to announce that we were able to give temporary help to Swan Hunter in the difficult circumstances it faced.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest threat to manufacturing industry in Britain would be the danger of the high social costs that would follow the implementation of the social chapter, and that it would make so much of our industry uncompetitive in world markets? What representations has my right hon. Friend received from industry on that subject?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question of the social chapter. It so happens that, by coincidence, I have a press release from the CBI which addresses that point specifically in terms of the Labour party's policy on the social chapter. It says that it
    "ignores the rest of the world, ignores the whole purpose of the single market, and ignores the unemployed."
    That, of course, is why people ignore the Labour party.

    Industries (Leicester)
    Mr. Janner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to assist the traditional industries of Leicester.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I recently conducted the annual review of city challenge, which is available in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. A decision on future progress will be made shortly. The first business link in the country opened in Leicester on 27 September, with some £725,000 funding from the Department of Trade and Industry. Combined with the other measures that we are taking, we are doing a considerable amount in Leicester.
    Mr. Janner: What would the Minister say to Mr. Charles Bradshaw, the managing director of a major clothing company in my constituency, who complains that the Government have allowed numerous manufacturing companies in Leicestershire to go to the wall, that Leicestershire's industry has suffered enormously and that they are looking to the Government for real help in reviving manufacturing industry? What help in reviving manufacturing industry and getting it off its knees are the Government intending to give?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I can only say that if the person to whom the hon. and learned Member is referring is complaining, he is probably disappointed with the representation that he is getting in the House—a disappointment with the Opposition which is shared by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that Marconi Radar of Chelmsford has a manufacturing base in Leicester, and does he accept that the damage done to GEC Marconi in Leicester by the Opposition parties and by certain newspapers will only have been redeemed— hopefully—by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) on the "Today" programme the other day? Will he congratulate our hon. Friend on seeking to redress the imbalance caused by the Opposition parties?
    Mr. McLoughlin: That does not need an answer from me. I am always happy to congratulate my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there are 30,000 jobs in Leicester and the surrounding county in the traditional industries of clothing and textiles and that, if the multi-fibre arrangement is phased out by 2005, many of those jobs will disappear? Would he estimate how many jobs will be left in 10 years' time?
    Mr. McLoughlin: We all recognise the importance of the traditional industries in Leicester, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. May I point out to him that, in the Leicester travel-to-work area in January 1986, unemployment was 9.7 per cent. and that the latest figure is 8.8 per cent.—a reduction of more than 10 per cent? I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

    Company Donations (Political Parties)
    Ms Primarolo: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of donations given by companies employing members of his deregulation task forces to political parties.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): That information is not known to my Department or to me. The implication behind the question shows the essentially puerile approach of the hon. Lady and her party to the serious need to reduce business costs as a means of reducing unemployment.
    Ms Primarolo: Did the Minister make an assessment of health and safety records, or of the breaching of any regulations by those companies before he appointed them? Did he ask consumer groups for their views of the companies, or was he concerned only to know how much the companies had donated to the Tory party?
    Mr. Hamilton: I was concerned to know only how to improve the competitiveness of British industry by getting rid of redundant regulations and making more cost effective those that are necessary, and hence reducing unemployment. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady is more interested in playing party games.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend consider a list of donations by trade unions to members of the Opposition Front-Bench team, and will he consider whether it would make them worth employing for the deregulation task forces?
    Mr. Hamilton: The difference between us and the Labour party is that it, as a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement, is concerned to load extra costs on British business and to destroy jobs, whereas we are concerned to listen to the voice of experience in British business, to reduce those costs and to promote employment.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Is the Minister satisfied that he gets good value for the millions of pounds that his Department spends on company investigations, bearing in mind that, although there have been 82 published reports, only four directors, and no company auditors, have been disbarred? Is he concerned about the fact that, to investigate companies, his Department has often been known to hire accountants from companies that are themselves the subject of investigations, and that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—partners from companies that have been criticised by his Department often sit on the disciplinary panels—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have brought to the attention of the House several times lately the fact that Question Time is not a time for debate. We are dealing with direct questions. Will the Minister respond?
    Mr. Hamilton: In deciding whether to pursue prosecutions against those who have breached company law, we follow the normal rules by which all parties in government have always operated. We take proper legal advice, and we believe in acting by due process of law.

    Food Retailing (Regulation)
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress in removing regulatory burdens, other than opening hours, on food retailing businesses.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: A review has been completed of controls on a number of foodstuffs covered by European

    273
    Community hygiene directives. Departments are also looking at the problems caused to retailers by food temperature controls, and at the scope afforded by the EC general hygiene directive to simplify existing domestic regulations.
    Mr. Nicholson: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the horrifying material in the book by Christopher Booker, a man of Somerset? Will he act on that material? If he opens the book at random, on page 145 he will see how a local government official went into a shop—not, alas, in my constituency—said, "I have the power to close businesses like this down," and then visited the shop, a bakery, three times during the following six months. Will he act to help shops in my constituency that, again at random, have come to my attention, such as those in North Curry and Kingston St. Mary?
    Mr. Hamilton: As I appear in the book, I hope that my hon. Friend was not referring to me as part of the horrifying material. We should all be grateful to Mr. Christopher Booker for the publicity that he has given to some of the horrors of over-regulation and excessive zeal by some enforcement officers. I assure my hon. Friend that that is one of the items well to the fore in the deregulation initiative.
    Ms Coffey: Is the Minister aware of the considerable concern in the north-west about the impact of out-of-town shopping centres on existing town centres? Will he talk to his colleagues in the Department of the Environment with a view to changing planning law to make impact on existing retail businesses a planning consideration when deciding on new applications? If he cannot do that, will he assure retail businesses in the north-west that they will not go totally out of business and lose thousands of jobs simply because of the present inadequacy of the planning laws?
    Mr. Hamilton: As an act of kindness, I shall show my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the hon. Lady's question.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Prime Minister on his achievement at the last Edinburgh summit, which means that 75 per cent. of all EC legislation must be tested for employment measures? Will he urge the Community to take that further so that it can create more employment?
    Mr. Hamilton: I shall do precisely that in Brussels tomorrow. It is vital that Europe does not continue to export jobs to other parts of the world as a result of failing to cost the impact of the regulations that it has sometimes unthinkingly issued in the past. As for the future, we shall provide a systematic mechanism for costing the impact of regulations. I hope that it will produce better regulations.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of illnesses caused by food poisoning and that it is vital that food safety is not imperilled by deregulation? Will he give us an absolute guarantee that safety in this matter is paramount?
    Mr. Hamilton: I agree that there is a sensible point of view to be taken on this question. In our deregulation initiative, the costs for business will not necessarily be the deciding factor in the decision whether to allow a
    274
    regulation to continue or to be introduced. It is always a question of balance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, losing one's balance can sometimes get one into trouble.

    Exports
    Mr. Spring: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in United Kingdom exports over the past year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Needham: In the first 11 months of 1993, export volume was over 3 per cent. higher than in the same period a year earlier.
    Exports to non-EC countries, particularly south-east Asia, have risen rapidly—11 per cent. higher in 1993 than in 1992—and UK exporters are well placed to expand volumes when European demand picks up.
    Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend will be aware that much of our increased trade is with the booming economies of Asia. But is he aware that a trade mission from the Suffolk chamber of trade and commerce is currently in Malaysia and Singapore? Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating that mission on securing orders which will boost employment in the county of Suffolk?
    Mr. Needham: I echo what my hon. Friend says. The chamber of commerce mission there has been very successful. Despite the efforts of Mr. Andrew Neil and others, it has achieved more orders than last year.
    Mr. Purchase: The House will welcome the export efforts of our major companies, but, despite their heroic efforts in difficult circumstances, the United Kingdom's balance of payments problem remains acute. That can be put down to the policies of the Government.
    Mr. Needham: The balance of payments percentage figures are lower now than at any time since 1982.
    Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is extreme concern in my constituency among manufacturing industries? The chairman of one such company came to see me last week to say that his company has two £500,000 orders waiting to be signed in Malaysia. Will my hon. Friend use his best offices to ensure that the damage caused by the editor of The Sunday Times is put right as soon as possible?
    Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend. If I may, Madam Speaker, I should like to thank the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, who has written to me to
    "express the concern of trade unions about the damaging consequences for jobs in British industry if the current restriction on the involvement of British companies in public work projects imposed by the Government of Malaysia is not lifted … We therefore support the government's efforts to restore good trading relations and we are confident that our trade union colleagues in Malaysia take a similar view."
    I only wish that the editor of The Sunday Times, and the Murdoch press in general, would show as much responsibility as the general secretary of the TUC has shown.
    Mr. Bell: We welcome the exchange that the Minister has had with the TUC. Does he accept that Her Majesty's Opposition have always given their full support to our export drive, and continue to give it full support today— and will continue to do so in the future? Anyone who seeks to maintain the contrary is guilty of base calumny.

    275
    As for the Government's current difficulties with Malaysia, it is our earnest wish to give the Government every support in achieving a successful outcome to the talks. It is desirable that the talks with Malaysia reach a fruitful conclusion before the signing of the general agreement on tariffs and trade on 15 April in Marrakesh. Although Malaysia may not be a signatory to that accord, it would be in its interests to reach an harmonious conclusion.
    Mr. Needham: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that the Opposition will do all that they can to help British exporters. I am not sure that that was always the case in the past.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's comments on GATT, Sir Leon Brittan and the Commission will take a close interest in that matter. As the hon. Gentleman says, we must get this row out of the way as quickly as possible, and we are unlikely to do so if it is constantly exacerbated by the ludicrous comments of the editor of The Sunday Times.
    Mrs. Gillan: I recognise that a beneficial change for exporters was the improvement in the Export Credits Guarantee Department regime announced in the Budget. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look at the bonding support to small and medium-sized businesses? As those businesses increasingly win overseas orders, they come up against their bonding limits and, in some cases, they are prevented from even tendering for overseas contracts because of the bonding support position.
    Mr. Needham: I am perfectly happy to look at that matter on behalf of my hon. Friend. I should point out that, during the past two years, the premium rates have reduced by some 27 per cent. and the amount of cover made available to British industry has increased by some £2 billion. Today, I see that the ECGD has announced that it is supporting a major new order with GEC Alsthom in inner Mongolia.

    Gas Appliance Installers
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further estimate he has made of the number of gas appliance installers who are failing to register with the Council for Registered Gas Installers.
    Mr. Eggar: I have made no such estimate.
    Mr. Loyden: What action does the Minister intend to take to reduce the number deaths—one a week—caused by carbon monoxide poisoning? Is it a part of the Government's deregulation policy that they allow thousands of cowboy outfits to install gas appliances?
    Mr. Eggar: All businesses must register and, of course, we have no intention of imperilling safety.

    Industrial Growth
    Mr. Fishburn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what forecasts have been made for industrial growth for 1994 in the United Kingdom and in Germany.
    Mr. Heseltine: Industrial production rose by nearly 3 per cent. in the UK last year, but fell by 7 per cent. in
    276
    Germany. Both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Commission are forecasting that the UK will be the fastest growing major EC economy in 1994 and 1995.
    Mr. Fishburn: Would my right hon. Friend like to spell out some of the reasons behind the remarkable change in the industrial prospects of the two countries? Will he hazard a guess as to whether that change will be permanent?
    Mr. Heseltine: The reasons are to be found in the fact that our exchange rate is competitive, our interest rates are low, our industrial relations are the best in 100 years, our inflation is low and our productivity has been rising significantly. That gives us a remarkable opportunity if we can contain the inflationary pressures, which the Government are determined to do.
    Mr. Redmond: The President of the Board of Trade must be aware of the tremendous input of the people of South Yorkshire in those figures. Will he, therefore, ensure that the Rechar money to create that manufacturing base is made available to improve on those figures?
    Mr. Heseltine: We shall do whatever we properly can to ensure that the Rechar money is distributed where it can do the most good. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that none of the excellent indicators to which I have referred could have been achieved without the dedication of the British work force. The fact that we now have the trade unions off the backs of working people means that we have achieved quite remarkable productivity gains.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things that worry German industrialists is the way in which social and welfare costs in Germany are loaded on to employers' costs and the costs of employment? In this country, the same social and welfare programmes are funded by the taxpayer. Does that not represent the best possible deal for British wealth creators and the British social programme? Will my right hon. Friend use his role as the defender of the interests of the wealth-creating sector and of other Whitehall Departments to ensure that that deal is not broken, no matter what emanates from Brussels in the future?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important aspect of our competitiveness. Underlying the Government's strength is the opt-out provision, negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which gives us a real opportunity to pioneer in Europe and to change attitudes towards the costs which increasingly mirror the anxieties of the Europeans.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that we can maintain adequate industrial growth without a successful engineering steel industry? How can he justify the grossly inadequate response of Her Majesty's Government to the unfair practices in the EC steel-producing areas?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry secured clear assurances from the European Commission in December that there would be no revenue subsidies, that there would be close monitoring of any aid given to the industry and

    277
    that there would be a reduction in capacity. He will also welcome the fact that the privatised British Steel is now one of the most effective steel producers in the world.
    Mr. Wells: How much does my right hon. Friend estimate that industrial production will be reduced by the damaging speeches of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on the Pergau dam?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have no doubt that the speeches of the leader of the Liberal Democrats and of the leader of the Labour party would be capable of reducing jobs in Britain, provided that one condition was fulfilled, and it is extremely unlikely that that would ever happen—that anyone took a blind bit of notice of either of them.

    Steel
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of steel production covered by the treaty of Paris is manufactured in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): In 1993, 12.9 per cent. of crude steel production covered by the treaty of Paris was manufactured in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that, notwithstanding the statement made about the courageous performance that he put up in Brussels in December, the other steel industries in Europe are far more subsidised than the industry in Britain and there remains a serious danger to British steel industry jobs? What can he say to steelworkers in my constituency working next door in Port Talbot about the safety of their jobs in those circumstances?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I recognise that there is continuing concern about illegal subsidies paid to other European producers. I assure the House that we want the Commission to act as vigorously against those subsidies as it has against the alleged cartel.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the transformation in the British steel industry, which was losing £1 million a day in 1979 and is now the most efficient steel industry in western Europe?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all at British Steel—management and work force—on what they have achieved in productivity gains. We now want them to be able to take advantage of their productivity improvements and their competitiveness against other European steel producers.
    Mr. Fatchett: In December last year, the Minister promised before his negotiations in Brussels that he would save British Steel capacity and jobs from unfair subsidised competition. Why has he failed to deliver that promise? Why have all his negotiations proved to be such an abject failure? Will he give a guarantee that there will be no further cuts in capacity in British Steel and no further job losses? Or are all his words to come to nothing?
    Mr. Sainsbury: British Steel does not appear to agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. It is reported to have said:
    "Mr. Sainsbury has done well pushing our line over the last few months but it appears he has not found support around the table."
    My natural modesty would normally not allow me to mention that, but perhaps, in the circumstances, I shall be forgiven.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that now that the steel industry has been made efficient in Britain as a result of privatisation, the best way in which the continental industries can reach the same level of efficiency is to be privatised and not subsidised?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend puts the point extremely effectively. Privatisation would lead to a much more efficient European steel industry.

    Japanese Investment
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to visit Japan to discuss investment in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Heseltine: I have no plans to visit Japan in the near future, although I had a most useful visit in January, during which I had the opportunity to discuss inward investment with several key Japanese industrialists.
    Mr. Corbett: As the Secretary of State and his Government have given up encouraging British investment in British industry and rely increasingly on the Japanese, on his next visit would he like to discuss with Japanese industrialists who are thinking about investing here the shabby way in which British Aerospace treated its partner Honda when it sold Rover behind Honda's back? What does he think that that will do to encourage the confidence of Japanese investors?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that discussions took place with Honda about these matters as they were taking place with BMW. The fact is that the board of British Aerospace decided that the best interests of British Aerospace and the company that it looked after were served by a deal with BMW. It would do the hon. Gentleman a great deal more good if he would now concentrate on building on the success of the deal that is available rather than on the problems of one that is not.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is there not some irony in this new-found love of Japanese investment among Opposition Members? Did they not complain bitterly when Honda first became involved in Rover? Is not the lesson of the days when Red Robbo and his mates were cranking out Allegros and Marinas—that is, when they were not asleep or on strike—that the less say that politicians, particularly Labour politicians, have in who runs the car industry, the better?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the disastrous investments that the Labour party made in the British motor industry, which were partly responsible for its collapse and, therefore, the fact that so much of it is now foreign owned. The United Kingdom has more than 41 per cent. of total Japanese investment in the European Community, and it must be in

    279
    the interests even of Opposition Members to understand that we should admire that, praise it and seek to build on it.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise the amount of damage that will be done not only to our prospects for future investment from Japan but directly to Rover if there is a complete breach between Honda and Rover? Is he prepared to play an active part in ensuring that such a breach does not happen?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have no grounds for believing that either side is approaching the difficult negotiations that it has to undertake with anything other than a realisation that they must be successfully concluded. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, the moment I appeared, the consequence would be simple—sboth sides would ask me for taxpayers' money to support their own ambitions.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a major reason why this country receives the lion's share of Japanese investment in Europe is that non-wage labour costs are much lower in the United Kingdom than on the continent? Will he do all in his power to ensure that the differential is maintained?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the opt-out clause that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated is so important. Japanese investors in this country know full well that they have a Government who are sympathetic to their interests and who will fight their corner as British companies when they invest here, so they have continued to come. The surest way of choking off Japanese investment would be to have a Labour Government, with their determination to impose on Japanese potential investors costs that they would not wish to pay.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recall hearing the Minister for Industry assuring the House in the statement on Rover in January that his Department would do all it could to help the relationship between Honda and Rover to continue? In view of his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) that, the moment he appears, taxpayers' money will be required, will he explain what his colleague meant when he said that the Department would do all it could and tell us whether he and his Ministers are doing anything at all to keep the relationship open?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that we have had conversations with both parties on a continuing basis, but there is absolutely no guarantee that my Department's offering in some way to facilitate the dialogue would be in the best interests of either of the parties negotiating.

    Industrial Growth
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what forecasts have been made for industrial growth for 1994 in the United Kingdom and in other EC countries.
    Mr. Heseltine: The United Kingdom and Ireland are estimated to be the only EC economies where industrial production rose last year. Both the Organisaton for Economic Co-operation and Development and the
    280
    European Commission are forecasting that the United Kingdom will be the fastest growing major EC economy in 1994 and 1995.
    Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these excellent forecasts demonstrate that many British companies are thriving in the economic framework that the Government have put in place, particularly low interest rates, low inflation, low corporation tax and the important supply side performance of the past 15 years? Is not this the best way to promote industrial growth—for the Government to put in place the right framework and let industry get on with it?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We believe that the present framework is one of the most exciting to have been available to British industry in recent decades. We give a wide range of additional support to our companies in many different sectors and will continue to ensure to the best of our ability that the services that we provide are of the highest standard.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect more sales of the airbus to the United States? When will the general agreement on tariffs and trade on outstanding aerospace matters begin? Will he pledge that the Government will fight the corner for that great industry?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we will do all that we can properly do to support that industry. The negotiations that were left outstanding at the initial conclusion of the GATT round are scheduled to be completed as early as practicable. We shall continue to watch carefully to see what happens. I do not wish to make a forecast about the precise sales, which must be a matter for the companies involved.

    Regional Offices
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many regional offices have been established, and where; and what further locations are planned.
    Mr. Sainsbury: There will be 10 integrated regional offices and a number of sub-offices. I shall arrange for the locations to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Rathbone: The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Can he also reassure the House on the methods of co-ordination and co-operation to be established between the offices, local training and enterprise councils, local chambers of commerce and industry and local authorities—all of which will be particularly important in the development plans of the Sussex prime port of Newhaven?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I know the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to the port of Newhaven. The creation of the integrated regional offices will facilitate the sort of co-operation between Departments, training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce and industry and local authorities to which he refers.
    Following is the information:
    There will be new integrated regional offices in 10 regions: London; South East, based in London and other locations in the region; South West, based in Bristol; Eastern, based in Cambridge and Bedford; East Midlands, based in Nottingham; West Midlands, based in Birmingham; Yorkshire and

    281
    Humberside, based in Leeds; North East, based in Newcastle; North West, based in Manchester; and Merseyside, based in Liverpool.

    Japanese Investment
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Japanese companies opened their first European manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom in each of the calendar years from 1987 to 1993.
    Mr. Heseltine: From information available to my Department it is not possible to determine whether any particular investment during the period in question is the first by a Japanese company in Europe. However, the number of Japanese manufacturers making their first investments in the United Kingdom in each of the years from 1987 to 1993 is as follows: 1987, 23; 1988, 15; 1989, 29; 1990, 34; 1991, 23; 1992, 17; and 1993, nine.
    Mr. Gunnell: I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to congratulate Yorkshire and Humberside development association on the successful conference on Anglo-Japanese partnership last week. Will he acknowledge that many of the investments that the Japanese brought to this country required the co-operation at local level of Labour-controlled local authorities? Does he agree that Labour-controlled authorities have an excellent record in co-operating with development organisations to produce those settlements? Does he also agree that the shortfall in numbers shown by the two figures of 17 and nine that he gave for the past two years is the result of a complex number of factors? It certainly provides no evidence that the rejection of the social chapter by the Conservative party helped to secure Japanese inward investment.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that the figures show beyond any doubt what we all know—that the Japanese industrial economy has been going through one of the most difficult periods since the war. I would be the first to recognise that local authorities, whether Labour or Conservative, largely behave in a responsible way in trying to help the Government and all those involved in inward investment to secure satisfactory arrangements. I wish that the Labour party in the House of Commons would act with the responsibility of local authorities.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why Japanese companies have invested in this country is our system of low regulation levels compared with those of many of our counterparts in the EC? Will he join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his stalwart action in stopping any changes to the blocking minority in the Council of Ministers?
    Mr. Heseltine: I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the support of my hon. Friend, as well as others of my hon. Friends, for the negotiations that he is conducting.
    Mr. Burden: Does the President accept that the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) will be greeted with astonishment and disgust by my constituents in Longbridge? Does he not recognise that unless the rift between Rover and Honda is repaired, the casualties will be many jobs in my constituency and elsewhere? Will he
    282
    accept his responsibility to intervene and ensure that the rift is repaired and that the new partnership can be as successful as the old one?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman assumes that there is a role for the Government in what are essentially commercial arrangements. There is not a shred of evidence to show that either party wants the Government to intervene in this circumstance. If I thought that there was a danger of breakdown, that might change the circumstance, but there is no evidence of such a danger. Over the past three days, I have had personal dialogue with one of the principal players. Those people would have made very clear their views if it were necessary for me to take any positive steps at this stage. No purpose whatsoever is served when the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends raises scares of this sort, which are not reflected in the dialogue going on at boardroom level.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that south Wales has become the silicon valley of Europe, producing Japanese colour television sets and computers, and that the Staffordshire-Derbyshire corridor has become the Detroit of Europe, with its Toyota plant? Does he agree that if it were up to the Labour party's interventionist policies and support for the social chapter, there would be no Japanese investment in Britain at all?
    Mr. Heseltine: I cannot but admire the neo-imperialism of my hon. Friend. We have achieved a triumph of inward investment in all parts of the country. The essence of the case is to keep Britain competitive so that the investment continues to come.

    Companies (Political Donations)
    Mr. Enright: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further assessment he has made of the operation of the Companies Act 1985 in relation to the use of associated companies to make political donations.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: The responsibility for reporting political donations rests with the companies making them. Under section 234 and schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985, parent companies are obliged to disclose in the directors' report political donations exceeding £200 in aggregate made by it and all its subsidiaries, including foreign ones. I have no plans for any further review.
    Mr. Enright: Does that not show staggering complacency? Is the Minister aware that, arising from the contracts for the Pergau dam, which were let to firms contributing to Tory party funds, there is considerable suspicion here that the bribery was not in Malaysia but on the part of the United Kingdom Government?
    Mr. Hamilton: Only those who are easily staggered will be staggered by my response, but we are not surprised at the hon. Gentleman's.
    Mr. Hendry: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the staggering wisdom of his last reply. Will he confirm that during the 1980s British industry, under Conservative policies, grew faster than industry in any other country? Under Conservative policies, British industry is now coming out of recession faster than industry in any other country. Does that not show that investment in the Conservative party is a sound commercial decision and the

    283
    best investment that companies can ever make and that investment in any other party is the shortest route to bankruptcy yet devised by man?
    Mr. Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is staggering that the Labour party has still not learnt the lesson that improved competitiveness is the way to increase employment. As Labour Members are incapable of learning that lesson, they will never be in a position to form the Government of this country.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is the Minister aware that, in response to parliamentary questions about 41 quangos that I tabled last year, we were told that 127 members of those bodies were connected with companies that donate to the Tory party? Is it not clear that what is going on is an auction for places on quangos— appointments in return for donations to the Conservative party?
    Mr. Hamilton: That matter was comprehensively debated in the House recently, and the Labour party was comprehensively trounced.

    Rover
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average profit or loss per vehicle when the Rover car company was a nationalised industry.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The British Leyland group did not produce figures for profitability per vehicle for its constituent businesses. From 1975 until privatisation, the
    284
    taxpayer invested about £3.5 billion in British Leyland. At the end of that period, Rover had trading tax losses of £1.6 billion.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the British car industry was bankrupt under the weight of unions, nationalisation and socialism? Does he also agree with me that during the past 15 years of Conservative Government this country has never had it so good? [Interruption.] Even the lot opposite have given up Lambeth and cloth caps for Chelsea and baseball caps.
    Mr. Sainsbury: If we had not reversed the policies of the Labour party, instead of British car production being at the best level since 1972, it might have disappeared altogether.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On Rover, has the Minister seen the television programmes in which executives of Honda were interviewed, and said repeatedly that they were treated shabbily, and in one case treated dishonourably, by the British? Do Ministers have a view on that? Will they stand up and say what they believe has happened in that specific case?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I fear that I may have rather less time to watch television than the hon. Gentleman and I did not see the television programme to which he referred. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade confirmed this afternoon, the Government welcome inward investment from Japan and, indeed, from all other countries.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the claim by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—[Interruption.]—that there are a number of "exceptional circumstances" in which it is necessary "to mislead Parliament", and in view of his further claim, in the context of Ministers providing full and accurate information, that
"Much of Government activity is much more like playing poker than playing chess. You don't put all your cards up at one time",
will you tell us whether you have received a request from the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement to clarify that highly damaging doctrine? If not, will you say whether it is consistent with paragraph 27 of the guidance for Ministers, which says that Ministers are to provide
"as full information as possible about the policies, decisions and actions … and not to deceive or mislead Parliament and the public"?
If it is not consistent—[Interruption.]—will you say whether the Minister for open government can remain in the Government when he is seeking to justify such deceptions and half truths?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am perfectly capable of dealing with this point of order.
Guidance to Ministers is a matter for Ministers themselves. I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to what I said last evening, when I ruled on this question in response to a point of order from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). In case it is of assistance to the House, and I hope it is, I want to quote from page 181 of "Erskine May" on this matter:
"The opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought in the House about any matter arising or likely to arise in a committee."
If a Committee has any matter about which it feels that the House should be aware, it can make a report to the House, at which point any appropriate action can be considered.
In answer to another question that the hon. Gentleman put to me directly, no, I have not been informed that any Minister is seeking to make a statement today.
Mr. Gary Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise me whether or not it is a matter of record that only two Members have been shown to have lied to the House of Commons, both of them Labour Ministers, Sir Stafford Cripps—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter. The hon. Gentleman should not now abuse the situation.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the same matter? I have given a ruling. Does the hon. Gentleman have something different to raise?
Mr. Winnick: Yes.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I will hear it.
Mr. Winnick: I do not want to refer to the Committee, Madam Speaker, because, as you said, you were kind enough to deal with that matter last night. May I ask you —and my question has nothing to do with the Committee
286
and is not necessarily confined to Ministers—whether you would deprecate any form of lying to the House at any time, whether by Ministers or by anyone else?
Madam Speaker: I repeat what "Erskine May" so wisely tells me—that the opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought on such matters in the House.
Mr. Michael Bates: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it a different one?
Mr. Bates: It is indeed. May I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker? Is it not a custom, outlined in "Erskine May", that when hon. Members make statements in the House about another hon. Member, they should give that hon. Member notice of their intention so that he can be in his place to respond?
Madam Speaker: It is customary to do so, and it is a convention of the House.
Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the important statement made by the Minister for open government yesterday, have either you or—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter.
Mr. Home Robertson: Have either you or Members of the House any way of knowing when Ministers are telling the truth?
Madam Speaker: I accept the word of all hon. Members in the House.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On a totally different point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday The Daily Telegraph carried an article that said that, for the first time, a Minister had risen to discuss the question of the Malaysian dispute. The reason for that is that, although my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade had made a speech in the House the previous Tuesday, those in the Press Gallery go home so early that nobody picked it up. It was therefore not until my hon. Friend repeated those remarks on the radio that any notice at all was taken.
My point of order is this. Is there any possibility of your setting up a Speaker's commission to discuss the way in which the House is reported now that the press no longer stay to report ministerial speeches made after about 5 pm?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the whole House will give me support when I say that I certainly do not give marks for accuracy in press reporting.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A problem could arise out of your statement on the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). At present, when a Minister is accused of lying to the House, the hon. Member responsible can be thrown out, either for a day or for five days. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that in future, if any of us accuses Ministers of lying, you will be placed in a predicament because you will not be able to throw people out.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood my ruling, which concerns Committee proceedings. I am quite prepared to deal with the situation myself when it arises on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be for the convenience of the House if the press could obtain a full Hansard report of what is said in Select Committees? Someone telephoned me this morning asking for my comments on what he thought had been said in a Select Committee, having heard reports of what was said that were completely contrary to what my video recorder showed had been said. That person had no way of checking an official report, because Select Committee reports appear some weeks after the words have been said. We could all be running around in circles talking about something that has not been correctly reported.
Madam Speaker: Committees do their utmost to be helpful and in every case issue transcripts of proceedings as soon as they have been corrected.
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Rein): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point relates to the conduct of debate arising from yesterday's statement by the Minister responsible for Government information. The Home Secretary was interviewed this morning on BBC television and was given the opportunity to repudiate clearly his right hon. Friend's statement that it was acceptable in certain circumstances to mislead the House. We are shortly to hear a speech from the Home Secretary on the important question of the prevention of terrorism legislation. How are we to know whether he intends to tell us the truth during that speech?
Madam Speaker: That was a pretty convoluted point of order on a matter that has nothing to do with me.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that it is entirely within the rights of any hon. Member to make a personal statement to the House irrespective of whether the occurrence to which it relates takes place outside this House or in a Committee? If the Minister wanted to clarify the position about lying to the House of Commons, he could come here and make a personal statement instead of trying to wriggle out of the difficulty through the press.
Madam Speaker: Of course that is correct; but I would have to read the statement and approve it in the first instance.

Decorations for Gallantry (Display)
3.39 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the public display or exhibition of decorations for gallantry; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would give the Secretary of State for Defence the ultimate decision-making power over where the highest awards for gallantry are displayed to the public in cases of dispute. I bring this matter before the House because I have been contacted by one of my elderly constituents, Mr. William Whitham, who is now in his late 80s and is the son of the late Private Thomas Whitham VC, who was awarded the Victoria Cross for conspicuous gallantry in the trenches in the first world war.
For nearly 40 years, my constituent has been trying to arrange for his late father's Victoria Cross medal to be displayed at the Coldstream Guards museum—the regiment to which his late father belonged—instead of at a museum in Burnley, the medal's current location. The Coldstream Guards museum already has on display all the other 12 Victoria Crosses won by members of that most gallant regiment, and my constituent and the surviving members of his family would dearly like his late father's medal to be displayed there as well.
The regiment has supported Mr. Whitham in his campaign, as have many people over the years, including my parliamentary predecessor Sir Peter Blaker, who also raised the matter in the House.
Mr. Whitham feels particularly strongly that it is not appropriate for the medal to be on display in Burnley because of the history of how it came to be in the hands of Burnley council, and how his late father was treated by that council. Immediately after my constituent's father had won the Victoria Cross, Private Whitham's home town of Burnley said that it was very proud of him; his portrait was painted; presentations were made; and various civic ceremonies were held during the last year of the war.
When the war ended, however, and Private Whitham returned to Burnley and to his young family, sadly he had no job to return to. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recall that this was supposed to be the
"land fit for heroes to live in",
when the troops returned.
Former Private Whitham VC wrote to Burnley corporation, asking if he might be able to work for it in the humble capacity of a manual worker. The letter of rejection that he received—a copy of which I have read—only a year or so after being fêted as a local hero was, to say the least, curt and humiliatingly dismissive.
As we are all aware, jobs were hard to come by in the early 1920s and Private Whitham VC and his young family lived in harsh and reduced circumstances. My constituent, who, as I said, is well over 80, has never forgotten the sense that they all had that the town of Burnley had rejected his father.
Tommy Whitham VC was forced to leave his young family to seek work elsewhere. His Victoria Cross medal was pawned on two occasions to raise money for the family, and eventually, only six years after the war ended, Private Tommy Whitham VC died in penury.
Once my constituent reached adulthood, he sought to have the medal returned and, on one occasion, in 1948, he nearly succeeded. Burnley council passed a resolution saying that the medal could be returned to my constituent

289
if £50 were paid. Unfortunately, my constituent was travelling the country while employed as a civil servant by the Ministry of Works and he never received a message about the council decision. Within a week or two of the decision, there was a change of political control, I understand, in Burnley council and the Labour party was elected. The previous decision was immediately reversed at the next council meeting before my constituent was informed of the first decision.
Over many years since, all attempts to persuade Burnley council to release the medal have failed, even though for many years it appears that the medal and its ribbon were not at all well looked after. It is right to point out that only after my predecessor, Sir Peter Blaker, and the colonel-in-chief of the Coldstream Guards raised the matter in 1991 was the decision finally taken to put the medal on display. It is fair to say that Burnley council has offered in recent weeks, after I had taken up the case, to present a replica of the medal to my constituent, but he feels that that, too, is not what he seeks. He is strongly of the view that his late father's regiment should have the medal on display.
I feel strongly about this matter because, although my own service connections are with the Royal Navy, my late grandfather, who died only three years ago, served in the trenches in the first world war in what was then the Royal Horse Artillery and was commissioned from the ranks. Therefore, I know—second hand from him—what all soldiers who served in the trenches in the first world war went through, and the extraordinary bravery that must have been shown by my constituent's late father to win the Victoria Cross.
I believe that it is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State for Defence to be given the power to decide in cases of dispute such as this where our most important decorations for gallantry should be displayed. There is a strong body of opinion on this matter and I have had tremendous support from my hon. Friends, many of whom have served in the distinguished Coldstream Guards regiment.
I very much hope that, when Burnley council is made aware of this debate, it will consider thinking again about the matter. I see that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is in the Chamber. I must say, in fairness to him, that I know that in his time as a member of Burnley council, and since becoming a Member of the House, he has also sought to take up this matter, but unfortunately it appears that we have not yet succeeded in persuading Burnley council to reverse its earlier decision.
This is an important matter. It relates most directly to one of my constituents, but it has great significance for a large number of people who remember the gallantry of all those who served in the trenches in world war one.
The most appropriate words with which I could close my remarks would be those that were used with a heavy sense of irony by the first world war poet, Wilfred Owen, whose poetry I studied when at school:
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori."
3.47 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I wish to speak in opposition to the Bill of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) quite simply because I believe that it would be wrong to allow the ten-minute Bill procedure to be allowed to give any impression that anything that is debated under it today had the approval of the House. I
290
believe that the issue must be looked at. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that I have raised the matter on number of occasions, both as a Member of Parliament and as a member of the local authority.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, my military service was just two years in the Royal Marines. It would be totally wrong to approve a Bill that, in a dispute about where the medal should go, allows the final decision to be made by the Secretary of State for Defence, whatever Government and political party is in control at the time. It would in my view make it a political decision if the Government were to determine to whom medals belonged and to where they should go—[Interruption.] As always, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) is making sedentary comments.
It is contended that the medal should be displayed with the other 11 Victoria Crosses awarded to the Coldstream Guards. But there is a view strongly held in Burnley that Thomas Whitham, who with great heroism earned the VC in 1917 during the first world war, was a hero of Burnley. It is with great pride that his medal is shown in the Towneley art gallery and museum, which is owned by the local authority.
As a schoolboy, I went to the art gallery and museum and saw the display in which the medal has been on show from time to time; it is now on show more frequently. Notwithstanding the claims of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South, we children took great pride in the fact that the Victoria Cross had been won, with great courage, by someone who lived in Burnley. I accept that Burnley council treated Thomas Whitham appallingly in the 1920s, but I should point out that it was not Labour-controlled at the time: Labour did not take control until many years later.
Thomas Whitham was presented with the medal in 1917. He was also given a gold watch and chain, and his portrait was painted; it now hangs in Towneley hall. In 1921, owing to hardship, he pawned his VC, and the council purchased it in 1931. It is believed that the medal had been pawned on earlier occasions, that it was not held in pawn for the entire 10 years and that the council had previously redeemed it and returned it to Mr. Whitham. Ultimately, however, he had to pawn it in order to survive. That is a sad reflection of the way in which we have treated many people who fought in the first world war, in a land which—I agree—was not quite as fit for heroes as we would have wished.
The issue raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South was raised in 1948, but 10 years elapsed between the decision made then and Mr. Whitham's contacting the council again. It may have been felt that, if the issue had been so important to him, he would have pursued it earlier. It was considered again in 1980, 1988 and 1990, and I raised it recently with the chief executive of the council and the controlling group. It is clearly felt that the medal belongs in Burnley's art gallery and museum. The Coldstream Guards have been offered a replica, as has Mr. Whitham junior; the council is willing to pay for both.
The regiment understands and accepts the council's decision. That is clear from a letter from the regimental headquarters to the then chief executive of the council, dated 12 July 1991. The letter states that the regiment accepts that the medal can be made available to it on loan. Indeed, it has been made so available on a number of occasions, whenever the regiment has requested it. It has

291
also been shown throughout Lancashire in various travelling exhibitions, and presented as something for which a part of Lancashire should be proud.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South is right to pursue, with diligence and concern, an issue that affects one of his constituents. I feel, however, that this is the wrong way to deal with it. I wish to make it clear that whatever happens now does not necessarily mean that the House approves of the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nick Hawkins, Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes, Sir Archibald Hamilton, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Cyril D. Townsend, Mr. Matthew Banks, Mr. Michael Stephen, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Michael Colvin and Sir Edward Heath.

DECORATIONS FOR GALLANTRY (DISPLAY)
Mr. Nick Hawkins accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the public display or exhibition of decorations for gallantry; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 June, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
3.54 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
It is 20 years ago this year that the first prevention of terrorism legislation was laid before the House. The Home Secretary of the day was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Since then, it has been the hope of successive Home Secretaries that the day would come when the circumstances which made these exceptional powers necessary would cease to exist but, for most of the past 20 years, that has been very much a hope rather than an expectation.
This year's debate is held against a background of particular controversy. I deplore the fact that the meetings which took place last week between the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, the hon Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and me became public knowledge. That should not have happened. However, I equally deplore the observations which have been made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield, who implied more than once that the Government are insisting on the retention of all the powers currently in the Act for party political reasons. That is nonsense. The powers are necessary in the fight against terrorism. The police think so; I think so; and for every year it was in government from 1974, the Labour party thought so, too. The hon. Gentleman should stop pretending that anyone who disagrees with him does so only for party political reasons.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: The Home Secretary will be aware that No. 10 has today let it be known that it is unable to locate the source of the leak to the Sunday Express but has said that the Home Office has no responsibility for it. For many of us, that is scarcely believable in view of the fact that not only did the original story cite a ministerial source offering a comment on the Home Secretary's views of the meeting but the Home Secretary himself is quoted in the article, thus by implication confirming the existence of the meeting. Will he give the House an unambiguous assurance that neither he nor his officials and neither of his two special advisers —Mr. David Cameron and Mr. Patrick Rock, who are regularly seen operating in the Press Gallery—had any responsibility for planting the story in the Sunday Express?
Mr. Howard: Yes, I certainly give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. I hope that we can now cease to divert attention from the substantive issues that are of such great importance to our debate and instead concentrate on them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Howard: I propose to continue with the central issues.
It is the Labour party that has to explain the change in its position. Why, if the Act was acceptable between 1974 and 1980, is it no longer acceptable today? While it is trying to answer that question, it must recognise the fact that, since those years, we have modified one of the powers to which it objects. The exclusion order which, in its original form in 1974, was unlimited in time was limited to

293
three years in 1984. We have also instituted annual reviews of the workings of the Act by someone wholly independent of Government who has full access to all the papers.
I would certainly welcome a common approach to these matters from all parties, but I do not have to remind the House that it was the Labour party which moved away from that bipartisan consensus on how to tackle the terrorism that threatens our society. Therefore the Labour party needs to change its position if that consensus is to be re-established. It simply will not do for the Labour party to say that it is in favour of anti-terrorist legislation in principle and then to criticise its two key provisions, which make such a crucial contribution to the fight against terrorism.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Howard: I shall give way in a moment.
The way in which to achieve a common approach is not for the Government to give up those key powers, but for the Opposition to recognise once again, as they did consistently between 1974 and 1980, that those powers are essential and ought to be supported. It is especially disappointing that they seem unable to do that. I hope that they prove me wrong by the end of the afternoon, in the light of the support that they have given, which I warmly welcome, to the joint declaration that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland signed on 15 December. That declaration was a courageous and imaginative attempt by the two Governments to demonstrate to the men of violence that there can be no possible justification for continuing their campaign of terror.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Home Secretary accept—I hope that he does—that the loathing of terrorism is universal in the House, bearing in mind the crimes and atrocities committed in Northern Ireland and remembering Warrington and the two small boys, among others, who were put to death as a result of the activities of the IRA? Does not the Home Secretary also recognise that there are genuine criticisms of the PTA, such as those in the piece written by Simon Jenkins in The Times today? The points that he makes should be appreciated by the Home Secretary.
It is precisely the terrorists—the enemies of democracy and of Britain—who, to a large extent, want our civil liberties to be undermined because they recognise that, in so doing, that discredits the democratic system. Why does not the Home Secretary use every opportunity to establish a common approach, which can be put forward by the Government and the Opposition?
Mr. Howard: It is one thing to loathe terrorism; it is another thing to translate that loathing into practical action. Those of us on the Conservative Benches are prepared to take the action which those who have the day-to-day responsibility on the streets of the country think is essential if terrorism is to be fought. The Labour party also thought that when it was in government. Of course, I accept that there are weighty matters to be considered. They were considered in every one of those years when the leader of the Opposition went into the Lobby in favour of those powers. When the Conservative party was in opposition, it was prepared to support the Government, who were putting those powers on the statute book. It is a great shame that the Opposition do not take a similar point of view.
Mr. Tony Blair: The Home Secretary will know of the two objections that we have made. The first is in respect of exclusion orders. In 1987, Lord Colville, the former Home Office Minister and adviser at that time, recommended in his full review of the PTA that that policy be discontinued. Secondly, the judicial intervention in relation to detention is in accordance with the European Court ruling and with many other matters. We are asking the Home Secretary to respond by having a full and independent review by a senior—[Interruption.]—by a senior and respected figure, which could be agreed on both sides of the House, to try to reach agreement on that matter. Why can he not respond to what is a manifestly reasonable request?
Mr. Howard: The legislation before us is just about the most reviewed legislation on the statute book. It is reviewed independently every year. We know the points at issue between the Opposition and the Government, which have just been identified by the hon. Gentleman. They are not shrouded in mystery. They are in the open. However, not once since it changed its position on those matters in 1981 has the Labour party come forward with a specific series of proposals as to how the objectives of fighting terrorism can be achieved in a different way from the way in which we propose, which it originally supported.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will deal with the following point when he next gets to his feet. It is worth remembering just why the Labour party changed its position on this vital issue.
In 1980 when the shadow Home Secretary, the then Merlyn Rees, voted in favour of renewal of the Act, he was followed into the Aye Lobby by barely a handful of members of his own party. On that occasion more of them voted against him than in his favour. The vast majority of the Labour party abstained, and refused to accept his lead. Since then, in order to placate its left wing, it is the Labour party that has consistently played party politics on the issue.
No loyalist needs to take up arms to safeguard Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, because both Governments solemnly accept that a united Ireland can come about only with the agreement and freely given consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. No republican has any justification for the bomb or the bullet, because the British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, north and south, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish.
Members on both sides of the House will, I know, share my profound disappointment that the hopes created by the joint declaration remain unfulfilled. Apologists for the IRA see fit to suggest that it has generously decided to make some reduction in the level of violence for the moment while it makes up its mind about the declaration.
That offers no comfort to the victims of terrorist outrages: the families of Guardsman Blinco of the 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards, killed by a sniper at Crossmaglen on 30 December, and of Constable Beacom, the community constable who died after a rocket attack in Belfast on 17 February; the people of Londonderry, where a 450lb bomb aimed at an army patrol exploded four days after the declaration; the postal workers in London who had letter bombs explode in their sorting offices before

295
Christmas; the shopkeepers in London's west end who have had their premises damaged by incendiaries in the past three weeks. They do not want to hear weasel words from Gerry Adams or from anyone else. They want—we all want—a permanent end to the violence.
Between 15 December and yesterday there have been some 130 terrorist incidents in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including a number of attacks on Catholics by so-called loyalists. Seven lives have been lost and many more might have been lost but for the merest chance. Fifty-one people have been injured, some seriously, and considerable damage has been caused to property. Terrorists of every colour have never been more isolated and publicly reviled.
Those bare statistics and the human suffering that they represent show how essential it is that we do not for one moment drop our guard. While the present threat remains, the prevention of terrorism Act will continue to be an indispensable means of protecting the public against lawless and murderous criminals, and do so under the rule of law.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Howard: No, not at the moment.
I can hardly improve on the way in which the matter was put on Second Reading of the original Bill 20 years ago:
"I believe that we have a prime duty to defend the liberties of our constituents, but a Bill of Rights and a whole volume of liberties are of little value to someone who is 6 ft beneath the ground or someone whose body has been dismembered by a bomb."—[Official Report,28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 699.] Those words were not spoken by a Conservative Member in that debate. They were not even spoken by the Home Secretary. They were spoken by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). What the country wants to know is why he and his colleagues have abandoned the sensible view that they took of such matters 20 years ago.
We have brought the order before the House because we remain convinced that the job of the police and of the Security Service would be substantially more difficult, and the lives and property of people in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain at much greater risk, if the specific powers and offences created by the Act were not available. Indeed, our view is that in some respects they need strengthening. That is why new stop-and-search powers and new offence provisions appear in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which is now being considered in Committee.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he has the backing of 95 per cent. or more of the population of this country for this measure, and that he has the backing of the vast majority of people in both communities in Northern Ireland too?
Mr. Howard: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The people of this country appreciate the need for these measures.
The past 12 months have seen moments of particularly tragic despair. The tragedy at Warrington, with its unspeakable taking of two very young lives, touched the hearts of many people not only in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland but around the world. The
296
explosion in Bishopsgate, which killed one person and injured 44 others, was the second major incident in a year to bring suffering and disruption to the City of London. The murderous attack on the Protestant community of the Shankill road and the appalling reprisal by so-called loyalists in the Greysteel massacre added grimly to the death toll.
Last year there were 730 terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland in which 84 people were killed and 826 injured, while in Great Britain there were 49 incidents, in which three people died and 124 were injured. The terrorists continued to hold the community to ransom by destroying jobs, livelihoods and homes.
Mr. Foulkes: I agree with every word that the Home Secretary has said. As he goes through the catalogue of deaths for this year, last year and the year before, does it never occur to him that in all that time this Act has been on the statute book and that it may not be working? Perhaps it is time to review it.
Mr. Howard: I should like to know what makes the hon. Gentleman think that his judgment about the effectiveness of these measures is to be preferred to that of the police. It is the police who have to deal with the terrorists day by day on our streets—[Interruption.]—not the hon. Gentleman, and not those on the Opposition Back Benches who are joining him in this cacophony. I prefer the judgment of the police to the judgment of the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Anthony Grant: Should we not also add the fact that without these powers, over the years, the slaughter and the injuries would have been infinitely worse?
Mr. Howard: I certainly agree. We must not overlook the high degree of success achieved by the police, the Army and other agencies. In Northern Ireland, 368 people were arrested and charged with serious terrorist offences. One hundred and ninety-six firearms and 60 rocket or mortar launchers were recovered, more than 6,500 kg of explosives were neutralised, and nearly 4,000 kg of unprimed explosives were found.
In Great Britain, 22 people were charged with serious terrorist offences following detention under the prevention of terrorism Act in 1993. Thirteen people have been convicted of such offences in the past year and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment—10 of them to 20 years or more. Counter-terrorist operations on the mainland also led to the recovery of a large quantity of terrorist equipment. More has been discovered in the past month. In Northern Ireland, a majority of the 368 people charged in 1993 with scheduled—terrorist-related—offences were detained under the Act's powers.
For these successes against the terrorist menace we have to thank the police, the Security Service and, in Northern Ireland, the armed forces for their unstinting efforts on behalf of the public. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for their work and achievements. We are fortunate to have been able to rely on their courage and professionalism. I also acknowledge with gratitude the valuable and important contribution of the police in the Irish Republic.
The powers available under the Act have continued to play a crucial part in these successes. Without them, the prevention of attacks and the investigation of crimes would have been far more difficult. I am indebted to Mr. John

297
Rowe QC, last year's chairman of the Bar Council, who has produced a report on the operation of the Act in 1993. The House will, I am sure, share my gratitude to him for the careful and thorough work contained in this, his first report.
Mr. Rowe's conclusion is that
"the Act should indeed be continued in force".
He is satisfied from having had full access to all the records, including the intelligence material on which so many decisions must be based, that the powers have been exercised with great care and attention.
The two provisions which stand at the heart of the Act are, of course, those relating to arrest and detention and those conferring the power to make exclusion orders. I shall deal with them in turn.
As Mr. Rowe's report reveals, the total number of detentions under the Act in the United Kingdom in 1993 was 8 per cent. clown on the figure for 1992. Of these, 28 per cent. resulted in extensions beyond 48 hours on my authority or that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Of the 494 extensions in 1993, 455 extensions were granted in Northern Ireland and 39 in Great Britain.
Mr. Rowe notes that the police in Northern Ireland and Great Britain make a deliberate effort to relate the length of extension applied for in any case to the work outstanding in the investigation. My right hon. Friends and I thoroughly endorse that approach, ensuring as it does that each detention is kept to the minimum required.
The value of the period of extended detention is made clear by the statistics. In Great Britain, of the 39 people whose period of detention was extended beyond the initial 48 hours in 1993, 17 were charged with serious terrorist offences, including attempted murder and conspiracy to cause explosions. A further two were served with exclusion orders. In Northern Ireland, 25 per cent. of cases in which detention was extended resulted in charges.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: How many requests for extension of detention in the past two years in both Britain and the north of Ireland have been refused, either by the Home Secretary in Britain or by the Secretary of State in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Howard: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question now, but I hope to be able to give the answer at the end of the debate.
The most contentious issue is who should consider extension applications. As the House is aware, the power of the Secretary of State to extend the detention of terrorist suspects up to a total of seven days has required the United Kingdom to derogate from article 5(3) of the European convention on human rights, following a ruling in the Brogan case that detention beyond four days without judicial authority was contrary to the convention.
Let me make clear that the Government would very much prefer it if that derogation were no longer necessary. But it is, and since the House last considered this matter, the European Court of Human Rights has, in the case of Brannigan and McBride, upheld the derogation. In its ruling it held:
"having regard to the nature of the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, the limited scope of the derogation and the reasons advanced in support of it, as well as the existence of basic safeguards against abuse, the Court takes the view that the Government have not exceeded their margin of appreciation in considering that … the derogation was strictly required by the
298
exigencies of the situation".
After the Brogan case, the Government looked closely to see whether there was a judicial solution. But, for the reasons given to the House fully on 14 November 1989, we had to conclude that the dangers outweighed the advantages. Those who had previously carried out major reviews of the legislation—Lords Shackleton, Jellicoe and Colville—had all come to the same conclusions.
Let me quote from the report by Lord Shackleton—a Labour peer appointed to review the legislation by a Labour Government. He said:
"On the question of who should authorise the extensions of detention, I see no alternative to the Secretary of State. It has been suggested that the courts could do this. But the information on which the police justify the need for an extension is usually sensitive and cannot be disclosed without the risk of endangering lives or impeding police inquiries. I doubt that these difficulties could be fully met even if the courts were to consider these matters in secrecy … I believe it is right that such a power be exercised by the Secretary of State, who can be called upon at short notice to account for his actions in Parliament."
Those who advocate transferring to the judiciary the power to authorise detention before charge need to ask themselves whether decisions based on intelligence material can really be considered appropriate for judicial consideration. The Government's view is that the course which the Opposition advocate would blur the clear division of roles between the Executive and the judiciary. We would be asking the judges to perform what is, in essence, an Executive function.
The intelligence material on which police applications are based cannot, by its very nature, be disclosed to the defence. Therefore, it would not be possible for the defence to prepare its case. Nor would it be possible for judges' decisions to state the reasons underlying them. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a judicial appeal procedure.
I am absolutely sure that to attempt to involve the judiciary, but under such constraints that judges could not apply the procedures and principles under which they normally operate, is a far more unsatisfactory course than the limited derogation from the convention which the Government have made.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not it a fact that in Europe, where a contrary view is taken, most of the judges are civil servants who are used to taking administrative decisions?
Mr. Howard: My hon. and learned Friend is right to make that distinction. There is a further distinction in that the decisions which they make are, for the most part, entirely different from the ones which are presently under consideration.
Therefore, so long as the need for the decisions continues, I believe that they will have to be left to the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for the exercise of his powers and whose decisions are scrutinised each year by an independent reviewer with extensive legal experience. It would be very convenient for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and me to shed those onerous responsibilities, but while the need remains we shall continue to discharge our duty.
Mr. Tom King: Is not there another point, about which those who are concerned about the proper rights of an individual should be worried and to which my

299
hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has just referred? If the decision passes to perhaps a judicial authority, would not that, under the European convention on human rights, give judges the power to extend far more the time during which people could be confined without charge? Am I right in saying that those who were arrested by the French authorities for the Eksund shipment were kept two years without being charged, whereas the limitation under our legislation is extremely strict and, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, not normally more than five days?
Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience in these matters. I believe that he is right in what he says. His point demonstrates that, as is so often the case, the Opposition completely miss the substance of the point in the attitude which they take and strive instead for some illusory shadow which would profit no one.
I turn now to exclusion orders. At the end of 1993, 71 persons remained subject to an exclusion order made by the Home Secretary—a reduction of eight since 31 December 1992 and the lowest figure at the end of any year since 1975. The number of orders in force on the strength of decisions made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland remained constant at nine. Each order remains in force for three years, unless revoked before then. At the end of the three-year period the case is looked at afresh in the light of all the circumstances, including an up-to-date intelligence assessment. In some instances, fresh orders are made; in others, they are allowed to lapse without replacement.
Mr. Rowe states that he is satisfied that all the participants in the procedure for exclusion orders have acted carefully. I thoroughly endorse his comments about the three independent advisers, to whom representations against exclusion orders are referred. The role which they play is an important safeguard for the individual and I thank them for their work during the past year. In his report Mr. Rowe rightly acknowledges that opinion on the value of exclusion orders is not unanimous, but he also notes that there are strong arguments in favour of their retention, and it is my clear view that those arguments are decisive.
The restrictions on the movement of the 80 people currently excluded are wholly justified by the contribution that the restrictions make to preventing acts of terrorism. As the number of people excluded is small, there are those who argue that it would make little difference if the restriction on their movements were lifted. I do not accept that for a moment. The powers are used very sparingly in recognition of their exceptional nature. Do those who oppose them seriously suggest that restrictions on the movement of those who have been involved in terrorism have no effect?
The police are clear that, as a preventive measure, exclusion is a useful weapon in their armoury. It disrupts the movement of terrorists in both directions across the Irish sea and it reduces the pool of personnel on whom the terrorists can safely draw.
The police do not believe that the alternative measures that have been suggested—such as mounting surveillance operations on all those who would at present be excluded —are remotely realistic. When the police and the Security Service have their work cut out to prevent attacks and track down those responsible for preparing them, how can
300
Opposition Members justify making that task more difficult? How can they justify the extra risks that would be imposed on our constituents?
Ten years ago this year Patrick Magee tried to blow up the Cabinet at the Conservative party conference. The following year he returned from Ireland with others who planned to mount an unprecedented series of attacks at seaside resorts in the south of England, including Folkestone in my constituency. Magee and his associates were arrested and detained for several days before being charged because of the powers available in the prevention of terrorism Act. My constituents know that those are powers for which Conservatives have consistently voted for the past 20 years. Had the Labour party been in power in 1985, those powers would not have been available for the protection of the people of Folkestone. They would not be available now for the protection of the people of Belfast, Warrington, Tyneside or Haringey.
Mr. Alun Michael: Cheap points.
Mr. Howard: That is the truth of the matter, and for the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, to describe those points as cheap is nothing short of disgraceful.
The powers were needed when the legislation was introduced by Lord Jenkins in 1974. From 1974 to 1980 they were supported by the Labour party. Since 1983 it has opposed them.
The chairman of the terrorism committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers has made it clear to me—perhaps Opposition Members will listen—that the
"retention of the Act in its present form is an essential weapon in the armoury of counter terrorism."
No party that is prepared to deny that essential weapon to the brave police officers who have to confront the evil men at whom the powers are aimed is remotely fit to govern this country. Conservatives are committed to their maintenance for so long as the need for them continues. I commend the order to the House.
4.26 pm
Mr. Tony Blair: I shall begin by giving a brief resume of the history of the legislation. I shall then examine the changes that have, over time, been made to it. I shall then repeat the offer that has been made to the Government, which I believe will find much support in the House—to try to reach a consensus on the issue, take it out of the political divide and resolve it properly.
First, let us be clear what is not in dispute. It is not in dispute, and never has been, that we need anti-terrorist legislation. It is not in dispute that the powers of the prevention of terrorism Act in respect of detention on the grounds of involvement in terrorism should remain. We do not seek to review the powers of proscription and attachment of terrorist funds. We in the House share a total and complete abhorrence of terrorism and a desire to defeat it.
However, we say that the powers are exceptional, and we hope that the whole House can agree with that. We hope that the House can also agree that the powers breach the normal rules of law in our legal system, of which we are justifiably proud, and that we should countenance them only to the extent that they are genuinely necessary to defeat the threat of terrorism.
That is so for reasons of the rule of law, but also for practical reasons. The IRA, which is incapable of making

301
a decent democratic case in defence of its position, uses aspects of the legislation ruthlessly as a stick with which to pillory Britain abroad. Speeches made in the United States of America recently have been littered with references to the legislation.
It is plainly sensible and in everyone's interests, quite apart from being right as a matter of constitutional law, to go as far, but no further, than we need in abrogating the normal processes of law. That is the issue between us, and if the Home Secretary were prepared to analyse it in a decent and sensible way, as opposed to ranting at us for the purpose of making the political divide greater, he would do a service to everyone concerned with such matters.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)rose—
Mr. Blair: I will give way in a moment.
This used to be recognised throughout the House. The great distinction between the speech that we have just heard and earlier speeches on the prevention of terrorism from the Government side, whether a Labour or a Conservative Government, is that, until very recently, they have always repeated the distaste felt by everyone for these measures. They have been justified, but there has been some semblance of the thought that these are serious steps that are being taken.
That is why they are called "temporary provisions." It is why we debate them every year. As Lord Whitelaw said in 1982, they make
" a considerable inroad into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud".—[Official Report, 15 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 151.]
In 1978, because this was the only way of securing the renewal of the Act, Lord Shackleton was asked to conduct a full review. He did so, and among the other things that the Home Secretary did not quote from his report, he said this:
"The longer the exclusion power continues, the stronger will be the case against it, and I believe the Government should reconsider this issue."
So, far from it being strange for Opposition Members to raise them, exclusion orders used to be raised by those on the Government Benches when they were in opposition, and as a result changes were made to them. Changes were made that, in particular, after three years they must be reconsidered. There was a further report by Lord Jellicoe in 1983. Sir Cyril Phillips, himself a distinguished High Court judge, was critical of exclusion orders in 1985, and suggested ways in which they might be circumvented, and that was repeated in the last full review of the legislation in 1987 by Lord Colville.
I say that in part to show that, throughout this period, it is not merely that changes have been made—in respect not just of exclusion orders but in the treatment of suspects, the procedures for detention and dealing with terrorist funds —but also to emphasise that it was never the case that the legislation was written in stone. It was always there to be reviewed, analysed and reassessed because of its importance.
Mr. Fabricant: When the hon. Gentleman proceeds to try to water down this order, and when he has thought of the thousand people killed or injured last year and of the two young soldiers killed on Lichfield railway station, will he remember that it is the police today—not Lord Jellicoe in 1983, but the police today—who want the order passed as it stands? Does he look forward to the total defeat of terrorism, or does he merely look behind him at the disloyalty of his own Back Benchers?
Mr. Blair: That is an example of what we have been saying. There they go again: they cannot debate this in a reasonable way.
Mr. Howard: With respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) asked a perfectly reasonable question, based on the view of the police now. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said earlier that we should go as far as, but no further than, we need. The chairman of the terrorism committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers says:
"The retention of the Act in its present form is an essential weapon in the armoury of counter terrorism."
Why does the hon. Gentleman think that his judgment of what we need is to be preferred to that of the chairman of the terrorism committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers?
Mr. Blair: It is not my judgment that is to be preferred to his. What we are debating, as I shall show, are views expressed not just by the Labour party but over a very broad range.
As I said at the beginning, we are not opposed to the principle of legislation in this area, or to the main powers that are in the legislation. If the Home Secretary would listen to the points we make and consider them, and accept that we are trying to reach agreement, I think that he would find them reasonable.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Blair: I shall give way from right to left, and then I must get on.
Mr. Michael Bates: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the views of the police, who are often in the front line in the fight against terrorism, are critical. What consultations has he had with police organisations on the subject of the renewal of this legislation, and what representations has he received from those organisations urging him to vote against it?
Mr. Blair: I shall deal in detail with some of the objections to the points that I am raising. What has to be determined is whether the points we make are reasonable. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I told the Home Secretary this morning, it is our case that there should be a full and independent review, agreed by the two sides of the House and conducted by a distinguished figure, to determine precisely whether these powers are necessary or whether there is another way of dealing with the situation.
The view of the police must be taken into account, but it is also important that there be a review of the extent to which what we seek could be achieved otherwise. That is what we are asking for, and it is hardly unreasonable.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is prepared to ignore, or fails to take fully into account, the views of the police. What about members of the Labour party? For example, Lord Mason, who held the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has said that nothing gives the IRA more joy and encouragement than to see a divided House, and especially the image created by some within Parliament of seeming to be too protective of the terrorists and their political allies, rather than wishing their destruction. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. If we do not have a little quiet, I shall start picking off other people.
Mr. Heald: Is it not important that we take full account of the views of the police, who are fighting the terrorists, and of members of the Labour party who have the experience of office? The hon. Gentleman has not had that experience; those who have believe that the legislation is vital. Why is the hon. Gentleman so arrogant as to ignore their advice?
Mr. Blair: We are not ignoring their advice. That is precisely why, as I shall explain later, we have said that there should be a full review, in which these matters can be taken into account. If the hon. Gentleman is confident of his position, he should agree to that. Why does he not agree? Because, as a Conservative, he prefers to treat this matter as an issue of party divide rather than of party agreement.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: The hon. Gentleman confirms that he wishes to disregard the views of the police. Does he think that voting against this order will help or hinder terrorism? It is as simple as that.
Mr. Blair: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not listened to my reply. I am not saying that my view should be preferred to that of the police. That is precisely my reason for saying that the objections received from a very broad range of opinion should be properly tested. That is what Conservative members are disagreeing with. The Home Secretary mentioned Lord Merlyn-Rees. Earlier today, Lord Merlyn-Rees confirmed that he would support a full and independent review. That is the answer to many of the points that have been made.
Lady Olga Maitland: If the hon. Gentleman believes in abandoning exclusion orders, does not it follow naturally that he is opening up the floodgates to terrorists coming to the British mainland? Does not he accept the warning that was issued by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), in 1974? I refer to this very salutary comment:
"It would be most sad, however, if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberty and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens."—[Official Report, 28 Nov 1974; Vol. 882, c. 700.]
Mr. Blair rose—
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's splendid speech, but I must ask whether it would not have saved a great deal of time if the Conservative office brief, from which Conservative members have been reading, had been placed in full in the Library?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time, and he knows very well that that is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Blair: Unfortunately, like so much else that the Conservative party does, the brief is incompetent and inaccurate.
The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 was never intended to be written in stone. On the contrary, because of its exceptional nature, it was to be kept under constant review for the very purpose of changing it when necessary and timely. That was especially so in respect of exclusion orders. We believe that it is now right to consider two aspects of change. I shall mention them in turn.
304
There are other issues. There is the question of the audio or video recording of suspects' interviews. Trials are apparently on foot on the mainland, but there is nothing as yet in Northern Ireland. Sir Louis Blom-Cooper was asked to report on the conduct of detention centres in Northern Ireland, and his report will be published next week. It is unfortunate that we do not have it today.
There are therefore other issues, but there are two main ones. They are not quibbles, as some people would say, and they do not destroy the 1989 Act, as the Home Secretary says. They are substantial and serious none the less.
The first issue is that of the means of extending detention. At present, under the normal law, if one is a child murderer, a rapist, an armed robber or involved in organised crime, one can be detained only on suspicion of a specific offence; one is detained for 36 hours but then must be brought before a court, and after some days must then be charged.
Under the 1989 Act, detention takes place if there is a reasonable suspicion that one has been involved in general acts of terrorism, not necessarily related to a specific act. One can be held for 48 hours and then the detention is extended for up to a further five days, making seven days in all. Those powers are self-evidently highly exceptional —all the more reason for them to be subject to proper judicial control if possible.
There is a need for the exceptional power to detain and the period of detention—I accept that. That is the exceptional nature of the power, because there can be occasions when the security services, for various reasons, have to obtain evidence or make forensic checks of one type or another. However, unless there is a good reason to the contrary, deprivation of liberty should take place through a court. That is what the European Court ruled under the European convention, and it may have ruled that the derogation was within the Government's possibility of power, but it did not resile from its earlier ruling.
One of the things that I find so extraordinary about the Home Secretary's attempt to present the proposal as destructive of the whole nature of the work of the security services is that when the matter was mentioned before, during the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in January 1989, the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, said:
"Of course we would have preferred not to derogate, and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West"—
now the noble Lord Archer—
"was right when he said that this is not a subject to be taken lightly as a matter of convenience. We continue to look for a judicial mechanism."—[Official Report, 30 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 65.]
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Blair: I will give way in a moment.
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Blair: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgive me? I will give way in a moment.
Lord Colville, when he wrote his report in 1991, also drew attention to those problems and the way in which they might be circumvented.
Mr. Howard: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to give way. [Interruption.] On that specific point, following my right hon. Friend's suggestion in 1988 that we seek a way of involving the judiciary in that power, a review was carried out, and the result of that review was

305
announced to the House, as I said earlier, by the Foreign Secretary's successor as Home Secretary in November 1989. Therefore, we did carry out that review.
We have considered whether there might be a different way to achieve that objective, and we have come to the conclusion that there is not. We cannot be accused of not looking to see whether there are other ways of doing it.
Mr. Blair: My argument to the Home Secretary is that it was not that the present Foreign Secretary, when Home Secretary, was ruling that out on the grounds of security. He said that he would seek a judicial mechanism. He did not rule it out as inconsistent with the purposes of the 1989 Act.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, has left his place. I thought it extraordinary when he intervened earlier, because this is what he said in respect of the power of detention in December 1988:
"It would be more acceptable to many of us to require a judicial element—a judge, if there is no problem of availability, or a stipendiary magistrate … But what is needed is that the public should have confidence that injustice is not being done by the procedures. I think that a judicial element would meet that requirement."—[Official Report, 6 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 232.]
We can agree or disagree on whether that is necessary, but it is patently absurd to suggest that, by advocating a judicial element, one is destroying the security basis of the legislation.
Mr. Gary Streeter rose—
Mr. Blair: I will give way in a moment.
Not merely did they all say that, but I discovered last night that the Government's Standing Commission on Human Rights in 1988 said the same: it said that there should be a judicial element. The idea that that is something beyond the ken of any reasonable person to propose is patently absurd. Every time that Conservative Members make that type of argument, they simply underline the degree to which they are prepared to be unreasonable in making their case.
Mr. Streeter rose—
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Robin Corbett: No, no —don't give way to him.
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Blair: I will give way to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), because he was up first. Then I will have to get on.
Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He must accept that it is quite an amusing spectacle watching him try to defend the indefensible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues vote against the measure tonight, what message does that send to terrorists?
Mr. Blair: I have sent the clearest possible message of what we believe. The only people trying to send a different message in respect of the Opposition are Conservative Members. That is the absurdity.
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Blair: I will give way to the Home Secretary, but then I must get on.
Mr. Howard: As these are important topics, I want to do the hon. Gentleman the credit of taking his argument seriously.
It is true that my predecessor, now the Foreign Secretary, said that he would seek a way to involve the judiciary in the decision-making process. So did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). The nature of the investigation which was then carried out was to see whether we could find a way to involve the judiciary which would not undermine the exercise of the power and deprive it of its practical effect.
We came to the conclusion that there was no such way, as was announced by the noble Lord Waddington in November 1989. It is no good the hon. Gentleman ignoring that investigation and its outcome. We have considered it; there is no such way. The hon. Gentleman must face that.
Mr. Blair: That is incorrect. That was never the reason that was given.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: As someone who was in the House when the original legislation was passed just after the Birmingham pub bombings, the perpetrators of which have not yet been put in prison even though the legislation has been in place for 20 years, may I say to my hon. Friend that the British public who are watching the debate are entitled to expect grown-up politics to operate in the House today?
I remind my hon. Friend that I have never yet voted against the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, because I have always been conscious, even with its defects, of the connection with the Birmingham pub bombings and carnage that day. However, I will vote against the measure tonight, simply on the grounds of the Home Secretary's performance in the past few days, including his speech today, because it does not constitute serious grown-up politics, which the people of this country are entitled to expect.
Mr. Blair: I do not think that any hon. Member will underestimate the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend or his determination to combat terrorism.
It is said that what is involved is not a judicial process: the argument—the only argument there is, in fact—is that the nature of the process of deciding an extension of detention is not truly a judicial one and is incapable of being dealt with other than by executive act. Precisely that argument was rejected in the European Court, but let me deal with it myself.
What is the purpose of having an element of judicial control? It is not simply to provide a process of legal reasoning or logic; it is that that judicial element is independent of executive action. The liberty of the subject should be taken away not by the act of a politician but by a court of law. That is the basic point. The debate is not simply an abstract debate about the nature of the process of reasoning: it is a fundamental debate about the nature of liberty, and those who have the right to deprive people of liberty. That is why it would be so much better to have that judicial element, as was accepted some years ago, even by Conservative Members.
In respect of exclusion orders, I must say to the Home Secretary that he is a man who cannot make a case without exaggerating it out of existence. The idea that, by opposing

307
exclusion orders, one is making an outrageous attack on the entire nature of our fight against terrorism is patently absurd when considered against the historical background. First, nothing has been more contentious than exclusion orders, and nothing has ever been expressed to be more temporary—as was the case throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
Exclusion orders have been strongly criticised by many. For example, Enoch Powell said in February 1987:
"The inherent objectionableness of a power to exclude from one part of the United Kingdom into another is undiminished, but the evidence for utility continues to diminish. I hope that we shall see the end of it, certainly no later than the new edition of this Act."—[Official Report, 10 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 277.]
I discovered last night that the then Home Secretary, now Foreign Secretary, sent Sir Cyril Phillips a letter—a public letter, although it does not appear to have received much publicity—when Sir Cyril conducted his review of the Act. The then Home Secretary wrote:
"I entirely accept that the exclusion powers, especially those under sections 4 and 5 which permit the exclusion of a British citizen from part of the United Kingdom, very considerably infringe ordinary civil liberties. I think it very proper to remind Parliament that these powers are controversial and that it is possible to discontinue while still renewing other parts of the Act."
I fully understand that the Home Secretary came down in favour of retaining the powers. However, I put it to Conservative Members that it can hardly be said to be unreasonable to argue that the powers should be properly, fully and seriously reviewed independently to see whether they need to be maintained or not—indeed, the last full review, that of Lord Colville, suggested that they go. That is the answer to the paint made a moment ago.
It is worth spending a moment considering why the orders have aroused such controversy. First, they represent a form of internal exile. That cannot be disputed. They allow complete freedom of movement within Northern Ireland to people excluded from the mainland, and complete freedom of movement on the mainland to those excluded from Northern Ireland, so they are, by their nature, odd. Conservative Members may wish to consider that they are in one sense essentially anti-unionist.
Secondly, they involve someone being deemed or dubbed a terrorist not by a court of law but by an executive order. The Home Secretary can make an exclusion order only if he is satisfied—not merely if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting—that someone is a terrorist. There is no trial. There are no representations. There is no ability to know the evidence. There is no effective appeal.s
It is not that, as Mr. Rowe said, exclusion orders are simply an infringement of freedom of movement; it is that the person is then deemed to be a terrorist. He does not know the evidence and he cannot appeal against it. He then becomes a target for other terrorist activity. That is why the matter has now been referred to the European Court by our own Court of Appeal.
Rev. Martin Smyth: We in Northern Ireland look askance on the leper colony aspect at times. But there was a judicial review—there was a trial in London. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what London people would say about the case of a person who was acquitted by a court in London; who said that he was not a terrorist and disagreed with terrorism; who was excluded
308
under the Act; and who was buried in County Tyrone as second in command of the Tyrone battalion of the Provos, shot in a gunfight with the Army?
Mr. Blair: As the hon. Gentleman knows, many of those of the Ulster Unionist persuasion have been against exclusion orders. That is not because people do not condemn terrorism—they do. It is because they think that we must see whether, in attempting to use the security services to weed out terrorism, we do so in a way that is fully compatible with the ordinary rule of law.
Mr. Robert Maclennan rose—
Mr. Graham Riddick rose—
Mr. Blair: I am sorry. I must get on.
I entirely accept that an argument can be advanced in favour of exclusion orders. I do not take the unreasonable position described by the Government: I do not say that no one can reasonably argue the case for them. What I say is that it is so clear that they are potentially open to abuse that it is right that they should be fully and independently reviewed—as happened seven years ago—to see whether they are still necessary.
Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blair: All right.
Mr. Maclennan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he appealed earlier for cross-party support in this matter, he might have some interest in what I have to say.
I find his argument in favour of an independent review of some different kind from the report of Mr. John Rowe —an eminent former chairman of the Bar Council—extremely difficult to understand. We have before us a very thorough report, whose author has consulted all those closely involved in the day-to-day conduct of security matters and which does not stand on its own but is one of a series of annual reports.
The hon. Gentleman will acquit me of the charge of seeking to divide the House on this issue, because he knows that I have always favoured cross-party agreement where possible. It appears to me likely, however, that the lack of consensus on the issue is between those in his own party and not across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Blair: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. First, the previous report—undertaken by Lord Colville in 1987—which was a full and independent review, recommended that exclusion orders should go. The hon. Gentleman's point is therefore particularly foolish.
Secondly, Mr. Rowe's report examines not whether the powers are necessary but whether they have been properly operated within the definition in the legislation. The hon. Gentleman has not understood the point that I am making.
Mr. Mallon: Lest there be any doubt about it, I should point out that Mr. Rowe did not consult widely about this matter within Northern Ireland. He did not consult my party or, I understand, the Ulster Unionists, and many other organisations that should have been consulted were not. I therefore regard the report as deficient.
Mr. Blair: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is entirely right. I do not suppose that anyone would say that those from the Ulster Unionist side were not committed to

309
the fight against terrorism, but Ulster Unionists, too, see the purpose of reviewing the necessity for exclusion orders.
Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blair: No. I have been immensely generous in giving way.
It is because of those objections, and because we wanted to see whether there was not a different way—in accordance with the normal rule of law—of meeting the same objectives, that we attempted to secure serious discussions with the Government. We did so because we know that, when we strip away the political rhetoric, we share the same objectives of deterring and defeating terrorism—but also because we want to uphold our traditional rule of law and the principles that go with it. In attempting to balance those competing purposes, we should engage in discussions without rancour, or accusing each other of being soft on terrorism, and with a genuine desire to find agreement.
The Government say that they want such agreement. The Home Secretary said today that he wanted an all-party approach. They used to criticise us for seeking change in the way we did, and they asked us to do it differently. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) first defined our objections to the Acts, the Government suggested how we should object. The then Home Office Minister, who is now the Secretary of State for Education, said:
"If he"—
that is, my right hon. Friend—
"were really interested in serious discussions with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and had a list of things he wanted to discuss … surely he should have gone to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, perhaps on Privy Councillor terms, to talk to him about the sort of chances he wanted."—[Official Report, 4 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 66.]
That is what we have done. How was that action met by the new Home Office regime? It was met not only with a refusal to consider our proposals, but with an out-of-hand rejection. The story was then planted in the press before we had even received the courtesy of a reply. That is not seeking agreement in the interests of peace and security; it is playing politics with the issue.
Moreover, we have not even asked the Government to agree immediately to our objections. We do not expect them to go "Snap," but have merely asked them seriously to consider the proposals, as the former Secretary of State for Education asked us to do. One way to achieve that would be to undertake a full and independent review of the judicial process under a senior respected figure, on whom we could agree with the Government, the Ulster Unionists, the Social Democratic and Labour party and other interested parties.
We could examine that and other aspects of the prevention of terrorism Act, to point the way towards its improvement. It has been seven years since the last full review, and that was conducted by a Government adviser. It is almost decade since Sir Cyril Phillips, a High Court judge, considered the matter. It is high time to consider the process again. As I said earlier, Lord Merlyn-Rees, a distinguished former Labour Home Secretary supports such a review.
Much has changed in the past year. There has been a joint declaration and a new search for peace. We have joined the Government in those initiatives. We have attempted to rise above party differences—whatever they
310
may be—to search for peace. We refrained from exploiting the issue when it was revealed that the Government had been in talks with the IRA, although they publicly denied that fact.
One other major change has occurred. The IRA's last remaining argument has been removed. It has lost its last vestige of respectability because, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, it refuses even to support self-determination. It seeks unity by the bomb, not through the ballot box. We should shout that from the rooftops. By using that argument, there is a chance of uniting all democratic elements against the undemocratic terrorists to turn the tide, not only in security terms, but politically.
So much has changed and can be achieved; that is why it is important that we should try to bring the House together, and why I urge the Home Secretary even now to consider our requests in the spirit in which they were made, to unite the House, and to defeat the terrorism that we all detest.
5.3 pm
Mr. Kenneth Baker: The one way to unite the House would be for Opposition Members to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
The speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) had been trailed as embarking on a new initiative. I assume that his speech included the views that the Leader of the Opposition voiced to the Prime Minister in the talks that took place. Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, I do not think that it marks a new beginning. It reminded me of speeches by his predecessors as shadow Home Secretaries, the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). In 1990, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made five similar proposals, questioning the need for the extension of detention and for the exclusion orders. The only new item in the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield concerned the independent review. I am sceptical whether such a review would achieve anything.
There has been a bit of party banter, but I do not believe that any Opposition Member supports or condones terrorism. My experience as a Minister and Member of Parliament has assured me that that is the case. Opposition Members' protests against terrorism can be just as eloquent and strong as those from Conservative Members. It is not sufficient, however, only to condemn terrorism and its aims; one should be prepared to will the means to defeat terrorism. That is where one has to take difficult, executive decisions.
The history of the prevention of terrorism Acts has been well rehearsed by both Front-Bench spokesmen. It was put on the statute book by Roy Jenkins. Every Home Secretary, of any party, who has exercised the Act's powers has confirmed that they were necessary, as has each Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and there are many quotations to confirm that. As a Minister who had to exercise those powers, I have no doubt that they are necessary.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield reminded us that my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw said that the Act was an infringement of civil constitutional rights. The House has to examine the matter carefully when it decides about such rights, especially when it has to decide whether to curtail

311
them. It has to be satisfied that there is a reason for curtailment and that there is a reasonable process to ensure that the exercise of executive power is done fairly and properly.
The decisions that I had to make were not taken lightly. One reviews each case carefully because one knows that one's signature on a piece of paper will either extend the period of investigation of a suspect or exclude someone from one part of the United Kingdom. I took those decisions carefully as, I am sure, did my predecessors and successors.
Under the powers of exclusion, there is a procedure for review.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: When the right hon. Gentleman had to exercise those powers, how did he weigh in his mind the fact that the people whom he was excluding from the mainland of Great Britain were a danger and were involved in terrorism and that he was sending them back to a Province that had already borne the brunt of that terrorism? Did he not feel that there was a danger that he was concentrating all the killing and violence on those who had already borne the most pain?
Mr. Baker: I never felt that. The security and safety of the public in the whole country, not just on the mainland, is almost the prime consideration of any Home Secretary. Other Ministers have specific responsibilities for Northern Ireland.
The Opposition changed their view in 1983. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary sketched the history of that conversion, which was not sudden. After the Labour party lost office in 1979, it split on the first vote on the PTA. The noble Lord Merlyn-Rees voted for the extension of the Act. The Labour party abstained in the vote in the following two years. In 1983, it decided to vote against the Act.
Ever since, the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Sedgefield, and his two predecessors have been trying to get the Labour party off that awkward hook. It is impaled on it largely because of its left-wing and nationalist elements. The hon. Member for Sedgefield smiles, but he knows that what I am saying is true. He has advanced his arguments rather more elegantly than his predecessors, but his argument remains the same and the problem remains the same for the Labour party.
I now come to the exercise of the powers and the power of extension of investigation. Some 30 cases were brought to me. One must examines cases very carefully indeed. In several of those cases, the investigation led to a charge being laid. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that, of the 39 extensions for which he has been responsible, charges were laid in 17 cases—nearly half. That statistic proves the validity of the operation.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Sedgefield denies the operation, or the need of it, but he says that it should be subject to judicial process. That is an easy thing to say, but ultimately it is an executive decision. The House has given that power to a member of the Executive, principally the Home Secretary, but on occasions the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I believe that it should remain an executive decision.
312
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in the arguments against that approach that it would be difficult to devise a judicial process that was justiciable. It would be impossible, for example, to reveal to the defence at that stage of the examination the security evidence that would lead the Home Secretary to make the decision for the extension. I do not believe that that is an appropriate solution. I believe that our derogation is correct.
I used the power of exclusion several times. I used it in the case to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred. The case involved someone who was accused of terrorism in this country. He went on trial and was found not guilty. On the same day, I excluded him. I was attacked for that. He was found not guilty by the British courts, but I excluded him because I believed that there was evidence that he was likely to engage in terrorist activities. He went back to Northern Ireland and was killed with three other terrorists engaged in an attack on the Coalisland police station. I believe, therefore, that these difficult decisions are sometimes necessary. That is why I hope that the House supports the order.
Mr. Clive Soley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Baker: No. I shall sit down shortly.
I understand the difficulty that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are in. I have not tried to depict the hon. Member for Sedgefield, or indeed the Labour party, as soft on terrorism. Terrorist activities are not lessened in our country. Look at the number of arrests that have been made in the past few months—I warmly congratulate the police and security forces on effecting those arrests—after the Downing street declaration. Cells in this country are still operating, planning to maim, kill and destroy. Terrorists do not have debates such as this. They do not debate whether there should be a stay of execution when the bullets are passed out and when they are told to kill their victims. They do not decide whether there should be an extension of interrogation when torturing somebody for more than 48 hours, or less than that.
I would not say that any Government must put themselves to the level of terrorists, but Governments must make difficult decisions. In this area, those decisions are the most difficult. Because of the way in which I saw the powers operated by my colleagues and by me, I believe that the decisions were conducted fairly and properly. I do not believe that injustice was done. Indeed, I believe that the security of the country was greater because of them.
5.13 pm
Mr. David Trimble: Before launching into what has obviously been the controversial point in the debate so far, I should restate the position of the Ulster Unionist party. We support the legislation. We believe that it is necessary, and that it is necessary this evening for the House to renew the legislation. The only issue that is before the House is whether the Act in its present form should be renewed. We support that. None the less, I wish to say a little on the two items that have been discussed so far.
To a certain extent, I agree with some of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). That is nothing new. If hon. Members look at our contribution to the debate last year, they will see that we have some concerns about the exclusion orders and the

313
way in which the seven-day detention power is authorised. We feel that there are matters that can be looked at. I have no doubt that the seven-day power is needed. I do not wish hon. Members to misunderstand that. I am not suggesting in any way that there should be a reduction in the power to detain people for that period.
It is interesting to look at the statistics. Looking at the United Kingdom as a whole, of the 495 extensions, nearly half have exceeded the four-day period—the period that the European Court fastened on in the Brogan case—thus showing that there is a need to go beyond that period. Some 66 detentions went the full seven days. It is interesting that, in Northern Ireland, full seven-day detentions were only 12 per cent. of the total detentions, but the figure was much higher in Great Britain. Of the 29 extensions in England and Wales, nine went the full seven days; of the 10 extensions in Scotland, four went the full seven days. That underlines the need to retain the power to extend detentions for up to seven days in some cases.
We then come to the problem presented by the decision of the European Court on Brogan. Brogan is the problem. I do not think that the Brannigan case gets us out of the difficulty. It has been the policy of the Government over the years, rightly so, to try to frame anti-terrorist legislation to avoid the need to derogate and to restrict derogations to situations where they are absolutely essential, and not derogate as a matter of course. Although the European Court upheld derogation of the Brannigan case, I do not think that we can be satisfied with that. If we can find a way to meet the problem, we should seriously look at it.
Article 5(3) of the European convention refers to people being
"brought promptly before a Judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial onwer."
We should focus on that phrase.
I am disappointed that, so far in the debate this afternoon, hon. Members are assuming that the alternative to the present procedure is one involving, say, a High Court judge and court proceedings as they are commonly understood in this jurisdiction. That is not the way to proceed. I quite agree with people who say that one cannot involve the judges in the normal way and that one cannot have a hearing in which the intelligence material on which the police desire to detain a person is disclosed to the defendant and the defence adviser, but what is wrong is that people are thinking of conventional court proceedings.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) pointed in his brief intervention to the way out of that. He referred to the continent and France, where people are detained for much longer periods. Those detentions are entirely consistent with the European convention, because they are authorised by a judicial officer. They are not authorised as a result of normal court proceedings on the English common law model, with someone having his or her day in court and barristers and solicitors being briefed on either side; a French juge d' instruction operates on a dossier that contains material, some of which would be admissible in an English court and some of which would not. He considers the dossier and looks at the matters.
That is the sort of proceedings of which we should think. We should think in terms of creating a procedure whereby a judicial officer takes a decision on the basis of a file, which may contain intelligence material disclosed to him and to no one else. It is not the normal court proceedings. It may not strike hon. Members steeped in
314
English common law tradition as court proceedings, but it would satisfy the European convention, because it would be a decision taken by a person who is independent of the judiciary and accustomed to analysing the material. That solution, which was hinted at by Lord Colville in earlier reports, should be considered. It is not that foreign to proceedings in at least one of the jurisdictions in the United Kingdom—Scotland, with its procurator fiscal—which bear so many similarities to the continental systems.
A problem arises because the European Court is staffed mainly by people who operate against the background of a civil law tradition; we are in difficulties with regard to that. There is no problem in adapting our procedures to fit in with my proposed solution.
Reference has been made to the statement by Lord Waddington, then Home Secretary, in 1989. I have examined that statement, and it seems to me that Lord Waddington was not willing to consider the radical new procedure that I have just outlined—that he, too, was thinking in terms of conventional court proceedings. In my view, such proceedings would be inappropriate in this context.
I hinted briefly at my proposed solution in a speech in our equivalent debate last year. I have spelt it out in a little more detail today, because I do not think that hon. Members have considered it sufficiently. I do not know whether the review conducted some years ago, to which the Home Secretary referred, considered such a procedure. Lord Waddington's 1989 statement does not hint at any consideration on his part. I shall be interested to hear whether any reference is made to it in the Home Secretary's winding-up speech.
There has also been some controversy about exclusion orders. I am happy to reiterate the stance that my hon. Friends and I have taken over the years. We consider exclusion orders to be objectionable in principle. I refer to exclusion orders that operate within the United Kingdom, banning people from one part of it and—as hon. Members have said—creating a form of internal exile. We do not object to orders that exclude people from the United Kingdom; we think those quite appropriate. Such action is possible under immigration law, and this legislation simply adds to and reinforces that power.
Exclusion within the United Kingdom—which, as I have said, we find inherently objectionable—is not new or unique, as some hon. Members seem to believe; it repeats legislation introduced in the 1930s. At the time of an IRA bomb campaign launched in 1938, the House responded by introducing legislation that provided for a form of exclusion order. In 1974, faced with another emergency, civil servants in the Home Office blew the dust off the 1939 files and whipped out the legislation again. Wartime controls on movement across the Irish sea were also fairly stringent, but those were slightly different circumstances.
I think that exclusion orders are the lazy way of proceeding: because a precedent was there, people reached for it. There is some merit in examining other possibilities. It occurs to me—although this thought may not be welcome to other hon. Members—that exclusion orders operate on exactly the same legal basis as the power to intern. In terms of the factors that must be considered and the nature of the decision involved, there is no difference between making an exclusion order and internment. It could be said that exclusion orders mean treating Northern

315
Ireland as one huge internment camp. Some of my hon. Friends are asking, "If we are to take a decision of that nature, why not go the whole hog?"
Another suggested procedure is more detailed surveillance. That is worth looking into, although I do not think that it would be possible without compulsory identity cards, to which some hon. Members would object. We do not share that objection and think that the option should be seriously considered. In any event, however, the European Union may compel the Government to act, and some interesting proposals have been made in that context.
I noted with interest the hon. Member for Sedgefield's observation that no major review had been conducted for seven years. I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the current review, although I do not wish to go into the details. In the past, I have complimented Lord Colville on his reviews, which I have found very helpful but, as the hon. Member for Sedgefield pointed out, those reviews operate within the framework of reference provided by the existing legislation, to determine simply whether powers have been exercised within the terms of the Act. There has been no fundamental reconsideration of the legislation as a whole since 1987, and I see some merit in remedying that.
I would not want such a review to be conducted purely in terms of the prevention of terrorism Act; I think that it should examine anti-terrorism legislation generally. It should take up a point made repeatedly by my party—that there is considerable merit in consolidating the PTA and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. It is surely anomalous to retain two separate systems, given that they interlock and cannot be considered in isolation.
For example, the arrest power in the PTA is the primary arrest power used in Northern Ireland to deal with terrorism. The vast majority of detention extensions are made in Northern Ireland with regard to Northern Ireland terrorism. I hope that it is in order for me to refer to amendments that have been moved in the current Committee stage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. The Government have moved an amendment modifying both the PTA and the emergency provisions Act; they have moved new clauses that bring aspects of the latter into the former. That shows the extent to which the two codes overlap.
Never is a single, comprehensive code more necessary than when matters relating to terrorist financing are dealt with. I find it amazing—as did Lord Colville, who commented repeatedly on the fact—that we have two separate codes to deal with that. One relates only to Northern Ireland, the other to England and Wales—as if people thought that the terrorists had not learnt how to move money from London to Belfast, or from London or Belfast to the Isle of Man, the Channel islands or elsewhere. Of course they can do that, and we need more comprehensive legislation to deal with the position.
Page 18 of Mr.Rowe's report refers briefly to the channel tunnel, suggesting that it might enable terrorists to move in and out of the United Kingdom. Of course we should be concerned about that possibility, but we should also be concerned about the tunnel's being a potential target for terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Member for
316
Strangford (Mr. Taylor) mentioned that in a recent debate, referring to what I suppose could be called the Irish dimension. This, too, should be taken seriously.
The Home Secretary referred briefly to the Downing street declaration, describing it as imaginative. The word that comes to mind—particularly given our experience of the declaration—is "fantasy", rather than "imagination". At the time of the declaration, nearly three months ago, the comment was made—on behalf of both Governments—that if terrorists failed to accept the opportunity that the declaration gave them, there would have to be a governmental response and a security response. We have now been waiting nigh on three months; it is obvious that the terrorists will not accept the challenge of the Downing street declaration and abandon their campaign.
It is also obvious that the terrorists are engaged in stringing the Government along. I recall the Prime Minister visiting Belfast before Christmas, and saying very firmly that he would not be strung along by the terrorists. But he has been, and he still is. How much longer will Her Majesty's Government allow themselves to be suckered by the terrorists? How much longer will they allow themselves to be strung along? When will there be an appropriate response? When will the Government screw up their nerve to act? They must act; they cannot allow the present situation to continue.
Specific legislative measures are necessary. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is present. He will recall that in May last year the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary took the unusual step of calling publicly for certain changes in the law. I was informed recently that the Secretary of State was still thinking about those matters. I respectfully suggest that he has had long enough to think and should now be able to make up his mind. He may wish to consider some of the measures requested by the Chief Constable as an appropriate response to the current position.
As well as changes in the law, however, we need a change of policy. We need a clear and effective security policy directed at terrorism. It is not a matter of giving the terrorists deadlines; it is simply a matter of acting. That action will have to be sustained by an appropriate political approach designed to disappoint the terrorists, not encourage them. I am sorry to say that far too many of the Government's action in the past year have, in fact, encouraged terrorism and been a disappointment to politics.
Finally, the Home Secretary referred to what is called "loyalist terrorism". It is something that we abhor and condemn. There has been an increase in loyalist terrorism in the past few years, which is something we regret and wish had not happened. I am not providing excuses or justifications for it, but it is important to note that, over the years, there has been inverse relationship between incidents of loyalist terrorism and the level of confidence in the Government.
I can think of nothing that the Government have done in the past year that has increased confidence in their intentions and policies, but I can think of many things that have reduced confidence. I do not regard the Downing street declaration as the biggest problem in this respect. The biggest problem, and what has caused most dismay among my constituents, was the revelation of what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was pleased to call "contacts" between the Government and the Provisional

317
IRA—I believe that another word would be a more accurate description. Such contacts have significantly reduced the level of confidence.
I fear that, by their actions in the past few months, the Government have been sowing the wind. I hope that there will be no whirlwind. I appeal to all those who might be contemplating terrorist activities not to engage in them. I do not wish anything that I have said to be regarded as giving comfort to anyone involved, because my party condemns and abhors such terrorism. The Government have to think seriously about their responsibility in these matters. We wish to see terrorism defeated. We shall support the legislation tonight, but we see no good reason why consideration should not also be given to the details of the legislation and to ways in which they could perhaps be modified and improved to increase support for the legislation in the House.
5.31 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I listened carefully to what he said and I agree with much of what he said. In a moment I shall briefly pick up on one or two of his observations.
Some repetitiveness inevitably characterises these debates. As has been said, this is the fifth time that we have debated the renewal order, and the ancestry of the debate goes back 20 years. More seasoned participants adopt a well entrenched position. I want to avoid repetitiveness as much as possible and develop primarily a matter that has today received little attention. However, in passing, I throw out a comment to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I listened with great care to the thesis that he propounded and I assure him that I do not for one moment doubt the absolute sincerity of his opposition to terrorism. However, his argument fails to convince.
I share the conclusion offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who has just left his seat, that the hon. Member for Sedgefield gives the impression that he is concerned primarily about watching his back and maintaining party unity. He does not convince us that the review of the type that he seeks is justified because the issues with which he is concerned are mainly those of the Executive, not the judiciary.
As for the Rowe report, I shall pass briefly over the emotive and controversial issues of exclusion orders, detention and the extension of detention except that I shall pick up on a theme raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I do not share his negative assessment of exclusion orders. I noted with interest that on page 7 of the report Mr. Rowe writes:
"The general view expressed to me … is that the exclusion order is a useful device in the prevention of terrorism."
I share that view because I believe that the value of exclusion orders lies largely in the fact that, when executed, they disrupt the command and communication structures of terrorist units. Without those command and communication structures being effective, the units cannot operate. In addition, the man or woman who is excluded becomes a marked person and it is then that much harder for a terrorist organisation to make use of him or her.
I wholeheartedly accept what the report has to say about detention orders and the extension of them. Page 14 of the report states:
"My conclusion is that the power of extension of detention is necessary, and it should continue".
318
I am reassured by the argument that he summarises. He finds compatibility between the Act and article 15 of the European convention on human rights which refers to the exceptional circumstances of a
"public emergency threatening the life of a nation".
Also in passing, I mention video/audio recording. Page 14 of the report states:
"The RUC officers who have experience of investigation of terrorist offences express the view that their efforts would be impaired by a recording of interviews as suspects would be less ready to co-operate and give information."
I share that opinion. I acknowledge that it is a controversial issue and it is one to which Mr. Rowe said that he would return later.
It is important to realise the potential dangers of audio/video recording. One danger is that the identity of the interrogating officer might become known to terrorist organisations. Secondly, if a detainee co-operates and his co-operation becomes known to terrorist organisations, his family might be threatened. Of course, any public availability of interviews with detainees could well reveal intelligence sources and damage further security operations. One must tread very carefully indeed before embarking on compulsory video/audio recording.
The issue that I wish to emphasise is one that has received very little attention today. It is the chapter—if one can call it that—on how to attack terrorist funds. I regretted the fact that Mr. Rowe's comments on the matter were not more detailed. My main concern is that perhaps not enough has been achieved by the powers contained in the Act. On page 19 of his report Mr. Rowe states:
"The first batch of sections, on contributions and forfeitures, have not as yet produced many prosecutions."
That puzzles me because I was not aware of any successful prosecutions. Unless I am misreading the appendix to the report, I can see no reference to statistics of that nature. It might be helpful next year if statistics and details of what is happening in terms of attacking terrorist funds were added to the report.
Mr. Rowe nevertheless concludes on page 19:
"They"—
the powers of the Act relevant for attacking terrorist funds—
"are not otiose; and they should be maintained as a significant part of the Act."
He identifies two reasons for that. The first is as follows:
"Voluntary disclosures under section 12 are a regular event; there were 300 in 1993 … and the disclosures led to useful information."
On the following page, Mr. Rowe says that the machinery of section 17 and schedule 7
"have uncovered racketeering schemes (which fund terrorism), and have disrupted the flow of money to terrorists."
Quality intelligence and the disruption of the flow of funds to terrorists are important achievements but they are not the primary purpose of the Act. The primary purpose of the powers is the confiscation of terrorist funds which, it seems, is not being achieved.
I am told that it is currently relatively easy to identify a commercial or financial enterprise in which terrorists may be involved. It is quite easy to identify that funds are going from such an enterprise to terrorists. The difficulty lies in producing the evidence which would convince a court that the funds that are being extracted from that operation are being used for terrorist purposes. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take note that that issue should receive serious attention.

319
I should have thought it advisable either to assume that a known terrorist is using at least a portion of what he or she draws from commercial activity to promote terrorism, or to reverse the onus of proof so that commercial activities of known terrorists are assumed to be used to finance terrorism, unless he or she can prove otherwise. That point is worthy of further consideration.
Finally, perhaps the point most worthy of mention is that the renewal order should receive our full support. I regard it as an essential weapon in the armoury of the fight against terrorism.
5.40 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The procedure which Parliament has in place for the annual review of this extraordinary legislation, which curbs normal liberties to which we adhere and regard as part of our civilisation, is necessary and important. It is important because it gives the House the opportunity to consider the justification for its continuance and to put forward any considerations that have arisen since it was last reviewed, which may lead to a change of view about its relevance and importance to the task to which it must contribute.
Since the past debate on the renewal of the PTA, the general picture of terrorism in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland must still give rise to deep concern. In Great Britain, there have been 49 terrorist incidents, three deaths and 124 persons injured. In Northern Ireland, there have been 730 incidents, 84 deaths and 826 people injured. In those circumstances, it must be said that terrorism remains a present threat, which we cannot in any way diminish.
The debate allows a further opportunity to pay tribute to all those in the armed services and in the security services who take enormous personal risks on behalf of us all and to whose judgment and advice we must pay especial attention.
Since we last considered the order, there have been two matters which merit consideration in the debate. The first is the Downing street declaration. It is with that and the Sinn Fein's response to it especially in mind, that I regard the initiative of the Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), as neither timely nor appropriate. His proposal that we should—
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman is isolated and completely out of step.
Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Member wishes to intervene, I would be happy to give way.
Mr. Mandelson: Absolutely not.
Mr. Maclennan: I heard him say, and perhaps the Official Report has recorded, that he said that I was out of step. My view, which is widely shared, is that the proposal that there should be an inquiry is untimely and would send precisely the wrong signals to Sinn Fein, which is plainly not taking steps to distance itself from its military wing, and which rejected as recently as at its conference of the past weekend, the opportunity to pick up the challenge to renounce terrorism, put to it by no one more honourable than the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). When Sinn Fein is showing no willingness to do that, it seems inappropriate that the House should
320
communicate any doubts about the necessity of continuing the battle against terrorism and of using those instrumentalities which the security forces in the country regard as appropriate for that task.
It is extremely unfortunate that we have not seen more progress towards the ending of terrorism in the past year, which may have made it appropriate to consider the effectiveness of especial aspects of the PTA. I am afraid that it is clear that those who are in charge of the security of our citizens have not in any way modified their view of the necessity of the Act in all its aspects.
That view is supported robustly and clearly by Mr. John Rowe in his report. It is playing with words to suggest that it is not any part of his job to consider the appropriateness or necessity of the measures contained in the Act. He quite explicitly states that the Act must be continued and makes no exception to his general view in the context of his consideration of its particular components.
Mr. Howard: On that point, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in previous years, points have been put to Mr. Rowe's predecessors on the scope of powers and the need for them, as well as the way in which the powers work in a practical fashion, and that, in the parliamentary answer which I gave, observations were invited to be submitted to Mr. Rowe when I announced his appointment? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the proper course for the Labour party to have taken, had it been serious about its intention of having the points which were raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield considered by an independent person in the context of an independent review, was to put them to Mr. Rowe?
Mr. Maclennan: That is a perfectly reasonable assumption. It was open to the Labour party to raise the points if it had thought it appropriate. It would have been open for it to ask Mr. Rowe to consider whether a wider inquiry, involving more people, would have assisted him in the discharge of his task. I see no evidence that the Labour party chose to do that.
Whereas in previous years I may have been more sympathetic to the Labour party's proposals—on previous occasions I have also spoken of the desirability of an all-party approach to such matters—its current proposal is completely untimely and remarkably inapposite. It is not only inapposite in respect of the general operation of the Act, but in respect of the especial provisions to which the hon. Member for Sedgefield drew attention.
With regard to the extension of detention, I was among those who argued most strongly in the House with the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Foreign Secretary that steps should be taken to seek to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan case. I talked at length with the right hon. Gentleman about the practicality of so doing. I am certain that it is right that the extension of detention, under the terms of the Act, amounts to an executive decision and is not a purely judicial matter.
In order to try to bring the matter within the European convention, because I see how the fact that we have had to seek to abrogate our obligations under the convention could lead to our being put in the international dock of world opinion, I was prepared to go to great lengths to discover whether there were practical alternatives.
However, with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Upper Bann, to whose views on such matters I always listen with great attention, I am not greatly attracted by the

321
proposal that we should create a new executive role for judges—or at least, an executive role to be discharged in the name of a judge. It seems to me that either there is an executive procedure or there is a judicial procedure. The hybrid proposal made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann might satisfy certain civilian lawyers on the continent, but it would not alter one whit the reality of what happens.
The practical objections that have been raised are profound and important. Having heard the views of those charged with the ultimate responsibility, not least those of the Foreign Secretary, whom I believe gave the matter considerable attention, I believe that the Government have taken the correct course.
I hope that it will not be necessary for us to continue with the provisions much longer, but that must depend on the success of the war against terrorism. I feel fortified in holding that view by the Brannigan and McBride case, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned. That case makes it plain that the European Court of Human Rights has understood and accepted the case for derogation, and considers that our action is entirely in line with the European convention.
It is extremely unfortunate that—to use the words of the court—there is a
"public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
However, in the year of the Bishopsgate bomb in the heart of the City and many other appalling episodes, not least the Warrington killing, it is hard to quarrel with the view expressed by the court. So, with great regret, I see no option but to accept that the powers to extend detention for five days beyond d the original 48 hours must be continued.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield rested part of his case for review on the exclusion orders, but I have discussed the practical effects with senior security officers in this country and I have been wholly persuaded by what they said about the practical necessity of retaining exclusion orders.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke about detailed surveillance as a possible alternative to exclusion orders, but it appears to me that detailed surveillance is what exclusion orders may make possible, certainly in the Province. I doubt whether without exclusion orders detailed surveillance in Great Britain would be possible —whether it would be within the capacity of our security services to carry out effective surveillance of all the people currently subject to exclusion orders.
I hope that we shall be able to return to a consensual position on this matter as soon as may be. I hope that the Labour party will reconsider its position; it is only right that it should do so. The House and the country would be reassured if that party could accept that, notwithstanding the peculiarity and exceptional nature of the measures, it is necessary to give them our endorsement for another year —another year in which great political developments may alter the face of terrorism in our country.
5.54 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: Listening to the debate, I feel that we should spare a thought for the families of the victims—the widows, the mothers and the children—who have had to listen to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seemingly putting the terrorist before the civil liberties of their loved ones. [Interruption. ] It is all very well for Opposition Members to say, "For God's sake," but all I can say to them is: think of those whose lives we are still trying to save and of those who have already lost their lives.
322
I do not believe that in, his heart of hearts, the hon. Member for Sedgefield really wants to stop terrorism. If he really meant what he says, he would pull out all the stops and close all the loopholes to prevent terrorists from crossing the country to carry out their evil deeds. He gave us a series of crocodile tears.
I shiver slightly to think that the Labour party really imagines that it could one day be a party of government. Could it really be so irresponsible as to defy the advice of the police and the security forces and open the floodgates to seriously active terrorists? That is the body of people we are really discussing. The fact that the Labour party is carrying out that policy to satisfy its own extreme elements is sickening and appalling.
As John Rowe pointed out in his independent report on the PTA, the whole point of the prevention of terrorism Act is to prevent an attack before it happens. I find it spurious that we should be faced with a smokescreen dismissing that respected report, as if we could string out events and find another report better tailored to the interests of the Opposition. Mr. Rowe emphasised how important it was to deter terrorists:
"to make it more difficult for them to put their plans into action".
He added that resulting intelligence had enabled the security forces to discover a bomb factory, and so to prevent bombing incidents.
The protection of law-abiding citizens should be put before arguments about the civil liberties of terrorists. What about the civil liberties of the victims? I have in my pocket something that I choose to keep with me all the time —a piece of shrapnel that I picked up in a Dungannon housing estate that had been blasted by an IRA mortar attack. What could be more significant and memorable than the sharpness of that nasty little item?
We need to remember the catalogue of incidents. I am grateful that the Home Secretary reminded us clearly of all the events in the past year. On the mainland of Great Britain alone three people have been killed and 124 injured. The police in Great Britain alone—this takes no account of incidents in Northern Ireland—engaged in anti-terrorist operations and recovered 2.5 tonnes of explosives and 400 weapons. We must think of the catalogue of disaster and tragedy that could have followed if the police had not been able to uncover those items and if they had been inhibited by the lack of a prevention of terrorism Act.
If the Labour party were serious about being tough on crime, it would stop whingeing and twisting to please its own side. Turning internal exile and exclusion orders for terrorists into injury to a person's liberty completely misses the point.
Mr. Rowe also said:
"There are strong arguments in favour of retaining the exclusion order. Terrorist activity continues with as much ferocity as ever."
As he points out, a significant part of the Provisional IRA campaign takes place in Great Britain, and acts of terrorism perpetrated in Great Britain are regarded by the IRA as highly important. An exclusion order made against a terrorist who has expertise and experience makes it more difficult for the PIRA to use that man or woman over here.
Arguments in favour of civil rights and the liberty of the citizen must be balanced by the threat of terrorism, which is as great as ever. There is a high risk of death or injury from these people, and it is our duty to save lives whenever we can.

323
We should show our gratitude to the security forces —to the Army, the Metropolitan police, to special branch and to the national joint unit based in New Scotland Yard. We should be especially grateful to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has to bear the brunt of this work. Indeed, I have seen the great dedication with which its members carry it out. I have seen the attention to detail given by the security forces: they check, check and check again. They maintain an enduring vigilance.
I have visited Castlereagh police station and discussed the work of the police officers who deal with terrorist suspects. I endorse the remarks in this respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who referred to page 14 of the report, on the subject of closed circuit television monitoring of interviews. It would be well nigh impossible to record those interrogations, because that would seriously inhibit terrorists who might otherwise provide vital information.
In the fight against terrorism we depend on intelligence; very largely, that intelligence comes from the people who are interviewed.
Mr. Mallon: I note the hon. Lady's point. Is she saying that it is legitimate to subject someone to interrogation as a means of obtaining intelligence about someone else?
Lady Olga Maitland: It is. We should follow up every line of interrogation in order to save lives. Not unusually, after some days of silence suspects suddenly decide to talk. What they say is often most revealing—it can save many lives—but that would never happen if the suspect felt that his colleagues might discover the fact that he had talked about their activities—if he believed that he and his family might be dead within days. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said, the lives of interrogation officers would also be seriously put at risk.
The police need skill and patience to deal with difficult suspects, who sit in silence for days on end. They sing tunes, they deliberately perform degrading acts in front of the interviewing officers as a way of insulting them and the law, yet we expect the highest professionalism from the RUC as its members continue to perform their difficult tasks.
I have nothing but praise for the security forces, who do so much at such great personal risk to save so many lives. I deplore the attitude of anyone who chooses to vote against renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. Doing that, I fear, could send the wrong message to Sinn Fein and the IRA, whose members might believe that they could string us along again and attempt all sorts of devious machinations. They would hope that by continuing in that vein they might be given succour by the Labour party if that dreadful day ever came to pass when it became the party of government. I believe that this debate will ensure that the public will vote again and again for a party with a responsible attitude to terrorism.
6.4 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I am one of those whose attitude, by definition, will be deplored by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), because I am going to vote against renewal of the Act, just as I have always done.
324
I detected a remarkable contradiction in a point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and by two subsequent speakers. Enthusiastically they support this prevention of terrorism legislation, which has been on the statute book for 20 years; at the same time, they question the efficacy and wisdom of the joint declaration, which has been in existence for two and a half months. That is to ignore the central point about the joint declaration, which is that it was not written for Sinn Fein or the IRA, or for the loyalist paramilitary groupings. It was written for all the people on the island of Ireland. It embodies a set of principles that form a basis on which agreement can be sought. Hon. Members who question the declaration in this contradictory fashion clearly misunderstand its purpose.
I have listened to a number of these debates over the years. Today the old allegation has been repeated again —that those who oppose the legislation are at best misguided and at worst soft on terrorism. I find that objectionable, because that line of thought sees this type of emergency legislation not for what it is but as a litmus test for sound, anti-terrorist credentials. As the Evening Standard of 10 March observed, this legislation is used as a litmus test to establish who is soft on terrorism and who has sound anti-terrorist credentials.
I will take no lessons from anyone on the subject of terrorism and violence, or my opposition to them. I have lived in the midst of terrorism all my life, and I spent 25 years working in politics against those involved in violence —not from the cosiness of a television studio or a forum such as this House but on the streets and in the towns. I know what it is to have my name and face plastered on walls and to be described as an informer and a traitor—as someone worthy of execution. That is why I need no lectures about being strongly against terrorism. Nor do I need lectures on the rights of Members of this House to question any legislation.
I believe that this legislation must be questioned, first, because in three fundamental respects it deviates from normal law. It is therefore right and essential to criticise it. It has been effectively criticised by many speakers, not least the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) today. Such deviations from the norm must certainly be subjected to questioning.
The legislation should also be questioned on the ground that it involves a derogation from the European convention on human rights, in respect of the seven-day detention period—a provision supposed to be implemented only in time of war or other emergency. That in itself is reason enough to question the Act, and I intend to do just that.
I also question the Act because ours is the only country in Europe that allows for internal exile—a curious way for the Conservative and Unionist party to express its profound commitment to the Union. What does that tell us about attitudes to nationalists and unionists in Northern Ireland, and about attitudes to unionism? The Conservatives' point of view seems to be, "We will have your votes, thank you, when we need them, but you can have the terrorists and all that that entails." It is an affront to all the people of the north of Ireland that this type of internal exile should be permitted. Irrespective of its merits or otherwise in legal terms, the sheer political implications to which it gives rise demand that we question it.
The third reason is that its application and implementation has created a context within which appalling miscarriages of justice can take place, and have taken place. We should not overlook the context created by

325
emergency legislation. Since the implementation of the prevention of terrorism Act 20 years ago, at least 15 cases brought under its terms have been deemed appalling miscarriages of justice—not by me, or by nationalist opinion, but by the highest courts in this land. That must give rise to disquiet within every hon. Member who values the highest standards and integrity of the judicial and legal process.
I believe that the Act does something else. There has been an abject failure to bring to justice those responsible for the miscarriages of justice, because the attitude of mind that we have heard from the Floor of the House today does not allow those responsible to face and be subject to justice themselves.
I will give examples. In the Birmingham case, the powers given to the police under the legislation in effect corrupted the people who were charged with upholding the law. Hon. Members should not take my word for it—that has been established beyond doubt in terms of the decisions made within their own organisation. The same applies in the Guildford case. The most appalling part of it all in terms of the miscarriages of justice is the consequent impossibility of charging and convicting those who did carry out those crimes.
The imperative within the legislation and its urgency means that, in effect, the people who carried out the Birmingham and Guildford bombings and the other murders in the Judith Ward case are walking scot free. That is not as a result of the legislation, but because of the context in which the legislation placed the police and the process of justice, and the determination to get results.
Mr. Howard: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely and with great interest. I am sure that he would not want to give a misleading impression. Will he accept that the powers which we are discussing were not used in either the Birmingham or the Guildford case?
Mr. Mallon: I accept that readily, but I am talking about the context which it creates where there is an imperative on the police to get results. That, and the pressure of public opinion, was responsible for a lot of the reprehensible action. We must guard against that in all types of emergency legislation.
Perhaps one of the most pertinent insights into the retention of this legislation in its present form was given by the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, in 1983. He gave two reasons for the retention of the powers of detention. The powers acted
"first, as a deterrent to persons other than the people who have been detained".
The implication of that, and the enormity of that implication, is that detaining people and taking away their freedom without any judicial input for up to seven days should be a legitimate means of deterring other people from crime. The fact that that was said by the then Home Secretary seems to be an appalling statement for someone who was in charge of the implementation of the highest standards of law.
The second reason which Sir Leon Brittan gave, and which was reiterated by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, was that it
"enabled information to be obtained that was of direct value in the battle against terrorism, even though it did not lead to action against the people concerned."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 55–56.]
Is it right to detain innocent people for the purpose of obtaining information from them?
326
The enormity of that can be seen in the figures for the north of Ireland. In 1993, 1,641 people were detained, and 379 people were charged. That means that 1,262 people were not charged and were released in the terms of the law of this country that they were innocent until proven guilty. I wonder how many of those 1,262 people were being used as a trawl for information and how many were being questioned while detained on reasonable suspicion that they may have been involved in and concerned with terrorist activity. That is the corrosive effect that such legislation can have on those who are charged with implementing and upholding the law.
Exclusion orders are perhaps the most odious powers accorded to the Home Secretary through the Act. Great play has been made of the fact that the number of exclusion orders currently in force is the lowest at the end of any year since 1975. Let me say that 71 exclusion orders is 71 too many.
Leaving aside the dubious legal ethics of such orders, do the Government believe that by imposing an exclusion order they are solving the problem? At most, they are shifting the problem to Northern Ireland, where they seem content to let it fester. In any event, where is the redress of an innocent person who is condemned to exclusion on the say-so of the Home Secretary? Where is the fundamental right of a person to present his or her side of the story? The Home Secretary does not need a burden of proof, and he does not even have to state his reason for excluding someone. There is no possibility that a person excluded can realistically challenge his exclusion. If ever there was a patent need for a review of this legislation, that surely must be it.
I have one simple question for all hon. Members: by and large, who are the people who are subject to this legislation in Britain? Lorry drivers, ordinary people going on their holidays, young people who just happen to wear jeans and have long hair and people going about their business normally, as any person would or should. Such people make up the vast majority of those who are detained for short periods under this legislation. They have the stigma of detention on them when they return home, and we know what that can mean in Northern Ireland terms.
Let me refer to the extension of detention. The power to extend a person's detention under the Act is one which I think is manifestly exercised in a rather automatic way by the Home Secretary. It causes traumatic experiences for the detainee, who may not have had an opportunity to speak to anyone other than the police for 48 hours, not to mention a lawyer.
In 1993, not a single application for extension submitted by the police in Britain to the Home Secretary was refused. There were 29 in all, and that is more than double the number in 1992. That strongly suggests the need at minimum for a more rigorous examination of the applications for extension. The review of Mr. Rowe states that, when the Royal Ulster Constabulary apply to the Northern Ireland Office for an extension of detention, the usual explanation offered for the request is "reliable intelligence".
The fact that 77 per cent. of detentions in Northern Ireland do not lead to criminal charges must cast some doubt on the "reliable intelligence" which is offered by the RUC. Although the reviewer of the Act states that he could find no correlation between the length of time specified in the request for extension or detention and the time needed, he explains that by referring to the uncertainty of forensic

327
evidence. However, elsewhere in the review is the assertion that the police have built up considerable expertise in that very area. Which are we to believe?
I suggest that applications to extend a person's detention—as with the reviews of exclusion orders—are akin to a cosmetic exercise which has been designed to paper over the gross abuses of personal freedom which are allowed by the Act.
I shall not go into detail on the right to a solicitor, but I remind the Home Secretary of one case. It is the case of a constituent of mine, a middle-aged man called Patrick Murphy, coming up to Christmas in 1992. He was an alcoholic. He did not remember where he was. He was charged on the say-so of a cab driver. He was identified and charged with bombings in London. If it had not been for the generosity of spirit of people in the Alcoholics Anonymous organisation, who went to the police after he had been charged and said that he was at a meeting that they held, his charge would have proceeded and he would have been in no position whatever to make a defence. That is another example of how this type of legislation can go so badly wrong.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that the procedures were a cosmetic exercise for covering up gross abuses of personal liberty. Will he accept from me that officials—I speak of the Northern Ireland jurisdiction—first subject applications to very careful scrutiny before they are referred to the Secretary of State or, in his absence, another Minister, and that it is certainly the practice to cut down on applications or even to refuse them completely? I do not have the statistics in my head, but I am well familiar with cases in which I have refused the full amount that has been requested. So to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that the procedure is a cosmetic exercise does great injustice to officials—I leave aside any concern for Ministers.
Mr. Mallon: I take the point that the Secretary of State makes. I could have put my point better. I should like to withdraw the word "cosmetic". I do that with the same grace as the Secretary of State has made the point to me. May I ask him to read into the record the number of times that he has refused requests for an extension on grounds which were sustainable by him? That is the point that I am trying to get at. I regret that I have used words in a way which would cast aspersions on both the Secretary of State and the officials involved. I adjust the wording accordingly. Nevertheless, I should like to see the figures.
The rate of charging worries me greatly. Yet another element of the Act which causes concern not only to people in Northern Ireland but to members of the legal profession is the very low rate of charging. That may seem strange coming from someone who argues from the point of view from which I argue. Of the 145 people detained in Britain in 1993, only 30, or less than a quarter, were subsequently charged. Let us remember that those 145 had been detained, so that the police had ample time and opportunity to question them at length.
When one considers that a total of 309 people were examined for more than one hour under the Act, one gets a truer picture of how low the charging rate is. Only 30 out
328
of the combined total of 354 means that fewer than 10 per cent. of those whom the police wanted to question were subsequently charged. I am trying to see what is the problem. Are detentions being made on a basis for which there is no reasonable suspicion that would lead to charges?
Mr. Stephen Day: Neither I nor, I am sure, anyone in the House doubts the hon. Gentleman's courage in facing terrorists and all their works. However, he gives the impression that his main concern is civil liberties. As one who has been on the receiving end of an IRA bomb and has been hospitalised as a result, as was my wife, I perceive the greatest threat to civil liberties to be terrorism itself. I feel that the hon. Gentleman is getting the balance wrong. I accuse him of no more than that. It is an important point that I wish he would take on board.
Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making it. It is a valid point. However, the real bulwark against terrorism and the means of defeating terrorism is not legislation such as this but the attitude that we can foster within the entire community. Of course I am concerned about civil liberties. They are the very basis of our society and the basis of that within our society which the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force seek to undermine. We should not facilitate them in that.
The position in Northern Ireland in 1993 was even more worrying in terms of charging. Out of a total of 1,641 people detained, 379 were charged. The significant point is that 445 people had their detention extended. I shall leave that question with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know that he will want to respond to it.
I pose the question whether the legislation, as it exists, can be properly accommodated within a civilised society without doing irreparable damage to the process of law, to the police and to those who are charged with enforcing the law. There must surely be a question over that. Will damage be done to the process of justice? Its highest standards and integrity have in the past been eroded by gross miscarriages of justice. Will it do damage to the body politic? Will it erode the proper conviction that the law, the courts, the police and legislators are there to protect people's rights, not diminish them; to defend the innocent, not to make him or her a potential subject of detention for the purpose of intelligence gathering? Lastly, will it do damage to society as a whole and the highest standards of civil liberties which are part and parcel of any decent society?
6.25 pm
Mr. Graham Riddick: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) expressed some indignation that his meetings with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had been leaked. I do not condone the leaking of the details of that meeting, but I find it somewhat ironic and not a little amusing that the Labour party is now suffering some embarrassment as a result of those leaks. We have seen the Labour party only too happy to take advantage of other leaks and play party politics with them. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is a pastmaster at using leaks from Government Departments to his party political advantage.
The history of the debate is clear enough. The Labour Government in 1974 introduced the prevention of terrorism Act. That followed some shocking a trocities, not

329
least the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombings. The Act was supported by the Conservative Opposition. In 1976, the Conservative party's support was required by the then Labour Government because 35 Labour Members of Parliament voted against the renewal of the PTA. That was a foretaste of things to come.
Until 1980 the Labour party supported the annual renewal. That was important because it is necessary to have a united, all-party response to terrorism. So what changed thereafter? Sadly, the threat posed by the terrorists did not recede. What changed was the political outlook of the Labour party. As we all know, it was hijacked by the left wing. Today, 14 years later, there is a sufficient number of left-wing Labour Members of Parliament who believe in Irish republicanism and who have enough power within the Labour party to stop the so-called modernisers, of whom the hon. Member for Sedgefield is a prime example, from swinging today's Labour party behind support for the renewal of PTA.
There is a clear message here for the electorate. While the left wing of the Labour party may be keeping its head down, it is clearly still a force to be reckoned with in the Labour party. Last year we had the shocking spectacle of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) travelling to the United States of America, of his own volition, to give evidence on behalf of a convicted terrorist and against the British Government, who sought that terrorist's extradition to the United Kingdom. That was disgraceful behaviour. It sent completely the wrong message to the terrorists and to many Irish Americans who, sadly, do not understand the position in Northern Ireland and believe that there is majority support there for the republican movement. The hon. Member for Brent, East contributed to that lack of understanding in America.
The truth is that the prevention of terrorism Act plays a most important role in the battle against terrorism. It is both vital and necessary, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has said. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already given us some figures of the number of people who were detained under the Act in Northern Ireland last year: 450 were detained for longer than 48 hours, of whom 114 were later charged with serious offences. In Great Britain 13 people were given long custodial sentences for serious terrorist offences, following detention under the Act.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield mentioned the concern expressed by the Ulster Unionists about exclusion orders. He also referred to the concern expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) about the lack of a judicial element in the authorisation of detention orders. Despite their concerns, however, they vote for the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and a failure to do so would send the wrong message.
Labour's failure to vote for renewal of the Act sends the wrong message. I will not claim that Labour is soft on terrorism, but if its members vote against the Act, on what I must say, having listened to the hon. Member for Sedgefield, are not very convincing grounds, it will suggest to the terrorists a certain lack of determination, will and unity on the part of the whole political establishment in the fight against terrorism.
I hope that the hon. Member will throw off the shackles of his own republican-leaning left wing and vote with us when we come to renew the Act this time next year. In the meantime, however, I am only too happy to vote for the renewal of the Act this evening.
6.31 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: Because of the shortage of time, and not because I want to be discourteous to the hon. Members who have already spoken, I hope that they will forgive me if I do not directly refer to their contributions, apart from the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) which I thought was pathetic and shoddy. But never mind, perhaps it is par for the course on this subject.
Very few people listening to the Home Secretary in the House today were present when the Labour Government introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act in 1974 in response to the bombings in Birmingham and Guildford. In the aftermath of those terrible atrocities and in response to justifiable public outrage, we rushed this emergency legislation through the House—I think it took 36 hours non-stop. At the time, practically every member of the Labour party, myself included, believed that the Act was a necessary but temporary measure. I voted for it and continued to do so.
The prevention of terrorism Act, however, has now been in existence for 20 years and self-evidently can no longer be called temporary. Provisions that in 1974 were felt to be justified as emergency, short-term measures cannot be justified as permanent features of a parliamentary democracy. I speak, in particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has done, of exclusion orders and of seven-day detention by executive order. Those powers threaten the very basis of a free and democratic society and this can only strengthen the paramilitaries.
We have opposed and continue to oppose the Act as presently constructed not only because of its corrosive effect on civil liberties but because it simply has not worked. After 20 years of the Act, Northern Ireland is internally the most politically violent unit in the European Union. The draconian powers that it contains have not prevented terrorism; if anything, they have created a vicious cycle of paramilitary violence and state repression which have become mutually reinforcing. That can only undermine the rule of law and the prospects for a political settlement in Northern Ireland.
It is for those reasons that the Labour party withdrew its support for the Act in 1983 and it is for those reasons that the Labour team thereafter has consistently articulated its objections to the use of seven-day detention without judicial review and the use of exclusion orders. It is a pity that it now becomes clear that the Government have rejected the offer by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield of bipartisanship on this important issue. The Government's decision to continue seven-day detention without judicial review means that Britain will have to derogate from its international obligations, which damages our reputation for integrity and the rule of law.
In the holding centres, detainees can be questioned without knowing what crime they are accused of and without the right to a solicitor for two days. To make matters worse, they are also denied the safeguard of audio-taping of interviews. When the Home Secretary replies to the debate, I should be grateful if he would inform the House if the taping experiment in England will cease at the end of 1994. If so, will he confirm that the experiment will be properly and independently evaluated? Now that the Royal Ulster Constabulary have had time to adjust to taping under the Police and Criminal Evidence

331
Act 1984, there can be no excuse for further delay in the introduction of taping for suspects detained under emergency legislation.
Several hon. Members mentioned Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's report. It is a pity that it is not before us today.
I am conscious of the shortage of time, but there is one issue that I wish to draw to the attention of the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and other hon. Members have spoken about the appalling consequences of exclusion orders. The House may recall that last year a young man by the name of John Matthews was returning from London to his home in Derry when he was arrested by security forces at Heathrow. John Matthews is a young graduate who could not find work in Northern Ireland; he came over to this country to live with his aunt and became a hospital porter. He was arrested under the prevention of terrorism Act and was held in police custody for seven days.
John Matthews was brought before a magistrate and charged with causing an explosion in the City of London that was likely to endanger life. He was accused of hijacking a taxi in north London and ordering the driver to take a bomb to Downing street. The taxi was abandoned in Holborn where it exploded without causing injury. John Matthews was then sent to Belmarsh prison as a category A remand prisoner and he remained there for 10 weeks.
I became involved in his case when members of Mr. Matthews' family came to see me. After a long and detailed discussion, they convinced me that their son had never been involved in IRA terrorism and was not a member of any terrorist organisation. I decided to go and see him in Belmarsh prison. I arrived with his uncle, to be informed by the prison authorities that he was about to be released and would shortly appear in the magistrates court.
On hearing this, his uncle and I went to the court, where we were joined by John Matthews's mother and father. When he was brought before the stipendiary magistrate —by coincidence, it was the same magistrate who had sent him to Belmarsh originally—the solicitor representing the Crown Prosecution Service announced that all charges were being withdrawn since, having reviewed the evidence available, it could not offer a realistic prospect of a conviction.
At that point the magistrate cross-examined the prosecuting solicitor, pointing out that, at the previous hearing, it had been indicated to him that the prosecution had identity and forensic evidence. It now appeared that there was no evidence whatever against John Matthews. The stipendiary magistrate then turned to John Matthews, in my hearing and in that of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and told John that he had received references of the utmost distinction about him and that he could leave the court without a stain on his character. Ten minutes later, he was rearrested and placed in a police cell and shortly afterwards the Home Secretary—the right hon. and learned Gentleman sitting across from me now—signed an exclusion order on him. It was made almost immediately after he had left the court a free man.
I have subsequently seen John Matthews in his home city of Derry. He is worried that the exclusion order placed on him and the subsequent comments by the Home Secretary could make him a target for loyalist paramilitaries. He has absolutely no chance of finding a job
332
and his movements are restricted to Northern Ireland. John Matthews and his lawyers have not been, and will not be, told the reason why the Home Secretary signed the exclusion order.
John Matthews's case is the most disgraceful example of the effect of the power invested in the Home Secretary. If it was thought that evidence could be prejudicial on national security grounds, why was not evidence brought forward and submitted to a judge in camera? If the Home Secretary had evidence against John Matthews, why did not the security services and the Home Secretary produce it in a court of law, which was never done?
Individuals subjected to exclusion orders have not been found guilty of any specific offence in a court of law. They have not even had the opportunity to hear the charges against them. By the end of 1993, 71 people remained the subject of exclusion orders, none of whom had the right to be told why they faced internal exile. The only examples of similar powers in 20th century Europe were those exercised by those notable democrats, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and General Franco—[Interruption.] They were the only such examples in contemporary 20th century history that I could find of such powers being used to place people in internal exile.
I profoundly regret the fact that the Government, particularly the Home Secretary, appear unable to accept the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield—especially as the Ulster Unionist party and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) of the Social Democratic and Labour party have said that both those parties would be willing to participate in a review. Even at this eleventh hour, I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider. If he does not, for the reasons so eloquently given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, we shall not vote to renew the order tonight.
6.44 pm
Mr. Howard: I cannot remember a debate in the House in which there has been such a marked contrast between the tone and approach of the Opposition spokesman who opened the debate and that of the Opposition spokesman who wound up the debate.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was at pains to suggest that all he wanted was a review. He seemed to be saying, "Let us have a review and consider whether there is a different way of achieving the objectives that have been sustained by the exclusion order and the extension of detention." The implication of what the hon. Gentleman was saying—he did not go so far as to say it —was, "If we can be persuaded that there is no other way of achieving those objectives, perhaps we might think again."
From the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) we heard —to use his own words—a sustained, angry denunciation of the powers contained in the Act in terms that made it absolutely clear that he would not be persuaded by a review. He does not want the powers at any price. That dichotomy lies at the heart of the Opposition's attitude to such matters—and has done so from the word go.
Mr. Blair: I shall repeat the offer to the Home Secretary so that there is no doubt about it. It is particularly important to try to unite the House tonight. We have asked for an independent full judicial review—we can discuss the circumstances of it—of those two aspects of the legislation. We wish the House to unite tonight. That has

333
been agreed by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), on behalf of the Ulster Unionists and by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on behalf of the SDLP. I make the Home Secretary that offer tonight with sincerity and ask him to respond in the same way.
Mr. Howard: I was merely describing the contrast in the approach taken by the hon. Member for Sedgefield and that taken by the hon. Member for Wigan. I shall discuss the review in a moment.
It has been a heated debate, touching on fundamental issues. The consequences of our decisions are serious and it is not surprising that passions should run deep. A case can be made for putting civil liberties first. That case was put by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. My hon. Friends and I reject it for precisely the reasons given by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—I quoted the language that he used in my opening speech—in the debates in the House in 1974. One can make a case—as did the hon. Member for Upper Bann —for querying some of the powers and reconsidering them while voting to support the powers in the order because they are necessary in the fight against terrorism.
I do not believe that one can make the sort of arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Sedgefield in his opening speech and then lead one's party in the Lobby against the renewal of the order. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said—he speaks with the benefit of grew. experience in such matters—we have difficult decisions before us. But government is about difficult decisions. If we were not prepared to face up to difficult decisions, we would face accusations of dereliction of duty—the accusation that I level against the Labour party this evening.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield repeated his request for an independent review. We have had an annual independent review, which is not confined to the way in which the Act works. It is open to the person conducting the review to consider representations on the extent of the powers. Some of Mr. Rowe's predecessors have received representations to that effect, considered them and included them in their report.
When I announced in a parliamentary answer in December the appointment of Mr. Rowe, I invited representations to be made to him. It was open to the hon. Member for Sedgefield and the Labour party that he represents to make representations to Mr. Rowe at that time in the context of the review that he was undertaking so that they could be given full and proper consideration. The hon. Gentleman should have suggested a review and offered his specific proposals then if he intended them to be taken seriously. The hon. Gentleman failed totally to take advantage of that opportunity. At the appropriate time, the Labour party made no approaches to Mr. Rowe, who was in charge of that review. That was what it should have done.
Mr. Blair: As has been said by other hon. Members, Mr. Rowe is not the person to conduct such a review. If the Home Secretary is interested in achieving agreement on the matter—I cannot see what possible objection there can be —he should agree to the appointment of a senior, respected figure to undertake a review of the specific powers. It would make sense to appoint a judge. Such a review is long
334
overdue and we could then come to an agreement. I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong with such an arrangement.
Mr. Howard: We have had a review of which the hon. Gentleman could have taken advantage, but he conspicuously failed to do so. The suggestion of a review is yet another of the smokescreens for which the hon. Gentleman is becoming famous.
We know the points that are at issue between the parties. There is no mystery about them; they are crystal clear. We know that the Labour party objects to the exclusion order. I have sought to explain to the House today why, in practice, there is no alternative to the exclusion order if we are to achieve the benefits in the fight against terrorism about which the Association of Chief Police Officers has told us.
We also know the issues between us on the subject of the extension of the detention order. I say to the hon. Members for Sedgefield and for Upper Bann that I do not think that there is any mileage in the suggestion of a sort of halfway house between judicial consideration of the matters and allowing the decision-taking process to rest in the hands of the Minister. That option was considered in the Hurd-Waddington review, to which reference has been made, but it was found not to be satisfactory.
In addition, it is extremely unlikely that such a course would find favour with the European Court of Human Rights. The hon. Gentleman placed great emphasis on that aspect of the matter. The European Court of Human Rights would look not at the label attached to the person carrying out the function but at the nature of the function. As, because of its nature, the evidence cannot be made available to the defendant—the defendant cannot be shown the intelligence material that is being relied on—it follows inevitably that the function is not a judicial one and that the benefit, in terms of the European Court of Human Rights, to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not be available.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) asked about detention extension applications turned down by my right hon. Friends and myself. I confirm that it is unusual for applications to be refused, but there are examples of refusal. In the United Kingdom there have been just two such occasions in the past two years. There have been other occasions when a period of detention shorter than that sought by the police was authorised. But, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I counsel the hon. Gentleman against coming to a wrong conclusion about the very great care with which both officials and my right hon. Friends and I consider these applications. After 20 years of exercising these powers, the police, in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, are well aware of the clear case that they are expected to make out under one of the 14 separate criteria that were codified by Lord Colville in his 1987 report.
I have a sad announcement to make to the House before we conclude this debate. It appears that in the past hour five mortars were fired from the back of a vehicle towards Heathrow airport. The House will be relieved to learn that, from initial reports, it appears that there are no casualties or serious damage. I do not know whether that incident is supposed to send some signal to the House as we conclude our debate on these matters. If it is, there is only one conclusion that the House can responsibly reach. We know that the Association of Chief Police Officers unequivocally

335
considers this legislation in its present form to be essential in the fight against terrorism. Over the past few days and during the course of the debate we have had many appeals for unity across the House. There could be no more appropriate moment for displaying unity than in the aftermath of the attack that I have just announced.
I appeal to the Labour party to listen not to me but to the Association of Chief Police Officers and to go into the Aye Lobby in support of the order so that the police may continue to have available to them powers that they consider to be essential. This is the Labour party's opportunity to display unity and to show those who are responsible for the mortar attack that the House of Commons is united and is determined to face them down and to make available to the police the powers that they need to fight terrorism. It is not too late for the Opposition to respond to this appeal. Will they join us in the Aye Lobby in support of these powers? I commend the Order to the House.
Question put:—
The House proceeded to a Division:—
Mrs. Teresa Gorman(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I left my office in No. 7 Millbank immediately the bell went. I walked briskly all the way here but was unable to get through the door by a fraction of a second. I believe that we now do not have enough a time for Members to reach the Chamber walking at a legitimate pace.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I hear the hon. Lady. I took the normal time. The hon. Lady will have read today's Order Paper and she will have recognised that a Division was expected three hours after the commencement of the proceedings. She is an assiduous Member. She would doubtless have worked out when the debate started and when it was going to finish, and I suggest that in future she prepares herself just a few minutes beforehand.
Mrs. Gorman(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There can be nothing further to that point of order at this point of time.
Mrs. Gorman(seated and covered): With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I looked at the monitor in my room when the Division bell rang and it showed the time at 6.53 pm—
The House having divided: Ayes 328, Noes 242.

Division No. 157]

[6.50 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Aitken, Jonathan

Baldry, Tony

Alexander, Richard

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Bates, Michael

Alton, David

Batiste, Spencer

Amess, David

Beggs, Roy

Arbuthnot, James

Bellingham, Henry

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bendall, Vivian

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Aspinwall, Jack

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Atkins, Robert

Booth, Hartley

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Boswell, Tim

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

336

Bowden, Andrew

Gorst, John

Bowis, John

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brandreth, Gyles

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Brazier, Julian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Bright, Graham

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hague, William

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Budgen, Nicholas

Hanley, Jeremy

Burns, Simon

Hannam, Sir John

Butler, Peter

Hargreaves, Andrew

Butterfill, John

Harris, David

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Harvey, Nick

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Haselhurst, Alan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hawkins, Nick

Carrington, Matthew

Hawksley, Warren

Carttiss, Michael

Hayes, Jerry

Chapman, Sydney

Heald, Oliver

Churchill, Mr

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clappison, James

Hendry, Charles

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Coe, Sebastian

Horam, John

Colvin, Michael

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Conway, Derek

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Cormack, Patrick

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Couchman, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Cran, James

Hunter, Andrew

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Jack, Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jenkin, Bernard

Day, Stephen

Jessel, Toby

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Devlin, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Dicks, Terry

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Dorrell, Stephen

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dover, Den

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Duncan, Alan

Key, Robert

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Kilfedder, Sir James

Dunn, Bob

King, Rt Hon Tom

Durant, Sir Anthony

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dykes, Hugh

Kirkwood, Archy

Eggar, Tim

Knapman, Roger

Elletson, Harold

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knox, Sir David

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Evennett, David

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Faber, David

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Fabricant, Michael

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Legg, Barry

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Leigh, Edward

Fishburn, Dudley

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Forman, Nigel

Lidington, David

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Lightbown, David

Forth, Eric

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lord, Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Luff, Peter

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Fry, Sir Peter

Lynne, Ms Liz

Gale, Roger

McCrea, Rev William

Gallie, Phil

MacKay, Andrew

Gardiner, Sir George

Maclean, David

Garnier, Edward

Maclennan, Robert

Gill, Christopher

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gillan, Cheryl

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Madel, Sir David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Maginnis, Ken

337

Maitland, Lady Olga

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Major, Rt Hon John

Soames, Nicholas

Malone, Gerald

Speed, Sir Keith

Mans, Keith

Spencer, Sir Derek

Marland, Paul

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Marlow, Tony

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Spink, Dr Robert

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Spring, Richard

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sproat, Iain

Mates, Michael

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Merchant, Piers

Stephen, Michael

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Stern, Michael

Mills, Iain

Stewart, Allan

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Streeter, Gary

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Sumberg, David

Moate, Sir Roger

Sweeney, Walter

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Sykes, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Needham, Richard

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Nelson, Anthony

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Thomason, Roy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Norris, Steve

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

O'Neill, Martin

Thurnham, Peter

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th

Ottaway, Richard

Tracey, Richard

Page, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Paice, James

Trend, Michael

Patnick, Irvine

Trimble, David

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Trotter, Neville

Pawsey, James

Twinn, Dr Ian

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Tyler, Paul

Porter, David (Waveney)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rathbone, Tim

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Walden, George

Rendel, David

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Richards, Rod

Wallace, James

Riddick, Graham

Waller, Gary

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Ward, John

Robathan, Andrew

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Waterson, Nigel

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Watts, John

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Wells, Bowen

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Whitney, Ray

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Whittingdale, John

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Widdecombe, Ann

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Sackville, Tom

Wilkinson, John

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Willetts, David

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wilshire, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Wolfson, Mark

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Yeo, Tim

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Shersby, Michael

Sims, Roger

Tellers for the Ayes:

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Michael Brown.

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Armstrong, Hilary

Adams, Mrs Irene

Austin-Walker, John

Ainger, Nick

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Barnes, Harry

Allen, Graham

Barron, Kevin

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Battle, John

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Bayley, Hugh

338

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Gordon, Mildred

Bell, Stuart

Gould, Bryan

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Graham, Thomas

Bennett, Andrew F.

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Benton, Joe

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bermingham, Gerald

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Grocott, Bruce

Betts, Clive

Gunnell, John

Blair, Tony

Hain, Peter

Blunkett, David

Hall, Mike

Boateng, Paul

Hanson, David

Boyes, Roland

Hardy, Peter

Bradley, Keith

Harman, Ms Harriet

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Henderson, Doug

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Heppell, John

Burden, Richard

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Byers, Stephen

Hinchliffe, David

Caborn, Richard

Home Robertson, John

Callaghan, Jim

Hood, Jimmy

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Canavan, Dennis

Hoyle, Doug

Cann, Jamie

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clapham, Michael

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hutton, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Ingram, Adam

Clelland, David

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Coffey, Ann

Jamieson, David

Cohen, Harry

Janner, Greville

Connarty, Michael

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Corbett, Robin

Jowell, Tessa

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Corston, Ms Jean

Keen, Alan

Cousins, Jim

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Cox, Tom

Khabra, Piara S.

Cryer, Bob

Kilfoyle, Peter

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lewis, Terry

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Litherland, Robert

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Livingstone, Ken

Dalyell, Tam

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Darling, Alistair

Loyden, Eddie

Davidson, Ian

McAllion, John

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

McAvoy, Thomas

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McCartney, Ian

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

McFall, John

Denham, John

McGrady, Eddie

Dewar, Donald

McKelvey, William

Dixon, Don

Mackinlay, Andrew

Dobson, Frank

McLeish, Henry

Donohoe, Brian H.

McMaster, Gordon

Dowd, Jim

McNamara, Kevin

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McWilliam, John

Eagle, Ms Angela

Madden, Max

Eastham, Ken

Mahon, Alice

Enright, Derek

Mallon, Seamus

Etherington, Bill

Mandelson, Peter

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Marek, Dr John

Fatchett, Derek

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Faulds, Andrew

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Fisher, Mark

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Flynn, Paul

Martlew, Eric

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Maxton, John

Foulkes, George

Meacher, Michael

Fraser, John

Michael, Alun

Fyfe, Maria

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Galbraith, Sam

Milburn, Alan

Galloway, George

Miller, Andrew

Gapes, Mike

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Garrett, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Gerrard, Neil

Morgan, Rhodri

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Morley, Elliot

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Godsiff, Roger

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mowlam, Marjorie

339

Mudie, George

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mullin, Chris

Short, Clare

Murphy, Paul

Simpson, Alan

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Skinner, Dennis

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

O'Hara, Edward

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Olner, William

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

O'Neill, Martin

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Parry, Robert

Soley, Clive

Patchett, Terry

Spearing, Nigel

Pickthall, Colin

Spellar, John

Pike, Peter L.

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Pope, Greg

Steinberg, Gerry

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Stevenson, George

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Stott, Roger

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Prescott, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Primarolo, Dawn

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Purchase, Ken

Turner, Dennis

Quin, Ms Joyce

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Radice, Giles

Walley, Joan

Randall, Stuart

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Raynsford, Nick

Wareing, Robert N

Redmond, Martin

Watson, Mike

Reid, Dr John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Wilson, Brian

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Winnick, David

Rogers, Allan

Worthington, Tony

Rooker, Jeff

Wray, Jimmy

Rooney, Terry

Wright, Dr Tony

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rowlands, Ted

Ruddock, Joan

Tellers for the Noes:

Sedgemore, Brian

Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. John Cummings.

Sheerman, Barry

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

Departmental Select Committees
7.9 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 130 (Select Committees related to government departments) be amended, by leaving out lines 5 to 8, and, in the Table, after the entry relating to National Heritage, by inserting the words—

"9A Northern Northern Ireland Affairs

Northern Ireland Office; administration and Ireland Affairs expenditure of the Crown Solicitor's Office (but excluding individual cases and advice given by the Crown Solicitor); and other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (but excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Direct or of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland and the drafting of legislation by the Office of the Legislative Counsel).

13

4"

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That Standing Order No. 99 (Northern Ireland Committee) be amended, in line 2 and in line 15, in each case after the word 'Ireland' by inserting the word 'Grand'.
Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Newton: The purpose of the first motion is to establish a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee within the existing framework of departmentally related Select Committees, as I announced to the House on 16 December.
As the House knows, since 1980 our Select Committee system has been based on links between individual Committees and one—occasionally more than one—Government Department. As the departmental structure has changed, the Committee structure has changed to reflect it, most recently in 1992 with the setting up of new Select Committees on National Heritage and on Science and Technology.
That pattern follows the recommendations of the Procedure Committee in 1978. The Procedure Committee did not recommend a departmental Select Committee for the Northern Ireland Office, but only because of uncertainty about the future constitutional arrangements for the Province.
In the last Parliament, the Procedure Committee, then —as now, I am happy to say—under the distinguished chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P Emery), carried out a major inquiry into the working of the Select Committee system. The Procedure Committee found that it was
"anomalous from a practical point of view that no separate Select Committee exists to oversee the affairs of Northern Ireland".
In principle, it supported the setting up of a separate Committee, but accepted that the time for it was not ripe —for various reasons somewhat similar to those pertaining in 1978.
The Committee did, however, devote some thought to the size and composition that such a Select Committee might have when circumstances made it appropriate to bring it into being. It recognised that it would be reasonable if not essential for the Government to have a majority on

341
the Committee, and that the political parties based in Northern Ireland should have reasonable representation on it. For those reasons it saw that the Select Committee would need to be somewhat larger than the other departmentally related Committees, all of which at present have 11 members.
The Committee also recognised that the Committee of Selection's formula for determining the places available to minority parties would need to be amended to take account of the special factors involved. At the end of last year, in a further report, the Committee returned to those issues, and recommended to the House that the Committee should consist of either 13 or 15 Members and that all the Northern Ireland political parties represented in the House should be represented on the Committee.
For some time, then, the question has been not whether there should be a Northern Ireland Select Committee, but when.
I told the House before Christmas that, in response to the Procedure Committee's recommendation, the Government had come to the view that the time for a Northern Ireland Select Committee had now come. That judgment was made—I accept it was an act of judgment —taking account of all the relevant political considerations in Northern Ireland. I am sure that there will be a widespread welcome in the House for a move that puts parliamentary accountability in this respect on all fours with the arrangements in relation to other Government Departments.
Let me now say a few words about the details of our proposal. The first part of the motion paves the way for more effective scrutiny of Northern Ireland matters, along the lines that I have just sketched, by ending the present arrangements for the scrutiny of Northern Ireland matters whereby agriculture in Northern Ireland is looked at by the Agriculture Committee, housing in Northern Ireland by the Environment Committee, and so on.
The second part of the motion sets up a new Select Committee. Following the model of the Scottish Affairs and Welsh Affairs Committees, we propose that it should be called the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
The new Committee ought to be able to look at the full range of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. For that reason we have included in its remit not only the Northern Ireland Office, which deals with security and constitutional and political questions. but what are described as
"other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland".
Under the present administrative arrangements, that formula embraces the Northern Ireland Departments, such as the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Economic Development, as they are subject to the discretion and control of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It is clearly desirable, however, to provide for the possibility of change if agreement should be reached on different political structures.
The form of words used in the amendment to the Standing Order would ensure that, once the Secretary of State ceased to be responsible for an area of policy, it would no longer fall within the terms of reference of the Select Committee. In other words, Westminster will oversee only those things for which Whitehall is responsible. Associated public bodies in Northern Ireland are also included in the terms of reference.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland will continue to be responsible to, and to give his evidence and reports to, the Public Accounts Committee, as he does twice a year under the present arrangements?
Mr. Newton: My understanding is that that is the case.
A number of matters will be excluded from the Select Committee's remit at the outset. One—and I note that this is the object of the Opposition's amendment—is the expenditure, administration and policy of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, which is excluded from the present arrangements for Select Committee scrutiny. It is important that that should be understood. The handling of individual cases by the Crown Solicitor's Office and advice given by the Crown Solicitor are excluded, and the drafting of legislation is also excluded.
I emphasise that, in each of those cases, the equivalent functions in respect of England and Scotland are excluded from the remits of the Home Affairs, Scottish Affairs and Treasury and Civil Service Committees respectively. Moreover, the wording that we have used in the motion replicates exactly the wording in the existing Standing Order No. 130(1) defining the remit of existing Select Committees.
Mr. David Alton: I warmly welcome the announcement that the Leader of the House is making. Does he not accept, however, that the circumstances in Northern Ireland are very different from those prevailing in Scotland and Wales, especially in relation to the way in which legislation is dealt with—with so many orders and short debates in the House? The power to create legislation and frame Bills would be a very useful power for the Committee to have.
Will the Leader of the House undertake that, after six months or a year, he will at least look at the question again, and also at individual cases, such as that raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) in an Adjournment debate a couple of weeks ago?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman raised two very different questions. The second was whether a Select Committee could look at individual cases. I would not want to excite expectations of that, because that would raise major issues throughout the field. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friends the Law Officers would want to look at its implications in the United Kingdom as a whole —in my judgment, quite rightly too.
The earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question could at least be presented as more innocuous, enabling me to respond in what I hope is my characteristically reasonable fashion. That suggestion, too, would have quite wide implications. But I hope that I have shown by my general demeanour in the House over quite a long period that if people come forward with a reasonable proposition and can make a reasonable case for it, I will look at it in a reasonable way.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I took up the matter of the exemption of the prosecuting authorities with the Journal Office, and the Journal Office informed me that that part of the Standing Order was added on 18 July 1991, at the same time that the remit of the Home Affairs and Scottish Affairs Committees was

343
broadened to include the expenditure and administration of the prosecuting authorities in Britain and Scotland. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to rephrase what he said about the role of the Scottish Affairs and Home Affairs Committees in that regard?
Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that the relevant part of the Standing Order was added at that time. The hon. Gentleman should understand, however, that the Opposition amendment would create a discrepancy between the remit of the Home Affairs Committee and that of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The Home Affairs Committee does not look at individual cases or at legal advice—I accept that the hon. Gentleman's amendment allows for that—but neither does it look at the policy of the Law Officers' Departments.
The Opposition's amendment, while it exludes individual cases and legal advice, would allow the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to look at the policy of the DPP's office. I do not seek to pre-empt the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I have to tell him that the exclusion of those legal matters from Select Committee scrutiny was carefully considered—it was carefully considered at the time and the decision was accepted by the House—and that the House would be ill advised to permit Select Committee scrutiny of matters in Northern Ireland that are not subject to such scrutiny in respect of Great Britain.
Mr. McNamara: Is the expenditure and administration of the Director of Public Prosecutions within the cognisance of the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Scottish Affairs?
Mr. Newton: I think that that is correct. The hon. Gentleman can argue that there is some discrepancy, but his amendment would produce a significant discrepancy, as I outlined, which leads me to advise the House not to accept it.
Mr. David Trimble: The recent exchanges have clarified the matter. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument on policy, but it is clear that his proposal will create an anomaly. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs will not be able to consider the administration and expenditure of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, whereas the Select Committee on Home Affairs can consider equivalent matters with regard to the Crown Prosecution Service, which discharges similar functions. There is a discrepancy, and I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that that is undesirable.
Operations should be on a common basis. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore reconsider expenditure and administration and put the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on the same basis as the Select Committee on Home Affairs?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might revert to the words—without repeating them excessively—that I used to answer the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) when I described what I hoped was my reasonable approach. I would not rule out any further consideration of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but I cannot give an undertaking on the matter. We need to consider it with great care. I cannot advise the
344
House to accept the amendment, which attempts to deal with the problem, because it raises a significant point of principle about examining the policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It goes beyond what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) intended, although I shall not attempt to speak for him, and it clearly goes beyond what the hon. Member for Upper Bann intended.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Leader of the House agree that, although the amendment may or may not be important to hon. Members—depending on where they sit—both sides of the House support the establishment of the Select Committee? That is much more important to voters outside the House than the differences that appear on the Order Paper. The issue may involve problems of principle, but they are gnat's play compared with the principle of establishing the Committee.
Mr. Newton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, especially since the administration and expenditure of the office in Northern Ireland is very small. When a similar point was raised in the 1991 debates, to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred, my predecessor advanced the argument that it made little difference in practice because of the minor scale of the expenditure. The point has been legitimately raised again, and I hope that I have responded in the best way that I can.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is right to say that the matter of overwhelming importance is whether we can set up a proper departmental Select Committee for Northern Ireland. The point of detail, while not insignificant, is small compared with the main issue.
Sir Anthony Grant: If the Select Committee is set up, it will have to move about and go to Northern Ireland, among other places. Has my right hon. Friend considered the composition of the Committee in the light of the problems caused to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry because of the lack of co-operation between Opposition and Government? Its members have been unable to travel and they have published a unanimous report, mentioned on the Order Paper, condemning the lack of co-operation. He will have to consider carefully whether the Select Committee will be affected.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. As he knows, I am cognisant of the difficulties of that Committee, although I have not intervened in the matter. I have frequently expressed the hope that the Opposition will return to the normal usual channels dealings and pairing, but I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not allow myself to be drawn by that line of that argument, which he was right to raise.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the leader of the House aware that all Labour Members on the Procedure Committee voted against setting up the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee? Although my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is entitled to his view, it is not shared by the majority of Labour Members, as will be shown later tonight. One of the main reasons why we are opposed is that we believe that no such Committee should be set up until general agreement is reached among

345
Northern Ireland Members. Bearing in mind what has taken place in the past few months, I believe that the proposal is most unfortunate. It is a sop to the Unionist party.
Mr. Newton: Not for the first time for all I know, the views of the hon. Gentleman are different from those of the majority of members of the Procedure Committee, whose Chairman is present and may wish to speak in the debate. It is also clear that the hon. Gentleman's views are not shared by a number of his hon. Friends. My view is with Birkenhead rather than with Walsall on this occasion and, probably, on many future occasions. [Interruption.] I shall not go further and risk being accused of pursuing a policy of divide and rule. The position speaks for itself.
While the other departmental Select Committees will cease to have primary responsibility for Northern Ireland issues, they will still be able to make their specialist knowledge available. The Standing Order already allows Committees to communicate evidence and other documents to one another and to meet concurrently to take evidence and for other purposes. Indeed the hon. Member for Birkenhead knows that because he is member of the Select Committee on Social Security, which held joint meetings with the Health Select Committee to discuss community care, when I was a Minister in the relevant field.
The Select Committee on Agriculture, might be carrying out an inquiry into a subject with a distinctive Northern Ireland angle. In such a case, that Committee and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee could pool their expertise by sharing their written evidence and holding a joint meeting to take oral evidence or discuss the issues involved. In that way, the specialist knowledge of other departmental Committees could be called on for the benefit of Northern Ireland, if it were to the mutual benefit of those Committees. That benefit is not lost by the establishment of the proposed new Committee.
Mr. Field: There are important differences between the administration of certain services on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. Because of the link between health and social services in Northern Ireland, the Select Committees on Social Security and on Health may profitably consider a link-up. Is the Leader of the House saying that the other Committees would not be welcome in Northern Ireland when they are pursuing evidence that is relevant to their wider inquiry?
Mr. Newton: No, I did not say that. I do not think that I even implied it. Perhaps through the Select Committee on Liaison or in other ways, Select Committees of the House normally tell each other what they are doing and find out whether there are ways in which they can fruitfully co-operate. There is no bar of the sort that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
On the size of the Committee, the Procedure Committee's first thoughts were for 16 members, but in its later report it recommended 13 or 15. The Government propose that the Committee should have a maximum of 13 members because, the larger the Committee, the more unwieldy it is likely to become. For example, it would be more difficult for all members to take part in evidence sessions. For those practical reasons, we thought that it was probably sensible to choose the smaller of the two figures suggested by the Procedure Committee.
How the available places should be allocated will not be
346
an easy matter, but it is a matter for the Committee of Selection under Standing Orders. The Government strongly support the Procedure Committee's recommendation that each of the Northern Ireland parties should have a place on the Committee and that, in accordance with normal practice, the Government should expect to be able to command a majority on it.
I now turn briefly to the third motion on the Order Paper which is really a piece of housekeeping or tidying up. If the House agrees to the setting up of a Select Committee called the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, there is an obvious danger of confusion with the existing Standing Committee called the Northern Ireland Committee, under Standing Order No. 99. That Committee exists to debate matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland that are referred to it from time to time by the House. As its closest parliamentary relatives are the Scottish Grand Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee, we propose to rename it —perhaps unimaginatively but sensibly—the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. That change should make the different character of the two Committees abundantly clear without in any way changing the powers, composition or function of the existing Committee.
I hope that I have said enough to outline the proposals to the House sufficient to provide a basis for the debate. I commend the proposals to the House.
7.30 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out
'expenditure administration and policy of'
and insert
'handling of individual cases by and legal advice given within Government by'.
As the last chairman of the only departmental Select Committee that existed before the creation of the present system—the Select Committee on Overseas Aid—I am instinctively sympathetic to the Select Committee system. Select Committees plays a vital role in improving the accountability of the Government to Parliament. Indeed, as current cases and inquiries show, there is a clear case for Select Committees' powers of departmental oversight to be strengthened.
It is important, however, not to confuse concern for the proper scrutiny of Government with the decision to create a Northern Ireland Select Committee, for that is not the reason why the present proposal is before the House. It is not simply a procedural parliamentary matter. It has wide-ranging political ramifications relating to the Government's Irish policy.
The issues relating to the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee are different from those relating to the establishment of any other Committee of the House. Northern Ireland cannot be treated as though it is the same as any other region of the United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where the population have a legally enshrined right to unite with another nation state if a majority so wish. That right reflects the divided allegiances that exist in Northern Ireland, with the nationalist community aspiring to a united Ireland, and the Unionist community aspiring to maintain —indeed, strengthen—the bonds that link Britain and Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where the legitimacy of the state is questioned. It is the

347
only region of the United Kingdom where armed troops are deployed on the streets in support of the civil power, as they have been during the past 20 years.
Moreover, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where the establishment of a Select Committee is an essential ingredient of one party's policy to seek steps towards greater integration of Britain with Northern Ireland. It is opposed by another party for just that reason. It has symbolic importance for both communities in Northern Ireland, which far outweighs its parliamentary significance.
In a briefing paper which I believe the Unionist party gave to the press and to others about the matter it says:
"The symbolic effects will be more immediate. This will be the first positively unionist move by the British Government since our Parliamentary representation was increased in 1979."
It continues:
"The Northern Ireland Select Committee will probably want to sit regularly in Belfast. When we see a group of familiar parliamentarians again in Stormont with their doings reported in the local media".
That is its significance for one particular party. For that reason, in the past, the Government, the Opposition and the Select Committee on Procedure have recognised that the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee cannot be isolated from the political situation in Northern Ireland.
The original decision not to recommend the creation of a Northern Ireland Select Committee was made by the Procedure Committee in 1978, its reason being:
"The uncertainty about the future form of Government … for Northern Ireland."
That uncertainty has not altered.
In its report in 1990 on the working of the Select Committee system, the Select Committee on Procedure concluded that there should be no Northern Ireland Select Committee while the inter-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland were in progress. The Committee accepted that the decision to create a Northern Ireland Select Committee
"is a matter whose implications go beyond the rights and responsibilities of the House to regulate its own affairs."
It is therefore not a purely organisational or procedural matter.
In its last report, the Procedure Committee could
"see nothing to add or subtract from their previous views",
and left it to the Government to decide when an opportune time occurred to establish a Northern Ireland Select Committee.
In the past, the Government have opposed the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. In 1990, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the right hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke)—in a submission to the Procedure Committee, asserted that the decision to establish a Northern Ireland Select Committee would need to
"command the support from elected representatives of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland."
The Government until recently held to that approach. For example, as late as June 1992, the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, when asked about a Northern Ireland Select Committee, stated:
"the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland believes that this is one of a series of complex issues that are best left open for consideration in the broad context of the current political talks."
348
—[Official Report, 25 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 395.]
It has now been taken out of the broad context of the current political talks.
On 11 November 1992, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), the Secretary of State again reiterated the Government's position that a Northern Ireland Select Committee would need
"the support of the broad community in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 11 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 892.]
It does not have the support of the broad community in Northern Ireland.
On 15 February 1993, the Secretary of State, in response to a parliamentary question, again cited the need to examine
"the extent of support from elected representatives from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 35.]
It has no support from elected representatives from one of the communities in Northern Ireland.
On 22 July 1993, the Secretary of State was still concerned about the
"extent of support from elected representatives on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 22 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 323.]
But by now, things were changing, and the matter was under review. The Government ceased to be concerned about support from both sides of the community. That means that the views and concerns of one section of the community in Northern Ireland—the minority community —no longer seem to have any relevance.
Unfortunately, the reasons for that change are all too obvious. Faced with the prospect of a defeat over Maastricht, the Government struck a squalid deal—or, as they prefer to call it, "an understanding"—with the Ulster Unionist party. The Government have put party interests ahead of the interests of all the people of the British Isles.
The primary reason why the Government have conceded a Northern Ireland Select Committee is not a high-minded concern for parliamentary democracy and the proper scrutiny of a Government department, but the need to maintain the "understanding" that was reached with the UUP before the summer recess.
Indeed, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was reported in a recent article in The Scotsman as claiming that part of his price for supporting the Prime Minister had been the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. The Prime Minister has not sought to challenge or deny that claim—I gave him the opportunity.
The Government have allowed that squalid deal to override the principles agreed in March 1991 for the three-strand talks process, whereby any measures that effected the institutional arrangements governing Northern Ireland would be discussed in strand one talks and under the principle
"nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."
The Labour party maintains its support for the three-strand talks process and regrets the Government's decision to undermine the framework agreed in 1991 by unilaterally starting to unravel the arrangements governing strand one of the talks. The decision to establish a Northern Ireland Select Committee without the agreement of the representatives of both communities in Northern Ireland serves only to demonstrate that the Government are still prepared to allow short-term party interests to take precedence over the peace process.

349
The problem is this. The Government have two agendas: first, to secure and maintain their majority in the House by keeping their own right wing and the Ulster Unionists happy; secondly, to keep the peace process alive, as laid down in the Downing street declaration. Was it, I wonder, because the Northern Ireland Select Committee was being dangled before the Unionists that the Secretary of State could convince the Tanaiste that the Unionists would shortly return to the three-ring circus? The Government may consider their two agendas compatible, but I do not believe they are.
This unfortunate decision will hinder the peace initiative launched by the British and fish Governments with the publication of the Downing street declaration. It calls into question the Government's claim that their primary interest is to see
"peace, stability and reconciliation by agreement",
as the declaration puts it. There is no agreement about the establishment of the Northern Ireland Select Committee.
Ms Kate Hoey: Does my hon. Friend agree that thousands of people in Northern Ireland—indeed, the vast majority—will, if they are listening to this debate, be interested in one thing alone? They want us to ensure that legislation that affects their lives—legislation that the House passes every day—is properly scrutinised, as is legislation affecting other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. McNamara: Indeed: that is why legislative Committees are set up after the Second Reading of Bills. This Committee will have no power to investigate or alter legislation. My hon. Friend ought to know what the Committee is about.
Not only have the Government introduced their motion without the agreement of representatives of both sides of the community; they also intend to gerrymander the composition of the Committee. They propose that the Labour party should have only two seats out of 13.
In 1990, the Procedure Committee recommended that, if a Northern Ireland Select Committee was established, it should have 16 members, including three from the Labour party. That was unacceptable in 1990, when Labour had 227 Members of Parliament; proposing that Labour should have only two seats now, when we have 270 Members of Parliament, is an abuse of power and of parliamentary majorities—especially when we are to have parity with a party that has 30 times fewer seats.
Equally unacceptable is the proposed division of seats among the Northern Ireland parties represented in the House—
Mr. Jonathan Evans: How many votes has Labour in Northern Ireland?
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman's party has no votes in Northern Ireland, but it is to have a majority on the Committee. [Interruption.] Well, it certainly has no seats in Northern Ireland.
The SDLP will have just one seat on the Committee, while the Unionist parties will be given four. The minority now makes up 43 per cent. of the population in Northern Ireland; yet its representatives are to be appointed to just 20 per cent. of the seats allotted to Northern Ireland parties. With a total population split of 43 per cent. to 57 per cent., there can be no excuse for such gross misrepresentation.
The Ulster Unionist party, with 34 per cent. of the Northern Ireland vote, will be given half the Northern Ireland seats on the Committee; the Ulster Popular
350
Unionist party will be given one fifth of those seats, on the basis of one seventeenth of the number of Northern Ireland seats and a vote of less than 50 per cent. in one constituency. That cannot be right.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman is confessing that Labour will never form a majority in the House, and therefore take the Government majority of seats? Will he also tell us when he will come to his amendment?
Mr. McNamara: I will come to my amendment in my own time.
As for the hon. Gentleman's first question, I assure him that there will be a Labour Government. In a letter to the Secretary of State, we told him that—although we felt that our representation on the Committee would be dispropor-tionate—we would concede, for the sake of argument, that there should be four Northern Ireland seats. We then said, "On the balance of what is left, you may have five seats and we will have four."
We thought that a reasonable offer, and I hope that we will follow similar principles when we form the Government. That is of particular concern to us because, having reached an understanding with the Government, the hon. Gentleman and his party will be able to maintain their majority on the Committee.
Mr. Frank Field: So far, my hon. Friend has produced a powerful case against the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. I am puzzled: if this is such a principled stand, why has the amendment been tabled? Why do we not simply oppose the establishment of the Committee?
Mr. McNamara: For two reasons. First, despite our principled objection, we are unlikely to succeed in the voting—although, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, we have such a powerful case that we are certainly winning the argument. Secondly, and more important—[Interruption.] I will deal with my hon. Friend's second point shortly.
The Government have also attempted severely to restrict the terms of reference for a Northern Ireland Select Committee: that is why the Labour party has tabled an amendment. The Government motion would exclude the office of Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland from the Committee's scrutiny. If we are to have a Northern Ireland Select Committee, it is vital for it to be able to investigate all matters of concern to the peoples of Northern Ireland.
Our amendment would allow the Committee to investigate the thrust of the policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions—his order of priorities, his attitudes to policy issues such as killings by the security forces, and his decisions not to prosecute in areas where the community has real fears.
Such problems have been raised in a variety of cases, affecting both communities, and we debated them only recently in an Adjournment debate. The failure to prosecute, and lack of knowledge of the policy behind that failure, can have an adverse impact on public perceptions of the role of the security forces, and can therefore affect both the administration of justice and the upholding of the rule of law.
We have not asked for any individual cases to be examined, or to be put to the Committee; nor does our amendment suggest that we should look into the various

351
matters referred to by the Leader of the House. We believe, however, that the Government should, for the first time, be brought to book in regard to matters involving policy, in an area of such sensitivity as this.
It is significant that powers of administration, expenditure and organization—powers possessed by the Scottish and Home Affairs Select Committees—are being denied to the Irish Committee, if the House decides to proceed with it. It will not run pari passu with the English Select Committees; it will still be treated as a special case.
I hope that, if the matter proceeds, the House will accept the amendment. Even if it is carried, however, Labour will vote against the motion, because of its symbolism as a triumphalist integrationist measure. It does not have the support of both communities in Northern Ireland— something that the Government previously considered crucial. Instead of ensuring equality, it entrenches divisions that already exist, and hardens Unionist intransigence rather than encouraging compromise.
If the Secretary of State considers that this measure, the increased use of the newly named Northern Ireland Grand Committee and the partial change in legislative matters put before the House, will persuade the Unionists to sit down with Dublin, I believe that he is mistaken. They will want more and more—"As long as you pay the danegeld, you'll never get rid of the Dane".
The Government must recognise that there can be no purely internal solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. An integrationist solution will not work, because it fails to deal with the divided allegiances which exist there. The Government should not be jeopardising the peace process for the sake of a short-term political expedient, but working with the Irish Government and the parties in Northern Ireland to agree a just and lasting settlement that respects the rights and aspirations of both communities. They should not be favouring one community at the expense of the other.
For those reasons, we are opposed to the establishment of a Select Committee.
7.49 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry that the official Opposition are making this a party political debate. The weakness of their argument is evident when they have to drag in Maastricht, because this is a House of Commons matter about government.
I congratulate the Government and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on at last grasping the nettle and establishing a Select Committee on Northern Ireland which, as I shall try to explain, is something that has been recommended since the Select Committee on Procedure's report on Select Committees in 1978–79. Previous Secretaries of State have prevaricated, which has culminated in no action being taken, so my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State deserves great credit. I shall be brief, because I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
So that there can be no misunderstanding, I shall make it clear how the current situation with regard to a Select Committee on Northern Ireland has arisen. The Procedure Committee's report in 1977–78 said:
"the development of the system has been piecemeal and has resulted in a decidedly patchy coverage of the activities of government departments and agencies, and of the major areas of
352
public policy and administration."
It went on to say that although some Departments were subject to detailed scrutiny,
"other major departments have received scant or at least insufficient attention."
It said that that was especially so in one case—Northern Ireland. The report continued:
"The House should no longer rest content with an incomplete and unsystematic scrutiny of the activities of the Executive merely as a result of historical accident or sporadic pressure and it is … desirable for the different branches of the public service to be subject to an even and regular incidence of select committee investigation into their activities and to have a clear understanding of the division of responsibilities between the committees which conduct it."
The paragraph concluded that it was essential to have a means of scrutinising the activities of the public service on a continuing basis.
It will be noted that the report excluded reference to responsibility for Northern Ireland affairs because of
"uncertainty about the future form of government for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We recognise that the appointment of separate committees for these areas may need to be further considered in the light of future constitutional developments."
That was way back in 1977–78.
In 1989–90, the Select Committee on Procedure examined the scrutiny of Northern Ireland affairs and found that it was
"fragmented among many different Committees."
It said that the scrutiny of Northern Ireland corresponded to the functions exercised by Departments shadowed by specific Select Committees. In other words, housing in Northern Ireland falls within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on the Environment, even though responsibility is exercised by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Could anything be more foolish?
On the same basis, the Committee found that the Northern Ireland prison system and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the structure of secondary education and the health service in Northern Ireland could be examined by the Select Committees on Home Affairs, on Education, on Science and Arts and on Social Services. That is nonsense because a separate Secretary of State is responsible for each subject.
The Procedure Committee's report in 1989–90 said:
"All the same, it can hardly be said, on the basis of the evidence we have received, that Northern Ireland matters are receiving the attention from the departmentally-related Select Committees which they deserve".
The Committee's second report concluded that a
"lacuna in the system of scrutiny has been the lack of a separate Committee to monitor the policy, expenditure and administration of the Northern Ireland Office … Like Wales and Scotland, Northern Ireland has its own Secretary of State with authority over a wide range of matters … In that respect, therefore, the powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are more extensive than those exercised by his counterpart in Wales … It is therefore anomalous from a practical point of view that no separate Select Committee exists to oversee the affairs of Northern Ireland … It will be clear that we see a case for bringing the Northern Ireland Office formally within the system of scrutiny by Select Committees."
It also stated that it did
"not believe that the uncertainties over the future administration of the Province can be allowed to preclude indefinitely the establishment of proper arrangements for the scrutiny by the House of the Northern Ireland Department".
I have quoted from paragraphs 272 to 278 of the Select Committee's report—which, incidentally, was supported by all the Labour Members on it. No one voted against it.
Mr. Winnick: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we concluded that we should not recommend a Select Committee on Northern Ireland at that stage because of the advice given to us by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We thought that that advice, given on political grounds, was all important and we made that clear in our report. We were advised that there should be a consensus of opinion in Northern Ireland before any such Committee was established. The Government have changed their mind for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman's comments go very much further than the report. Although it may be tedious, I read again from the Select Committee's report, which said that the Committee did
"not believe that the uncertainties over the future administration of the Province can be allowed to preclude indefinitely the establishment of proper arrangements for the scrutiny by the House of the Northern Ireland Department".
The Select Committee's 1993–94 report concluded:
"The Committee see nothing to add or subtract from their previous views."
The Committee believed that the House and the Government would decide when it was appropriate to set up a Committee. [Interruption.] It is the House that will decide. I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North understands that.
Mr. McNamara: It is the Government who will table the motion.
Sir Peter Emery: That is brilliant; I never realised that. That is the most outstanding piece of procedural information that I have heard in the House for many a moon. [Interruption.] That will not get the hon. Gentleman very far.
From a procedural point of view, it is absolutely right that every Department of state should be scrutinised by a Select Committee.
Mr. Jim Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. Clearly, the procedure that he is outlining is factually correct, but even he must realise that, although he is concerned mainly with procedure and the need for all Government Departments to be closely scrutinised, the Government's decision to table the motion was not influenced only by procedure—it was deeply political.
Sir Peter Emery: Of course I accept—
Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman should not trivialise the issue.
Sir Peter Emery: If the hon. Gentleman asks a question in the proper manner, I shall answer it. He should not put words into my mouth. There is of course a political factor in the consideration of Northern Ireland; no one denies that. It seems that the vast majority of Members of Parliament elected in Northern Ireland wish to have a Northern Ireland Select Committee.
If we are considering democracy, we do not need to consider the percentages that were cited from the Opposition Front Bench, but we should consider the Members who have been elected by the people. The people have a right to those who represent them being able to work in a Select Committee.
354
After all, we are granting powers to a Committee so that it can monitor, investigate, examine witnesses and act as a public and parliamentary watchdog for the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, his Department and the Ministers under him. I have confidence in him, as I have confidence in all my Ministers, but I still believe that they need watching and that they need to have a House of Commons Committee on their backs. That is right and proper. I am sorry that the Labour party does not seem to agree.
The appointment of the Committee should not be interpreted as a political factor, as the Opposition have made out. The political difficulties in Ulster—
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry—of course.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: While I am touched by my right hon. Friend's confidence in me as one of his Ministers, may I say that it is not only the majority of Members of Parliament who support the Select Committee. Does he accept that it is my appreciation of the feelings of people throughout Northern Ireland that they want to see more parliamentary control and scrutiny over legislation in Northern Ireland as a mitigation of the effects of direct rule, however benificent that may be? They do not share the only substantive reason for opposing the Committee that we have heard—that the Unionists want it.
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to be supported by the Secretary of State. He has added grace and charm to my few remarks as well as great factual substantiation. As well as the public being represented by their Members of Parliament, it is the width of public opinion in Northern Ireland, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred, which is important.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery: Yes, for the last time.
Mr. Canavan: I do not recall the right hon. Gentleman supporting the establishment of a Scottish Select Committee in the previous Parliament, when there was no such creature, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland wanted the establishment of such a Committee, as did the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament who represented Scottish constituencies. The Government denied that during the entire Parliament, for political reasons.
Sir Peter Emery: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may want to say against the Government, he cannot say it against me, because I, with the Select Committee on Procedure, recommended that there should be a Select Committee for Northern Ireland. As I was tutored by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the Government tabled the motion, not the Procedure Committee.
Therefore, may we consider the specific reasons why, on a political basis, the Committee will be useful in dealing with the difficulties in Ulster? I hope and believe that the new Select Committee will be able to ensure that the people in Northern Ireland can have confidence in what goes on in Westminster and in the dedication of Northern

355
Ireland Ministers to look after the problems of Northern Ireland. They will know that the Members of Parliament whom they elect will have the power to ensure that the interests of Northern Ireland will be not only considered on the Floor of the House, but will be under close scrutiny and that Ministers will be cross-examined by their own elected representatives.
It will be good for Northern Ireland on political grounds to know that it will have an extra power through Northern Irish Ministers and Members of Parliament. I welcome the motion, and I believe that it is long overdue.
8.4 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: I trust that the Leader of the House will not mind my paying tribute to the Select Committee on Procedure and especially its chairman, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), for the consistent and fair-minded approach to the desirability of extending the trend of comparatively new Select Committees, which was put in place in 1979 by Lord St. John of Fawsley, the then Leader of the House.
During the consultations leading up to that decision, which was not unanimously received in the House even in those days, I put in a bid for a Northern Ireland Committee. I was only partially successful and my pleas were heeded to some extent. The Government, who, we must remember, had a safe majority after the 1979 election, said on 25 June:
"we have thought it right to provide that they should be within the scope of the new Select Committees at Westminster."—[Official Report, 25 June 1979; Vol. 969, c. 40.]
—as a temporary step.
That led to the beneficial visits of the existing Select Committees to Northern Ireland, which have given a great deal of encouragement and reassurance to all sections of the community. The visits illustrated in a flesh and blood fashion that their rights and privileges as citizens of the United Kingdom were not being overlooked in any way.
In the intervening 15 years, Northern Ireland has benefited greatly from the scrutiny of those specialised Committees and, if I heard the Leader of the House correctly towards the end of his speech, that valuable overview will continue with the same civilised degree of co-operation which exists, for example, between the Scottish Select Committee and the specialist subject Committees, which undertake, by invitation perhaps, by consultation, by agreement or perhaps through the Liaison Committee, the scrutiny of special matters in Scotland.
We are grateful to the Leader of the House for taking so much care to ensure that the terms of reference of the new Northern Ireland Select Committee and its relationship to those other Committees were set out so clearly in his speech. Will he confirm that the title of the Committee —I thought that he may have left out a word—will be the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee?
Mr. Newton indicated assent.
Mr. Molyneaux: I thank the Minister.
I pay tribute once more to the right hon. Member for Honiton and his Select Committee, which initiated in 1990 the process that has resulted in this motion. They have given careful consideration to all the submissions made five long years ago and they have updated their thinking at
356
frequent intervals since the Committee made that decision in principle; we want them to know that their efforts are greatly appreciated.
While debating motion No. 3, I pay sincere tribute to two former Members who have been elevated to another place—Lord Wilson and Lord Glenamara—who decided following the destruction of Stormont that Northern Ireland should have a measure of accountability as a temporary measure before they could progress. That resulted in the establishment of the Northern Ireland Committee. Lord Glenamara, then Ted Short, will be remembered by all Opposition parties with great gratitude for the scheme that he introduced to provide financial support to the Opposition parties which is enjoyed today and which has been recently increased. I pay tribute where tribute is due.
Another consultant, if I may refer to him in that way, in that process of consultation with Lord Wilson and Lord Glenamara, was my colleague Enoch Powell. During those consultations with the then Labour Government, I cannot ever recall a suggestion of a sordid deal being done, although the Wilson Government had a single-figure majority and eventually no majority at all.
It may be that, almost 20 years ago, Lord Wilson was aware of the consistent position of my party, which is that, provided that Her Majesty's Government of the day govern in the best interests of the United Kingdom in general and of Northern Ireland in particular, we see no reason why we should terminate the life of Parliament prematurely. That remains the position, and I hope that it will in some way reassure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and perhaps lower his blood pressure.
I always found that Lord Wilson, unlike some of his successors, had the ability to perceive objects not yet visible to the naked eye, and sometimes not even over the horizon. With its grand new title, the Committee's authority will be enhanced and its influence will be increased. I trust that, through consultation, we can find ways of making fuller use of that body, now the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
For example, we need a clearer understanding of the number of sittings per Session, because that seems to fluctuate from year to year. We also need, not this evening but on another occasion, a clear definition of the procedure for adjourning a debate in Committee and returning to the same subject another day. We have had experience of being ruled out of order when we have suggested, as a result of unanimous agreement in the Committee, that we have not quite finished our deliberations. At about 12.55 we would decide among ourselves to adjourn and come back another time, only to find that some obscure rule made that impossible, although that used to be possible in the early days of the Committee's activities, under the original guidelines of 20 years ago.
On behalf of my colleagues, I have great pleasure in welcoming and supporting motions Nos. 2 and 3.
8.10 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I am grateful to be called, and I shall endeavour to be brief and to keep my remarks succinct. I must say straight away that I have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because although I have no objection in principle to the measures

357
and will support them, I have certain reservations. Having expressed some of those outside the House, I now wish to express them inside.
There are political ramifications here. I wholeheartedly agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and others said about the parliamentary context. But we are dealing with something that goes beyond Parliament. We are engaged in what may be one of the most historic endeavours ever to try to secure peace in the island of Ireland.
Northern Ireland is a special case that goes beyond purely parliamentary matters. A major effort for peace is being made and in comparison the measures before us, worthy as they are, represent a small endeavour. Nothing should be done to impede progress in any way on the joint declaration that has been worked for so hard by my right hon. and hon. Friends in Government.
This is a question of timing; it was, it is now and it remains so. The measures before us will be perceived by certain elements vital to peace to be an integrationist move, and they will see it as the wrong time to make such a move. I do not want to trivialise the matter, but as far as the nationalist community is concerned, in this whole great endeavour it takes two—indeed, more than two—to tango. The process cannot go on with one side alone.
The nationalist community—the 43 per cent. that we have heard about—is a vital part of the peace process and anything that we as a House do concerning Northern Ireland should have the rationalists' support. Certainly this measure should have both their support and that of their leadership before it is put into practice.
Of course Sinn Fein/IRA prevaricates. The Downing street declaration and the peace process are far from over. My definite view is that those people could still come in, and we must work with that process. The rhetoric of some of us has not helped in the early stages, in the vital context of getting them, or at least some of them, to come in. I hazard a guess that this measure will not help either.
The Government of Ireland—this is the last section of the pattern with which I shall deal—are also a vital component part of any settlement and of any peace on the island. By supporting what we are doing together through the joint declaration, they deprive Sinn Fein/IRA of any claim to political legitimacy and make it into what could be called a historical reject. While they are with us that will be the status of Sinn Fein/IRA. So if the Irish Government opt out in any way or diminish their efforts to implement the joint declaration the peace process would sustain a blow that it would not be able to survive.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—clearly, my remarks have little to do with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House —for a simple assurance that he has considered the matter in the greater context, that it is purely a parliamentary process, that it will not be perceived as an integrationist move, and that it will in no way hinder the all-important peace process, which should be our overwhelming priority.
Mr. Harry Barnes: There are some bad reasons for the introduction of the Select Committee and the hon. Gentleman has spelt out the problems, in terms of alienating the nationalist community and of the Government's simply using the idea to overcome their problems. However, there are some good democratic reasons, too, which will benefit the whole of Northern Ireland and everyone involved. Should not the
358
House concentrate on the positive aspects of the proposals, pushing them forward and ensuring that they form the agenda, rather than concentrating on some of the underlying poor reasons? Perhaps the bad reasons are motivating people in various ways, but should we not turn that into a positive agenda?
Mr. Temple-Morris: I am glad that that remark came from the hon. Gentleman. I accept it, in the context that any judgment on the issue must be a matter of balance. We come down on one side or the other. We have not yet heard all the arguments from Northern Ireland Members, and it is a question of balance. I have come down, and have made my position fairly clear by expressing a serious reservation.
8.16 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not wish to detain the House too long. I share most of the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), and I wish that he would have the courage to follow them and vote with the Opposition parties. Much of what he said expresses a fear shared not only by Opposition Members but by many people throughout Great Britain and the island of Ireland.
I must say at the outset that I am a fervent supporter of the Select Committee procedure. We certainly need parliamentarians overseeing Departments. That has been one of the most important constitutional changes over the past 14 years. Because of that background and that feeling, I wholeheartedly support the establishment of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland. If only I could be convinced that it was a purely procedural matter, I should follow the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I heard what he said and I am sure that he is convinced that the matter is purely procedural. However, to me and to many other people the decision to establish the Select Committee seems not simply a procedural matter but a deeply political matter.
None of us would disagree that the present governance of Northern Ireland is totally inadequate. But as parliamentarians, most of us, except our colleagues from the Province itself, have accepted that position because we believe that the only possible solution would involve political institutions in the Province acceptable to both sections of the community there, and also a clearer definition of the triangular relationship between Belfast, London and Dublin. It is for those reasons that we have hitherto been prepared to accept the democratic deficit in the Province.
I am alarmed by the fact that the Government appear this evening to be undermining that approach. What the Secretary of State said about 20 minutes ago served only to fuel my fears that this action will be interpreted as a first step towards a purely internal settlement. After this evening's decision has been made, the Government will, without a shadow of doubt, come under increasing pressure to change the Order in Council method of dealing with Northern Ireland business—the very point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made himself.
The Secretary of State will also come under increasing pressure to reorganise local government in the Province. After tonight's decision the Government will find it increasingly difficult to resist the proposals for change. Moreover, the Government's decision represents a total about-face. Before, they have always said that they will not

359
support the establishment of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland until there is agreement between the elected representatives from both communities in the Province. They have also said that they will not support the establishment of a Select Committee until there is an outcome, successful or not, of the three-strand process. Neither of those conditions appears to have been met.
Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that tonight's decision is a cheap political fix—the victory of political expediency over political principle. It represents the payment of a debt owed by the Government to the Official Unionists. I do not blame the latter for exacting that price from the Government for having supported them in the Lobby over Maastricht last year. This motion has everything to do with the survival of the Government and nothing to do with the best interests or future well-being of Northern Ireland. I consider that a disgrace; the people of Northern Ireland deserve a great deal better.
8.21 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: If there were any integrity on the part of the Government in their dealings with both communities in Northern Ireland, this motion would not be before us tonight. If the Government genuinely believed that both communities should be dealt with equally, the motion would not be before us. By their action tonight the Government have forfeited the right to be regarded as even-handed—as honest brokers—in Northern Ireland affairs.
More than that, the Government have jeopardised the integrity of the inter-party talks, based delicately as they were on the six-party agreement of 26 March 1991. The Government have shattered that process. They have betrayed the trust given to them by the nationalist people of Northern Ireland and they have broken faith with the Irish Government, their partner in the cause of peace in Ireland.
The British Government have tried to dupe the Irish Government and others with their claim that this is merely a procedural matter with no repercussions beyond the confines of this House. It is no such thing: it never was. This is a political act; Unionist votes were bought at a crucial time last year—first, for the vote to kick miners out of their jobs, even though their sons were defending us from terrorism in Northern Ireland; and, secondly, to save the Government's bacon over Maastricht. This is a political decision; it has nothing to do with procedure.
Since 1978, the Procedure Committee has time and again said that it is up to the Government whether the process should go ahead. Time and again, that Committee has commented on the political aspects of the problem. I do not have time to quote all the Committee's recommendations over the years, but the most recent one, which appeared on 1 December 1993, stated:
"'It should be remembered that the only reason given by the Procedure Committee in 1978 for its decision not to recommend the creation of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs was the continuing uncertainty over the future consultational arrangements for the Province' … However, the Committee accepted the advice of the then Secretary of State in 1990 that appointment of such a Committee at that time 'whilst attractive in principle, could cause difficulties for the initiative launched by the Secretary of State.'
The Committee see nothing to add or subtract from their previous views. The appointment of the Committee must rest with the
360
decision of the Government to propose to the House its appointment and its terms of reference."
As I say, this has nothing to do with procedure and everything to do with Government politics.
I ask whichever Minister replies to the debate the following question: does this mean that the premise on which previous recommendations were made to the Select Committee by the Secretary of State no longer applies?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am entirely satisfied that the setting up of the Select Committee, if the House approves it, will have no adverse effect on the talks process, to which I attach great importance, as I know the hon. Gentleman does, too.
Mr. McGrady: I thank the Secretary of State for that information, but he and I both know that the principles of the 26 March 1991 agreement among the six parties to the talks, especially those pertaining to the three strands of the relationship between this Government and the Government of the Republic, clearly meant that nothing was to be agreed until all was agreed. As a party to that agreement the SDLP has never agreed with this proposed procedure.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I cannot allow that to pass—
Mr. McGrady: I have not given way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As the only representative of the nationalist community to speak in this debate, I have only a few minutes left in which to make the case against the motion.
We know, even from its timing, that this was a political decision. Within 24 hours of the Downing street declaration of 15 December, the Leader of the House had announced that a Select Committee would be set up. How could any sensible person conclude that that was not a sop to the Unionists to get them to acquiesce in the Downing street declaration?
I must move on quickly to the question of numbers. There can be no justification for the lack of equitable representation for the communities of Northern Ireland in this proposal. The recommendation was that those communities must be allowed to participate in the scrutiny of the business of this House, but that is not borne out by what has happened.
In public statements and letters throughout 1993–15 February and 22 July, to name but two such occasions—the Secretary of State reiterated the extent of the support from the elected representatives of both sides of the community that would be needed for such a move. These statements alternated with demands that procedures such as this must have widespread support. This procedure does not command widespread support among the representatives of Northern Ireland—a fact that will be illustrated when we divide on the motion tonight. Also, the motion has been put to the House on false premises.
I could go on to deal with the lack of consultation, even with my party, on the proposals before us, but I do not have the time to do that. I ask the House to reject the proposal and to support instead the inter-party talks in Northern Ireland and the peace process, against which the proposal will impact. There is no doubt about that.
The establishment of the Northern Ireland Select Committee is ill conceived, and it will have political ramifications. It would also be incorrect to proceed with such a Committee when the British and Irish Governments

361
are currently working towards a peace settlement, and at a time when there is hope that inter-party talks will be re-established.
This sop given to the Unionist parties did not bear fruit. We understand that the Democratic Unionist party withdrew from the inter-party talks. The Ulster Unionist party withdrew from the talks, or at least agreed the basis on which they were to take part. Only my party, the Alliance party, and the British and Irish Governments have been willing to sit around the table. The Unionists did not get the prize for the price of their sell-out of the nationalist people of Northern Ireland.
Obviously, I have not been able to develop the arguments that I wished to develop tonight. It is a disgrace that such an important matter has been given so little time. I certainly recommend that, for the sake of the inter-party talks, community relations and peace in Ireland, the House throws out the proposal tonight.
8.32 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: This has been an interesting debate, but the official Opposition—and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who made a passionate and understandable speech on behalf of the Social Democratic and Labour party—may be in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Admittedly, the bath water might be quite murky in some of its aspects.
I agree with the interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris); I have doubts also. Certainly my party is in favour of setting up the Committee. Nothing is needed more in terms of Northern Ireland politics than the kind of working relationship which can often be achieved across party divides in a Select Committee context.
We have been at the forefront of the campaign during the past 10 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has a distinguished record of arguing for the setting up of such a Committee as is being created this evening. It has been a long time coming, and it is not before time that we are having the motion.
The Leader of the House must understand that the fears and concerns mentioned by the hon. Member for Leominster are real. There are perceptions that the Government were in fact pandering to the Unionists, and that the motion and the Select Committee are rewards for services rendered during the Maastricht debate. The Leader of the House and the Government must do more; they must do everything they can to clear up that question, otherwise it may sour and prejudice the important work of the Select Committee in the future.
Has the Secretary of State received any representations from the Government of the Republic of Ireland? That question must be openly addressed to get it out of the road to allow the work of the Committee to start without the relationship being soured.
I wish to ask one or two questions about the membership of the Committee. The Leader of the House can no doubt confirm that shortly there will need to be another debate on the issue. I hope that it will be before Easter. The Committee of Selection will nominate members for the Committee, and those names will be in the form of a debatable motion. Indeed, the names would be amendable in terms of the constitution of that Committee
362
as suggested by the Committee of Selection. Hon. Members will get a chance to look line by line and name by name at the constitution of the Committee. I certainly reserve the right at that time to make observations about the way in which the Committee is set up.
I do not think that a case has been made by the Government for a Government built-in majority. I would like to bid for a minority party and my party to be considered for a place on the Committee. I was surprised, and a bit disappointed, that consideration of the possibility of setting up a joint Committee with the noble Lords in another place had not been actively canvassed. There is a lot of talent there—Lords Fitt, Blease and Brookeborough have distinguished records, and they could make a contribution to the work of the Committee.
The question which has been addressed in terms of the need for a formal review after six months is a good one, and the circumstances to which I adverted earlier rather require that to be undertaken. The hon. Member for Leominster made a good point about the need for progress to be made on the objective of devolution, and further executive power sharing. Indeed, the work of the British-Irish Joint Parliamentary Committee is important and ought not to be prejudiced in any way by the decisions that we are taking this evening.
I think that the amendment should be supported. Northern Ireland has special circumstances, and Orders in Council are restrictive methods of legislation. I think that the work of the Department of Public Prosecutions certainly should be scrutinised. The Leader of the House must deal more adequately with allegations of political deals, but, that said, there should be no doubt that what is good enough for other departmental Committees and other state Select Committees should be good enough for Northern Ireland.
8.35 pm
Rev. William McCrea: On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the setting up of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland affairs.
I have had the honour of representing my constituency in this House since 1983, yet I do not believe that many hon. Members are aware of the lack of accountability and democracy in Northern Ireland. We need proper scrutiny on behalf of our constituents, and this debate certainly gives us an opportunity for that. I thank the Procedure Committee for making the recommendation, and I am delighted that it is before the House. I can assure the House that, if my party has a representative on the Select Committee, it will play a vital part in the scrutiny.
It is rather rich of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) to comment on the lack of cross-community support. He talks about the need for cross-community support for the Select Committee, and yet there was no need for cross-community support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement or for the London-Dublin deal.
The measure effectively restrains the Executive, and hands power to the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. It is disgraceful that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies want to take from us that right of scrutiny of the Executive. Bearing in mind that all other Departments are brought to account, it is only right that the Executive in Northern Ireland—the

363
Secretary of State, Ministers and the Northern Ireland Office—should be brought to account for some of the actions which they have forced upon people.
Hon. Members have talked a lot about the peace initiative. Many people in Northern Ireland believe that talk of a peace initiative is rather bogus. We were promised "Peace by Christmas" and "Peace within a week" by the right hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, on the basis of the Adams-Hume talks. I think that that was rather disgusting. They know that that is a bogus peace which will take us down a cul de sac. It will take us out of the United Kingdom—our rightful place—and towards a united Ireland. That has been the aim and object of all the terrorism that the United Kingdom has endured over the years.
My party has held a torch, as have other parties, for the Select Committee. I am delighted that we will have the right to scrutinise Ministers and the Department. Direct rule is remote and Ministers must be brought to book. If that is so for Ministers, it should certainly be so for the civil service in Northern Ireland. The civil servants have been ruling the Province for a number of years, and they are rather uncomfortable at the thought that they are to be scrutinised and held to account for some of the deals which they have done behind the backs of the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I certainly welcome the fact that we will have an opportunity to see the civil servants answer to the elected representatives of the people of the Province.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [4 March].
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Tim Devlin(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With reference to the point of order raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), may I say that I left my office at 7 Millbank, walked here and voted. The doors are not yet closed. In view of that fact, I wonder whether you are aware of the lack of difficulty in voting from 7 Millbank.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): My immediate predecessor dealt adequately with that point of order.
The House having divided: Ayes 240, Noes 298.

Division No. 158]

[8.38 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Adams, Mrs Irene

Bennett, Andrew F.

Ainger, Nick

Benton, Joe

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Bermingham, Gerald

Allen, Graham

Berry, Dr. Roger

Alton, David

Betts, Clive

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Blunkett, David

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Boateng, Paul

Armstrong, Hilary

Boyes, Roland

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Bradley, Keith

Austin-Walker, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Barnes, Harry

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Barron, Kevin

Burden, Richard

Battle, John

Byers, Stephen

Bayley, Hugh

Caborn, Richard

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Callaghan, Jim

Bell, Stuart

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

364

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Canavan, Dennis

Hutton, John

Cann, Jamie

Ingram, Adam

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Clapham, Michael

Jamieson, David

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Janner, Greville

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Coffey, Ann

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Cohen, Harry

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Connarty, Michael

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jowell, Tessa

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Corbett, Robin

Keen, Alan

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Corston, Ms Jean

Khabra, Piara S.

Cousins, Jim

Kilfoyle, Peter

Cox, Tom

Kirkwood, Archy

Cryer, Bob

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cummings, John

Lewis, Terry

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Litherland, Robert

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Livingstone, Ken

Dalyell, Tam

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Darling, Alistair

Loyden, Eddie

Davidson, Ian

Lynne, Ms Liz

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

McAllion, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McAvoy, Thomas

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

McCartney, Ian

Denham, John

McFall, John

Dewar, Donald

McKelvey, William

Dixon, Don

Mackinlay, Andrew

Donohoe, Brian H.

McLeish, Henry

Dowd, Jim

McMaster, Gordon

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McNamara, Kevin

Eagle, Ms Angela

McWilliam, John

Enright, Derek

Madden, Max

Etherington, Bill

Mahon, Alice

Fatchett, Derek

Mandelson, Peter

Faulds, Andrew

Marek, Dr John

Fisher, Mark

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Flynn, Paul

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Martlew, Eric

Fraser, John

Maxton, John

Fyfe, Maria

Meacher, Michael

Galbraith, Sam

Meale, Alan

Galloway, George

Michael, Alun

Gapes, Mike

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Garrett, John

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Gerrard, Neil

Milburn, Alan

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Miller, Andrew

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Godsiff, Roger

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Golding, Mrs Llin

Morgan, Rhodri

Gordon, Mildred

Morley, Elliot

Gould, Bryan

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Graham, Thomas

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mudie, George

Grocott, Bruce

Mullin, Chris

Gunnell, John

Murphy, Paul

Hain, Peter

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hall, Mike

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Hanson, David

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hardy, Peter

O'Hara, Edward

Harman, Ms Harriet

O'Neill, Martin

Harvey, Nick

Parry, Robert

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Patchett, Terry

Henderson, Doug

Pickthall, Colin

Heppell, John

Pike, Peter L.

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Pope, Greg

Hinchliffe, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Home Robertson, John

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hood, Jimmy

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Prescott, John

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Primarolo, Dawn

Hoyle, Doug

Purchase, Ken

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Quin, Ms Joyce

365

Radice, Giles

Stevenson, George

Raynsford, Nick

Stott, Roger

Redmond, Martin

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Reid, Dr John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Rendel, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Tyler, Paul

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Rogers, Allan

Wallace, James

Rooney, Terry

Walley, Joan

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Ruddock, Joan

Wareing, Robert N

Sedgemore, Brian

Watson, Mike

Sheerman, Barry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W>

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Short, Clare

Winnick, David

Skinner, Dennis

Worthington, Tony

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wray, Jimmy

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Wright, Dr Tony

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Spearing, Nigel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Dennis Turner.

Steinberg, Gerry

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Aitken, Jonathan

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Alexander, Richard

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Cormack, Patrick

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Couchman, James

Amess, David

Cran, James

Arbuthnot, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Aspinwall, Jack

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Atkins, Robert

Day, Stephen

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Devlin, Tim

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Baldry, Tony

Dicks, Terry

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Dorrell, Stephen

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bates, Michael

Dover, Den

Batiste, Spencer

Duncan, Alan

Bellingham, Henry

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Bendall, Vivian

Dunn, Bob

Beresford, Sir Paul

Durant, Sir Anthony

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dykes, Hugh

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Eggar, Tim

Booth, Hartley

Elletson, Harold

Boswell, Tim

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bowden, Andrew

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bowis, John

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Evennett, David

Brandreth, Gyles

Faber, David

Brazier, Julian

Fabricant, Michael

Bright, Graham

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Fishburn, Dudley

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Forman, Nigel

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Forth, Eric

Budgen, Nicholas

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Burns, Simon

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Butler, Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Butterfill, John

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Fry, Sir Peter

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gale, Roger

Carrington, Matthew

Gallie, Phil

Carttiss, Michael

Gardiner, Sir George

Churchill, Mr

Garnier, Edward

Clappison, James

Gill, Christopher

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gillan, Cheryl

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Coe, Sebastian

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Colvin, Michael

Gorst, John

Conway, Derek

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

366

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mills, Iain

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Moate, Sir Roger

Hague, William

Monro, Sir Hector

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hampson, Dr Keith

Moss, Malcolm

Hanley, Jeremy

Needham, Richard

Hannam, Sir John

Nelson, Anthony

Hargreaves, Andrew

Neubert, Sir Michael

Harris, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Haselhurst, Alan

Nicholls, Patrick

Hawkins, Nick

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hawksley, Warren

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hayes, Jerry

Norris, Steve

Heald, Oliver

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hendry, Charles

Ottaway, Richard

Hicks, Robert

Page, Richard

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Paice, James

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Patnick, Irvine

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Horam, John

Pawsey, James

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

Pickles, Eric

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Rathbone, Tim

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Richards, Rod

Hunter, Andrew

Riddick, Graham

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jack, Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jenkin, Bernard

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jessel, Toby

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Sackville, Tom

Key, Robert

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

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

Shersby, Michael

Knox, Sir David

Sims, Roger

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Soames, Nicholas

Legg, Barry

Speed, Sir Keith

Leigh, Edward

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lidington, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lightbown, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spring, Richard

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Sproat, Iain

Lord, Michael

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Luff, Peter

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

MacKay, Andrew

Stephen, Michael

Maclean, David

Stern, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stewart, Allan

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Madel, Sir David

Sumberg, David

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sweeney, Walter

Malone, Gerald

Sykes, John

Mans, Keith

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marland, Paul

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thomason, Roy

Mates, Michael

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Merchant, Piers

Thurnham, Peter

367

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Whitney, Ray

Tracey, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Tredinnick, David

Widdecombe, Ann

Trend, Michael

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Trotter, Neville

Wilkinson, John

Twinn, Dr Ian

Willetts, David

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wilshire, David

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Walden, George

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Wolfson, Mark

Waller, Gary

Yeo, Tim

Ward, John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Waterson, Nigel

Tellers for the Noes:

Watts, John

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

Wells, Bowen

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question Put:—
The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 221.

Division No. 159]

[8.52 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Aitken, Jonathan

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Alexander, Richard

Coe, Sebastian

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Colvin, Michael

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Conway, Derek

Alton, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Amess, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arbuthnot, James

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cormack, Patrick

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Couchman, James

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cran, James

Aspinwall, Jack

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Atkins, Robert

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Day, Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Devlin, Tim

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bates, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Batiste, Spencer

Dorrell, Stephen

Beggs, Roy

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bellingham, Henry

Dover, Den

Bendall, Vivian

Duncan, Alan

Beresford, Sir Paul

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dunn, Bob

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Durant, Sir Anthony

Body, Sir Richard

Dykes, Hugh

Booth, Hartley

Eggar, Tim

Boswell, Tim

Elletson, Harold

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bowden, Andrew

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bowis, John

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Brandreth, Gyles

Evennett, David

Brazier, Julian

Faber, David

Bright, Graham

Fabricant, Michael

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Fishburn, Dudley

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Forman, Nigel

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Budgen, Nicholas

Forth, Eric

Burns, Simon

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Butler, Peter

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Butterfill, John

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Cariile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Fry, Sir Peter

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gale, Roger

Carrington, Matthew

Gallie, Phil

Carttiss, Michael

Gardiner, Sir George

Churchill, Mr

Garnier, Edward

Clappison, James

Gill, Christopher

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gillan, Cheryl

368

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mans, Keith

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marland, Paul

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marlow, Tony

Gorst, John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mates, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hague, William

Merchant, Piers

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mills, Iain

Hanley, Jeremy

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hannam, Sir John

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Moate, Sir Roger

Harris, David

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Harvey, Nick

Monro, Sir Hector

Haselhurst, Alan

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hawkins, Nick

Moss, Malcolm

Hawksley, Warren

Needham, Richard

Hayes, Jerry

Nelson, Anthony

Heald, Oliver

Neubert, Sir Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hendry, Charles

Nicholls, Patrick

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Norris, Steve

Horam, John

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

Ottaway, Richard

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Page, Richard

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Paice, James

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Patnick, Irvine

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hunter, Andrew

Pawsey, James

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jack, Michael

Pickles, Eric

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Jenkin, Bernard

Rathbone, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rendel, David

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Richards, Rod

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Riddick, Graham

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Robathan, Andrew

Key, Robert

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Kilfedder, Sir James

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

King, Rt Hon Torn

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Kirkwood, Archy

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Knapman, Roger

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knox, Sir David

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Sackville, Tom

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Legg, Barry

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Leigh, Edward

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lidington, David

Shersby, Michael

Lightbown, David

Sims, Roger

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lord, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Luff, Peter

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Soames, Nicholas

Lynne, Ms Liz

Speed, Sir Keith

McCrea, Rev William

Spencer, Sir Derek

MacKay, Andrew

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Maclean, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spink, Dr Robert

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Spring, Richard

Madel, Sir David

Sproat, Iain

Maginnis, Ken

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Malone, Gerald

Steen, Anthony

369

Stephen, Michael

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Stern, Michael

Walden, George

Stewart, Allan

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Streeter, Gary

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Sumberg, David

Wallace, James

Sweeney, Walter

Waller, Gary

Sykes, John

Ward, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Waterson, Nigel

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Watts, John

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Whitney, Ray

Temple-Morris, Peter

Whittingdale, John

Thomason, Roy

Widdecombe, Ann

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wilkinson, John

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Willetts, David

Thurnham, Peter

Wilshire, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Tracey, Richard

Wolfson, Mark

Tredinnick, David

Wood, Timothy

Trend, Michael

Yeo, Tim

Trimble, David

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tyler, Paul

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cox, Tom

Adams, Mrs Irene

Cryer, Bob

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cummings, John

Allen, Graham

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Dalyell, Tam

Armstrong, Hilary

Darling, Alistair

Austin-Walker, John

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Barron, Kevin

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

Battle, John

Denham, John

Bayley, Hugh

Dewar, Donald

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Dixon, Don

Bell, Stuart

Donohoe, Brian H.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dowd, Jim

Bennett, Andrew F.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Benton, Joe

Eagle, Ms Angela

Bermingham, Gerald

Enright, Derek

Berry, Dr. Roger

Etherington, Bill

Betts, Clive

Fatchett, Derek

Blunkett, David

Faulds, Andrew

Boateng, Paul

Fisher, Mark

Boyes, Roland

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Bradley, Keith

Fraser, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fyfe, Maria

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Galloway, George

Burden, Richard

Gapes, Mike

Byers, Stephen

Garrett, John

Caborn, Richard

Gerrard, Neil

Callaghan, Jim

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Godsiff, Roger

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Canavan, Dennis

Gordon, Mildred

Cann, Jamie

Graham, Thomas

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Clapham, Michael

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Grocott, Bruce

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Gunnell, John

Coffey, Ann

Hain, Peter

Cohen, Harry

Hall, Mike

Connarty, Michael

Hanson, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hardy, Peter

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Corbett, Robin

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Henderson, Doug

Corston, Ms Jean

Heppell, John

Cousins, Jim

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

370

Hinchliffe, David

Murphy, Paul

Home Robertson, John

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hoon, Geoffrey

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hoyle, Doug

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Parry, Robert

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Patchett, Terry

Hutton, John

Pickthall, Colin

Ingram, Adam

Pike, Peter L.

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Pope, Greg

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jamieson, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Janner, Greville

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Prescott, John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jowell, Tessa

Radice, Giles

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Raynsford, Nick

Keen, Alan

Redmond, Martin

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Reid, Dr John

Khabra, Piara S.

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Lewis, Terry

Rogers, Allan

Litherland, Robert

Rooney, Terry

Livingstone, Ken

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ruddock, Joan

Loyden, Eddie

Sedgemore, Brian

McAllion, John

Sheerman, Barry

McAvoy, Thomas

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McCartney, Ian

Short, Clare

McFall, John

Skinner, Dennis

McGrady, Eddie

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McKelvey, William

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

McLeish, Henry

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

McMaster, Gordon

Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)

McNamara, Kevin

Soley, Clive

McWilliam, John

Spearing, Nigel

Madden, Max

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Mahon, Alice

Steinberg, Gerry

Mallon, Seamus

Stevenson, George

Mandelson, Peter

Stott, Roger

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Martlew, Eric

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Maxton, John

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Meacher, Michael

Walley, Joan

Meale, Alan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Michael, Alun

Wareing, Robert N

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Watson, Mike

Milburn, Alan

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Miller, Andrew

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Winnick, David

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Worthington, Tony

Morgan, Rhodri

Wray, Jimmy

Morley, Elliot

Wright, Dr Tony

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Tellers for the Noes:

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Dennis Turner.

Mudie, George

Mullin, Chris

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 130 (Select Committees related to government departments) be amended, by leaving out lines 5 to 8, and in the Table after the entry relating to National Heritage, by inserting the words—

371

"9A Northern Northern Ireland Affairs

Northern Ireland Office; administration and Ireland Affairs expenditure of the Crown Solicitor's Office (but excluding individual cases and advice given by the Crown Solicitor); and other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (but excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Direct or of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland and the drafting of legislation by the Office of the Legislative Counsel).

13

4"

DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question on the other motion requiring to be decided at that hour.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 99 (Northern Ireland Committee) be amended, in line 2 and in line 15, in each case after the word 'Ireland' by inserting the word `Grand'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

PETITION

  Religious Education in Schools
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Neville Trotter: I have the honour to present a petition to the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled in the name of Mrs. Jane Cooper and hundreds of my constituents and a total of more than 4,000 people throughout the north-east of England.
  The humble petition of the residents of the north-east of England sheweth that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has produced proposals that advocate as the norm the teaching of three non-Christian faiths by the age of 11, which, in view of young children's limited capacity to understand even Christianity, is educationally unsound, will result in confusion in young children's minds and will inevitably trivialise all faiths.
  The petitioners are concerned that primary school children should be given a thorough grounding in the Christian faith. Only 3 per cent. of the population adhere to a non-Christian faith. To teach non-Christian faiths to children under the age of 11 only confuses them. The place for such teaching is the secondary school. The petitioners welcome the recent advice from the Secretary of State that Christianity should predominate at every stage of religious education. They therefore call on him to instruct the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority to bring forward proposals to ensure that the new model syllabuses for religious education concentrate on the basics of Christianity for infant and junior school children.
  The petition concludes:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Education to direct the said authority to bring forward sensible proposals requiring the concentration on Christian traditions in the primary school so that young people come to understand something of the faith and values which have shaped our nation's culture, laws and institutions and created the proper tolerance and protection for the 3 per cent. of the population who adhere to a non-Christian faith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Psychiatric Killings (Doncaster)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  9.6pm
  Sir Harold Walker: I welcome this opportunity to raise certain tragic events that occurred in my constituency—events that caused widespread concern and deep grief; events to which the Secretary of State's response has been wholly inadequate.
  On 30 March 1991 Carol Barratt was in the Frenchgate shopping centre in Doncaster, where she threatened a young lady with a knife. She was arrested, and later, following an assessment by a police surgeon, an approved social worker and the duty psychiatrist, was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Doncaster royal infirmary under a section of the Mental Health Act 1983.
  During her admission she appealed against her detention to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, but her appeal was turned down. Despite this, on 14 April the responsible medical officer—a Dr. Silvester—discharged her from her section of the Mental Health Act and she walked out of the hospital. Two days later—on 16 April —Carol Barratt went to the Frenchgate shopping centre and stabbed to death little Emma Brodie, an 11-year-old schoolgirl whose parents kept a nearby public house. The parents have not recovered from the shock and grief, and probably never will.
  That such an appalling tragedy in such circumstances could occur was greeted first with total disbelief and then with furled anger in my constituency. The report of the fact-finding committee that was subsequently set up by the Trent regional health authority said that the responsible medical officer's decision to terminate her section
  "constituted a serious error of clinical judgment".
  That severe indictment was expressed in even stronger terms by other people, particularly when it was learnt that Carol Barratt had also attacked a visitor during her detention prior to the killing.
  The fact finding committee's report also contains the extraordinary statement:
  "although her responsible medical officer realised her dangerousness he nevertheless decided to discharge her from Section. In doing so he expressed the hope that the police would then get involved which could allow for more long-term detention of Carol to be arranged".
  In other words, he thought, "Let her out; she is bound to do something bad and then we can have her back inside again." It is incredible, but that, as it turned out, is exactly what happened—with such terrible consequences for poor little Emma Brodie.
  It is more incredible that the responsible medical officer could not take the trouble to attend the mental health tribunal, which, on 11 April, said of Carol Barratt:
  "She needs supervision and should not be released from the Section." '
  Just how serious an error of clinical judgment occurred in the case can be fully measured only when viewed in the context of the report of the fact finding committee. The committee did a good job within its terms of reference and I pay tribute to its members for their much-valued work, but they suffered a serious handicap. The committee was set up by the Trent regional health authority.
  Understandably, following the tragedy the little girl's father, Mr. Brodie, sought redress at law. For all I know, he may still be pursuing legal action—an action in which the

  373
  same Trent regional health authority would certainly be joined, as the employer of the psychiatrist at the time that he made the fateful decision. An inquiry mounted by an organisation that needed to protect itself could not command the confidence of the public or anyone else— least of all anyone who might need the services of the psychiatry unit of the Doncaster royal infirmary.
  I do not question the professional competence or the probity of those people who conducted the inquiry on behalf of the regional health authority, but their conclusions would have commanded greater support and confidence if they had been seen to be totally independent instead of appearing to act on behalf of an organisation with a vested interest in the outcome.
  I pressed for an independent inquiry. For some other people that was not sufficient; they wanted a public inquiry. Those people who wanted a public inquiry, oddly enough, included the very Dr. Silvester who was responsible for the serious error of clinical judgment. I press for an independent inquiry. I do not want nurses grilled in public, but I think that we need to get at the facts of the matter. So far, I have pressed in vain.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members will recall the tragic Beverley Allitt case. How was the inquiry into that case conducted? The Secretary of State for Health set up what she described properly as an "independent" inquiry headed by a distinguished Queen's Counsel, Mr. Cecil Clothier. If she could do that in the Beverley A llitt case, why could not she do that in the Carol Barratt case?
  The Secretary of State said that she had intervened because of the "unprecedented scale and magnitude" of the Allitt case, but the House knows that one does not multiply grief. It is not magnified by numbers; it is total to the individual or the family that has suffered.
  I call again tonight for a thorough, wide-ranging, independent inquiry into the circumstances that led to the death of Emma Brodie.
  Perhaps hon. Members are wondering what disciplinary action was taken against the psychiatrist who committed that serious error of clinical judgment. He was sent for a course of training, which is now completed, and he is now back in a senior post with the Doncaster Health Care trust. I should add, before I pass on to other matters, that the fact finding committee paid a deserved tribute to the staff of the unit by referring to
  "a dedicated and enthusiastic staff giving good enlightened care ' to their patients".
  I now turn to a rather different, but no less sad, case —the tragic death of Mr. Peter Savage. Mr. Savage was a patient in a general medical ward at the Doncaster royal infirmary. On 10 June 1993. he was fatally stabbed by another patient.
  Once more, I pressed for an independent inquiry, but what we got was an internal inquiry led by Mr. Philip Gill, the retired former coroner of West Yorkshire. Again, I raise no question concerning Mr. Gill's probity or professional competence; but, as he himself pointed out in the introduction to his subsequent report, he was required not to investigate the circumstances leading to Mr. Savage's death. Instead, he was given the following terms of reference:
  "To review the admission, investigation and treatment of confused patients in acute health care settings in order to ensure the safety of services locally."
  I have no complaint about the way in which Mr. Gill conducted his inquiry—nor do I question his subsequent
  374
  recommendations. But it was not the right inquiry. Why cannot there be an independent inquiry into the circumstances of Mr. Peter Savage's death? Again, I emphasise "independent". because Mr. Gill's inquiry was commissioned by the Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu hospital national health service trust, the body responsible for the management of the unit in which Mr. Savage was killed.
  Perhaps the Minister will say that the police investigation looked into the circumstances of the death. But the police were mainly or only concerned with factors that were relevant to a successful prosecution of the mentally disturbed man who did the killing. Questions that might touch upon the responsibilities of the hospital authorities in this matter would almost certainly have been outside their inquiries.
  By way of contrast with the manner in which these matters have been dealt with in Doncaster, may I finally refer to the "Report of the Inquiry into the Care and Treatment of Christopher Clunis"? I have no intention of getting involved in the substance of that case, except to draw attention to the strong parallels with the killing of Emma Brodie, of which, in outline, it was almost a carbon copy. Christopher Clunis was a man with a history of mental disorder and psychiatric treatment who, without any apparent reason, stabbed to death a member of the public, Jonathan Zito, on 17 December 1992.
  Although the subsequent inquiry was set up by the North East Thames and South East Thames regional health authorities, the report published late last month—just a couple of weeks ago—reflects a significantly more open and thorough approach than that of Trent region to which I referred earlier. Take the terms of reference for a start: there is no nonsense here about not inquiring into the circumstances that led to the person's death.
  The inquiry, headed by Mrs. Jean Ritchie QC, was required first, to investigate all the circumstances surrounding the admission, treatment, discharge and continuing care of Christopher Clunis between May 1992 and December 1992; secondly, to identify any deficiencies in the quality and delivery of that care, as well as inter-agency collaboration and individual responsibilities; and, thirdly, to make recommendations for the future delivery of care including admission, treatment, discharge and continuing care to people in similar circumstances so that, as far as possible, harm to patients and the public is avoided. Why did we not have similar broad-ranging, far-reaching terms of reference for the cases in my constituency—and we certainly did not?
  Mrs. Ritchie's committee of inquiry received evidence, written and oral, from a variety of experts, professional bodies and organisations and other interested parties. It received evidence from 143 witnesses. Those involved went out in pursuit of evidence—among other things, visiting Rampton hospital. They heard evidence from members of the public. All the witnesses are listed in the report, which runs to nearly 150 pages.
  The Ritchie inquiry did an outstanding job of work and produced an excellent report. It deserves the thanks not only of the authorities that commissioned it but of all who care about mental disorders, not least those who suffer from them. I hope that its many recommendations are implemented and that its valuable lessons are learnt. I deeply regret that similar inquiries were not set up in those analogous Doncaster tragedies that I have described. If they had been, Mrs. Ritchie's task would have been lighter

  375
  or perhaps even unnecessary. My constituents in Doncaster want to know why there have been thorough in-depth inquiries into cases in some parts of the country, but not in others—at least not in Doncaster.
  The Allitt case received proper scrutiny on the initiative of the Secretary of State. There was a thoroughly professional inquiry in the Clunis case but in south Yorkshire, different and lesser standards seem to apply. It is not good enough and the Secretary of State should take steps to enable my constituents to feel that they will receive that to which they are entitled: equity of treatment and parity of care.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker) for allowing me a few minutes to speak in his Adjournment debate. I shall try to be as brief as possible because I am keen, as is my right hon. Friend, to hear the Minister's response.
  Like my right hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the nursing staff in the Doncaster health care services. Under no circumstances should any blame for what has occurred be placed on nursing staff. Put purely and simply, the blame lies with bad management at health authority and regional health authority levels.
  There has been a catalogue of disasters in Doncaster. The case involving the brain-damaged babies, the Silvester case and the Peter Savage case have been outlined very well by my right hon. Friend. As he pointed out, there has not been a public inquiry nor even an independent inquiry. Why should Doncaster be any different? Rightly, there was an independent inquiry into the Clunis case and its findings have been widely welcomed.
  There has been a whitewash in each of the Doncaster cases. Internal inquiries were not open to public scrutiny. There was merely an audit of procedures to examine the brain-damaged babies case. Something different needs to be done. While the audit was welcome, it did not tackle the supposed problems that affected those babies.
  Trent regional health authority set up another internal inquiry to examine the Silvester case. To add insult to injury, the doctor involved still works in Doncaster. Another internal inquiry was set up in the Peter Savage case. It amounted to an audit of procedures. In no way, shape or form did that inquiry even try to deal with what happened in the Peter Savage case or what went wrong —the inquiry was merely an audit of procedures.
  Like my right hon. Friend, I believe that that is not good enough. Both Trent regional health authority and Doncaster health authority have failed miserably in their duties to the Doncaster public.
  I have corresponded with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), on the matter, raised it in parliamentary questions and even met the Minister to discuss it. I told him that the issue would not go away until it had been properly dealt with.
  There has been and will continue to be local media coverage of and attention to the problem. I understand that the BBC is putting together a documentary film on the issue. A letter was sent to one of the shops in the Doncaster Frenchgate centre, where young Emma Brodie was
  376
  tragically stabbed. It gives details of the filming at the Frenchgate centre on Sunday 6 March 1994—last Sunday —and continues:
  "The filming is for Crime Limited a BBC 1 programme … in our forthcoming series".
  That is a short quote from a very long letter.
  When will the Minister understand that the people of Doncaster demand public scrutiny of all the cases that I mentioned? Even Dr. Silvester has said that he would welcome a public inquiry. I quote from an article in the Yorkshire Post on 23 June 1993:
  "He insisted lay members of the panel were not qualified to hear the case and said he would welcome a public inquiry to set the record straight."
  Will the Minister now agree to a public inquiry, or even the independent inquiry that my right hon. Friend asked for, so that justice can be seen to be done in the Doncaster health care services?
  9.24 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): May I first say what a pleasure it is to respond to a debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker). It is the first time that I have had the pleasure of doing so. He is, of course, a well-respected Member of the House. I congratulate him on securing the time to debate the issue of the mental health services in Doncaster and the tragic cases to which he referred. I acknowledge the contribution made by the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes).
  All hon. Members will join in conveying our deep sympathy to the families and friends of Emma Brodie and Peter Savage, whose lives have been shattered by these tragedies. I am aware of the personal links that the right hon. Gentleman has with one of those families. The death of a loved one is always traumatic and difficult to come to terms with, but especially so under sudden and violent circumstances.
  The proposal this evening is that there should be an inquiry into psychiatric killings in Doncaster. The right hon. Gentleman asked for an independent inquiry and specifically ruled out a public inquiry. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North preferred to ask for a public inquiry, although he said that he would accept an independent inquiry. Nevertheless, an inquiry has been asked for. The right hon. Gentleman cited the murders of Emma Brodie in 1991 and Peter Savage in 1993 as evidence for that.
  In point of fact, I have to say that both tragic murders have been the subject not only of lengthy police investigation and judicial trials but of independent investigations set up by Trent regional health authority and the Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu Hospital NHS trust respectively. In addition, the health advisory service has been investigating mental health services in Doncaster. That may be partly the answer to the right hon. Gentleman. Its report is due shortly.
  In the case of Emma Brodie, Trent RHA established an independent committee of inquiry in April 1991 to look at the admission, care, treatment and discharge of her assailant, Carol Ann Barratt. The committee was chaired by Cyril Unwin, a former trade union member of Trent RHA and a justice of the peace, assisted by Dr. Dennis Morgan, consult psychiatrist at Queen Elizabeth hospital, King's Lynn, and Brian Smith, a Mental Health Act commissioner.

  377
  In its report, the committee made a number of recommendations. It recommended, for example, that the consultant psychiatrist—to whom the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend referred—who authorised Carol Barratt's release should undergo a substantial period of supervised retraining outside the district. As a result, he was moved to Leicestershire district health authority in June 1992. The period of retraining ended, as the right hon. Gentleman said, at the beginning of January 1993.
  But the RHA did not let the matter rest there. At its authority meeting in January 1993, Trent RHA considered the report of the doctor's supervising consultant during his retraining period and authorised his return to work only under certain conditions, including continuing supervision and training.
  In the case of Peter Savage, Doncaster royal infirmary trust asked Mr. Philip Gill, the former coroner from west Yorkshire, who retired in August 1993, to conduct an independent inquiry into the admission, investigation and treatment of confused patients in acute health care settings to ensure the safety of the services locally.
  The scope of the inquiry was announced on 6 October 1993 after extensive consultation with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and my Department so that neither the defence nor prosecution were put in jeopardy. I am sure that that will be well understood. The inquiry's terms of reference were communicated to Members of Parliament representing Doncaster constituencies, to Mr. Savage's family, to the press and to the Department of Health; again, no objections were raised at the time.
  The inquiry's report makes a total of 11 recommendations involving three categories—training, liaison psychiatry and guidelines. The recommendations that could be implemented immediately have already been acted on; others are subject to detailed consultation with clinicians at a national level, to ensure that the trust implements a policy that accords with best clinical practice.
  Although Mr. Gill's inquiry did not report on the specific event of Mr. Savage's death, it did consider procedures for patients admitted with symptoms similar to those displayed by Mr. Savage's killer, Keith Emmerson.
  Sir Harold Walker: The Minister said that, at the time when the Gill inquiry's terms of reference were announced, no objections were voiced. That was because we assumed at the time that, within those terms of reference, Mr. Gill would have an opportunity to do what he subsequently said that he was required not to do.
  When the terms of reference were published, they contained no statement that Mr. Gill would not be required to look into the circumstances of Mr. Savage's death; and I for one had assumed that his terms of reference would allow him to do just that. It now seems that we were wrong. Perhaps Mr. Gill, or I, did not understand what the terms of reference meant, but the fact remains that the circumstances of Mr. Savage's death have not been inquired into. Why can they not be inquired into?
  Mr. Bowis: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is acknowledging that the terms of reference were brought to his attention, to the family's attention and so on. As he said, he did not understand that that excluded looking into the specific details.
  In fact, I think it fair to say that it did not. In the course of his inquiry, Mr. Gill interviewed all the main witnesses
  378
  to the event, and the people responsible for Mr. Emmerson's care. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, he also interviewed Mrs. Savage, in the presence of her legal adviser.
  It is important to understand that Mr. Emmerson had never shown any signs of psychiatric disorders before and had never been in touch with any psychiatric service in Doncaster. He was admitted to hospital via the accident and emergency department, where he had presented himself, showing signs of confusion which at that stage could have been the result of a medical condition such as epilepsy: that is why he was placed on a medical ward, so that the exact nature of his condition could be established.
  I understand that a number of valuable lessons have been learnt as a result of Mr. Gill's inquiry. For example, staff from the accident and emergency department, the transit ward and the medical ward have now been trained to assess patients with possible psychiatric conditions. More staff will undertake such training over the coming months. There are now better links between the psychiatric unit and the acute hospital and nurse practitioners in the psychiatric unit can be called on by the accident and emergency department for advice and help.
  I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for Doncaster, North, for their comments about the nursing staff in the hospitals. I am sure that all concerned will note those comments with gratitude.
  As with the case of Emma Brodie, this case was investigated fully by the police before the trial of Keith Emmerson. An independent investigation has already reported, and I cannot see that anything would be gained from a further inquiry that has not already been obtained by the reports that we, and the health authority, have already received.
  I understand that the chief executive of the Doncaster Royal Infirmary trust, Mr. David Nicholson, has recently been in touch with Mrs. Savage to answer her detailed and specific questions about the time leading up to and immediately after her husband's death. She has also been made aware of the action taken by the trust to minimise the possibility of such a tragedy's ever happening again. I believe that Mr. Nicholson has offered Mrs. Savage a chance to meet him and the staff involved in the care of her husband if she needs any further information or explanation.
  The right hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members from Doncaster and the surrounding constituencies, may recall that the Secretary of State for Health told the House in July 1993 that the Health Advisory Service would review mental health services in Doncaster. The right hon. Gentleman may take some comfort from that. The work is now complete and the results will be published shortly.
  Carol Ann Barratt made her fatal attack on Emma Brodie shortly after her release from hospital. That was in 1991 and, since then, we have introduced the care programme approach which is intended to cover all patients being considered for discharge from mental illness hospitals and all new patients accepted by specialist psychiatric services. The needs of each patient for continuing health and social care and accommodation should be systematically assessed and effective systems should be put in place to ensure that agreed health and, where necessary, social care services, are provided to those patients who can be treated in the community. Explicit, individually tailored care programmes are drawn up and a

  379
  key worker is identified to keep in close touch with the patient and ensure that the agreed package of health and social care is being delivered.
  The best safeguards for patients and the public are still professional judgment, co-operation between services and a proper understanding of the powers that are available under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the limits that it imposes. That is why, in the case of Emma Brodie, it was right for the regional health authority to specify certain conditions under which this particular professional is able to practise.
  I am sure the right hon. Member will join me in welcoming the action of Trent regional health authority and Doncaster district health authority in asking the Health Advisory Service to conduct the review of mental health service provision in the Doncaster area. It clearly demonstrates a commitment to securing the safety of the
  380
  public and the best possible service for the mentally ill. I understand that the team will be making recommendations to local health authorities about future psychiatric provision.
  I join the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Doncaster, North in expressing gratitude to all those who work in the medical and nursing professions and in voluntary organisations who do so much for mentally ill people. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the right hon. Member. I share his determination to ensure that high-quality treatment and care is available to mentally ill people, on a national level and locally in Doncaster, and that we learn from the experiences of past tragedies for the benefit of the patients and the local community. I believe that that is the best answer for the families of Emma Brodie and Peter Savage.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Shalfleet Bridge
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the Shalfleet bridge was first placed on the draft list of listed buildings; and when the county council was advised of the draft listing of this structure.

  Mr. Brooke
  Shalfleet bridge was included in the draft resurvey list which was submitted to my Department by English Heritage on 9 July 1993. A copy of the draft list was sent to South Wight borough council on 12 July 1993, and I understand that the Council passed it on to the Isle of Wight joint planning technical unit, which serves South Wight and Medina borough councils and the Isle of Wight county council.

  My Department does not send copies of draft lists to county councils: copies are sent only to district planning authorities.

  Arts Council of England
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will announce the members of the new Arts Council of England.

  Mr. Brooke
  Shortly.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Child Support Agency
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on Child Support Agency case reference no. 1001953851, dealt with at the Longton agency; and on what grounds the agency cancelled the child maintenance order concerned.

    Mr. Burt
    The case was taken on under section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991 and the maintenance order was subsequently superseded and ceased to have effect by virtue of regulation 3(6) of the Child Support (Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) Regulations 1992.

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the policy of the Child Support Agency regarding using first-class post rather than second-class post;

    (2) how many letters on average are sent by the Child Support Agency to each person who is the subject of a claim prior to the statement of the new contribution required;

    (3) what was the overall cost of administration and the cost of the postage bill for the Child Support Agency in the last available year.
    214
    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 O'Brien, dated 8 March 1994:

    I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the overall cost of administration, the cost of postage and the number of letters issued by the Child Support Agency before a maintenance assessment is completed.

    As the Agency has not completed its first year of operation, the actual full year's costs are not yet known. The total budget allocation for the Agency's capital and running costs for the year 1993–94 is £116 million, of which £2·2 million has been allocated for postage.

    Figures are not collected centrally on the total number of letters issued to individual clients before a maintenance assessment is made. Our records indicate, however, that in addition to the initial letter, reminders are currently required in 50 per cent. of cases, and further verification required in 40 per cent. of cases.

    All correspondence issued by the Agency's computer system and payments are sent by first class post. Clerically issued correspondence will normally be sent by second class post.

    I hope this reply is helpful.

    Ms Gordon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions are given to the Child Support Agency to protect single mothers who have disabilities or children with disabilities from a possible £8·80 a week income support reduction or withdrawal of their benefit book.

    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 Ms Mildred Gordon, dated 8 March 1994:

    I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the instructions given to the Child Support Agency to protect single mothers with disabilities, or single mothers with children who have disabilities from a possible £8·80 reduction in their income support.

    The instructions given to child support officers (CSOs) on dealing with reduced benefit directions are contained in the Child support Manual, a copy of which is contained in the Library. There are no specific instructions concerning single mothers who have disabilities or children with disabilities, but the decision to implement a reduced benefit deduction is made only after the CSO has considered the impact on the welfare of the children.

    I hope this reply is helpful.

    Ms Gordon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many assessments the Child Support Agency has made; how many assessments are being challenged by parents with care; and how many assessments are being challenged by absent parents.

    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 Ms Mildred Gordon, dated 8 March 1994:

    I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the numbers of maintenance assessments issued by the Child Support Agency which have been challenged.

    During the period 5 April 1993 to 31 December 1993 the Agency assessed 121,600 cases, and received 16,600 requests for

    215
    second tier reviews of assessments. A breakdown of how many requests for review were initiated by absent parents, and how many by parents with care is not available.

    I hope this reply is helpful.

    Ms Rachel Squire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many cases have been dealt with by the Child Support Agency to date;

    (2) how many of all the cases dealt with by the Child Support Agency to date have involved absent parents who are in receipt of income support.

    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 Ms Rachel Squire, dated 8 March 1994:

    I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking for the numbers of cases dealt with by the Child Support Agency.

    From 5 April 1993 to 31 December 1993 the Agency took on 711,000 cases.

    In the same period, over 200,000 cases were cleared, and more than 121,600 resulted in a maintenance assessment. Of these 24,300 cases involved absent parents receiving income support.

    I hope this reply is helpful.

    Ms Rachel Squire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases to date the Child Support Agency has used earnings deduction orders to obtain maintenance payments.

    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 Ms Rachel Squire, dated 8 March 1994:

    I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of deductions from earnings orders issued by the Child Support Agency.

    To the end of February 1994, the Agency had issued deductions from earnings orders in an estimated 1,400 cases.

    I hope this reply is helpful.

    Ms Rachel Squire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what target time the Child Support Agency has for completion of assessments of new child support claims; how many of the claims made after April 1993 have been assessed within the target time; and in how many cases the Child Support Agency has exceeded the target time by(a) four weeks, (b) eight weeks and (c) 12 weeks.

    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 Ms Rachel Squire, dated 8 March 1994:
    I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the target time for completion of a child maintenance assessment by the Child Support Agency.
    The Agency does not have a target time for completion of assessments. The original expectation was that it would take between 6 to 12 weeks to clear a straightforward case once the Agency was fully operational. To date, the process has been more
    216
    time consuming than had previously been expected. Information for the period 5 April to 31 December 1993 shows that 45·5% of assessments have been cleared in under 40 days, 12 % in between 40 and 100 days, and 42% in over 100 days.
    I hope this reply is helpful.

    Ms Rachel Squire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the cases dealt with by the Child Support Agency to date have resulted in absent parents requesting a review of maintenance assessment; if there is a target time for dealing with reviews; what is the average length of time required to complete the review process; and in how many cases the review process has exceeded the target time.

    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 Ms Rachel Squire, dated 8 March 1994:
    I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about reviews of child maintenance assessments.
    During the period 5 April 1993 to 31 December 1993 the Child Support Agency received 16,600 requests for second tier reviews of assessments. Information on clearance times is being collected but, because of the relatively low volumes, it is too early for reliable information to be available. At this stage we are, therefore, unable to estimate how long it should take to complete a review.
    A breakdown of how many requests for review were initiated by absent parents, and how many by parents with care is not available.
    I hope this reply is helpful.

    Ms Gordon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much, on average, it costs the Child Support Agency to access and collect £2·20 from an absent parent on income support.

    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 Ms Mildred Gordon, dated 8 March 1994:
    I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the cost to the Child Support Agency of administering the collection of £2·20 from absent parents on income support.
    The assessment and collection of the £2·20 deduction from an absent parent on income support is part of the Agency's overall assessment and collection services and, as such, is not costed as a separate item, being part of the total costs of administration. Given, however, that the process involves automated transfers of multiple payments, the marginal cost attributable to each individual case will be very small.
    I hope this reply is helpful.

    Mr. Hall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, (1) pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 695, when estimates will be available of the amount of money the Child Support Agency will be expected to recover in (a) 1994–95 (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97;

    (2) pursuant to his answer of 1 March, Official Report, column 695, what is the estimated shortfall between the Child Support Agency target of £530 million to be recovered in 1993–94 and the actual amount now expected to be recovered.
    217
    Mr. Burt
    The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ross Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Mike Hall, dated 8 March 1994:
    I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security, about the estimated shortfall in benefit saving recoveries for 1993–94 and when estimates will be available of recoveries for future years.
    We are not yet able to provide an assessment of the level of benefit savings that the Agency will achieve in 1993–94 because of uncertainties caused by the effect of the recent policy changes.
    Targets for the Agency, including that for benefit savings, are set annually. The 1994–95 target will be announced in due course.
    I hope this reply is helpful.

    Mr. Renton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases the Child Support Agency has pursued to date when there is in existence a court agreement regarding maintenance.

    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. Tim Renton, dated 8 March 1994:
    I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State about the number of cases the Child Support Agency has pursued where there was an existing court order.
    Up to 31 December 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, the Agency had issued maintenance application forms to 344,000 absent parents, of which 121,600 have resulted in the assessment of maintenance. Figures are not kept on the number of cases in which a prior court agreement existed. It is estimated, however, that 45 per cent. of cases taken on will have an existing maintenance arrangement, a proportion which includes court agreements.
    I hope you will find this reply helpful.

    Child Poverty
    Ms Corston
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list research commissioned or undertaken by his Department since 1979 into the causes and effects of poverty, material deprivation and very low family income among children in any part of the United Kingdom, specifying the year and cost of each project; and whether he has any plans for such research.

    Mr. Burt
    Research is regularly conducted into the role of social security and its impact on those in low-income households. A list of research projects sponsored by the Department is published in the social security research yearbooks, formerly the DHSS handbook of research and development, copies of which are in the Library.

    In addition, the Department sponsors a number of long-running statistical surveys to monitor change in the composition and circumstances of households and the level and nature of their income. These provide the basic data for research and analysis by other interested researchers.

    World Summit
    Ms Corston
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 691, if he proposes to prepare a report on poverty for the world summit on social development
    218
    planned to take place in Copenhagen in March 1995; and if he will specify which other memberes of the European Union have already issued such reports in preparation for that summit.

    Mr. Burt
    I have no such plans, and am not aware of any reports on poverty that have been issued by European Union countries in preparation for the world summit on social development.

    Funeral Payments
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he plans to make to the rules governing funeral payments from the social fund.

    Mr. Scott
    Amendments to the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Payment (General) Expenses Regulations 1987 have been laid before Parliament today. They aim to ensure that help will be focused more accurately on those who have good reason to take responsibility for funeral costs. People in genuine need of help will not be affected.

    Housing Benefit
    Ms Primarolo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants living in private rented accommodation had their housing benefit reduced in the last year; and what was the average level of reduction.

    Mr. Burt
    The information requested is not available. Decisions on the level of housing benefit paid in individual cases are matters for local authorities, which may restrict payments on the basis of a rent officer's determination or may choose to pay benefit exceeding that amount.

    Crisis Loans
    Ms Primarolo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many crisis loans were paid for rent in advance for the last year.

    Mr. Scott
    The information requested is published in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's annual report on the social fund for 1992–93, which is in the Library.

    Family Credit
    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken to process an application for family credit.

    Mr. Burt
    The assessment of family credit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 8 March 1994:
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the average length of time taken to process an application for Family Credit.
    Firstly, I should explain that the Benefits Agency's 1992–93 target, set by the Secretary of State is to clear 60 per cent. of claims to Family Credit within 13 days.
    The average clearance time for the latest month, February 1994, is 12·11 working days. I am also able to inform you that over the last six months, claims to Family Credit have been cleared in an average of 11·72 days.
    I hope my reply has been helpful.

    Income Support
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received from Coventry concerning undue delay in the payment of income support;

    (2) what standard is set for the time to be taken to process and pay income support to a woman who is within 11 weeks of her expected date of confinement;

    (3) what information is required of an income support claimant who is within 11 weeks of expected date of confinement in order to evaluate their claim;

    (4) what representations he has received from Coventry concerning the Benefit Agency asking unnecessary and irrelevant questions of income support claimants;

    (5) to what explanation an income support claimant is entitled in a case of extensive delay in processing and paying a claim;

    (6) what investigations are currently being conducted into the processing and payment of income support from the Coventry office.

    Mr. Burt
    The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Robert Ainsworth, dated 8 March:
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about claims to, and the payment of, Income Support (IS) in Coventry.
    National targets for the 1993/94 year for IS claims are that 71% should be decided within 5 working days and 90% within 13 working days. Coventry District Office has achieved clearance rates of 74·1% within 5 working says and 89·7% within 13 working days in the year to date.
    The Benefits Agency Customer Charter, a copy of which I have enclosed, is freely available in any of the Agency's District Offices and states clearly that, where a delay occurs, the customer should contact the person dealing with their claim who will explain clearly the reason for it. If they are not satisfied with this explanation, they can contact the Customer Service Manager, who will then deal with the complaint. The name and address of the Customer Service Manager is displayed in all public areas of the Agency's offices and is also given on request to customers.
    Complaints addressed personally to the Manager of the Coventry office are not broken down to record the specific subject. I should also explain that no record is kept of the number, or nature of complaints, answered by IS staff, which were not referred to either the Customer Service Manager or Office Manager at Coventry.
    A customer who claims IS must supply any information necessary for an independent Adjudication Officer to decide entitlement to benefit. In addition, customers who are pregnant must also provide a certificate of Expected Date of Confinement provided by their GP or hospital.
    Peter Light, the Manager at Coventry District Office has informed me that he has no complaints under investigation concerning the processing of IS, or delays in making payment by his staff. However, if you have received a specific complaint or allegation, Mr. Light can be contacted and he will investigate it as a matter of priority and provide you with a full written report of his findings.
    I hope you find this reply helpful.

    Benefits, Doncaster
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently receiving(a) attendance allowance, (b) disability allowance, (c) family credit, (d) income support, (e) invalidity benefit and (f) sickness benefit in the Doncaster area.
    220
    Mr. Scott
    This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

    Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 8 March 1994:
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about benefit recipients in Doncaster.
    The information is not available in the format requested. This is because Benefits Agency District boundaries do not correspond with county or borough boundaries. A small part of the Doncaster area falls within that covered by the Mexborough Branch Office of the Agency's Rother and Dearne District.
    Statistics relating to the Mexborough customers living in the Doncaster area receiving Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit, Income Support and Family Credit could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, I have provided details for the area covered by the Doncaster District only.
    Statistical data for each of the benefits is collected and collated over different periods and timescales. The latest available figures show that on the last working day of January 1994 there were 14,728 people claiming Invalidity Benefit and 3,160 people claiming Sickness Benefit; on the last working day of February there were 30,800 people claiming Income Support, and at 18 February 1994 there were 3,010 people claiming Family Credit.
    Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance are centrally administered benefits. A clerical trawl would be necessary to ascertain the number of Attendance Allowance beneficiaries residing in Doncaster. To obtain the same information for Disability Living Allowance recipients would necessitate a scan of the DLA computer system. Both these exercises could only be carried out at a disproportionate cost.
    I hope you find this reply helpful.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Inheritance Tax
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many landowners claiming full exemption from inheritance tax have been found not to have made appropriate arrangements to publicise the right of public access to their land.

    Mr. Dorrell
    Landowners who breach the undertakings they have given to secure conditional exemption are liable to an inheritance tax charge on the current value of the land. To date there has been no need to raise any such charge. Any questions which have arisen have been resolved in discussion.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the initial cost of the valuation of properties for council tax.

    Mr. Nelson
    The cost of the initial valuation banding of domestic properties for council tax was £36,067,401.

    Paris Club
    Sir Thomas Arnold
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his current policies within the Paris Club; which countries are in consultation with the club; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Nelson
    The United Kingdom's policy is to work with other creditors in the Paris Club to negotiate sustainable reschedulings of bilateral claims that will maximise recoveries. For severely indebted, low-income
    221
    countries, the United Kingdom's view is that more concessional relief is required, along the lines proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Trinidad in 1990, and the Government are working to achieve a consensus for this.

    At its latest meeting, which ended on 4 March, the Paris Club agreed concessional reschedulings for Senegal and Niger. The world bank's publication "World Debt Tables 1993–94", a copy of which is in the Library, contains details of earlier multilateral debt relief agreements.

    Banknotes
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of banknotes will be printed by the Bank of England for each financial year from 1994–95 to 1996–97.

    Mr. Nelson
    The Bank of England expects to print approximately 1,400 million notes of all denominations in each of the next three years. This is the same as it will print in 1993–94.

    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
    Mr. Spellar
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the breakdown of the PSBR in this fiscal year between central and local government.

    Mr. Nelson
    A detailed breakdown of the forecast for the PSBR for 1993–94 was given in table 6.11 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report published last November. The table gives a summary of this information.

    £ billion

    Central Government borrowing requirement on its own account

    50·2

    Local authority borrowing requirement

    -0·8

    Public corporations borrowing requirement

    0·4

    PSBR

    49·8

    Air Passenger Duty
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made regarding the revenue derived from air passenger duty per annum in respect of(a) scheduled passenger flights and (b) charter flights to and from (i) Leeds-Bradford airport and (ii) Humberside airport.

    Sir John Cope
    CAA statistics for 1992 show terminal passenger traffic by individual airports. Assuming that all flights are return flights and that the proportion of EC to non-EC flights is the same as nationally, it is estimated that the air passenger duty revenue per annum for flights departing from these airports will be of the order of magnitude shown below.

    (£ million)

    Scheduled

    Charter

    Humberside

    0·2

    0·2

    Leeds/Bradford

    0·9

    0·8

    Building Societies (Pre-tax Profits)
    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table giving the pre-tax profits for each financial year from 1978–79 for the following building societies(a) Halifax, (b) Nationwide, (c) Woolwich and (d) Abbey National now plc.

    Mr. Nelson
    These figures are not collated by the Treasury, but they are in the public domain. I suggest that the hon. Member approaches the institutions directly.

    Betting Duty
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the loss of betting duty caused by the cancellation of horse race meetings due to bad whether during the last year.

    Sir John Cope
    Receipts from general betting duty in the latest three months, November 1993 to January 1994, were 2·6 per cent. lower than in the same period a year earlier. This compares to an increase of 6 per cent. for receipts in the months May 1993 to January 1994. It is not possible to attribute the fall in receipts specifically to bad weather, but this is likely to have been a factor.

    VAT Penalty Regime
    Mr. David Nicholson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received since the November Budget on the VAT penalty regime; and if he will make a statement.

    Sir John Cope
    There was extensive and very helpful consultation about the VAT penalty regime before the Budget. There have been very few further representations since.

    Sports Clubs (VAT)
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total amount of value added tax wrongly imposed on sports clubs in respect of subscriptions and the hire of grounds and equipment for each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

    Sir John Cope
    Customs and Excise estimates, based on information from the Department of National Heritage, are that repayments will amount to some £10 million for each calendar year since 1990.

    Freephone and Freepost
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the use of freephone and freepost facilities currently being operated by his Department; how much these facilities are costing; for what purposes these facilities are being used; and how much his Department has spent on operating freephone and freepost facilities in each financial year since 1979.

    Mr. Nelson
    The Treasury currently makes no use of freephone or freepost facilities and there is no record of it having done so since 1979.

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates
    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 96, if he will provide whatever information is

    223
    available of those occasions on which he, or other Ministers in his Department, have signed public interest immunity certificates, and for what reasons.

    Mr. Kenneth Clarke
    I have not signed any public interest immunity certificates as Chancellor of the Exchequer and no other serving Treasury Minister has ever signed such a certificate.

    So far as I am aware, the only public interest immunity certificate signed by a Treasury Minister since 1979 was signed in January 1988 by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) in his then capacity as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. That certificate was issued in connection with civil proceedings in which the Bank of England was concerned, and related to Treasury and bank documents. Public interest immunity was claimed on the grounds that it was necessary that the documents in question be withheld from production, in the case of some, for the proper functioning of the public service, and in the case of others, for the proper exercise by the bank of its functions and responsibilities as a central bank and banking supervisor. The claim was considered by the court and upheld.

    Child Care
    Ms Harman
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Departments spend on child care; on what provision the sum is spent; how many children receive the child care; and if he will make a statement about child care.

    Mr. Nelson
    [holding answer 7 March 1994]: The information requested is set out for each of the Chancellor's Departments. The expenditure shown relates to the current financial year, unless otherwise stated.

    Her Majesty's Treasury

    EXPENDITURE: £7,800 per annum.

    PROVISION: School Holiday Playscheme and Emergency Nursery places.

    Number of children receiving childcare this financial year to date: 32.

    Inland Revenue:

    EXPENDITURE: The Inland Revenue subsidise a number of nurseries and playschemes, both in monetary terms and also by providing accommodation, utilities and administrative support. Childcare budgets are delegated to 34 regional offices, and no data are held centrally.

    PROVISION: Nurseries and Playschemes.

    Number of children receiving childcare: 651 use playschemes and 147 use workplace nurseries.

    National Investment and Loans Office

    EXPENDITURE: £481 per annum.

    PROVISION: School Holiday Playscheme.

    Number of children receiving childcare this financial year to date: 3.

    Government Actuary's Department

    No expenditure on childcare.

    Department for National Savings

    No expenditure on childcare.

    Registry of Friendly Societies

    No expenditure on childcare.

    Royal Mint

    No expenditure on childcare.

    Central Statistical Office

    EXPENDITURE: £5,798 per annum.

    PROVISION: Playschemes.

    224

    Number of children receiving childcare this financial year to date: 57.

    The CSO also spent £173,000 in 1992–93 building and setting up an on site nursery for 34 children.

    Customs and Excise

    EXPENDITURE: £428,000 per annum.

    PROVISION: Workplace nurseries, bought in schemes and other playschemes.

    Number of children receiving childcare this financial year to date: approximately 1,000.

    Paymaster General's Office

    EXPENDITURE: £44,500 per annum.

    PROVISION: Nursery.

    Number of children receiving childcare this financial year to date: 43.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Young Offenders
    Ms Corston
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where a 17-year-old alleged offender who is deemed to be category A would normally be held in the prison system.

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

    Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Jean Corston, dated 9 March 1994:

    The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about where a 17 year old alleged offender who is deemed to be category A would normally be held in the prison system.

    For any alleged offender who, because of the nature and circumstances of their alleged offences, is placed in category A, security must be the first priority.

    Unconvicted persons in prison custody who are placed in category A can only be held in Prison Service establishments with an appropriate level of security. In the case of a 17 year old alleged (ie unconvicted) offender the only YOI with a level of security appropriate to hold a category A is Moorland. Unless the courts to which a 17 year old would have to be taken for remand and trial appearances are within reasonable travelling distance of Moorland, such an individual would have to be held in a category A holding local prison.

    Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the detailed rules of the revised criminal injuries compensation scheme, the tariff scheme.

    Mr. Howard
    The detailed rules of the tariff scheme, which comes into force on 1 April 1994, are being published today.

    A copy of the text of the rules and the accompanying guide, which explains to claimants how the new scheme works and the criteria adopted for deciding applications, have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library. Copies of both documents may be obtained from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Tay house, 300 Bath street, Glasgow G2 4JR.

    Bail Hostels
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 253, relating to the expected savings in 1994–95 in respect of bail hostels, what directions have been given to the West Midlands probation service as to the savings to be made in 1994–95.

    Mr. Maclean
    The Home Office has not given directions to the West Midlands probation committee on this matter. The committee has been asked to identify two approved hostels for closure so that the necessary savings in public expenditure may be made.

    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he had received about his decision to close 11 bail hostels.

    Mr. Maclean
    Representations have been received from a number of hon. Members, probation services, and others involved in the criminal justice system from the areas affected.

    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements will be made for offenders in the west midlands when there is no vacancy in a bail or probation hostel in the west midlands.

    Mr. Maclean
    There are over 100 approved hostels in England and Wales, a number of which are located in probation areas neighbouring the west midlands. All are available to the west midlands courts and it is the responsibility of the probation service to bring them to those courts' attention.

    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those remanded on bail are remanded to bail hostels.

    Mr. Maclean
    The information requested is not held centrally and is not available.

    Receptions into prison service establishments by offence, 19931

    Offence

    Immediate imprisonment

    In default of payment of a fine

    All

    Percentage in default of payment of a fine

    All offences

    52,337

    22,583

    74,920

    30

    Violence against the person

    7,537

    1,575

    9,112

    17

    Murder

    214

    0

    214

    0

    Manslaughter

    183

    0

    183

    0

    Other homicide and attempted homicide

    403

    5

    408

    1

    Wounding

    4,826

    785

    5,611

    14

    Assaults

    11,371

    612

    1,983

    31

    Cruelty to children

    46

    1

    47

    2

    Other offences of violence against the person

    494

    172

    666

    26

    Sexual offences

    1,849

    34

    1,883

    2

    Buggery and indecency between males

    179

    1

    180

    1

    Rape

    428

    0

    428

    0

    Gross indecency with children

    223

    2

    225

    1

    Other sexual offences

    1,019

    31

    1,050

    3

    Burglary

    9,532

    1,673

    11,205

    15

    Robbery

    3,075

    59

    3,134

    2

    226
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the total reduction in funding for bail hostels is being met from the west midlands.

    Mr. Maclean
    Some 16 per cent.

    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide details of the rates charged by local authorities to other local authorities for accommodating those remanded on bail when there is no vacancy available in their own hostels.

    Mr. Maclean
    Local authorities are required to pay a standard flat rate charge for hostel residents for whom they have responsibility, irrespective of where that hostel is located. For 1993–94 the weekly charge is £65·03.

    Prisoners
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were sentenced to a prison term under each offence category in the latest year for which figures are available; and what numbers and percentage of the total were fine defaulters.

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

    Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 9 March 1994:

    RECEPTIONS UNDER SENTENCE
    The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many people were sentenced to a prison term under each offence category in the latest year for which figures are available; and what numbers and percentage of the total were fine defaulters.
    The information you have requested is given in the table.
    227

    Offence

    Immediate imprisonment

    In default of payment of a fine

    All

    Percentage in default of payment of a fine

    Theft and handling

    9,142

    4,431

    13,573

    33

    Taking and driving away

    2,178

    349

    2,527

    14

    Other thefts

    5,228

    3,451

    8,679

    40

    Handling stolen goods

    1,736

    631

    2,367

    27

    Fraud and forgery

    1,790

    698

    2,488

    28

    Frauds

    1,665

    659

    2,324

    28

    Forgery

    125

    39

    164

    24

    Drugs offences

    3,126

    495

    3,621

    14

    Other offences

    12,255

    13,391

    25,646

    52

    Arson

    430

    24

    454

    5

    Criminal damage

    701

    1,842

    2,543

    72

    Immigration Act 1977

    7

    0

    7

    0

    In charge or driving under the influence of drink or drugs

    1,665

    579

    2,244

    26

    Other motoring offences

    5,007

    7,210

    12,217

    59

    Offences relating to prostitution

    19

    91

    110

    83

    Drunkenness

    161

    526

    687

    77

    Vagrancy

    28

    93

    121

    77

    Other

    4,237

    3,026

    7,263

    42

    Offence not recorded

    4,031

    227

    4,258

    5

    1 Provisional figures.

    Police Expenditure
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the expenditure(a) per officer, (b) per 100,000 population (i) in total, (ii) on vehicles, (iii) on buildings, and (iv) on communications by year for the last four years for the police forces in (1) Humberside, (2) North Yorkshire, (3) South Yorkshire and (4) West Yorkshire.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    Total expenditure per officer and per 100,000 population is set out in the table. Separate totals for expenditure on vehicles, buildings and communications are not held centrally.

    (a) Total expenditure per officer, based on establishments at 1 April each year:

    1990–91(£)

    1991–92(£)

    1992–931 (£)

    1993–942 (£)

    Humberside

    35,572

    40,262

    42,798

    44,665

    North Yorkshire

    35,100

    38,743

    43,288

    46,604

    South Yorkshire

    33,935

    36,514

    41,229

    43,565

    West Yorkshire

    36,651

    40,671

    42,942

    46,306

    Arrests and prosecutions per officer and per 100,000 population

    Arrests—all offences

    Prosecutions—indictable offences only

    Per officer

    Per 100,000 population

    Per officer

    Per 100,000 population

    1989

    Humberside

    18

    4,182

    4

    916

    North Yorkshire

    12

    2,458

    4

    737

    South Yorkshire

    13

    3,088

    4

    983

    West Yorkshire

    15

    3,803

    4

    1,001

    1990

    Humberside

    18

    4,212

    4

    913

    North Yorkshire

    14

    2,800

    4

    819

    South Yorkshire

    15

    3,396

    4

    998

    West Yorkshire

    16

    4,073

    4

    1,056

    228

    (b) Total expenditure per 100,000 population, based on mid-year population figures:

    1990–91 (£000's)

    1991–92 (£000's)

    1992–931 (£000's)

    1993–942 3 (£000's)

    Humberside

    8,311

    9,245

    9,880

    10,312

    North Yorkshire

    6,807

    7,566

    8,490

    9,140

    South Yorkshire

    7,850

    8,466

    9,583

    10,126

    West Yorkshire

    9,347

    10,395

    10,859

    11,709

    1Using estimated expenditure for 1992–93.

    2 Using budgeted expenditure for 1993–94.

    3Based on mid-1992 population figures. 1993 figures not yet available.

    Arrests and Prosecutions
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the number of(a) arrests and (b) prosecutions, (i) per officer and (ii) per 100,000 population by year for the last four years in the police authority areas covering (1) Humberside, (2) north Yorkshire, (3) south Yorkshire and (4) west Yorkshire.

    Mr. Maclean
    The readily available information is given in the table.
    229

    Arrests—all offences

    Prosecutions—indictable offences only

    Per officer

    Per 100,000 population

    Per officer

    Per 100,000 population

    1991

    Humberside

    18

    4,172

    4

    924

    North Yorkshire

    15

    2,882

    4

    864

    South Yorkshire

    15

    3,527

    4

    1,034

    West Yorkshire

    16

    4,148

    4

    1,108

    1992

    Humberside

    17

    4,026

    4

    907

    North Yorkshire

    16

    3,201

    5

    909

    South Yorkshire

    15

    3,556

    4

    999

    West Yorkshire

    16

    4,046

    5

    1,288

    Police Capital Programmes
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the capital programmes by year for the last four years for the police authority areas covering(a) Humberside, (b) north Yorkshire, (c) south Yorkshire and (d) west Yorkshire.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    Total capital allocations for the forces concerned were:

    Capital allocation

    1990–91 £ million

    1991–92 £ million

    1992–93 £ million

    1993–94 £ million

    Humberside

    1·567

    3·293

    2·839

    2·811

    North Yorkshire

    1·119

    1·989

    1·970

    1·905

    South Yorkshire

    4·081

    3·525

    4·737

    4·112

    West Yorkshire

    8·646

    14·627

    14·951

    8·469

    Bail (Reoffenders)
    Mr. Streeter
    : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were charged with criminal offences committed while already on bail in Plymouth in 1993.

    Mr. Maclean
    The information is not available centrally.

    Fraudulent Trading
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful fraudulent trading convictions were obtained in each of the last five years, excluding those obtained by the Department of Trade and Industry.

    Mr. Maclean
    Court proceedings information held centrally on fraud cases cannot separately identify whether an offence was one of fraudulent trading.

    West Midlands Probation Service
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations underlay the reduction of the funding to the West Midlands probation service; what estimate he has made of this on the Shard End drive training project in Birmingham; and what facilities for projects alternative to the Shard End drive project exist in the west midlands.

    Mr. Maclean
    There has been no such reduction in funding. The West Midlands probation service's revenue 230
    grant for 1994–95 is 5·4 per cent. higher than in 1993–94 and the funds allocated to it from the probation supervision grants scheme are 46 per cent. higher. The Shard End drive project has previously been funded under the scheme. It is for the West Midlands probation service to decide, in preparing its plans for partnerships with the independent sector, which individual projects to continue to support.

    The service has decided to invite applications from any interested organisation in the area to run drive training activities in future. The response will show the service what alternative facilities are or might be available.

    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 704, if he will provide occupancy figures for each probation and bail hostel in the west midlands for each of the last four quarters for which figures are available after discounting those beds in hostels which are not available due to refurbishment under the non-availability was approved by his Department.

    Mr. Maclean
    The West Midlands probation service has provided the following occupancy figures, which exclude places taken out of use for refurbishment. In most cases the Home Office approval for temporary withdrawal of places was not sought or required.

    Location

    1Per cent.

    2Per cent.

    3Per cent.

    4Per cent.

    Carpenter House

    91

    96

    83

    78

    Bilston

    96

    81

    88

    88

    Stoke Green

    89

    72

    64

    81

    Welford House

    69

    72

    67

    74

    Crowley House

    55

    48

    57

    60

    Marshall House

    89

    90

    91

    92

    Sycamore Lodge

    80

    79

    73

    84

    Stonnal Road

    n/a

    n/a

    81

    88

    1January to March 1993.

    2 April to June 1993.

    3July to September 1993.

    4October to December 1993.

    Note: Stonnel Road re-opened in May and the first complete quarterly figures available are April to June. Elliott House did not open until November 1993.

    Fines (Non-payment)
    Ms Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of remanded or sentenced women received into custody in(a) Great Britain and (b) the west midlands for each quarter for the last five years for non-payment of fines imposed for not possessing a television licence.
    231
    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Lynne Jones, dated 9 March 1994:
    The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if he will list the number of remanded or sentenced women received into custody in (a) Great Britain and (b) the West Midlands for each quarter for the last five years for non-payment of fines imposed for not possessing a television licence.
    The available information is for England and Wales, 1991–93 and is given in the attached table. No females were held on remand for this offence during the period 1991 to 1993. No information is available for the period before 1991 as the offence of non-payment of fines for not possessing a television licence was not separately identified in the prison statistics.

    Females received for non-payment of fine imposed for not possessing a television licence

    Quarter

    From all courts sentencing in England and Wales1

    From a court sentencing in the west Midlands

    All 1993

    292

    19

    1st

    70

    3

    2nd

    61

    1

    3rd

    83

    7

    4th

    78

    8

    All 1992

    163

    5

    1st

    41

    1

    2nd

    33

    —

    3rd

    47

    2

    4th

    42

    2

    All 1991

    136

    2

    1st

    18

    —

    2nd

    43

    2

    3rd

    26

    —

    4th

    49

    —

    1 Includes those from the west Midlands.

    Immigration
    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people he estimates are in the United Kingdom illegally and how many have been here for more than five years; how many adults have children; and how many are self-sufficient in terms of housing and income.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    Comprehensive information on the number of persons who have entered illegally or are in the United Kingdom in breach of the conditions imposed on their leave to enter or remain here is not available.

    Moorlands Prison (Escape)
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement in respect of the escape from Moorlands prison by remand prisoner, Craig Weekly; and if he has been recaptured;

    (2) to which prison Craig Weekly, remand prisoner, escaped from Moorlands prison, will be sent when recaptured.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
    232
    Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 9 March 1994:

    The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the escape of Craig Weekly from Moorland prison, whether he has been recaptured and the prison to which he will be sent when recaptured.

    Craig Weekly escaped from Moorland prison on the afternoon of Saturday 5 February 1994. Mr. Weekly has been recaptured and is being held in Perth prison in Scotland pending the results of police investigations into whether there will be any criminal charges arising from his actions whilst unlawfully at large. Once any such charges have been dealt with he will be returned to Moorland prison to face a discipline adjudication resulting from his escape and to await any further court appearances.

    Deportation
    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what were the numbers and costs of deportations in each of the past three years and the numbers and costs of the enforced deportations in those years when those deported had not been convicted of a criminal offence;

    (2) how many of those deported in 1991, 1992 and in 1993 were in family units of more than one person.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    Information on the numbers of people removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process is given in the table. The other information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    People removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process

    1991

    1992

    1993

    Total people removed under deportation process1

    2,616

    2,583

    32,254

    of which, a deportation order was enforced2, excluding deportation action following a court recommendation

    256

    399

    3449

    1 Including persons who departed voluntarily, but excluding illegal entrants removed. In total, some 6,100 people were removed as illegal entrants or under the deportation process in 1993.

    2 That is excluding voluntary and supervised departures.

    3 Provisional figure.

    Prison Education
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the expenditure by each local education authority in respect of classes in prisons, detention centres or community homes with education for each year since 1989; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Payments made to local education authorities for the provision of education in prisons and young offender institutions in England and Wales since 1 April 1989 are as follows:

    £ million

    1989–90

    20·2

    1990–91

    24·1

    1991–92

    26·0

    1992–93

    28·2

    1993–94

    18·6

    1 Estimated.

    The payments in 1993–94 reflect the changeover this year to direct provision through further education colleges

    233
    and other providers, rather than through local education authorities, consequent upon the provisions of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

    Expenditure on education classes in community homes falls within the departmental responsibilities of the Department of the Environment. Details of such expenditure, and of payments made to individual local education authorities, are not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

    Animal Experimentation
    Mr. Tony Banks
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of quail used in scientific procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 during 1990, 1991 and 1992.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    The information is not available. Changes which are being introduced to the system for the collection of the annual statistics of scientific procedures will make it possible from 1995 onwards to distinguish between different types of birds used in experiments.

    Absences from Prison
    Mr. Nicholls
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances those convicted of rape and other serious crimes are permitted to enjoy periods of absence from prison for social reasons.

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

    Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Patrick Nicholls, dated 9 March 1994:
    The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the circumstances in which those convicted of rape and other serious crimes are permitted to enjoy periods of absence from prison.
    Under Prison Rule 6, prison governors have powers to allow temporary release to sentenced prisoners. Temporary release may be granted to a prisoner under Prison Rule 6(2) "for any special purpose or to enable him to engage in employment, to receive instruction or training or to assist him in the transition from prison life to freedom". Temporary release is not, however, available to unconvicted and convicted unsentenced prisoners; sentenced prisoners who are remanded on further charges; persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971; prisoners who are subject to extradition proceedings; prisoners who are considered to be mentally ill or suffering from mental disorder or have been committed to prison as a place of safety; and prisoners who are in Category A or on the escape list.
    Before temporary release may be granted, governors must be satisfied that a prisoner can be trusted both to abstain from crime during a period of temporary release and to return to prison afterwards. In addition, governors are required to consult headquarters before temporary release may be granted to certain categories of prisoners. These include prisoners serving 10 years or more and not within 12 months of release and prisoners convicted at any time of a serious sexual offence.
    A review of the present arrangements has recently been undertaken. The conclusions and recommendations are now being considered.

    Crime (Street Lighting)
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued as to the appropriate level of street lighting for inner-city areas for the purposes of combatting crime.
    234
    Mr. Key
    Guidance has been published by the British Standards Institution, in BS5489 part 3: 1994: "Code of practice for lighting for subsidiary roads and associated pedestrian areas". A copy is in the Library. This standard classifies the lighting requirements for three categories of crime risk. The responsibility for lighting is with the appropriate local authority.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid Statistics
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value in sterling of overseas aid forecast to be made in the current financial year for(a) famine relief, (b) other aid to improve immediate human conditions, (c) technical aid and assistance, (d) infrastructural projects, (e) debt relief, or assistance with prior contractual commitments and (f) consultancy; and if he will list figures within these categories by countries or regions of the world.

    Mr. Goodlad
    It is estimated that in financial year 1993–94 bilateral expenditure on overseas aid will be as follows:

    Africa

    Asia, Latin America and the oceans

    Other

    £ million

    £ million

    £ million

    Food aid

    19

    —

    —

    Emergency and refugee relief

    44

    35

    48

    Debt relief

    15

    28

    —

    Country programmes, including aid and trade provisions

    306

    378

    —

    Provision for technical co-operation, infrastructure projects and consultancy is included in the country programmes.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value in pound sterling of overseas aid forecast to be made in the calendar year 1993 by the European Commission for(a) famine relief, (b) other aid to improve immediate human conditions, (c) technical and financial assistance, (d) infrastructural projects, (e) debt relief or assistance with prior contractual commitments and (f) consultancy; and if he will list figures within these categories by countries or regions of the world.

    Mr. Goodlad
    The European Community budget for 1993 includes provision for payments of up to the sums shown in the following table, at current exchange rates:

    Total £ million

    UK Share £ million

    Food Aid

    444

    73

    Humanitarian Aid

    118

    19

    Aid to Asia and Latin America

    276

    46

    Aid to Mediterranean Countries

    265

    44

    Other Aid Programmes (inc non-Governmental Organisations)

    292

    48

    Aid to Eastern Europe/former Soviet Union

    539

    89

    Emergency Aid Reserve

    163

    27

    Aid for Scientific/Technological Research for Developing Countries

    23

    4

    235
    In addition, in 1993 the European Commission made calls on member states for contributions totalling £1,253 million—United Kingdom share around £208 million—in respect of the European development fund which cover aid to Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries. The EDFs are not financed from the EC budget.

    Figures are not available showing EC aid spending by the categories listed in the question.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what records the Government have of payments of aid made by United Kingdom-based charitable organisations to third world countries and the sources of funds for these aid payments;

    (2) what is the value in pound sterling of overseas aid forecast to be made either in the current financial year or in the calendar year 1993 by United Kingdom-domiciled charitable organisations for (a) famine relief, (b) other aid to improve immediate human conditions, (c) technical aid and assistance, (d) infrastructural projects, (e) debt relief or assistance with prior contractual commitments and (f) consultancy; and if he will list figures within these categories by countries or regions of the world.

    Mr. Goodlad
    The Government do not keep records of the overall expenditure by United Kingdom-based charitable organisations on overseas aid. Our records reflect only the grants which the Overseas Development Administration has made available to these organisations.

    In 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available, the Government provided over £147 million to non-governmental organisations of which £79 million was for development work and £68 million for humanitarian relief. A further breakdown of this expenditure into the categories requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Charitable organisations receive funds from a variety of sources including Government donors, the private sector and the general public.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Malone
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps he has taken or proposes to take to ensure payment of Zimbabwe public service pensions to those eligible in this country;

    (2) if he will make representations to the Government of Zimbabwe regarding the payment of Zimbabwe public service pensions to those eligible in this country.

    Mr. Goodlad
    I am not aware of any current problems with payment. However, our high commission in Harare follows up any examples that come to light.

    Consultants (Contracts)
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, by value for contracts with a value of over £100,000, contracts made by the Overseas Development Administration with firms of consultants over the last year, giving(a) the value of the contract, (b) the nature of the consultancy and (c) the domicile of the contractor.

    Mr. Goodlad
    All consultancies let by the Overseas Development Administration in this financial year with a value of over £100,000 have been made with contractors with a business domicile in the United Kingdom. A list of such contracts has been placed in the Library of the House.

  EDUCATION

    Sex Education
    Dr. Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) when he expects to publish final guidance relating to the proposed circular on sex education in schools;

    (2) what guidance will be given in the new sex education circular to ensure that homosexuality as the norm is not promoted in schools;

    (3) what guidance will be given in the new circular on sex education to protect the young from homosexual proselytism;

    (4) what guidance will be given in the new sex education circular to ensure that schools teach their pupils the basic facts of the law as it relates to sexual activity.

    Mr. Forth
    My right hon. Friend hopes to issue the final version of the circular on sex education in schools in April. He is carefully considering the views expressed in the consultations on the draft circular, including those on the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend. The draft circular suggested that schools should be aware of the requirements of the law, and that pupils should be taught about the values and knowledge needed to enable them to behave responsibly and morally.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. David Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the value of and the contribution his Department makes to promote(a) nursery education and (b) pre-school play groups.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    Good nursery education and playgroup provision both contribute to the Government's policy of promoting choice, diversity, quality and cost-effectiveness of pre-school provision in the public and private sectors. One half of three and four-year-olds attend maintained nursery and primary schools, and two fifths attend playgroups. In addition to the funding by local education authorities of pre-school provision, my Department makes grants to a number of national bodies concerned with developing such provision, including the Pre-School Playgroups Association, the British Association for Early Childhood Education, and the National Children's Bureau.

    Schools, Gloucestershire
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those schools in Gloucestershire whose status has changed from a grammar school to a comprehensive school in the last 20 years, together with the date of the change.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The information is not available in the form requested. The Department's records indicate that in 1975 there were 11 grammar schools in Gloucestershire; now there are seven.

    Performance League Tables
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on what form performance league tables will take this year and the probable date of publication.
    237
    Mr. Robin Squire
    On 21 February my right hon. Friend launched the consultation on the content, format and distribution of the 1994 school and college performance tables. He proposed that two sets of tables should again be published, covering secondary schools and institutions catering for students in the 16 to 18 age group. The secondary tables would include data on authorised absence, together with data on unauthorised absence published for the first time in 1993, and information on the length of the taught week. The tables would also contain extra information on vocational qualifications. As in previous years, they would be published in November.

    Freephone and Freepost
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the use of freephone and freepost facilities currently being operated by his Department; how much these facilities are costing; for what purposes these facilities are being used; and how much his Department has spent on operating freephone and freepost facilities in each financial year since 1979.

    Mr. Forth
    Freephone and freepost facilities are currently being operated by the Department for the following activities:

    A self-governing—GM—schools information line which offers an information pack about GM schools. Estimated cost £20,830;

    Requests for copies of the further and higher education charters. Estimated cost £38,123; and

    Requests for copies of the leaflet "National School Tests in 1994". Costs are unavailable as the campaign has not yet finished.

    In 1993, a freephone was available to answer inquiries about GM schools and freephone and freepost were available to request copies of the leaflet on national curriculum testing "How is Your Child Doing at Schoool?" Costs amount to some £29,963.

    In earlier years the Department has not directly arranged freephone and freepost facilities. The Central Office of Information has managed campaigns which have included freepost and freepost facilities on behalf of the Department. Figures for these costs are not available from the COI as they would incur disproportionate costs.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Enright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the salary of the chairman of the Grant Maintained Schools Mutual.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    This is a matter for the Grant Maintained Schools Mutual.

    Mr. Enright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the total cost of insurance for grant-maintained schools;

    (2) how many grant-maintained schools are insured by (a) Sun Alliance and (b) Legal and General.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    This information is not held centrally.

    Mr. Enright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice is given to grant-maintained schools on insurance by the Grant Maintained Schools Mutual and the Funding Agency for Schools.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The advice given to grant maintained schools on insurance by Grant Maintained 238
    Schools Mutual is a matter for the mutual. No advice has been given by the Funding Agency for Schools as it does not become operational until 1 April 1994.

    Mr. Boyes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total budget for each grant-maintained junior, infant and secondary school for Sunderland City education authority and Wandsworth education authority.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The total budgets for the 1993–94 financial year are as follows:

    Wandsworth education authority

    £

    Primary schools

    Ethelburga Primary School

    439,828

    Hillbrook Primary School

    925,909

    Secondary schools

    Burntwood School

    4,487,358

    Elliott School

    3,870,951

    Graveney School

    5,244,434

    John Paul II Roman Catholic School

    1,633,050

    Salesian College

    1,653,473

    Southfields School

    3,645,574

    The amounts shown for total budget include annual maintenance grant, special purpose grants for restructuring, development, premises, VAT, transitional grant, section 11 grant and capital grants payable to the schools in 1993–94.

    There are currently no grant-maintained schools in the Sunderland metropolitan borough education authority area.

    Pupil Costs
    Sir Harold Walker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the unit cost per pupil in each local education authority for 1992–93 for(a) nursery-primary and (b) secondary pupils.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The provisional figures for recurrent spending per pupil in local education authority maintained schools in 1992–93, for those LEAs who have submitted returns of their expenditure, are as shown in the following table.

    Unit Cost Net Institutional Expenditure Per Pupil 1992–93

    Nursery/Primary £

    Secondary£

    Corporation of London

    3,058

    0

    Camden

    1,873

    2,558

    Greenwich

    n/a

    n/a

    Hackney

    n/a

    n/a

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    2,153

    2,926

    Islington

    n/a

    n/a

    Kensington and Chelsea

    2,018

    2,900

    Lambeth

    n/a

    n/a

    Lewisham

    1,727

    2,311

    Southwark

    1,765

    2,353

    Tower Hamlets

    n/a

    n/a

    Wandsworth

    2,078

    3,133

    City of Westminster

    n/a

    n/a

    Barking

    1,630

    2,303

    Barnet

    1,813

    2,615

    Bexley

    1,395

    2,122

    Brent

    1,461

    2,258

    Bromley

    1,471

    2,311

    Croydon

    1,586

    2,265

    Ealing

    n/a

    n/a

    Enfield

    1,564

    2,249

    239

    Nursery/Primary £

    Secondary£

    Haringey

    n/a

    n/a

    Harrow

    n/a

    n/a

    Havering

    1,472

    2,254

    Hillingdon

    1,622

    2,734

    Hounslow

    n/a

    n/a

    Kingston-upon-Thames

    n/a

    n/a

    Merton

    n/a

    n/a

    Newham

    n/a

    n/a

    Redbridge

    1,553

    2,220

    Richmond-upon-Thames

    1,683

    2,222

    Sutton

    1,509

    2,079

    Waltham Forest

    1,511

    2,388

    Birmingham

    1,440

    2,417

    Coventry

    n/a

    n/a

    Dudley

    1,489

    2,072

    Sandwell

    1,467

    2,307

    Solihull

    1,475

    2,066

    Walsall

    1,384

    2,189

    Wolverhampton

    1,476

    2,309

    Knowsley

    1,412

    2,271

    Liverpool

    1.521

    2,469

    St. Helens

    1,314

    2,160

    Sefton

    1,363

    2,074

    Wirral

    1,387

    2,340

    Bolton

    n/a

    n/a

    Bury

    n/a

    n/a

    Manchester

    1,451

    2,358

    Oldham

    1,721

    2,401

    Rochdale

    1,352

    2,162

    Salford

    1,339

    2,113

    Stockport

    1,419

    2,195

    Tameside

    1,443

    2,213

    Trafford

    n/a

    n/a

    Wigan

    1,338

    2,179

    Barnsley

    1,427

    2,096

    Doncaster

    1,318

    1,978

    Rotherham

    1,561

    2,220

    Sheffield

    1,594

    2,176

    Bradford

    1,651

    1,822

    Calderdale

    1,469

    2,061

    Kirklees

    1,392

    2,097

    Leeds

    n/a

    n/a

    Wakefield

    n/a

    n/a

    Gateshead

    1,627

    2,222

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne

    1,635

    2,051

    North Tyneside

    n/a

    n/a

    South Tyneside

    1,386

    2,104

    Sunderland

    1,427

    2,094

    Avon

    1,430

    2,186

    Bedfordshire

    1,491

    2,103

    Berkshire

    1,482

    2,158

    Buckinghamshire

    1,509

    2,184

    Cambridgeshire

    1,496

    2,170

    Cheshire

    1,321

    2,072

    Cleveland

    n/a

    n/a

    Cornwall

    1,421

    2,035

    Cumbria

    1,558

    2,286

    Derbyshire

    1,463

    2,224

    Devon

    1,455

    2,099

    Dorset

    1,392

    2,037

    Durham

    1,519

    2,083

    East Sussex

    1,485

    2,187

    Essex

    n/a

    n/a

    Gloucestershire

    1,555

    2,144

    Hampshire

    1,427

    2,143

    Hereford and Worcester

    1,448

    1,977

    Hertfordshire

    1,497

    2,110

    Humberside

    1,449

    2,145

    Isle of Wight

    1,462

    2,009

    Kent

    1,300

    1,909

    Lancashire

    n/a

    n/a

    Leicestershire

    1,453

    2,258

    Lincolnshire

    1,348

    2,049

    Norfolk

    1,450

    2,100

    North Yorkshire

    1,479

    2,146

    Northamptonshire

    1,343

    2,039

    240

    Nursery/Primary £

    Secondary £

    Northumberland

    1,461

    1,918

    Nottinghamshire

    1,479

    2,271

    Oxfordshire

    1,574

    2,039

    Shropshire

    1,513

    2,443

    Somerset

    1,435

    2,133

    Staffordshire

    1,430

    2,040

    Suffolk

    n/a

    n/a

    Surrey

    1,532

    2,274

    Warwickshire

    1,395

    2,126

    West Sussex

    1,433

    2,157

    Wiltshire

    1,549

    2,140

    Notes:

    1. Figures are derived from local education authorities' returns of their net institutional expenditure to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department for Education. The expenditure figures are provisional and are subject to final checking by the Department of Environment and the Department for Education.

    2. Net institutional expenditure covers the direct costs in schools of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the costs of school meals, home to school transport, LEA central administration, and financing costs of capital expenditure. The figure also includes unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management of schools schemes.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Statistical Accuracy
    Mr. Callaghan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes he plans to improve the accuracy of employment statistics.

    Miss Widdecombe
    We are satisfied with the accuracy of the unemployment claimant count. Nevertheless, we have introduced a number of major improvements over the last two years, including bringing out the labour force survey quarterly as opposed to annually, and the first full census of employers for 12 years. Work is in hand to deliver more timely employment statistics on completion of the interdepartmental business register in 1995. The Department will continue to assess the need for further improvements.

    Freephone and Freepost
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the use of freephone and freepost facilities currently being operated by his Department; how much these facilities are costing; for what purposes these facilities are being used; and how much his Department has spent on operating freephone and freepost facilities in each financial year since 1979.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    Information on the use and costs of these services is not held centrally for the Department as a whole.

    British Aerospace Redundancies
    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for retraining staff recently declared redundant at British Aerospace, Lostock, Bolton, in skills suitable for employment in other manufacturing industry.

    Miss Widdecombe
    I understand that both the local training and enterprise council and the Employment
    241
    Service continue to be closely in touch with British Aerospace about the services they can offer. This includes a range of Government-funded programmes to help redundant people find jobs, retrain or set up their own businesses.

    Financial Sector Employees
    Mr. Raynsford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 201, what account was taken in the figures published in his answer of persons employed in Greater London but not resident in Greater London.

    Miss Widdecombe
    The figures were from the labour force survey, which is a survey conducted by interviewing people at their home address. They showed the numbers of people employed in banking, finance, insurance and business services who were resident in Greater London. People employed in banking, finance, insurance and business services who are resident outside Greater London are included in LFS analyses according to their area of residence.

    Workstart
    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of those who participated in the workstart pilots have gone on to find jobs.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    [holding answer 8 March 1994]: The pilots began last July, and we are currently evaluating them. However, since they provide subsidies to employers who recruit eligible long-term unemployed people for 12 months, their effectiveness in helping those people to remain in regular employment without the support of the scheme will not be clear for some time.

    Channel Tunnel (Accidents)
    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department was first notified of an incident which occurred in the channel tunnel in January in which two channel tunnel workers were taken to hospital for treatment after a bolt of electricity arced across from the main cable; what is the standard procedure for notifying his Department of accidents in the channel tunnel; if he will publish a table giving a full list of accidents in or around the channel tunnel notified to his Department, including dates, nature and injuries sustained; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    [pursuant to his reply, 18 February 1994]: I regret that the answer given in my reply of 18 February 1994, Official Report, column 1024, was incomplete and that the final paragraph was omitted. The correct information is as follows:

    The Health and Safety Executive was notified of this incident on 18 January. It notified the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority on 19 January.

    The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases, and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 apply to the United Kingdom side of the channel tunnel, and reportable accidents and dangerous occurrences must be notified to the HSE. The HSE informs the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority immediately of any fatal accidents or incidents with potential for major consequences. The HSE also
    242
    reports regularly to the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority other accident information to assist accident prevention on the French side of the project.

    The detailed accident information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, between March 1987 and September 1993, the latest date for which information is available, a provisional total of 1,386 accidents which occurred during work on the United Kingdom side of the channel tunnel were reported to the HSE.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    North Korea (Magnox)
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have been requested by the International Atomic Energy Agency to provide details of the Magnox nuclear plant design from which the North Koreans developed its nuclear reactor design for the plant currently part of the nuclear inspection effort of the special IAEA safeguards inspection team presently in North Korea.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    Information has been provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency on Magnox reactor design to allow it to validate a computer programme used for reactor physics calculations. Such calculations can be applied in the safeguarding of any graphite moderated reactor.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Oliver Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to challenge the European Commision's decision to reduce penalties on Italy, Spain and Greece for exceeding the milk quotas.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    We have lodged challenges in the European Court of Justice against the Commission's decisions to reduce the penalties on Italy, Greece and Spain for exceeding their milk quotas in the late 1980s. The challenges affect the 1989 penalties on Italy and the 1990 penalties on all thre countries. We believe the Commission exceeded its powers by reducing penalties for these years and by announcing its intention to reduce them in the accounts for 1991–1993. The rules on milk quotas are rigorously implemented in the United Kingdom and we expect the Commission to ensure that they are properly enforced elsewhere in the European Community. Taxpayers in the Community should not have to shoulder the loss to the Community budget of some £2 billion which the Commission's actions could entail.

    Sudan
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to a United Nations embargo on oil imports into Sudan; and what are the objections to such a move.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    A global embargo on oil imports would require the passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution. We have not ruled out recourse to the UN Security Council but would not want to pursue this option unless we were sure that this was the right tactic.
    243
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will take action at the United Nations to insist that previously inaccessible areas of Sudan such as the Nuba mountains are opened up to human rights organisations and international aid organisations.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    We whole-heartedly supported the recent resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, which called upon all parties to the civil war to permit international agencies, including human rights organisations, and humanitarian organisations access to the civilian population throughout Sudan. We are pressing this point again at the present meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries on the United Nations Security Council are resistant to any further moves being taken to increase pressure on Sudan to improve its record on human rights.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    China voted against the 1993 United Nations General Assembly resolution on the human rights situation in Sudan and was the only United Nations Security Council member to do so.

    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to approach the participants in the Sudanese civil war to see if they would agree to the establishment of safe havens in southern Sudan and in the Nuba mountains; and what was their response.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    The Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development leaders have yet to succeed in bringing all parties to the civil war to the negotiating table, and have therefore not had the opportunity formally to suggest confidence building measures of the sort suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

    Armenia
    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had about his country's application for membership of the Council of Europe with the President of Armenia during his recent visit.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    Armenia has not applied for Council of Europe membership and the issue was not raised during President Ter-Petrossian's recent visit.

    Russian Army
    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the strength of the Russian Army in Kaliningrad; what assessment he has made as to whether it conforms to the CFE treaty and other commitments; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    Russian ground forces in the Kaliningrad oblast number about 41,500 of which some 38,000 are Russian army personnel. The equipment and manpower ceilings imposed respectively by the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty and the concluding act of the negotiation on personnel strength of conventional armed forces in Europe do not come into effect until November 1995.

    United Nations Human Rights Commissioner
    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role and responsibilities of the new United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    The creation in December 1993 of the post of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, with a wide-ranging mandate, marked a significant step forward in the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide. The post will complement and reinforce existing human rights machinery.

    Freephone and Freepost
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of freephone and freephone facilities currently being operated by his Department; how much these facilities are costing; for what purposes these facilities are being used; and how much his Department has spent on operating freephone and freepost facilities in each financial year since 1979.

    Mr. Goodlad
    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not entered into any agreement to subscribe to freephone or freepost number facilities. Staff can use the national freepost number, 0800, but are automatically barred by our telephone exchanges from using the premium rate numbers 0898 and 0891. Consequently there are no costs involved.

    Azerbaijan
    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had about his country's application for membership of the Council of Europe with the President of Azerbaijan during his recent visit.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    Azerbaijan has not applied for Council of Europe membership and the issue was not raised during President Aliev's recent visit.

    Iraq
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will lift the embargo on trade with Iraq.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    Sanctions will not be lifted until Iraq complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

    Israeli Settlers
    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the Israeli Government to disarm Israeli settlers, to commit itself to no further settlements in Palestinian-occupied territory and to see that existing settlements are effectively policed.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    It is very important that the Government of Israel disarm extremist settlers. We welcome the actions announced so far by the Israeli Prime Minister including consideration of outlawing two extremist settler organisations. Our view remains that settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace.

    Foreign Affairs Council
    Mr. Patrick Thompson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 21 and 22 February.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 21 and 22 February.

    The Council discussed preparations for the Marrakesh ministerial meeting in April at which the final act of the Uruguay round will be signed. There was agreement that the final act should be signed by both the Commission and the member states and that member states should participate in the world trade organisation. It was also agreed that the European Parliament should be consulted under the assent procedure on the Community's acceptance of the world trade organisation agreement.

    The Commission's proposal for a reciprocal agreement between the United States and the European Community on the mutual recognition of spirit designations was agreed by a qualified majority, with Greece and Italy voting against. The agreement will protect the designation of six EC spirits in the United States, including Scotch whisky, and two United States spirits in the EC.

    Ministers discussed the safeguard procedures in the EEA internal regulation. No decision was reached. Ministers also discussed the recent Swiss vote to ban all HGV transit traffic within 10 years. The Commission was asked to prepare a report on how this vote would effect the proposed negotiations on EC-Swiss transport agreements.

    The Council agreed an European Union position on structural funds for the accession negotiations with the four applicants. The Council was followed by ministerial negotiating sessions with the applicants. A package of secondary issues was agreed with the Finns. The applicants outlined their concerns on the agriculture and regional policy dossiers. Further discussion of these was left for the 25 to 28 February special ministerial meeting on enlargement.

    Ministers discussed arrangements for financing costs arising under the intergovernmental pillars of the treaty on European Union and agreed to return to the issue at a future meeting.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Coal Privatisation
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the privatisation of the coal industry.

    Mr. Eggar
    Both the President and I meet the chairman regularly to discuss the privatisation of the coal industry and other matters.

    Electricity Industry
    Mr. Maxton
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he is meeting the Director General of Electricity Supply to discuss the agreement between OFFER and the two generators, National Power and PowerGen, on electricity prices and the sale of plant.

    Mr. Eggar
    My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I meet the Director-General of Electricity Supply from time to time to discuss various issues.

    Industrial Growth
    Mr. Mark Robinson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what forecasts he has made for industrial growth in the United Kingdom and other EU countries.

    Mr. Heseltine
    United Kingdom and Ireland are estimated to be the only EC economies where industrial production rose last year. Both the OECD and the European Commission are forecasting that the United Kingdom will be the fastest-growing major economy in 1994 and 1995.

    Nuclear Industry
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the implications of the recent announcement of the part-privatisation of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for the nuclear industry's future.

    Mr. Eggar
    The AEA provides services to the nuclear industry and to a wide range of non-nuclear customers. I believe that privatisation will lead to a greater cost-effectiveness and better value for money for all the AEA's customers.

    Land Mines
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on his Department's policy on the export of land mines.

    Mr. Needham
    I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton on 12 January,Official Report, column 168.

    Business Confidence
    Mr. Simon Coombs
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next proposes to meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss business confidence.

    Mr. Heseltine
    My Department has frequent contact with the CBI and its members to discuss a variety of matters of mutual interest. I regularly receive the results of the CBI quarterly survey, the most recent of which showed the fifth consecutive rise in business confidence.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of United Kingdom manufacturing industry is now owned by foreign companies.

    Mr. Heseltine
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on 23 February 1994,Official Report, column 230.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his strategy to promote the growth of United Kingdom manufacturing industry including research and development.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    My Department's refocused innovation policy seeks to promote manufacturing industry by putting more resources into helping companies—especi-ally smaller companies—gain access to and exploit technology, whether from the United Kingdom or overseas.

    Environmental Technology Exports
    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of British exports in environmental technology, at the latest date for which figures are available; and what share this represents of world trade.

    Mr. Needham
    Exports of pollution control and monitoring equipment totalled some £480 million in 1992. Figures for world trade are not available on the same basis, but in 1991 exports from the United Kingdom are estimated to have accounted for approximately 10 per cent. of exports of this type of equipment from OECD countries.

    Small Firms
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to amend company law to safeguard small companies threatened as a result of the insolvency of larger companies who are their customers.

    Mr. Neil Hamilton
    I have no such plans.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Skinner
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss pit closures.

    Mr. Eggar
    Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss a variety of coal industry matters.

    Shipbuilding Industry
    Mr. Hutton
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future prospects for the British shipbuilding industry.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    It is generally expected that there will be an upturn in demand for merchant ships in the second half of the decade, which will provide more opportunities for the shipbuilding industry.

    Motor Car Production
    Mr. Dykes
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the current levels of motor car production in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    In 1993 the United Kingdom produced 1·376 million cars, France 2·836 million and the provisional figure for Germany is 3·753 million.

    Companies (Political Donations)
    Mr. Turner
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek to amend the Companies Act 1985 to provide for more publicity to be given to political donations made by companies.

    Mr. Neil Hamilton
    No. The present law requires sufficient disclosure. The Companies Act 1985 requires companies to disclose, in their directors' reports, political donations exceeding £200.

    Mobile Phones
    Mr. Ian Bruce
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department is taking to lessen the possibility of theft and fraudulent use of mobile phones.
    248
    Mr. McLoughlin
    The scale of mobile phone thefts, and their subsequent fraudulent use, is of considerable concern to the Government, the companies involved and the victims of these crimes. I met my hon. Friend and a delegation from the Federation of Communication Services recently to discuss what further steps could be taken to tackle this problem. I welcome the initiatives which the industry is already taking, including wider use of equipment marking schemes and improved control of electronic serial numbers. My Department, with the Home Office and Oftel, are discussing with the industry how these initiatives should be pursued further. The Government are considering the proposals from my hon. Friend and the FCS for introducing a new criminal offence of reprogramming a mobile phone. In doing so, we shall have particular regard to whether mobile phone users can be adequately protected if such an offence is created, and whether any new offence would in practice be at all effective in reducing the problem of mobile phone thefts.

    Iron And Steel Scrap
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to meet representatives of the British Foundry Association to discuss iron and steel scrap prices; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    I shall be meeting a delegation of hon. Members and representatives of the steel and foundry industries on 14 March.

    Wide-bodied Large Aircraft
    Mr. Eastham
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department will give to the British aerospace industry towards developing the next generation of wide-bodied large aircraft.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    Any application for assistance towards developing new wide-bodied aircraft will be considered on merit and in the light of competing calls on public funds.

    Environmental Protection Act 1990
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

    Mr. Neil Hamilton
    Under the Government's deregulation initiative, Departments are reviewing all 3,500 regulations for which they are responsible which impose burdens upon business.

    The document "Deregulation: Cutting Red Tape" published on 19 January sets out at pages 36 to 44 the deregulatory action my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already taken and is considering taking to revise the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

    Energy Exports
    Mr. Elletson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist United Kingdom energy companies to win export orders.

    Mr. Needham
    The DTI and FCO's overseas trade services provide a broad package of support and market advice which is available to companies in the energy sector, as indeed it is to those in all sectors.
    249
    Special initiatives are also undertaken, such as outward missions to markets of particular interest to energy companies. Recent missions arranged by the projects export promotion division of the DTI visited China, Vietnam and India. In addition, the Minister for Energy, has visited south-east Asia, Kazakhstan and Algeria to promote the United Kingdom's wide-ranging expertise in the energy sector.

    PEP also provides the secretariat for the power sector working group of the Overseas Projects Board; which is a working group of senior personnel from industries involved in power generation, including generators, manufacturers and distributors. Its aim is to support initiatives to improve the United Kingdom's performance in winning overseas power project contracts.

    The DTI's oil and gas projects and supplies office, which provides support for United Kingdom industry's effort to win orders in international oil and gas markets in the upstream, downstream and petrochemical sectors, has increased the resources which it devotes to export promotion. OSO's support for United Kingdom involvement in overseas markets is being given the highest priority.

    Motor Industry (Japanese Investment)
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to encourage an increase in the level of Japanese investment in the motor industry; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    The Government welcome inward investment. Japanese automotive companies have brought jobs and helped transform United Kingdom technical and management practices. We believe that the Government's commitment to their success will lead them to make further investments in the United Kingdom.

    Insolvency Service
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his proposals for monitoring insolvency practitioners in the future; and how unfit practitioners will be struck off.

    Mr. Neil Hamilton
    Following discussions between my Department's Insolvency Service and the professional bodies recognised to authorise insolvency practitioners, the professional bodies have begun putting in place programmes for the routine monitoring of their practitioners. This work was previously carried out by the Insolvency Service, which will continue to monitor the activities of practitioners authorised by the Secretary of State.

    In addition to the routine monitoring programmes, the professional bodies will continue, as previously, to respond to complaints about practitioners and carry out inspections of practices where necessary. The Insolvency Service will assist the bodies in the early stages of their monitoring programmes and is taking a close interest in the development of standards and consistency of approach in this area.

    Each of the professional bodies has disciplinary procedures in place to deal with complaints about practitioners and there is a range of sanctions available to the bodies including withdrawal of authorisation where it appears to the body that the practitioner is no longer fit and proper. Similarly, the Secretary of State has the power to
    250
    withdraw the authorisation of a practitioner authorised by him subject to the practitioner's right to have the matter referred to the insolvency practitioners tribunal.

    Plutonium
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the 24,000 kg of plutonium in nuclear fuel rods awaiting reprocessing at Sellafield, listed on page four of his departmental press release P/94/121 of 1 March, comprising the seventh annual publication of plutonium figures, is(a) owned by foreign customers and (b) destined for reprocessing through the thermal oxide reprocessing plant; and if he will make a statement on the safeguards applied to this plutonium.

    Mr. Eggar
    All the material in question is subject to the terms of the United Kingdom—International Atomic Energy Agency—Euratom Safeguards agreement. The majority of it is owned by overseas customers and destined for reprocessing in THORP.

    Japanese Inward Investment
    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the levels of Japanese inward investment for 1995, 1996 and 1997; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    Future levels of inward investment are difficult to assess, however it is widely accepted that the current level of interest from Japanese investors is unlikely to increase until the economic situation in Japan improves.

    The warm welcome which this Government and country have for long given to investment from Japan remains as positive as ever. It is therefore encouraging to note that, even though the level of investment from Japan has decreased in recent years, the United Kingdom has maintained its position as the preferred location for Japanese companies with over 41 per cent.—by value to March 19931—of the total Japanese investment in the EC. Future investment from Japan is likely to come from small and medium sized companies, expansions by existing investors and research and development investment, including local research and development departments being set up by manufacturers already in Europe.
    1Source: Japanese Ministry of Finance.

    Charter Market Franchises
    Sir Michael Neubert
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many charter market franchises will fall to be abolished under the terms of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill; and what estimate he makes of their compensatory value.

    Mr. Neil Hamilton
    None. The Government have no intention of abolishing the right of local authorities to hold markets and collect rents as they have done in the past. Clauses 21 to 23 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill would remove rights of local authorities with market franchises to object to proposals to set up competing markets within six and two third miles of their own.

    British Coal
    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's estimate of the cost of inheriting the historical liabilities of British Coal when the coal industry is privatised.
    251
    Mr. Eggar
    Estimates of the cost of these liabilities are provided in the explanatory and financial memorandum of the Coal Industry Bill.

    Child Care
    Ms. Harman
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department spends on child care; on what provision the sum is spent; how many children receive the child care; and if he will make a statement about child care.

    Mr. Eggar
    [holding answer 7 March 1994]: My Department aims to promote a culture where managers are understanding of the need for staff to balance work and child care responsibilities and is committed to exploring child care schemes which give value for money.

    For the financial year 1993–94 the DTI, excluding its executive agencies has an allocated budget of £18,000 for the provision of school holiday playscheme places. Up to a maximum of 32 places are available on any one day that the playscheme is in operation.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of Export Credits Guarantee Department credits related to defence exports for each year since 1980.

    Mr. Needham
    [holding answer 8 March 1994]: The percentage of ECGD support for capital goods business since 1980 which related to defence exports was as follows:

    ECGD experience on defence business

    Defence as percentage of total overall project business for specific markets

    Bangladesh

    Ecuador

    India

    Indonesia

    Jordan

    Malaysia

    Nigeria

    Oman

    Pakistan

    Thailand

    1980–81

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    5·42

    0

    0

    1981–82

    0

    0

    0·09

    0·73

    0·40

    0

    0·53

    0·84

    0

    0

    1982–83

    0

    0

    0

    0·28

    0

    0·33

    3·31

    0·73

    0

    0

    1983–84

    0

    0

    6·84

    0

    0

    0

    0·11

    0

    0

    0

    1984–85

    0

    0

    0

    4·45

    0·60

    0

    1·91

    1·16

    0

    0·17

    1985–86

    0

    0

    1·28

    5·44

    0

    0

    0

    1·10

    0·07

    0

    1986–87

    0

    0

    0·03

    1·94

    7·76

    0

    0

    1·43

    0

    0

    1987–88

    0

    0

    0·98

    0·35

    5·32

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1988–89

    0

    0

    0

    0·14

    4·75

    0

    0

    0

    0·29

    0

    1989–90

    0

    0

    1·25

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0·02

    0

    0

    1990–91

    0

    0

    0

    0·11

    0

    7·92

    0

    14·84

    0

    0

    1991–92

    0

    0

    0

    0·10

    0

    13·07

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1992–93

    0

    0

    0

    11·38

    0·35

    9·72

    0

    1·13

    0

    0

    No sectoral breakdown is available for ECGD short term business which was privatised in November 1991.

    United Kingdom Investment
    Mr. Pawsey
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of United Kingdom investment in(a) the United States of America, (b) the other EC countries and (c) the rest of the world in each year since 1979; and what estimate he has made of the likely income in each case to the United Kingdom in the current year.

    Mr. Nelson
    I have been asked to reply.

    A geographical breakdown of overseas direct investment by the United Kingdom is provided in the annual business monitor MA4 "Overseas Transactions". Figures for total overseas investment, including portfolio investment, bank and other lending are given in the annual "Balance of Payments Pink Book" which also includes some detailed figures for investment in other EC member states. Both of these publications, by the Central Statistical
    252

    Per cent.

    1980–81

    6·56

    1981–82

    5·23

    1982–83

    7·47

    1983–84

    16·50

    1984–85

    12·29

    1985–86

    13·71

    1986–87

    17·14

    1987–88

    11·51

    1988–89

    29·17

    1989–90

    19·30

    1990–91

    27·83

    1991–92

    13·17

    1992–93

    41·85

    No sectoral breakdown is available for ECGD short-term business which was privatised in November 1991.

    Mr. Byers
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the total Export Credits Guarantee Department credit budget was used in relation to defence contracts for(a) Bangladesh, (b) Ecuador, (c) India, (d) Indonesia, (e) Jordan, (f) Malaysia, (g) Nigeria, (h) Oman, (i) Pakistan and (j) Thailand in each year since 1980.

    Mr. Needham
    [holding answer 8 March 1994]: The percentage of total ECGD support for capital goods services since 1980 which related to defence contracts in the named markets was as follows:

    Office, are available in the House of Commons Library. No figures are published for total overseas investment by the United Kingdom in the United States of America.

    Comparable figures on investment income are published in the same sources. No estimates of the likely income in the current year are available.

  DEFENCE

    Headquarters
    Mr. Spellar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the Procurement Executive headquarters in Bristol and the Naval Support Command headquarters at Bath.

    Mr. Aitken
    Contracts for the site infrastructure and main construction of the Procurement Executive's new headquarters at Abbey wood, north Bristol have been
    253
    placed, and work is proceeding to time and cost. A number of options have been identified in the Bath area for the long-term accommodation of the Naval Support Command headquarters. Decisions on both projects will be taken in the light of the outcome of the defence costs study which is presently in hand.

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who he has appointed to be the next head Dr. the Defence Export Sales Organisation; and what criteria he used in making the appointment.

    Mr. Aitken
    A successor to Sir Alan Thomas as head of the Defence Export Services Organisation has not yet been appointed. The post was advertised on 29 September and a decision is likely to be made shortly.

    Smiths Industries
    Mr. Donald Anderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contacts he has had with Smiths Industries about that company's possible provision of advanced avionics systems for the contract to sell Skyhawk fighter bombers to the Argentine air force; and what advice he has given.

    Mr. Aitken
    My Department has regular contact with Smith Industries on a range of export matters. The United Kingdom embargo on the sale of military goods to Argentina remains in force. Smith Industries is aware of this.

    British Aerospace, Bolton
    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence contracts his Department plans to place with the British Aerospace, Lostock, Bolton, factory.

    Mr. Aitken
    My Department is evaluating a number of tenders from BAe plc; subject to satisfactory contractual negotiations these may result in our placing contracts with the company. It is a matter for the company's commercial judgment as to which of its factories carries out the work.

    Defence Contracts
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 24 February,Official Report, column 383, what were the dates on which the memoranda of understanding were signed; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Aitken
    The memoranda of understanding referred to were signed as follows. With some countries more than one memorandum of understanding has been negotiated.

    Algeria: 1983.

    Australia: May 1988.

    Bahrain: May 1990.

    Bangladesh: between November 1976 and January 1994

    Ecuador: March 1991.

    Finland: between January 1976 and September 1993.

    Germany: June 1991.

    Greece: September 1983.

    India: between November 1978 and November 1985.

    Indonesia: between September 1983 and November 1991.

    Ireland: August 1988.

    Jordan: between November 1979 and June 1989.

    Republic of Korea: September 1993.

    254

    Kuwait: December 1992.

    Malaysia: between September 1988 and December 1993.

    Netherlands: between August 1977 and September 1989.

    New Zealand: August 1982.

    Nigeria: date not available.

    Norway: between December 1970 and January 1990.

    Oman: September 1990.

    Pakistan: between June 1988 and January 1993.

    Portugal: November 1990.

    Qatar: May 1993.

    Saudi Arabia: between March 1978 and April 1986.

    Singapore: February 1993.

    Sweden: February 1994.

    Thailand: March 1993.

    United States of America: December 1985.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 24 February,Official Report, column 383, on which dates negotiations for the memoranda of understanding began; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Aitken
    This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 24 February,Official Report, column 383, which of the memoranda of understanding related to specific defence contracts; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Aitken
    The following memoranda of understanding relate to specific defence sales. It is not, however, the policy of this Government to reveal the content of the memoranda of understanding, nor details of any defence contracts to which they relate.

    Bangladesh: between November 1976 and January 1994

    Ecuador: March 1991

    Finland: between January 1976 and February 1985

    Germany: June 1991

    India: between November 1978 and November 1985

    Indonesia: between March 1984 and November 1991

    Ireland: August 1988

    Jordan: between November 1979 and June 1989

    Netherlands: between August 1977 and September 1989

    New Zealand: August 1982

    Nigeria: date not available

    Norway: January 1990

    Pakistan: between June 1988 and January 1993

    Portugal: November 1990

    Qatar: May 1993

    Saudi Arabia: between March 1978 and April 1986

    Singapore: February 1993

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 24 February,Official Report, column 383, which of the memoranda of understanding cover co-operation over a range of equipments; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Aitken
    The following memoranda of understanding cover co-operation over a range of equipments. It should be noted, however, that not all of these MOUs necessarily result in any contractual activity. It is not this Government's policy to release details of MOUs, nor to comment on any contractual activity under such MOUs.

    Algeria: 1983

    Australia: May 1988

    Bahrain: May 1990

    Finland: September 1993

    Greece: September 1983

    Indonesia: September 1983

    255

    Jordan: September 1985

    Republic of Korea: September 1993

    Kuwait: December 1992

    Malaysia: September 1988

    Norway: December 1970

    Oman: September 1990

    Qatar: May 1993

    Saudi Arabia: February 1986

    Sweden: February 1994

    Thailand: March 1993

    USA: December 1985

    War Widows
    Mr. Spellar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many war widows are still receiving pensions in respect of British troops killed during the campaign to defeat the communist insurgency in Malaya.

    Mr. Hague
    I have been asked to reply. The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Postgraduate Research
    Dr. Moonie
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the names of the individuals and organisations to whom the consultation paper "A New Structure for Postgraduate Research Training Supported by the Research Councils", has been circulated.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    A copy of the circulation list has been placed in the Library. I am also arranging for copies to be sent to the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).

    Sex discrimination

    Religious discrimination

    Joint sex/religious discrimination

    £

    £

    £

    Eastern

    16,950

    11,991

    113,585

    Northern

    Nil

    17,603

    —

    Southern

    Nil

    Nil

    —

    Western

    1,292

    1,907

    —

    1 For period April 1993 to date

    Dr. Hendron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what co-ordination exists between each of the Northern Ireland health boards and the Fair Employment Commission.

    Mr. Ancram
    Health and social services boards each have an equal opportunities unit which is in regular contact with the FEC for advice and guidance on employment matters. Each board also has contact in relation to the monitoring of the composition of its work force.

    Dr. Hendron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money in total has been spent by each of the Northern Ireland health boards in settling legal cases taken against the board involving sexual discrimination.

    "Permanent Secretary's Handbook"
    Mr. Gunnell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place a copy of the "Permanent Secretary's Handbook" in the Library.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    No. The handbook referred to is a compendium of guidance and other documents which heads of departments and others with similar responsibilities find useful to have collected together. Much of the material in it is already in the public domain—for example, "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", the "Armstrong Memorandum" on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants, the memorandum of guidance for officials appearing before Select Committees, guidance on Government publicity and advertising, the "Radcliffe Rules" on ministerial memoirs, and guidance on access by Ministers to documents of a previous Administration. Other material, for example on security and vetting procedures, is justifiably confidential.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Fair Employment (Health Boards)
    Dr. Hendron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total amount of legal costs incurred by each of the Northern Ireland health boards in defending cases involving sexual and religious discrimination.

    Mr. Ancram
    The total amount of legal costs incurred by each of the Northern Ireland health and social services boards in defending cases involving sexual and religious discrimination is not known since the majority of cases are still on-going and the costs incurred have not yet been established. The figures in the table represent only those legal fees which have actually been paid during the last three years.

    Mr. Ancram
    The total money spent by each of the Northern Ireland health and social services boards in settling legal cases taken against the board involving sexual discrimination is shown in the table.

    £

    Eastern

    173,085

    Northern

    Nil

    Southern

    Nil

    Western

    12,150

    1 Includes £49,468 on joint gender/religious discrimination cases.

    Dr. Hendron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Department of Health will order an investigation into the employment policies of the Northern Ireland health boards.
    257
    Mr. Ancram
    Health and social services boards are subject to selection and appointment procedures which were issued by the Department of Health and Social Services in June 1991. The HSS boards then have detailed policies to supplement and clarify for their staff the application of the selection and appointment procedures. The Department is satisfied these purposes are fair to all staff.

    The health and social services boards also have comprehensive policies in respect of other aspects of employment including equal opportunities, sexual harassment, job sharing, career breaks and employment of disabled people. These policies take into account guidance from other agencies such as the FEC and the EOC.

    The Management Executive instituted a review of the selection and appointment procedures in November 1993 and all interested organisations—health and social services boards, health and social services trusts, staff, professional interests, the Farr Employment Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission were invited to contribute to the review.

    The Department has looked carefully at existing practice. It is conscious that isolated problems have arisen in respect of the implementation of this policy but is confident that the procedures remain valid and therefore sees no requirement for an investigation.

    Dr. Hendron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money in total has been spent by each of the last Northern Ireland health boards in settling legal cases taken against the board involving religious discrimination.

    Mr. Ancram
    The total money spent by each of the Northern Ireland health and social services boards in settling legal cases taken against the board involving religious discrimination is shown in the table.

    Year lodged

    Number withdrawn

    Settled out of court

    Settled in court

    Pending

    Total

    Legal costs £

    Compensation £

    Eastern Board

    (1) Gender cases

    1991

    —

    9

    —

    1

    10

    1,762

    10,000

    1992

    6

    4

    —

    1

    11

    4,188

    10,750

    1993

    1

    3

    —

    6

    10

    10,999

    11,768

    (2) Religious cases

    1991

    3

    3

    —

    1

    7

    6,081

    25,000

    1992

    8

    5

    —

    7

    20

    5,734

    65,000

    1993

    5

    —

    —

    6

    11

    176

    20,000

    Northern Board

    (1) Gender cases

    1991

    —

    —

    —

    1

    1

    —

    —

    1992

    1

    —

    —

    2

    3

    —

    —

    1993

    1

    —

    11

    3

    5

    —

    —

    (2) Religious cases

    1991

    2

    —

    —

    1

    3

    —

    —

    1992

    —

    —

    —

    2

    2

    7,050

    5,000

    1993

    1

    —

    —

    1

    2

    10,553

    47,500

    Southern Board

    (1) Gender cases

    1991

    —

    —

    —

    —

    0

    —

    —

    1992

    —

    —

    —

    —

    0

    —

    —

    1993

    —

    —

    —

    3

    3

    —

    —

    258

    £

    Eastern

    1121,991

    Northern

    52,500

    Southern

    Nil

    Western

    19,646

    1 Includes £49,468 on joint gender/religious discrimination cases.

    Dr. Hendron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of religious discrimination are currently pending against each of the Northern Ireland health boards.

    Mr. Ancram
    The number of religious discrimination cases currently pending against each of the Northern Ireland health and social services boards is as follows:

    Number

    Eastern

    14

    Northern

    7

    Southern

    4

    Western

    6

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish tables showing for each health and social services board in Northern Ireland the(a) number of complaints made in each of the last three years about discrimination on the grounds of (i) gender and (ii) religion, (b) the number of each category (1) withdrawn, (2) settled out of court and (3) settled at a court hearing, and the (x) costs and (y) compensation paid in respect of each category in each such year.

    Mr. Ancram
    The information is as follows:

    The majority of the cases are still on-going and consequently the legal costs incurred have not yet been established. The figures in the tables showing legal costs represent only those legal fees which have actually been paid over the last three years.
    259

    Year lodged

    Number withdrawn

    Settled out of court

    Settled in court

    Pending

    Total

    Legal costs £

    Compensation £

    (2) Religious cases

    1991

    3

    —

    —

    —

    3

    —

    —

    1992

    1

    —

    —

    2

    3

    —

    —

    1993

    1

    —

    —

    2

    3

    —

    —

    Western Board

    (1) Gender cases

    1991

    1

    3

    —

    4

    8

    —

    1,950

    1992

    —

    1

    1

    1

    3

    1,292

    3,200

    1993

    1

    —

    —

    2

    3

    —

    7,000

    (2) Religious cases

    1991

    8

    1

    —

    1

    10

    585

    —

    1992

    1

    —

    —

    2

    3

    —

    —

    1993

    —

    —

    —

    2

    2

    1,322

    7,000

    1 Board dismissed.

    Dr. Hendron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Eastern health board took to implement the recommendations laid down by the Fair Employment Commission in the remedies judgment following the Duffy case.

    Mr. Ancram
    The FEC did not make any recommendations in the remedies judgment following the Duffy case. However, the board's internal inquiry made a series of recommendations which were subsequently adopted by the board.

    Bovine Tuberculosis
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 58, for what period the field study for bovine tuberculosis was intended to run; whether that period has been extended; and when he now expects it to be completed.

    Mr. Ancram
    The sampling of herds to assist with the possible development of a blood test for bovine TB was completed as planned by December 1993. Arrangements for the purchase of all the animals which it was considered necessary to examine have now been completed. It is necessary to analyse and interpret the data before an assessment can be made of the effectiveness of a blood test and whether a fully substantiated case can be made to the European Community to obtain agreement to its use. This is expected to continue until late 1994.

    Illegal Fishing
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether it was established by the RUC that Fishery Conservancy Board bailiffs and a scientist had been involved in the stripping of eggs from salmon on the Grillagh river in County Londonderry during the salmon seasons 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

    Sir John Wheeler
    At the request of the Fishery Conservancy Board, the Royal Ulster Constabulary carried out an investigation into this matter in 1989. Following the police investigation a file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions who subsequently directed no prosecution.

    Campaigns
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 1034, if he will publish the number of calls made to the freephones for the organ donor card and Keep Warm Keep Well winter warmth campaigns and the results from monitoring customer awareness and attitudes in relation to the innovation in research and development campaigns.

    Sir John Wheeler
    There have been 379 calls made to the freephone for the organ donor card and 88 freephone calls for the Keep Warm Keep Well winter warmth campaign.

    Monitoring in relation to the innovation in research and development campaigns indicates that improved customer awareness, attitudes and actions are reflected in a 13 per cent. increase in the number of applications for, and a 70 per cent. increase in the numbers of companies participating in, the product and process development scheme in 1993–94 compared with the previous year. The figures also reflect a 79 per cent. increase in the number of first-time users of the scheme. Under the science and technology programme industrial participation has risen from 50 per cent. in 1992–93 to 100 per cent. in 1993–94.

    Road Deaths Statistics
    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the number of road deaths in crashes where a driver or rider was above the legal alcohol limit.

    Sir John Wheeler
    The information is as follows:

    Road deaths in accidents where driver or rider was estimated by the RUC to be above the legal alcohol limit

    Year

    Total deaths

    1984

    25

    1985

    19

    1986

    38

    1987

    33

    1988

    22

    1989

    27

    1990

    41

    1991

    26

    1992

    30

    1993

    25

    261
    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the road casualty fatalities and serious injuries in each year since 1984.

    Sir John Wheeler
    The information is set out in the table:

    Road traffic accident casualties

    Year

    Total killed

    Total seriously injured

    1984

    189

    2,465

    1985

    177

    1,148

    1986

    236

    1,825

    1987

    214

    1,885

    1988

    178

    1,969

    1989

    181

    2,014

    1990

    185

    1,993

    1991

    185

    1,648

    1992

    150

    1,841

    1993

    143

    1,725

    Prison Service (Costs)
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average cost to the prison service in Northern Ireland of admitting a male person to prison; and what is the difference in the cost of admitting a person who has been sentenced to a long period of imprisonment and a person who has been sentenced to seven days.

    Sir John Wheeler
    The information requested is not available.

    Prison Sentences
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were given a prison sentence in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years for which figures are available for stealing cars and joyriding in such vehicles; what was the average sentence in each year; and how many cars were stolen in each of those years.

    Sir John Wheeler
    The number of cases where prison sentences were given for the theft and for the unauthorised taking of vehicles in 1990, 1991 and 1992 were respectively 72, 66 and 123. The average prison sentence in each of those years for those sentenced to immediate custody was 5·3, 5·1 and 5·2 months respectively. The number of vehicles reported stolen or otherwise taken and driven away without authority was 7,042 in 1990, 8,455 in 1991 and 9,376 in 1992.

  SCOTLAND

    Salmon Farming
    Mr. Wilson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the Ernst and Young report on subsidies to the Norwegian salmon farming industry; and if he will make a statement.

    Sir Hector Monro
    I have encouraged Scottish salmon producers to provide the European Commission with such information as is available on alleged unfair support for Norwegian salmon farmers. I have read the Ernst and Young report with interest, and I understand that the report 262
    is now in the hands of the European Commission which must decide whether it warrants full and formal investigation.

    Limb Defects
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when Ayrshire and Arran health board expects to be able to produce the 1993 statistics relating to limb defects within the health board's area; and for what reasons there has been a delay in collating the information;

    (2) what procedures are used by Ayrshire and Arran health board to collate information relating to the incidence of limb defects in children within the health board's area.

    Mr. Lang
    Statistics on the incidence of limb defects and other congenital anomalies are produced for all health board areas by the information and statistics division of the Common Services Agency. The data are compiled using three sources: the neonatal discharge record—form SMR11—the information on which is provided by each health board, the Scottish stillbirth and neonatal mortality study, and admissions to hospital in the first year of life—form SMR1.

    Information on all congenital anomalies, including limb defects, is published on each calendar year's birth cohort. A provisional data set based on the first two sources is published in the summer following the calendar year, and a final data set on the same birth cohort a year later, when all hospital admissions have been added to the provisional data.

    The provisional data for 1993 on reduction deformities of limbs by area of residence are as follows:

    Board area of residence

    Upper limb

    Lower limb

    Unspecified limb

    Argyll and Clyde

    —

    —

    —

    Ayrshire and Arran

    3

    —

    —

    Borders

    —

    —

    —

    Dumfries and Galloway

    —

    —

    —

    Fife

    3

    —

    —

    Forth Valley

    —

    —

    —

    Grampian

    2

    —

    —

    Greater Glasgow

    1

    —

    —

    Highland

    —

    —

    —

    Lanarkshire

    1

    —

    —

    Lothian

    1

    1

    —

    Orkney

    —

    —

    —

    Shetland

    —

    —

    —

    Tayside

    2

    2

    1

    Western Isles

    —

    —

    —

    Scotland

    13

    3

    1

    Source: SMR11 neonatal record.

    Prison Visiting Committees
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to alter the composition and membership of prison visiting committees; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The draft revised Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules issued for consultation last September included proposals to change the size of, and local authority representation on, the visiting committees for Scottish adult penal establishments. We are still considering all the comments received, but new rules will be laid before Parliament in the next few months.
    263
    Mr. Bill Walker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the cost to Grampian, Tayside, Highland and Strathclyde regions in 1979, 1989 and 1992 and the latest available date for police involved in mountain area search and rescue activity;

    (2) what is the cost per hour of police in Grampian, Tayside, Highland and Strathclyde regions when engaged in mountain search and rescue duty.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Information relating to the cost of police involvement in mountain search and rescue is not recorded by Tayside, Highland and Strathclyde regional councils. The approximate, estimated costs for this activity in Grampiam are not available for 1979 and 1989. Those for 1992 and 1993 are estimated at £3,000—cost per hour 10·71—and £2,500—cost per hour £11·36—respectively.

    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members of the prison visiting committees, the names of the appointing authorities and tenure of appointments.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The information is set out in the table. Tenure of appointment to the visiting committee is four years.

    Establishment and name

    Appointing authority

    Aberdeen

    J. A. Proctor

    Moray District

    Ms Y. Allan

    Aberdeen District

    A. Dow

    Aberdeen District

    M. Burnett

    Grampian Region

    K. A. Forbes

    Grampian Region

    Miss M. Urquhart, OBE

    Grampian Region

    J. K. A. Thomanek, FRSA, JP

    Grampian Region

    A. Dunlop

    Highland Region

    I. M. Frain

    Kincardine and Deeside District

    W. Johnston, MBE, JP

    Tayside Region

    J. Lawrence

    Gordon District

    J. Mair

    Banff and Buchan District

    Barlinnie

    G. McElroy, BA, JP

    Strathclyde Region

    R. Campbell

    Strathclyde Region

    Ms C. Lyon

    Strathclyde Region

    R. McGerty

    Strathclyde Region

    J. McGuire, JP

    Strathclyde Region

    K. Murray

    Strathclyde Region

    A. McGhee

    Strathclyde Region

    E. Torrance

    Cumnock and Doon Valley District

    Ms Y. Anderson

    Glasgow District

    A. McCartney

    Glasgow District

    C. McDonach

    Glasgow District

    Baillie D. Murphy

    Glasgow District

    J. Baker

    Strathkelvin District

    M. Bissett

    Falkirk District

    Provost E. Cairns, MA, JP

    Monklands District

    Provost Mrs. J. Cameron, JP

    Bearsden and Milngavie District

    G. Steven

    Cunninghame District

    T. Craig, JP

    Clydesdale District

    Ms A. Dickson

    Stirling District

    W. Hanlon

    Lothian Region

    W. McAdam

    Clackmannan District

    J. McAllister, JP

    Clydebank District

    Ms C. Lawson

    Renfrew District

    E. Griffin

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District

    D. Morrison

    Inverclyde District

    M. Rooney

    Hamilton District

    I. Simpson

    Eastwood District

    J. Thomson, JP

    Argyll and Bute District

    Mrs. S. M. Duke

    Central Region

    J. Docherty

    East Kilbride District

    Ms B. Campbell

    Kyle and Carrick District

    S. McCallum

    Dumbarton District

    264

    Establishment and name

    Appointing authority

    Mrs. M. Scanlon

    Tayside Region

    W. Graham

    Motherwell District

    J. Anderson, JP

    Kilmarnock and Louden District

    Cornton Vale

    Mrs. H. Wright

    Dundee District

    Vacant

    Dundee District

    Mrs. B. D. Baker

    Borders Region

    P. Fishbourne

    Borders Region

    J. Davidson

    Falkirk District

    Mrs. F. E. Duncan

    Tayside Region

    A.W. Shand

    Tayside Region

    Mrs. L. Graham

    Tayside Region

    Mrs. M. J. Fitzpatrick

    Central Region

    W. R. McAdam

    Central Region

    Mrs. H. Livingstone

    Central Region

    T. S. Sinclair

    Central Region

    Mrs. V. Gemmell

    Fife Region

    Mrs. E. Riches

    Fife Region

    Mrs. H. Graham

    Lothian Region

    Ms J. Mitchell

    Lothian Region

    J. Stephenson

    Lothian Region

    Ms B. Holliday

    Stirling Region

    Mrs. M. Brisley

    Stirling Region

    A. McGarrity

    Glasgow District

    Ms J. Andrews

    Glasgow District

    D. Bowman

    Glasgow District

    Mrs. B. McGeechan

    Strathclyde Region

    Mrs. Y. Robertson

    Strathclyde Region

    J. McGuire, JP

    Strathclyde Region

    Mrs. M. Smith

    Strathclyde Region

    Ms T. McNally

    Clackmannan District

    Ms S. Dalgety

    Edinburgh District

    E. T. McLaughlin, JP:

    Edinburgh District

    Dumfries

    E. Gray

    Strathclyde Region

    B. Caldow

    Stewartry District

    W. Carmichael, JP

    Nithsdale District

    Mrs. H. Cross

    Nithsdale District

    J. M. Dowson

    Dumfries and Galloway Region

    P. B. Walker

    Wigtown District

    Mrs. S. M. Howat

    Dumfries and Galloway Region

    Mrs. C. M. Hyslop

    Dumfries and Galloway Region

    Mrs. J. M. McMurdo

    Dumfries and Galloway Region

    I. A. Pennie

    Dumfries and Galloway Region

    T. G. A. Russell

    Annandale and Eskdale District

    Dungavel

    G. McKillop

    East Kilbride District

    Mrs. A. Reid

    East Kilbride District

    J. Baillie

    Strathclyde Region

    A. McGhee

    Strathclyde Region

    P. Walters

    Strathclyde Region

    J. McGuigan

    Strathclyde Region

    F. McAveety

    Glasgow District

    Baillie J. Moynes

    Glasgow District

    R. McFarlane

    Tayside District

    E. Read

    Fife Region

    J. Wesley

    Lothian Region

    C. W. Davidson

    Lothian Region

    Mrs. E. D. Kennedy

    Central Region

    Edinburgh

    D. K. Swan, JP

    Berwickshire District

    Ms A. D. Burnett

    Borders Region

    A. J. C. Hewat

    Borders Region

    W. Lamb

    Borders Region

    J. A. R. Scott, JP

    Borders Region

    J. Culliven

    Tayside Region

    W. Drummond, JP

    Lothian Region

    E. B. Fallon

    Lothian Region

    H. D. Fraser, MBE

    Lothian Region

    Ms J. M. Mitchell

    Lothian Region

    T. V. Ponton

    Lothian Region

    J. Sibbald

    West Lothian District

    Mrs. H. Livingstone

    Central Region

    M. Moore

    Midlothian District

    265

    Establishment and name

    Appointing authority

    Mrs. E. J. McFee

    Fife Region

    Ms A. Smith

    Fife Region

    C. Stanfield

    Fife Region

    J. McGuire

    Strathclyde Region

    P. O'Donnell

    East Lothian District

    A. J. H. Squair

    Roxburgh District

    P. Schofield

    Tweeddale District

    Mrs N. J. R. Bryson

    Ettrick and Lauderdale District

    Ms I. Kitson

    Edinburgh District

    D. Cruickshanks

    Edinburgh District

    D. H. Brown, JP

    Edinburgh District

    Glenochil

    G. MacDiarmid

    Glasgow Central

    J. Cameron

    Dunfermline District

    D. Stewart

    Clackmannan District

    Vacant

    Clackmannan District

    W. Dunn

    Edinburgh District

    J. Johnston

    Falkirk District

    Mrs. H. Wright

    Dundee District

    Mrs. F. E. M. Davidson

    Central Region

    W. T. Dickson

    Central Region

    I. S. Millar

    Central Region

    Mrs. C. M. Organ

    Central Region

    D. Bryson

    Central Region

    I. Martin

    Stirling District

    W. Clarke

    Fife Region

    M. E. Read

    Fife Region

    W. Hanlon

    Lothian Region

    T. K. Kinder

    Lothian Region

    J. McGuigan, JP

    Strathclyde Region

    E. Gray, JP

    Strathclyde Region

    J. Whittet

    Tayside Region

    J. Mathers

    Tayside Region

    W. S. Courts

    Perth and Kinross District

    Inverness

    L. Fraser

    Nairn District

    P. Fulton

    Skye and Lochalsh District

    Mrs. C. A. Hutchison

    Badenoch and Strathspey District

    A. I. MacDonald

    Caithness District

    I. Thorner, DL, JP

    Lochaber District

    D. I. MacRae

    Sutherland District

    Mrs. M. C. Doyle

    Inverness District

    Mrs. J. Wyatt

    Inverness District

    W. A. Smith

    Ross and Cromarty District

    R. J. Laing, JP

    Grampian Region

    Mrs. I. C Rhind

    Highland Region

    N. J. O. Graham

    Highland Region

    J. S. Munro

    Highland Region

    A. Murray

    Highland Region

    Low Moss

    E. Devine

    Glasgow District

    Baillie C. Robertson

    Glasgow District

    Vacant

    Glasgow District

    J. Barker

    Strathkelvin District

    W. Hendry

    Strathkelvin District

    Ms A. Jarvis

    Strathkelvin District

    S. Gilmore

    Strathclyde Region

    K. Moody

    Strathclyde Region

    T. Rae

    Strathclyde Region

    J. McMurdo

    Fife Region

    W. Drummond

    Lothian Region

    Noranside

    C. Hebenton, JP

    Strathclyde Region

    J. Collins

    Strathclyde Region

    R. G. S. McFarlane

    Tayside Region

    W. McCormack

    Tayside Region

    H. S. Arbuthnot

    Tayside Region

    W. A. West

    Tayside Region

    Mrs. D. Pattulo

    Tayside Region

    D. McGrouther

    Lothian Region

    C. S. Meldrum

    Angus District

    D. Myles

    Angus District

    B. R. Balcombe

    Grampian Region

    D. Bryson

    Central Region

    266

    Establishment and name

    Appointing authority

    Penninghame

    W. G. Carmichael, JP

    Nithsdale District

    B. Caldow

    Stewarty District

    H. Lawson

    Annandale/Eskdale District

    R. J. Higgins

    Dumfries and Galloway District

    D. Fulton

    Dumfries and Galloway District

    A. Nisbet

    Dumfries and Galloway District

    N. M. Parker

    Dumfries and Galloway District

    Mrs. C. M. Hyslop

    Dumfries and Galloway District

    W. Service

    Wigtown District

    The Countess of Stair

    Wigtown District

    C. King

    Grampian Region

    R. Muir

    Lothian Region

    J. Taylor

    Strathclyde Region

    Mrs. F. Duncan

    Tayside Region

    Perth

    R. Hall

    Tayside Region

    Mrs. M. Lennie

    Tayside Region

    A. H. Brown

    Tayside Region

    S. Butcher

    Tayside Region

    Mrs. F. E. Duncan

    Tayside Region

    J. E. Mathers

    Tayside Region

    W. West

    Tayside Region

    Mrs. M. Martin

    Tayside Region

    C. S. B. Meldrum

    Angus District

    J. G. Lewis, JP

    Kirkcaldy District

    P. G. Hughes

    Dunfermline District

    P. C Douglas

    North East Fife District

    G. Mason

    Dundee District

    D. Cowan

    Dundee District

    J. McNicoll

    Perth and Kinross District

    D. Scott

    Perth and Kinross District

    F. Saunders

    Central Region

    P. Tempest

    Fife Region

    S. Baker

    Fife Region

    L. B. Lindsay

    Lothian Region

    J. Reddin

    Strathclyde Region

    A. McGowan, BEM

    Strathclyde Region

    Peterhead

    A. P. McLean

    Aberdeen District

    I. M. Frain

    Kincardine and Deeside District

    J. Wilson

    Moray District

    W. Stuart

    Lothian Region

    G. G. Lumsden

    Gordon District

    K. Benzie

    Grampian Region

    Mrs. M. Morrell

    Grampian Region

    M. C. Howe

    Grampian Region

    J. R. Lamond

    Grampian Region

    A. McGowan, BEM

    Strathclyde Region

    G. McElroy, JP

    Strathclyde Region

    N. Cowie, OBE

    Banff and Buchan District

    Mrs. N. Godsman

    Banff and Buchan District

    W. Johnston, MBE, JP

    Tayside Region

    Shotts

    M. Adam

    Glasgow District

    S. MacQuarrie

    Glasgow District

    P. McCafferty

    Central Region

    F. Gormill

    Motherwell District

    J. Robertson

    Motherwell District

    Mrs. A. Smith

    Fife Region

    W. Drummond, JP

    Lothian Region

    J. W. Wasley

    Lothian Region

    C. B. Hebenton, JP

    Strathclyde Region

    R. Marshall

    Strathclyde Region

    G. McElroy, JP

    Strathclyde Region

    K. Murray

    Strathclyde Region

    H. Connelly

    Tayside Region

    Cornton Vale Prison
    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to relocate women prisoners from Cornton Vale to mixed sex prisons nearer their own homes.

    Lord James Douglas Hamilton
    [holding answer 21 February 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter fromn E. W. Frizzell to Mrs. Maria Fyfe, dated 9 March 1994:
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about what plans there are to relocate women prisoners from Cornton Vale to mixed sex prisons nearer their homes.
    There are no plans to relocate women prisoners from Cornton Vale. Some consideration has been given to the possibility of providing open prison opportunities for women prisoners elsewhere but the practical difficulties are such that it is not in prospect at present.

    Public Bodies
    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public bodies, appointed by himself, provide health care(a) at the present date and (d) in 1984; and what was the total bill for payment to their chairmen and members in 1993 and 1983.

    Mr. Stewart
    [holding answer 25 February 1994]: In 1984, 15 health boards were responsible for the provision of health care in Scotland. In order to increase responsiveness to patients' needs, health boards are now increasingly responsible for planning and purchasing health care and NHS trusts are responsible for its provision. There are currently 17 NHS trusts.

    In 1984, only the chairmen of the 15 health boards received remuneration at a total cost of £88,163. Since 1991 non-executive directors have also received remuneration and the total cost for 208 chairmen and non-executive members of health boards and NHS trusts in 1993 amounted to £1,417,125.

    Care of the Elderly
    Dr. Strang
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has given to the Management Executive of the Scottish health service requiring the health service purchasers to change the arrangements for provision of care to the elderly.

    Mr. Stewart
    [holding answer 8 March 1994]: My right hon. Friend has issued no such instructions. It remains for individual health boards to determine the care needs for their elderly client group and to purchase accordingly. In so doing, they are expected to have due regard to the Government's community care policy objective of seeking a move away from institutional to community-based care. However, patients who require specialist medical and nursing supervision will continue to be the responsibility of the NHS. This means the NHS will continue to be responsible for providing assessment and rehabilitation facilities, and for retaining long-stay facilities for those whose medical needs or patterns of behaviour would be difficult to manage in a community-based setting.

    Those not requiring such hospital services will increasingly have their health needs met within the
    268
    community, through general practitioners and other members of the primary health care team. Any other care needs will be a local authority responsibility. But in any event we expect shifting the balance of care, from hospitals to community, to be a matter for local discussion and agreement with the emphasis on joint working and joint assessments of needs.

    New Local Authorities
    Mr. Home Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the new local authorities in schedule 1 to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill as amended in the Standing Committee, giving the(a) population, (b) electorate, (c) area and (d) number of (i) secondary and (ii) primary schools for each of those authorities.

    Mr. Stewart
    [holding answer 28 February 1994]: Information on population, electorate and area of the proposed new single-tier authorities is set out in the table. The information requested in relation to schools is not held centrally.

    New local authority area

    Population1 (rounded to nearest 000)

    Electorate2 (rounded to nearest 000)

    Area (square km)

    City of Aberdeen

    217

    172

    180

    Aberdeenshire

    221

    169

    5,870

    Angus

    112

    88

    2,640

    Argyll and Bute

    91

    69

    7,020

    North Ayrshire

    139

    106

    890

    East Ayrshire

    124

    96

    1,270

    South Ayrshire

    114

    89

    1,230

    The Borders

    105

    85

    4,730

    Clackmannan and Falkirk

    195

    150

    470

    Dumbarton and Clydebank

    98

    73

    180

    Dumfries and Galloway

    148

    117

    6,450

    East Dunbartonshire

    110

    83

    180

    City of Dundee

    155

    118

    50

    City of Edinburgh

    440

    352

    260

    Fife

    346

    269

    1,320

    City of Glasgow

    627

    475

    170

    Highland

    206

    161

    25,390

    Inverclyde

    91

    69

    170

    North Lanarkshire

    328

    245

    480

    South Lanarkshire

    307

    235

    1,780

    East and Midlothian

    165

    129

    1,010

    West Lothian

    146

    111

    430

    Moray

    85

    65

    2,240

    Orkney Islands

    20

    16

    1,020

    Perthshire and Kinross

    128

    100

    5,390

    East Renfrewshire

    88

    68

    170

    Renfrewshire

    174

    133

    260

    Shetland Islands

    23

    17

    1,470

    Stirling

    81

    64

    2,240

    Western Isles

    29

    23

    3,070

    1Source: GRO(S) Based on mid-1992 population estimates.

    1Source: GRO(S) Based on 1994 electoral registers.

  TRANSPORT

    British Rail Stations
    Mr. Dowd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail stations within the Greater London regional passenger committee area are totally unstaffed.

    Mr. Freeman
    Of the 462 stations which fall within the boundaries of the London regional passenger committees, 62 are unstaffed.

    Mr. Dowd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail stations in the Greater London
    269
    regional passenger committee area staffed on the basis of less than two full shifts on any (a) week day, (b) Saturday and (c) Sunday.

    Mr. Freeman
    The information is not readily available in the form required and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 15 July 1993,Official Report, columns 583–84, which showed that of the 2,551 stations on the British Rail network, 977 were wholly unstaffed.

    Mr. Dowd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the timings of the shift rota for British Rail station staff in the Greater London regional passenger committee area.

    Mr. Freeman.
    Comprehensive information cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost. The timings of the shift rota for British Rail station staff vary depending on the requirements of the station concerned.

    Central Line
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what travelling assistance his Department is offering to the communities living on or near the Epping-Ongar section of the Central line should London Transport decide to close this section of its operations in March; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Freeman
    The decision on this closure proposal is for the Secretary of State for Transport and I cannot comment further while closure procedures are under way.

    Registration Plates
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement as to what the current requirements are for Q registration plates to be issued.

    Mr. Key
    Q prefix registration marks are allocated to vehicles whose age cannot be established. Typically they are allocated to imported vehicles for which registration documents are not available—vehicles that have been extensively rebuilt and vehicles assembled from a kit, using parts from more than one donor vehicle.

    Oil Discharges
    Mr. Elletson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the annual volume of oil entering the Irish sea from shipping for each of the last three years; and in each year what proportion of that was intentionally discharged.

    Mr. Norris
    The annual volume of oil entering the Irish sea from shipping in each of the last three years—1991–93—is estimated as follows:

    1991—1,500 tonnes—one incident involving a spill of approximately 1,450 tonnes vegetable oil and 50 tonnes engine oil.

    1992—eight tonnes.

    1993—figures not yet available.

    These figures are based upon information extracted from the annual publication "Oil Pollution Survey Around the Coasts of the UK" produced by the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea. The 1993 figures are still being compiled.

    There are no recorded figures for the legal operational discharges of oil from shipping traversing the Irish sea.

    Railtrack
    Mr. Spellar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many bids were received for the contract for legal work for Railtrack;

    (2) whether British Rail was invited to bid for the legal work for Railtrack;

    (3) what estimate he has as to the number of staff who will be made redundant as a result of the decision of Railtrack to outsource its legal work.

    Mr. Freeman
    While Railtrack remains a division of British Rail, these are matters for the British Railways Board.

    Mr. Wilson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the illustrative chart, "Financial Flows in the New Railway Industry", published by his Department, there is any statutory connection between the flow from Railtrack entering the box marked, "Public Expenditure Provision for Railways", and the flow which links that box with "Franchising Director".

    Mr. Freeman
    There is no statutory connection. The external finance limits for BR and for Railtrack and the resources available for passenger rail subsidy in 1994–95 will be published on 10 March. The prospective cash surplus of Railtrack is being taken into account in setting the franchising director's vote. The Government have said that the franchising director will have sufficient resources to meet the costs of existing passenger services.

    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the formula for the charges to be levied by Railtrack for access to the rail network.

    Mr. Freeman
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 15 February,Official Report, column 716, which set out the basis on which Railtrack has calculated its charges.

    Franchised and BR passenger operators will pay the direct costs that their services impose on Railtrack. Common costs will be specific sections of track, and those which can only be identified to a geographic area, will be recovered from operators in proportion to the number of passenger-vehicle miles they run in each area. Network costs—the core overheads of providing the network which cannot be broken down more specifically—will be recovered in proportion to operators' revenue from fares.

    Charges to freight operators and non-franchised passenger operators will be subject to commercial negotiation, but must at least cover direct costs.

    The application of these methods is a matter for Railtrack. The rail regulator will consider and approve all access agreements entered into after 1 April 1994.

    Mr. Wilson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state on the basis of valuation of assets, in cash terms at current prices, the minimum rate of return sought by the Treasury from Railtrack in each of the next five years.

    Mr. Freeman
    Railtrack will be set a target rate of return on capital of 8 per cent, to be achieved over its first four years of business. Discussions are continuing with Railtrack on the setting of initial financial targets, including the opening required rate of return on capital.
    271
    Mr. Wilson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will describe the basis on which the assets passing to Railtrack have been valued.

    Mr. Freeman
    In common with other public sector undertakings, Railtrack's assets will be valued on a modern equivalent asset value basis. The valuation will reflect the existing condition of assets and the cost of continuing to provide capacity broadly equivalent to that provided now.

    Marine Pollution
    Mr. Elletson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of reported incidents in the Irish sea involving marine pollution from shipping indicating(a) the number investigated, (b) the number involved in legal proceedings and (c) the number resulting in prosecution.

    Mr. Norris
    Over the last three years the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit has received the following number of reports of pollution in the Irish sea:

    Number

    1991

    50

    1992

    42

    1993

    54

    The majority of these reports will have been related to bilge or tank washings with no ship being identified.

    All incidents were followed up by MPCU and investigated where appropriate. The following number of port state control inspections was requested.

    Number

    1991

    1

    1992

    1

    1993

    2

    In 1991, one vessel was referred to the flag state for further investigation by the relevant competent authority, who subsequently decided that there was insufficient evidence upon which to effect a prosecution.

    Heavy Goods Vehicles
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to amend the regulations to allow traffic commissioners to take into account suitability of the immediate local road network before determining a heavy goods operators licence application.

    Mr. Key
    A licensing authority is able to take into account the suitability of the junction of an operating centre with a public road, and also the suitability of any private road between the operating centre and the public road. The suitability of any public roads in the vicinity is a matter for the local highway authority. In determining whether an operating centre is environmentally suitable, however, the licensing authority may also take into account the local environmental effect of vehicles travelling to and from the operating centre. We have no plans to change this.

    Diesel Fuel Duty
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Bus and Coach Council regarding changes in the amount of rebate received in respect of dieseal fuel duty following the Budget; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Freeman
    My right hon. Friend has recently discussed with the Bus and Coach Council the initial impact of the changes in fuel duty rebate following the Budget and has undertaken to consider carefully its detailed analysis when it has been produced.

    M25
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of traffic on the M25 is using that route in preference to the south coast route.

    Mr. Key
    About 2 per cent. of traffic on the M25 is estimated to be using that route in preference to the A27/A259 south coast trunk route.

    A1
    Mr. Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the statutory provisions on his Department's highways powers which would allow him to consider including a bypass for the villages of Wymondham and Thistleton in the A1 widening scheme adjoining the RamJam junction.

    Mr. Key
    It is expected that the up-grading of the A1 trunk road to motorway standard would generally follow the line of the existing road. Wymondham and Thistleton are some distance from the A1, they are served by local highways and the Department does not have statutory powers to promote bypasses for these villages.

    Shipping
    Mr. Leigh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when Her Majesty's Government will ratify the 1988 protocol relating to the international convention on load line 1966 establishing an international agreement on minimum freeboards for ships engaged on international voyages; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Norris
    The Government will consider ratification of annex IV of MARPOL when the findings of a comprehensive survey of United Kingdom reception facilities, including those for sewage, are available later in the year.

    Penalty Fares Regulations
    Mr. Dunn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make penalty fares regulations under section 130 of the Railways Act 1993.

    Mr. Freeman
    The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 1994 have now been laid before Parliament. The regulations give the rail regulator the power to make rules in respect of penalty fares, which have the same effect as if they were regulations. A draft copy of these rules, prepared by the office of the rail regulator, has been placed in the Library.

    Road Safety
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the expenditure by each local education authority in respect of school crossings and road safety for each year since 1989; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Key
    The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Fuel Duty Rebate
    Mr. Betts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the impact of the decision of the Government to increase the fuel duty rebate in the Budget on(a) bus and coach passenger mileage, (b) bus and coach fares, (c) pollution caused by bus and coach, (d) car mileage and (e) pollution caused by cars.

    Mr. Key
    [holding answer 8 March 1994]: The strategy of increasing fuel duty is designed to encourage reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from all road vehicles as part of our commitment, under the framework convention on climate change, to return such emission to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The increase in fuel duty for bus operators represents less than 1 per cent. of operating costs and therefore the impact on fares and services is likely to be small. The effect on bus and car mileage and on pollution will depend upon the actions taken by vehicle users in response to the measure but its intention is to cause all to think more carefully about the size, age, fuel efficiency, methods of operation and maintenance of such vehicles.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Public Bodies
    Mr. Kilfoyle
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Consumers Committee for Great Britain under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.

    Mr. Jack
    The members of the committee are:

    Mrs. Janet Laurence, Chairman

    Miss Beata Brookes

    Mrs. Dorothy Cockrell

    Mrs. Majorie Grimes

    Mrs. Barbara Hawkins

    Mr. John Murphy

    Mr. John Tracy

    Olive Oil
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the price at which British wholesalers buy olive oil per tonne, (b) what she estimates the price of olive oil per tonne would be in a free market without European Community price intervention and (c) the cost to the consumer of taxes on imports of olive oil.

    Mr. Jack
    The price of extra virgin olive oil on Community markets in the week beginning 7 February 19941 ranged from 1,850 ecu/tonne—£1,400 per tonne2 —to 2,430 ecu/tonne—£1,850 per tonne2. The EC accounts for approximately 75 per cent. of world production and consumption of olive oil. It is not possible
    274
    to make precise estimates of the price at which oil would trade without Community support measures or the cost of those measures to the consumer without a large number of assumptions about how the EC and world markets would react if circumstances were to change.

    1Source: Commission.

    2 Exchange rate 1 ecu=£0·75958.

    Tobacco
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the price at which British wholesalers buy tobacco per tonne, (b) what she estimates the price of tobacco per tonne would be in a free market without European Community price intervention, (c) the levels of European Community production and consumption of tobacco, (d) the level of common agricultural policy expenditure on tobacco subsidies and (e) the cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the tobacco sector.

    Mr. Jack
    The answers are as follows:

    (a)(b) It is not possible to give a representative wholesale price for tobacco, since values vary significantly in relation both to variety and quality. Neither is it possible to make precise estimates of a potential free market price, without a large number of assumptions about current price levels on world markets and how they would react if circumstances were to change.

    (c) The latest Commission estimate of EC tobacco production from the 1993 harvest is 364,219 tonnes. Community consumption amounts to some 630,000 tonnes per annum.

    (d) The provisional outturn for Community expenditure for tobacco in 1993 is 1,165 mecu—£915 million1.

    (e) The United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole, which funds the cost of tobacco support in other member states.

    1£1=1·2729 ecu.

    Milk
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the price at which British wholesalers buy milk per tonne, (b) the price at which the European Community sells milk per tonne on the world market, (c) the levels of European Community production and consumption of milk, (d) the level of common agricultural policy expenditure on milk subsidies, and (e) the cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the milk market.

    Mr. Jack
    The answers are as follows:(a) The average price paid for milk by wholesalers in England and Wales is £230·65 per tonne; (b) there is not a world market for liquid milk; (c) I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 1 February, Official Report, column 555, which shows EC production of milk and consumption of liquid milk for 1991, the latest year available; (d) the 1993 provisional outturn of common agricultural policy expenditure in the dairy sector as a whole amounts to around £4 billion; (e) the Exchequer cost of CAP support in the dairy sector in the United Kingdom is estimated at £296·5 million for the 1993–94 financial year. The United Kingdom also contributes to the EC budget as a whole, which funds the cost of support for the dairy sector in other member states.

    Rice
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the price at which British wholesalers buy rice per tonne, (b) what she estimates the price of rice per tonne would be in a free market without European Community price intervention and (c) the cost to the British consumer of the common agricultural policy in the rice market.

    Mr. Jack
    The answers are as follows:(a) Information on the price of rice to wholesalers is not gathered centrally. (b) It is not possible to make precise estimates about what prices might result if there were no market support in the EC. A large number of assumptions would be required in order to assess how domestic and world markets would react if commodity policy were to be changed. (c) I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on 11 January, Official Report, columns 65–6. For the reasons given, it is not possible to estimate the effect of the CAP on the food bill for individual commodities.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total budget of the common agricultural policy in each year since 1973; what proportion of the EC's total budget it accounted for; and what proportion of the common agricultural policy was allocated to the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Jack
    The information is as follows:

    Total CAP expenditure (EAGGF guarantee)

    As percentage of total EC expenditure

    Total UK receipts as percentage of total EC CAP expenditure

    1973

    13,660

    91

    4·15

    1974

    13,107

    69

    8·61

    1975

    14,727

    77

    17·23

    1976

    15,570

    76

    8·41

    1977

    16,662

    75

    6·27

    1978

    28,673

    72

    13·29

    1979

    210,441

    73

    8·89

    1980

    311,315

    69

    7·82

    1981

    310,980

    62

    9·87

    1982

    312,406

    61

    10·37

    1983

    315,812

    65

    10·73

    1984

    318,346

    67

    11·58

    1985

    319,744

    70

    9·62

    1986

    322,137

    65

    8·98

    1987

    322,968

    65

    7·61

    1988

    327,687

    67

    7·20

    1989

    325,873

    63

    7·41

    1990

    327,036

    62

    7·32

    1991

    331,939

    59

    7·49

    1992

    332,109

    55

    7·63

    Sources: Annual Financial Reports of the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF.

    Annual Reports of the European Court of Auditors.

    1Million units of account.

    2Million European units of account.

    3Million European currency units.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will estimate the cost to the United Kingdom of every acre farmed in the European Community.

    Mr. Jack
    This information is not available.
    276
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the budget forecast for the common agricultural policy in 1994; and what proportion of this fund will be allocated to the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Jack
    The 1994 CAP budget has been set at 36,465 mecu—£27,566 million. It is set in relation to forecast expenditure throughout the Community, and not on the basis of allocations to individual member states. The level of United Kingdom CAP receipts will depend on a variety of factors, such as production levels, quantities exported, and purchases in and sales out of intervention storage. It is forecast at £2,728 million for the 1994–95 financial year.

    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise at the next meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers the cost to member states of the report commissioned by the EC into the future of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Jack
    This study, which has yet to be completed or its findings published, is a matter for the Commission, not the Council of Ministers. The next meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers will however be discussing the Commission's proposals for CAP prices for 1994–95 during which my right hon. Friend will be paying close attention to the overall cost of the CAP.

    Mr. Tyler
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she has taken to obtain a copy of that analysis of the future economic viability of the common agricultural policy by EU economists; if she will place a copy in the Library; and if she will request the European Commission at the next Council of Ministers meeting to publish the report.

    Mr. Jack
    [holding answer 8 March 1994]: I understand this is an internal European Commission study on which work is not yet fully complete. Eventual publication is a matter for the Commission. If the Commission does decide to make this study available then my right hon. Friend the Minister will seek to obtain a copy for the House Library.

    Oilseeds
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the price at which British wholesalers buy oilseeds per tonne, (b) what she estimates the price of oilseed per tonne would be in a free market without European Community price intervention, (c) the levels of European Community production and consumption of oilseeds, (d) the level of common agricultural policy expenditure on oilseeds subsidies and (e) the cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the oilseeds market.

    Mr. Jack
    The average price for rapeseed on the United Kingdom market was £149 per tonne in 1993. Sunflower seed and soya beans are produced in insignificant quantities in the United Kingdom. EC average prices were £194 per tonne1 for sunflower seed and £178 per tonne1 for soya beans in 1993. Under the CAP oilseeds are traded within the EC at prices which are in line with those in world markets. The EC production and consumption of oilseeds—rapeseed, sunflower seed and soya beans—in 1992 was estimated at 11·3 million tones2 and 26·3

    277
    million tones2 respectively, the last year for which figures are available. The level of CAP expenditure for oilseeds in 1993 was estimated at £2,261 million1. The Exchequer cost of CAP support for oilseeds under the arable area payments scheme in the United Kingdom is estimated at £160 million—excluding the cost of oilseeds grown on set-aside land—for the 1993–94 financial year. The United Kingdom also contributes to the EC budget as a whole, which funds the cost of oilseeds support in other member states.

    (1 Source: Commission).

    (2 Source: Oil World).

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the price at which British wholesalers buy linseed per tonne, (b) what she estimates the price of linseed per tonne would be in a free market without European Community price intervention, (c) the levels of European Community production and consumption of linseed, (d) the level of common agricultural policy expenditure on linseed subsidies and (e) the cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the linseed market.

    Mr. Jack
    The average price for linseed on the United Kingdom market was £111 per tonne in 1993. Under the CAP linseed is traded within the EC at prices which are in line with those in world markets. The EC production and consumption of linseed in 1992 was estimated at 380,000 tonnes1 and 492,000 tonnes1 respectively, the last year for which figures are available. The level of CAP expenditure for linseed in 1993 was estimated at £143 million2. The Exchequer cost of CAP support for linseed under the arable area payments scheme in the United Kingdom is estimated at £75 million for the 1993–94 financial year. The United Kingdom also contributes to the EC budget as a whole, which funds the cost of linseed support in other member states.

    (1 Source: Oil World).

    (2 Source: Commission).

    Potatoes
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the price at which British wholesalers buy potatoes per tonne,

    EC member states production and consumption of potatoes

    Harvested production (in 1,000T)

    Human consumption (in 1,000T)

    Year

    1990

    1991

    1992

    19931

    1988–89

    1989–90

    1990–91

    1991–92

    Belgium

    1,952

    2,002

    2,616

    2,093

    965

    929

    1,004

    1,029

    Luxembourg

    25

    19

    26

    —

    Denmark

    1,483

    1,462

    1,738

    —

    331

    332

    317

    294

    Germany

    7,233

    10,201

    10,897

    12,074

    4,465

    4,482

    5,959

    5,940

    Greece

    996

    1,004

    980

    —

    868

    850

    903

    922

    Spain

    5,331

    5,182

    5,271

    4,158

    3,769

    4,243

    4,146

    4,210

    France

    4,779

    5,467

    6,676

    —

    4,100

    4,000

    4,021

    4,112

    Ireland

    605

    571

    642

    —

    506

    504

    526

    535

    Italy

    2,309

    2,219

    2,498

    2,026

    2,233

    2,203

    2,235

    2,230

    Netherlands

    7,036

    6,949

    7,641

    7,699

    1,274

    1,329

    1,300

    1,311

    Portugal

    1,132

    939

    1,511

    1,160

    964

    1,100

    1,110

    1,050

    United Kingdom

    6,467

    6,267

    7,802

    7,117

    5,932

    5,615

    5,681

    5,426

    EC12

    39,348

    42,282

    48,298

    —

    25,407

    25,587

    27,202

    27,059

    1Provisional.

    Sources: Eurostat, Crop Production—Quarterly Statistics, Vol. 4 1993.

    MAFF Statistics (for revised UK data)—December 1993 Potatoes Quarterly Review.

    (d) there is no common agricultural policy expenditure on potatoes; and, similarly,
    278
    (b) what she estimates the price of potatoes per tonne would be in a free market without European Community price intervention, (c) the levels of European Community production and consumption of potatoes, (d) the level of common agricultural policy expenditure on potato subsidies and (e) the cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the potato market.

    Mr. Jack
    The answer is as follows:

    (a) The average price at which registered merchants1 in Great Britain sold maincrop potatoes was as follows:

    Crop year

    Average price(£/tonne)(excluding sacks)

    1988–89

    62·51

    1989–90

    98·65

    1990–91

    78·17

    1991–92

    85·73

    1992–93

    56·71

    Source: Weighted average of PMB country details of Maincrop returns from Registered Merchants.

    1 During this period all registered production was sold through Registered merchants to all markets including the retail market.

    Northern Ireland recorded maincrop ware prices were as detailed:

    Crop year

    Average price(£/tonne)(excluding sacks)

    1988–89

    54·43

    1989–90

    104·07

    1990–91

    66·15

    1991–92

    88·56

    1992–93

    44·52

    Source: Department for Agriculture for Northern Ireland; Economics and Statistics.

    (b) there is no European Community price intervention;

    (c) the latest available figures for European Community production and consumption of potatoes are as follows:

    (e) there is no cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the potato market.

    Dairy Quotas
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will estimate by how much the continued existence of dairy quotas raises market prices for dairy products above the intervention prices.

    Mr. Jack
    Prices for dairy products are currently close to intervention price levels.

    Banana Trade Advisory Committee
    Mr. Kilfoyle
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members of the Banana Trade Advisory Committee.

    Mr. Jack
    The Banana Trade Advisory Committee was disbanded on 1 July 1993 following the introduction of the EC single market for bananas.

    Set-aside
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will she list the June census set-aside figures for England for each year from 1989 to 1994.

    Mr. Jack
    The June census set-aside figures for England for each year from 1990 to 1993 are as follows:

    Year

    000 hectares

    1990

    72

    1991

    97

    1992

    130

    1993

    580

    Set-aside was not separately identified in the 1989 census. The provisional results of the 1994 June census are expected to become available in August 1994.

    Infant Food
    Mrs. Golding
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to alter the regulations on the promotion of infant formula and follow-on formula.

    Mr. Soames
    Draft regulations to implement two EC directives covering the composition, marketing and export of infant formula and follow-on formula have been the subject of a public consultation exercise. The closing date for the receipt of comments was 4 March. The Government will carefully consider all the comments received, before announcing their conclusions on what the regulations should include.

    Agricultural Base Rates
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the figures in hectares for(a) set-aside, (b) pulses and (c) oilseed rape and cereals for 1989, 1990 and 1991 which were used to calculate the base rate for England.

    Mr. Jack
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on Friday 3 December 1993 to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh),Official Report, column 850.

    EC Fisheries Inquiry
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the terms of reference for the European Commission's commission of inquiry into 280
    fisheries; whether the inquiry will address the availability of food for sea birds; and if he will list the membership of the inquiry team.

    Mr. Jack
    At the December Fisheries Council the Commission to establish a working group, composed of marine ecologists and fisheries biologists, to study the implications for the marine ecosystem of fishing in general and of industrial fishing in particular. The group will set priorities for future research work on the effect these have on the marine ecosystem, sea birds and small cetaceans. The Commission is responsible for the membership of the group. We have asked the Commission to ensure that the working group takes account of the recent sea bird deaths in the North sea.

    Milk Marketing Board
    Mr. Whittingdale
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when she will consult on the Milk Marketing Board's amended scheme for reorganisation.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I and the Secretary of State for Wales have today invited comments from interested parties in England and Wales on the amended reorganisation scheme now before us.

    The Milk Marketing Board has made a number of changes to the reorganisation scheme on which we consulted last October. The MMB now proposes a vesting day of 1 November 1994. Its new proposals also include the establishment of Genus as an independent company, with shares issued to eligible registered producers, and the retention of national milk records by the residuary Milk Marketing Board, which would determine its future ownership. The scheme continues to provide for the flotation of Dairy Crest and the issue to eligible producers of shares in Dairy Crest and certificates of entitlement in Milk Marque.

    We have asked to receive comments by 8 April.

    Copies of our consultation document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and will be available for inspection at the Ministry's regional service centres and Welsh Office divisional offices.

    Danish Sand Eel Fishing
    Sir Cranley Onslow
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she is taking to ensure that Danish sand eel fishing operations off the east coast of Britain do not jeopardise stocks of sea fish and bird life; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. Jack
    Denmark has the major interest in industrial fishing in the North sea, but does not have access to fisheries which lie within the British 12-mile limit, nor to the sand eel fishery south of the Shetlands which has been closed for the last three years.

    There is at present no conclusive evidence that current levels of industrial fishing are having an adverse effect on fish stocks. A study group of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on sea bird-fish interactions last year indicated that there was unlikely to be much competition between sea birds and the sand-eel fishery. Nonetheless, I believe that the implications of industrial fishing should be considered in depth and, following pressure from the United Kingdom, the December Fisheries Council agreed to the establishment of a working group, composed of marine ecologists and fisheries

    281
    biologists, to study the implications for the marine ecosystem of fishing in general and industrial fishing in particular. The group will set priorities for future research work on the effect these have on the marine ecosystem, sea birds and small cetaceans.

    Fish
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has made to the European Commission in relation to subsidies paid to French fishermen.

    Mr. Jack
    [holding reply 8 March 1994]: We have asked the Commission to consider urgently whether the package of aids announced by the French Government has been granted in accordance with EU legal provisions on state aids.

    School Milk Scheme
    Dr. Strang,
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the change in local authority consumption in terms of value in actual and real terms of milk and other products eligible for the school milk scheme between(a) 12 school weeks before and 12 schools weeks after the removal of buttermilk and cheese from the school milk scheme and (b) 12 school weeks prior to and 12 school weeks after the reduction in funding for the school milk scheme.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    [holding reply 8 March 1994]: No information on changes in local authority consumption in terms of the value of milk and milk products eligible under the school milk scheme is available on a 12-weekly basis. The change in local authority consumption in terms of actual value for eligible milk and milk products between the term—spring 1993—before the removal of buttermilk and cheese from the scheme on 1 April 1993 and the term —summer 1993—after was a reduction of subsidy totalling £5,639,666·01. No information will be available on changes in consumption following the 25 per cent. cut in the subsidy and the technical amendments, which came into force on 1 January 1994, until claims for the period have been received.

    Public Information Campaigns
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to her reply of 18 February,Official Report, columns 1056–58, what was the budgeted and the actual cost of each public information campaign listed.

    Mr. Jack
    The cost of each public information campaign listed was as follows:

    Estimated Budgets

    Actual

    £

    £

    At the Farmer's Service

    371,500

    435,000

    Balance in the Countryside

    343,000

    323,000

    The Continental Challenge

    30,000

    22,000

    Don't Import Disease

    30,000

    53,000

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's) Campaign

    108,000

    127,000

    Foodsense Campaign

    1,240,000

    1,600,000

    Guidance on the Transport of Casualty Animals for Slaughter

    1—

    30,000

    Heat Stress Campaign

    11,000

    10,000

    282

    Estimated Budgets

    Actual

    £

    £

    Joint Imports Campaign

    30,000

    113,000

    Pesticides Poisoning of Wildlife Campaign

    30,000

    15,000

    Plant Health Campaigns

    20,000

    86,000

    Rabies Campaign

    100,000

    170,000

    Small Producers of Food

    30,000

    23,000

    Straw and Stubble Burning Campaign

    35,000

    19,000

    Warble Fly Campaign

    17,000

    30,000

    Exhibition Stands Supporting Animal Welfare Campaigns

    50,000

    37,000

    I.A.C.S.

    200,000

    163,000

    Export and Trade Promotion

    400,000

    566,000

    National Agricultural Exhibitions

    300,000

    342,000

    1 No budget set.

    Estimated budget costs for campaigns are set at the beginning of each financial year. During the year reassessment of policy requirements and the widening of campaigns to meet increased demand for information can cause variations in actual work which affects costs.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 492, if she will set out the international conventions covering land-based radioactive waste discharges and those to which the United Kingdom is party.

    Mr. Atkins
    I have been asked to reply. The Government do not have a list of all the international conventions to which other states may be parties that cover land-based discharges of radioactive wastes. The following are the treaties and conventions relevant to the interests of the United Kingdom in European waters:the Eurotom treaty, 1957, to which the United Kingdom is now a party as a member state of the European Community;
    the—Paris—convention for the protection of marine pollution from land-based sources, 1974, to which the United Kingdom has been a contracting party since its inception; this will eventually be replaced by the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic 1992, which the United Kingdom has signed but has yet to ratify;
    the—Helsinki—convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic sea area, 1974, to be replaced in due course by the—Helsinki—convention on the protection of the Baltic sea area, 1992, and the—Barcelona—convention for the protection of the Mediterranean sea against pollution, 1976, in both of which the United Kingdom has interests as a member state of the European Community, since the European Community is, or is in the process of becoming, a contracting party to those conventions.

  WALES

    Non-departmental Public Bodies
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many days per week Mr. Michael Griffiths is contractually bound to spend on work for the three non-departmental public bodies of which he is chairman or member; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Redwood
    The average time commitments expressed as days per week are listed as follows:

    Countryside Council for Wales

    2½ days per week

    Glan Clwyd District General Hospital NHS Trust

    3½ days per week

    Higher Education Funding Council

    1½ days per month

    283
    Mr. Griffiths performs daily duties at the offices of these bodies, attends evening meetings and works at weekends preparing for meetings and briefing himself.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much it costs his Department to publicise and administer the operation of the assisted places scheme.

    Sir Wyn Roberts
    Schools and the Independent Schools Information Service publicise the scheme. It is administered in Wales by staff of the Welsh Office Education Department, which has a range of other significant responsibilities. It is estimated that the current cost of its time spent on the administration of the scheme is £6,400.

    Health Service Manpower
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many managers and senior managers there were within the NHS; and of those how many are there whose designation as such can be attributed solely to reclassification within the NHS, in each health authority and for Wales as a whole in each year since 1979.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on numbers of managers on 21 February,Official Report, columns 89–91.

    Information on the numbers of staff reclassified as managers is not in general readily available. However a special exercise in December 1993 provided some information on the number of staff now classified as managers who were previously employed at other grades within the same authority/trust. This information is shown in the following table. It is not known how many of these staff retained their previous responsibilities on transferring to manager grade and how many were promoted or took on new responsibilities.

    Health authority area

    1Per cent.

    Clwyd

    79·0

    East Dyfed

    71·0

    Gwent

    77·0

    Gwynedd

    78·0

    Mid Glamorgan

    62·0

    Pembrokeshire

    100·0

    Powys

    85·0

    South Glamorgan

    77·0

    West Glamorgan

    80·0

    WHCSA

    58·0

    Wales

    73·0

    1 Percentage of managers, at December 1993, who were previously employed at other grades within the same authority/trust.

    Notes:

    1. Includes staff employed by health authorities, NHS trusts, Welsh health common services authority and those family health services authorities using the health authorities payroll system.

    2. Managers employed on local payscales but who cannot be identified centrally as managers are excluded. This applies in particular to the Pembrokeshire NHS trust, where the figure quoted excludes all bar one employee.

    3. Managers who were previously employed at other grades in other authorities/trusts but not their existing one are not generally counted as reclassified in the figures except where they transferred to an NHS trust from the health authority which had previously managed those services at the time the trust was created.

    Training
    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in 1993–94 prices and cash terms the total amount spent from public funds on training in Wales in each year since 1989–90, the expected outturn in 1993–94 and plans for 1994–95.

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

    Wales training expenditure in cash and real terms (1993–94 prices)1989–90to 1992–93 and expected outturns in 1993–94 and plans for1994–95

    £ millions

    1989–90

    Cash

    148·406

    Real terms

    182·827

    1990–91

    Cash

    146·132

    Real terms

    166·594

    1991–92

    Cash

    145·773

    Real terms

    156·289

    1992–93

    Cash

    151·659

    Real terms

    159·242

    1993–94

    Estimated outturn

    147·590

    1994–95

    Cash

    149·679

    Real terms

    143·922

    Land Use
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what figures were used in hectares for(a) set-aside, (b) pulses and (c) oilseed rape and cereals for 1989, 1990 and 1991 to calculate the base rate for Wales.

    Mr. Redwood
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 29 November 1993,Official Report, column 362.

    Deaf-blind Service
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the impact of the grants for the regional deaf-blind service in Wales.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    Some £25,000 has been given to SENSE, the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association, in 1993–94 for the establishment of a development officer post in Wales. A grant application for 1994–95 is currently under consideration.

    Grant allocated by the Welsh Office Education Department under the grants for education support and training scheme has led to the establishment of a regional deaf-blind service at Ysgol Hendre, Swansea. An outreach support service is currently in operation and the centre providing educational facilities for children will open shortly.

    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will extend the time scale of grants for the GEST scheme for deaf-blind children;
    285
    (2) what is the amount of cash earmarked for the GEST scheme for the consortium of local education authorities, giving the amounts for each of West Glamorgan, Mid-Glamorgan, Dyfed and Gwent.

    Sir Wyn Roberts
    We have recently allocated grant for 1994–95 on expenditure of £18,800 to each of the four authorities involved in the south Wales deaf-blind project, a total of £75,200 for that year. No decisions have yet been taken about the extension of the grant into 1995–96.

    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will extend the funding of the GEST project to support the education of deaf-blind children beyond April 1995.

    Sir Wyn Roberts
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).

    GPs
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 771, what considerations underlie his decision not to collect information centrally on the number of general practitioners who receive gross payments in excess of £200,000 per annum; if he will consider collecting this information in future; and if he will make a statement.

    In-year capital receipts from the sale of council houses1 Constant 1992–93 prices

    £000

    1983–84

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    1989–90

    1990–91

    1991–92

    1992–93

    Alyn and Deeside

    730

    1,320

    1,705

    1,353

    1,566

    2,880

    4,442

    2,443

    1,119

    1,030

    Colwyn

    871

    647

    803

    868

    1,032

    1,665

    1,223

    778

    393

    379

    Delyn

    1,748

    6,060

    669

    977

    1,483

    1,365

    2,300

    1,471

    928

    806

    Glyndwr

    1,026

    683

    2,212

    1,043

    966

    2,393

    2,306

    958

    489

    524

    Rhuddlan

    610

    609

    926

    670

    1,149

    1,967

    1,686

    919

    556

    362

    Wrexham Maelor

    1,177

    1,351

    1,949

    2,864

    4,215

    5,657

    12,391

    4,779

    3,314

    2,759

    Carmarthen

    1,576

    1,471

    933

    1,063

    1,151

    1,977

    2,139

    1,823

    1,227

    1,040

    Ceredigion

    1,952

    1,276

    856

    1,463

    1,183

    2,924

    3,738

    2,035

    1,337

    1,565

    Dinefwr

    550

    513

    715

    1,102

    994

    1,529

    1,376

    1,284

    623

    450

    Llanelli

    3,501

    2,107

    1,685

    2,431

    2,702

    4,158

    3,958

    2,579

    2,139

    1,489

    Preseli Pembroke

    2,726

    1,727

    1,555

    1,611

    1,695

    4,003

    5,028

    2,576

    1,542

    1,774

    South Pembrokeshire

    2,473

    1,572

    673

    640

    991

    2,227

    2,312

    1,241

    861

    516

    Blaenau Gwent

    1,645

    1,127

    5,028

    1,988

    2,058

    3,742

    5,678

    2,388

    1,666

    1,031

    Islwyn

    4,541

    2,753

    2,275

    3,146

    3,473

    5,255

    4,996

    1,463

    1,578

    1,124

    Monmouth

    4,969

    3,994

    2,914

    2,995

    3,763

    5,228

    5,170

    2,487

    2,059

    1,613

    Newport

    4,720

    4,885

    11,123

    5,000

    4,753

    8,897

    10,261

    3,030

    2,193

    1,881

    Torfaen

    4,924

    3,977

    2,163

    6,901

    4,810

    9,150

    10,999

    5,138

    3,220

    3,311

    Aberconwy

    1,316

    1,078

    1,084

    1,231

    1,458

    3,275

    3,868

    1,359

    908

    515

    Arfon

    1,183

    1,326

    809

    1,115

    1,005

    2,661

    3,207

    1,329

    924

    669

    Dwyfor

    399

    243

    325

    205

    176

    449

    594

    653

    248

    271

    Meirionnydd

    1,087

    531

    582

    584

    803

    1,345

    1,440

    471

    422

    241

    Ynys Mon

    795

    806

    1,689

    1,320

    1,006

    3,724

    4,483

    2,066

    1,050

    629

    Cynon Valley

    1,833

    873

    777

    1,523

    1,382

    1,662

    1,840

    1,185

    913

    651

    Merthyr Tydfil

    1,689

    1,323

    1,856

    2,334

    2,508

    3,398

    3,513

    1,516

    739

    976

    Ogwr

    14,899

    4,993

    4,856

    5,270

    4,083

    6,564

    7,149

    3,864

    2,599

    1,614

    Rhondda

    376

    315

    406

    571

    483

    711

    885

    686

    353

    373

    Rhymney Valley

    3,393

    2,679

    2,384

    4,072

    4,324

    3,858

    5,491

    3,798

    2,324

    1,885

    Taff Ely

    3,087

    2,686

    2,660

    4,174

    4,988

    6,007

    7,374

    3,908

    2,769

    2,162

    Brecknock

    1,880

    1,582

    1,355

    1,662

    1,803

    2,523

    2,491

    1,250

    810

    586

    Montgomeryshire

    1,548

    1,010

    1,155

    1,731

    1,450

    2,379

    2,658

    1,192

    1,038

    878

    Radnorshire

    1,128

    438

    468

    425

    810

    988

    1,083

    635

    457

    525

    Cardiff

    6,571

    7,852

    9,319

    16,537

    12,500

    18,311

    20,068

    7,760

    5,567

    3,765

    Vale of Glamorgan

    4,527

    3,543

    3,077

    4,729

    4,013

    7,344

    6,043

    2,488

    2,043

    2,006

    Port Talbot

    3,191

    2,883

    3,071

    3,610

    4,171

    5,374

    6,209

    2,938

    2,468

    1,733

    Lliw Valley

    822

    971

    1,417

    1,968

    1,829

    2,209

    3,539

    2,642

    1,382

    1,024

    Neath

    1,168

    1,476

    2,082

    2,207

    2,538

    3,167

    3,631

    2,112

    1,328

    991

    Swansea

    2,997

    9,392

    2,333

    3,242

    4,886

    10,805

    11,046

    4,637

    3,103

    1,986

    Total districts

    93,627

    82,069

    79,616

    94,623

    94,203

    151,769

    176,618

    83,882

    56,689

    45,134

    286
    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    GPs are paid according to a national contract. Conditions for payment are tightly defined and all GPs have access to income under the same conditions. Individual GP income varies according to a number of factors including list size and range of services provided.

    Exchequer control over the remuneration system is achieved through arrangements operated by the Doctors and Dentists Review Body which ensure that, taking one year with another, the profession as a whole earns neither more nor less by way of net income than the amount intended by Government.

    The collation of payments to individual doctors would serve no useful central management purpose. However, the information is available at a local management level to family health services authorities.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total income received by each district council from the sales of council houses in each of the last 10 years expressed in current prices.

    Mr. Redwood
    The information is given in the following table:
    287
    1 Includes the repayment of principal on local authority mortgages on council houses.

    Sources: Capital payments return up to 1988–89, cash backed accumulated receipts returns for subsequent years.

    Amenity Charges
    Ms Primarolo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was generated by the NHS in Wales from amenity charges; and how many people paid them in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    The income receipts received by the NHS in Wales amounted to £30,000 and £65,000 for 1991–92 and 1992–93 respectively. The number of people who paid these receipts is not available centrally.

    Ministerial Offices
    Mr. Boyes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of new furniture for his private office during the year 1993–94.

    Mr. Redwood
    Such purchases are included within my Department's overall administration expenditure which is published every year in the annual report.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was or is the total budget for management agreements for all environmentally sensitive areas in Wales for the years 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    The information is as follows:

    Financial year

    Budget £ million

    1992–93

    1·505

    1993–94

    1·537

    1994–95

    6·863

    1995–96

    7·015

    Notes:

    Figures shown for 1992–93 are actual expenditure figures.

    Figures shown for 1993–94 to 1995–96 are subject to Parliamentary approval.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the area of each individual environmentally sensitive area in Wales already under management agreements at the most recent date for which accurate figures are available.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    The information as at 28 February 1994 is as follows:

    ESA

    Hectares under agreement

    Cambrian Mountains (Original)

    8,694

    Cambrian Mountains (Extension)

    22,373

    Cambrian Mountains (Original) Revised

    10,327

    Lleyn Peninsula

    23,478

    Ynys Mon

    58

    Radnor

    0

    TOTAL

    64,930

    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers had entered into agreements in 288
    each individual environmentally sensitive area in Wales at the most recent date for which accurate figures are available.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    The information as at 28 February 1994 is as follows:

    ESA

    Number of current management agreements

    Cambrian Mountains (Original)

    80

    Cambrian Mountains (Extension)

    208

    Cambrian Mountains (Original) Revised

    63

    Lleyn Peninsula

    481

    Ynys Mon

    2

    Radnor

    0

    TOTAL

    834

    Ministerial Receptions
    Mr. Boyes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of receptions held by Ministers in his Department in 1993–94.

    Mr. Redwood
    The cost of such receptions is included in the entertainment expenditure for my Department, which is published in the annual report.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of three and four-year-olds in Wales have nursery education provided for them(a) now and (b) in 1979.

    Mr. Redwood
    The percentage of three and four-year-olds1 in Wales who were in nursery education provided for them in maintained schools in 1993 and 1979 are as follows:

    Per cent.

    January 1993

    68·5

    January 1979

    66·7

    1 Ages as at 31 December—estimated.

    Others attend some other form of pre-school education or play group, meaning that most Welsh three to five-year-olds spend time with other children away from home.

    Housing
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the number of council houses, (b) the amount of housing revenue account subsidy and (c) the amount of housing revenue account subsidy per house in each district council in Wales and for Wales as a whole for the latest year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    Information on the average number of council houses for each district council and for Wales in 1993–94 is given in the following table.

    I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 14 February, Official Report, column 632–34 in respect of housing revenue account subsidy.
    289

    Average number of council houses in 1993–94

    Number

    Aberconwy

    2,431

    Alyn and Deeside

    4,815

    Arfon

    4,748

    Blaenau Gwent

    9,503

    Brecknock

    2,510

    Cardiff

    17,938

    Carmarthen

    3,182

    Ceredigion

    3,021

    Colwyn

    2,386

    Cynon Valley

    4,661

    Delyn

    4,386

    Dinefwr

    2,346

    Dwyfor

    1,380

    Glyndwr

    2,694

    Islwyn

    5,611

    Llanelli

    6,331

    Lliw Valley

    4,681

    Meirionnydd

    1,873

    Merthyr Tydfil

    6,285

    Monmouth

    4,521

    Montgomeryshire

    2,562

    Neath

    5,090

    Newport

    12,700

    Ogwr

    8,711

    Port Talbot

    5,087

    Preseli Pembrokeshire

    5,016

    Radnorshire

    1,105

    Rhondda

    4,349

    Rhuddlan

    2,597

    Rhymney Valley

    9,140

    South Pembrokeshire

    2,594

    Swansea

    15,251

    Taff Ely

    6,145

    Torfaen

    12,154

    Vale of Glamorgan

    5,599

    Wrexham Maelor

    14,489

    Ynys Mon

    5,142

    Wales

    213,034

    Source:

    Local authorities' second advance subsidy claims for 1993–94.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Local Government Finance
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish for each borough, district and county council and in total for England as a whole in constant prices(a) the estimated actual spending for 1993–94 net of community care, (b) the standard spending assessments for 1994–95 net of community care, (c) the amounts by which (b) exceeds or falls short of (a) and (d) the percentage by which (b) exceeds or falls short of (a); and if he will make a statement;

    (2) if he will publish for each borough, district and county council and in total for England as a whole in constant prices (a) the estimated actual spending for 1993–94, (b) the standard spending assessments for 1994–95, (c) the amounts by which (b) exceeds or falls short of (a) and (d) the percentage by which (b) exceeds or falls short of (a); and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry
    The information requested has been placed in the Library.

    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the capital expenditure and (b) the revenue expenditure for the last year for which figures are
    290
    available in relation to the number of councillors on (i) London boroughs, (ii) metropolitan boroughs, (iii) shire county councils and (iv) shire district-borough councils.

    Mr. Baldry
    The information is as follows:

    Revenue expenditure 1993–94

    Capital expenditure1993–94

    Number of Councillors

    £ million

    £ million

    no

    London boroughs

    6,498

    1,293

    1,914

    Metropolitan districts

    8,946

    1,773

    2,481

    Shire counties

    20,213

    1,746

    2,998

    Shire districts

    3,280

    2,415

    13,459

    Source: Local authority returns—revenue budget and second quarter capital forecasts—municipal year book 1994.

    Environmental Protection
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the European directives for protecting the environment since 1979, including those concerning air pollution, water pollution and wildlife protection; whether each was implemented in the United Kingdom by primary or secondary legislation; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Atkins
    Directives in force are listed in the Official Journal of the European Communities "Director of Community Legislation in Force and Other Acts of the Community Institutions—22nd Edition", which is available in the Library.

    Details of the methods of transposition are not held centrally. The United Kingdom aims to implement Community legislation in full and on time. The method of implementation depends on the circumstances of each case and the legislation already in force in the United Kingdom, but will usually be by secondary legislation.

    Planning Regulations (Water Services)
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what rules govern the giving of planning permission where existing water and sewerage provision will be affected;

    (2) what planning regulations existing to safeguard people living in areas of poor water pressure where a new building development is planned in the immediate vicinity; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry
    There are no planning regulations which apply specifically to development which might affect existing water and sewerage provision. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities must have regard to the development plan, so far as it is material to the application, and to any other material considerations. Where the development plan is material, the planning application must be determined in accordance with it unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

    Each planning application must be considered on its merits; water supply and sewerage disposal may be material considerations to be taken into account. The capacity of existing water and sewerage infrastructure and the need for additional facilities should also be considered when development plans are being drawn up. Local planning authorities should consult the appropriate water

    291
    or sewerage undertaker on any planning application which is likely to have significant implications for water or sewerage services.

    Section 65(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a duty on water undertakers to provide water at such a pressure as will cause water to reach the top of the top-most storey of every building within the undertaker's area. In general, the planning system should not duplicate safeguards for water supply or sewerage disposal already available under water legislation.

    Audit Commission (Staff Sickness)
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish current sickness absence rates in respect of staff of the Audit Commission.

    Mr. Baldry
    No. Under schedule 3 to the Local Government Finance Act 1982, the Audit Commission is responsible for the recruitment and management of its own staff. The Government do not involve themselves in this process.

    Councillors (Surcharges)
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now discontinue the penalty of surcharge on councillors in respect of fraud or incompetence.

    Mr. Baldry
    No.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support his Department provided to the centre for environmental chemistry at Brunel university in its preparation of its recent report on the management of used nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste.

    Mr. Atkins
    My Department has not been involved in the preparation of this report.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what date he received representations from(a) Westminster and (b) Wandsworth asking that homelessness be used as an indicator for the purposes of standard spending assessment distribution;

    (2) what (a) evidence of their need to spend in respect of homelessness or (b) plans for increased spending was provided by Wandsworth borough council when asking that homelessness be used as an indicator for standard spending assessment distribution;

    (3) what (a) evidence of need to spend in respect of homelessness or (b) plans for increased spending was provided by Westminster city council when asking that homelessness be used as an indicator for standard spending assessment distribution.

    Mr. Baldry
    As regards the local government finance settlement for 1994–95, representations in support of a separate indicator for homelessness were received from Westminster city council in 1993 on 8 April, 14 July, 5 October, 11 October and 23 December. These representations included an analysis of applications for accommodation over the period 1989–90 to 1992–93, net expenditure on rent allowances 1990–91 to 1992–93 and 292
    projections of such expenditure to 1996–97. No such representations were received from Wandsworth borough council.

    Ms Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give an estimate of the number of single homeless people in England and Wales, and what proportion of these are women.

    Sir George Young
    My Department does not make estimates of the numbers of single homeless people. The only source of national data on persons sleeping rough is the 1991 census of population, which found 2,650 people doing so on census night—21–22 April—at a number of predetermined sites. Of these, 407—15 per cent.—were women.

    For information on Wales, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

    Ms Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will provide a breakdown of numbers of those accepted as statutorily homeless in England and Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available falling into different priority need categories; and what proportion in each category were women;

    (2) how many people were accepted as statutorily homeless in England and Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what proportion of these were women.

    Sir George Young
    The numbers of households for which local authorities in England accepted responsibility to secure permanent accommodation in the year ending 30 September 1993, the latest 12 months for which figures are available, in each of the priority need categories is as follows:

    Number

    Households with dependent children

    81,250

    Household member pregnant and no other dependent children

    17,790

    Household member vulnerable due to:

    (a) old age

    5,940

    (b) physical disability

    5,320

    (c) mental illness/handicap

    5,990

    (d) other reasons

    15,990

    Households homeless in emergency

    1,130

    Total households in priority need

    133,410

    Households not in priority need

    4,530

    Total acceptances

    137,940

    Information is not collected on the composition of these households so the number of women in each category is not known and my Department has no estimates.

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

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the issue of using homelessness as an indicator was first raised and by whom in the 1993 consultation with local authorities on the standard spending assessment settlement.
    293
    Mr. Baldry
    Local authorities in London, and their associations, have repeatedly raised the issue of using an indicator of homelessness in standard spending assessments since the inception of the system in 1990.

    Ms Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number of people made homeless in England and Wales as a result of relationship breakdown, the proportion of these cases which involved domestic violence, and the proportion of those cited in the answers who were women, in the last year for which figures are available.

    Sir George Young
    The latest available information provided by local authorities, on homeless households accepted for permanent rehousing, shows that 25,930 households in England lost their last settled home because of relationship breakdown with a partner in the year ending 30 September 1993, and that 67 per cent. of these were the result of violent breakdown.

    Ranking of authorities

    Proportion of household residents under 16 years of age living in rented accommodation

    Proportion of households living in rented purpose built flats in residential buildings

    Proportion of household residents of pensionable age living in rented accommodation

    1

    Tower Hamlets

    Tower Hamlets

    Tower Hamlets

    2

    Southwark

    Southwark

    Islington

    3

    Islington

    Hackney

    Hackney

    4

    Camden

    Islington

    Southwark

    5

    Hackney

    City of London

    Camden

    6

    Lambeth

    Lambeth

    Westminster

    These variables are used respectively in the children in need index, within the all other services block social index and the personal social services other social services index, and within the potential elderly domiciliary clients formula and the potential elderly supported residents formula.

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has as to the impact of nature of housing tenure on local authorities need to spend on personal social services or the areas of spending covered by the all other services area.

    Mr. Baldry
    The district level all other services standard spending assessment and personal social services SSA both include housing tenure indicators. The inclusion of these measures was based on detailed statistical analysis. The results of this statistical analysis were discussed in the SSA subgroup meetings where all the local authority associations are represented. The report of the SSA sub-group for 1994–95 is in the Library.

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities made representations to his Department seeking the use of nature of housing tenure as an indicator for the purpose of standard spending assessment distribution.

    Mr. Baldry
    Since my right hon. Friend announced details of the provisional revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95, no local authorities have made representations seeking the use of nature of housing tenure as an indicator in standard spending assessments.

    Energy Industries
    Miss Lestor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from what source the Energy Saving Trust will obtain its funding following the decision of the Director General of Gas Supply on the E factor.
    294
    Information is not collected by my Department on the composition of these households and so the number of women involved is not held centrally.

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

    Housing Tenure
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which six local authorities gained most from the use of nature of housing tenure as an indicator for the purpose of standard spending assessment distribution.

    Mr. Baldry
    The top six authorities ranked in order of their score on each of the tenure of housing variables are as follows:

    Mr. Atkins
    Funding for schemes sponsored by the Energy Saving Trust comes from a variety of sources. The Director General of Gas Supply has recently questioned longer-term reliance on the E factor mechanism as one of those sources. Officials from my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are currently reviewing the position with the Office of Gas Supply.

    Living Over the Shop
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the budget allocated to the Housing Corporation for living-over-the-shop initiatives; and how much of it has been spent.

    Sir George Young
    The Housing Corporation does not have a separate or ringfenced budget for flats-over-shops schemes. These form part of its overall investment in rehabilitation activities, financed from its approved development programme. Nevertheless, in 1993–94, it expects to invest £2·48 million in such schemes. To date, claims have been received for nearly 58 per cent. of this, and the corporation hopes to increase this percentage considerably by the end of the financial year. Although the Housing Corporation monitors spend on individual schemes, any underspend represents a shortfall against housing associations' intended programmes of works rather than against national targets as set by the Housing Corporation. In addition, this Department has made up to £10 million in supplementary credit approvals available to local authorities in 1993–94. Where SCAs are awarded, a grant to meet the renovation cost of the scheme will be made through a local authority housing association grant, administered by the Housing Corporation.

    Minerals Planning Guidance
    Mr. Gunnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those bodies or individuals who have responded to his consultation paper on minerals planning guidance.

    Mr. Baldry
    The consultation period for MPG3 is not yet over. I will place a list of those who respond to the consultation exercise together with a summary of their comments in the Library of the House in due course.

    Temporary Accommodation
    Ms Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were living in temporary accommodation in England and Wales on the most recent date for which figures are available; what proportion of these were women; and what proportion were accommodated in women's refuges.

    Sir George Young
    The latest available information shows that 56,900 households were in temporary accommodation on 30 September 1993, some 8,600—13 per cent.—fewer than a year earlier. These figures cover those households which are awaiting permanent rehousing after having been accepted by local authorities as homeless, and those awaiting the outcome of inquiries into an application, under the provisions of the 1985 Housing Act. Some 870 of these households were in women's refuges.

    Local authorities do not report the composition of households in temporary accommodation to my Department and so the number who are women is not held centrally.

    For information about Wales I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

    Contractor Management Information
    Mr. Spellar
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 262, which other Departments use his Department's contractor management information system and the consultants register.

    Mr. Baldry
    Other Departments which use the contractor management information system and the consultants register are:

    Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    Central Office of Information

    Crown Prosecution Service

    Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

    Ministry of Defence

    Department for Education

    Department of Employment

    Department of the Environment—Northern Ireland

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Department of Health

    Home Office

    Inland Revenue

    Lord Chancellors Department

    Department of National Heritage

    Department of National Savings

    Scottish Office

    Department of Social Security

    Department of Trade and Industry

    Department of Transport

    Welsh Office.

    Miss Lestor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial means the Minister will 296
    employ to encourage efficiency and conservation improvements in the energy industries following the decision of the Director General of Gas Supply on the E factor.

    Mr. Atkins
    The energy industries are active in encouraging greater energy efficiency as part of their desire for greater competitiveness and in the interests of their consumers. The Government encourage these and other steps through their best practice programme and other means. The Energy Saving Trust is an independent body promoting energy efficiency. The intention is that funds for schemes sponsored by the Energy Saving Trust will continue to be derived principally from electricity and gas tariff consumers. The mechanisms for achieving this are under review.

    Water and Sewage Services
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the average equated rate poundage for sewerage services for the areas covered by(a) Wales Water, (b) Severn Trent, (c) North West England and (d) Thames for 1992–93 and 1993–94 and the estimated figure for 1994–95;

    (2) what was the average equated rate poundage for supply of water for the areas covered by (a) Wales Water, (b) Severn Trent,>(c) North West England and (d) Thames for 1992–93 and 1993–94 and the estimated figure for 1994–95.

    Mr. Atkins
    Information on water and sewerage companies' tariffs and average charges is published annually in the Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries statistics series publication "The United Kingdom Water Industry—Charges for Water Services", copies of which are available in the Library.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with Severn Trent Water regarding water disconnections.

    Mr. Atkins
    None. However, my right hon. Friend met the chairman of Severn Trent Water on 11 January, to discuss a range of topics relating to water charging issues.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring he is conducting of the number of people who have had water supplies disconnected in the Coventry area; how many households in Coventry have had their water disconnected in 1991–92 and 1992–93; and to what socio-economic categories those people belong.

    Mr. Atkins
    None. Responsibility for the protection of customers interests rests with the Director General of Water Services who publishes data on the total number of domestic disconnections twice a year, by water company area. Information on disconnections according to socio-economic categories is not available.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for assisting consumers to avoid water disconnections.

    Mr. Atkins
    The Director General of Water Services issued guidelines to water companies in April 1992 on the subject of debt and disconnection, with the aim of ensuring fair and effective procedures to minimise the prospect of disconnection.

    Mobile Homes
    Mr. Mills
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what complaints he has received in the last five years about the operations of the landlords of mobile home parks at Meriden hall; and if he will make a statement.

    Sir George Young
    Records are readily available for the last two and a half years. During that period, we have received four letters about the Meriden hall mobile homes park, two of which are from my hon. Friend. Both these letters concern the operations of landlords. The other two letters are about other matters. The most recent of these four representations is 12 March 1992.

    Local Government (Redundancies)
    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to table his proposed amendments to the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy and Premature Retirement) Regulations 1993.

    Mr. Baldry
    Regulations are being finalised in the light of the recent statutory consultation and will be introduced shortly.

    Boundaries Review
    Sir Ivan Lawrence
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the results of his commissioner's review of the proposed boundaries for the constituencies in the county of Staffordshire.

    Mr. Curry
    The boundaries of parliamentary constituencies and the progress made by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

    Sustainable Development
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how often in the next 12 months the new advisory group on sustainable development will be holding meetings(a) amongst themselves, (b) with representatives of non-governmental organisations, (c) with the Prime Minister and (d) with departmental green Ministers.

    Mr. Atkins
    The panel on sustainable development is expected to meet about four times a year. It will be for the members to decide what other meetings to arrange as their work progresses.

    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the programme of work of the advisory group on sustainable development.

    Mr. Atkins
    No. The panel on sustainable development will be drawing up its own work programme.

    Careers Service
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the expenditure by each local education authority in respect of the careers service for each year since 1989; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry
    I have arranged for the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

    Rural Areas
    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list projects and programmes designed to benefit rural areas which involved co-operation between the Rural Development Commission and(a) the Countryside Commission, (b) the Department of Employment and (c) the English training and enterprise councils in each of the last five years.

    Mr. Atkins
    The Rural Development Commission, together with the Countryside Commission and English Nature, jointly fund the rural action programme which was introduced in 1992 and is aimed at helping people in rural communities take action to protect and improve their local environment. The rural action programme will support nearly 400 projects in 1993–94. There are no formal joint programmes which are operated by the Rural Development Commission and the Department of Employment or the English TECs, but the commission operates a training and enterprise fund which provides support for training and economic development projects, often jointly with TECs. In the rural development areas the commisson provides funding for a wide range of economic and social projects in partnership with a number of other bodies including the Countryside Commission and TECs.

    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the policy documents, publications and consultation documents which set out the policy proposals of the Rural Development Commission produced in the last 10 years.

    Mr. Atkins
    The Rural Development Commission has published a number of policy documents over the last 10 years which could only be listed at disproportionate cost. The commission publishes an annual report and corporate plan each year. The most recent documents published which set out the policy proposals are:

    Policy Documents

    (1) "Rural Development Strategy for the 1990s"—first published in December 1993.

    (2) "The Future of the Rural Development Programme Process"—December 1993.

    (3)"Rural Development Areas"—December 1993.

    (4) "The Rural Housing Problem"—November 1993.

    (5) "Village Shops—A Report on Community Action"—July 1993.

    (6) "Rural Strategies—Advice from the Countryside Commission, English Nature and the Rural Development Commission"—November 1992.

    (7) "Countryside Employment Programme"—May 1992.

    (8) "Tourism in the Countryside"—February 1992.

    Consultation Documents

    "Meeting the Challenge of Agricultural Adjustment"—July 1991.

    "Review of the Rural Development Commission's Priority Areas"—June 1992.

    In addition, the commission has published a number of research reports on policy issues. The most recent are:

    (1) "Homelessness in Rural Areas"—March 1992 and February 1994.

    (2) "Rural Transport Problems and Needs"—June 1993.

    (3) "An Evaluation of the Housing Corporation Rural Programme"—November 1993.

    (4) "Rural Development and Strategy Planning"—November 1993.

    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the publications giving details of partnership programmes between the Rural Development Commission and the(a) Countryside

    299
    Council, (b) Department of Employment and (c) English training and enterprise councils in which the voluntary sector can participate.

    Mr. Atkins
    The only programme operated jointly by the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission is the rural action programme, funded by the Royal Development Commission, the Countryside Commission and English Nature. The programme is managed by Action with Communities in Rural England. The publications detailing the scheme are:

    "Rural Action for the Environment—An Introduction"—available from ACRE.

    "Rural Action for the Environment—A New Way of Working"—available from ACRE.

    There are no partnership programmes run with the Department of Employment and TECS. The commission has, however, collaborated with the Countryside Commission and TECs, as well as other bodies, on a range of publications to assist development in the rural areas.

    Drinking Water
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the levels of lead in drinking water.

    Mr. Atkins
    The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989, as amended, require that drinking water at the point where the water is supplied contains no more than 50 microgrammes of lead per litre. This standard is more stringent than the requirements of the EC drinking water directive. In 1992 97 per cent. of determinations for lead in England and Wales measured in samples taken from consumers' taps contained less than this level. There is virtually no lead in water leaving the treatment works and most of that detected comes from contact with consumers' pipework.

    Hedgerows
    Mr. Hardy
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the Government propose to take to protect hedgerows.

    Mr. Atkins
    We remain committed to legislate when parliamentary time permits.

    Air Pollution Control
    Mr. Riddick
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will make a statement about the 1994–95 charging scheme for local authority air pollution control under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

    Mr. Atkins
    Charges to cover the costs of local enforcing authorities in regulating processes which are subject to part I of the Environmental Protection act 1990 were introduced in April 1991. With the approval of the Treasury, and following consultation with local authority associations and industry, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of state for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales have made a revised scheme specifying the scale of fees and charges to take effect from 1 April 1994. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is revising the identical, parallel scheme for Scotland on the same basis.

    The application fee is increased by £30 to £965, the substantial change fee is increased by £20 to £620, and the
    300
    annual subsistence charge is increased by £15 to £585. No change has been made to the remaining fees and charges. The scheme will be laid before both Houses and a copy placed in the Library.

    As part of our deregulation review, we commissioned consultants to investigate the potential for bringing in a system of banded charges. I am placing a copy of their report in the Library. In the light of the report and in consultation with interested bodies, consideration will be given to introducing banded charges for the local authority air pollution control regime in 1995–96.

    Building Regulation A4
    Mr. Trend
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now repeal building regulation A4, relating to the safeguarding of certain public buildings, shops and shopping malls against disproportionate collapse; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry
    Following an extensive review the Government have concluded that the considerable enhancement in structural safety of buildings constructed in recent years has rendered regulation A4 superfluous to the stability and robustness provisions of requirement A1. Such enhancement in the integrity of building structures has resulted from substantial improvements in the quality of guidance material—principally British standards—supporting requirement A1, rather than the imposition of regulation A4. To some extent the guidance material supporting the material and workmanship provisions of regulation 7 has also improved the situation.

    Considerable support for the repeal of regulation A4 was registered in the consultation exercise undertaken at the end of last year. The proposal for repeal has now been endorsed by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee.

    It is the Government's view that the shortcomings that prevailed in the 1970s, which led to the introduction of regulation A4, have been addressed. This significant regulatory burden on the construction industry can now be removed without compromising public safety. An amendment to the building regulations incorporating this repeal will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.

    Offshore Oil Licensing
    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 554, if he will list the blocks about which his Department expressed concern to the DTI during the 14th round of offshore licensing.

    Mr. Baldry
    [holding answer 4 March 1994]: No. The release of information about these blocks is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry.

    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many blocks his Department recommended be excluded from the 14th round of offshore oil licensing.

    Mr. Baldry
    [holding answer 4 March 1994]: My Department recommended that 22 blocks be excluded from the 14th round unless conditions were attached that would allow the prospecting and working of aggregates such that the national aggregates supply would not be jeopardised.

    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,
    301
    Official Report, column 554, if he will list all the areas of concern his Department asked the DTI to address in deciding which blocks to licence during the 14th round of offshore licensing.

    Mr. Baldry
    [holding answer 4 March 1994]: My Department expressed concern about blocks which were of considerable importance to the marine aggregates industry. We also drew attention to two areas which were in the vicinity of sites of special scientific interest.

    English Nature
    Mr. Tyler
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the proposed merger of English Nature and the Countryside Commission; what is the timetable for a decision; and what he is doing to ensure that the interests of the landscape, recreation and those involved in economic development are given priority.

    Mr. Atkins
    [holding answer 7 March 1994]: Public consultation on the proposals for possible merger runs until 28 March. Few representations have been received to date. All aspects of the remits of the two bodies are being considered during the study announced on 27 January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment which is expected to be completed by July. A decision will be taken as soon as possible thereafter.

    Housing Investment Programmes
    Mr. Rooker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the housing investment programmes submitted to his Department indicated how many local authorities and housing associations fix rent levels by reference to the area of usable space in each type of dwelling; and if he will make a statement.

    Sir George Young
    [holding answer 8 March 1994]Local authorities.' housing strategy statements and housing investment programme bids are primarily concerned with the use of capital resources, and most contain relatively little information about the detail of council rent-setting policies.

    Local authorities are required to set their rents at reasonable levels, and with regard to the pattern of rents for different properties in the private sector.

    Housing associations set assured rents in the light of their own individual circumstances. Associations which are registered with the Housing Corporation are expected under the tenants guarantee to set and maintain rents at levels within the reach of those in low paid employment. In the case of housing association secure tenants, fair rents are set by rent officers who are statutorily independent of Government.

    Sea Birds
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the extent of the research being conducted into the levels this year of deaths of sea birds in and around the shores of the United Kingdom; and what are the preliminary findings of the research.

    Mr. Atkins
    [holding answer 8 March 1994]: There is no co-ordinated research into the deaths of sea birds in and around the United Kingdom coasts. The Department's
    302
    statutory conservation advisors consider that it is more useful to monitor large seabird colonies and selected individuals within those colonies when studying bird mortality and overall population levels.

    Some of the birds washed up in the recent North sea incident have been taken for post mortem analysis and preliminary results indicate that starvation was the likely cause of death, possibly due to a combination of strong onshore winds which may have disturbed normal feeding activity and, perhaps, a mismatch between bird location and food availability.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 27 January, ref. GA PSO 2213/94.

    Mr. Atkins
    [holding answer 8 March 1994]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 8 March.

  HEALTH

    Financial Information Project Ltd.
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the the Secretary of State for Health what consideration has been given by her Department into the unauthorised transfer of £300,000 to the company HP by West Midlands regional health authority.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    In January 1992, the former director of finance of West Midlands regional health authority made a loan of £300,000 to Financial Information Project Ltd. without reference to the RHA board. In March 1993, the loan was ratified by the West Midlands regional health authority board under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. The district auditor has stated that he is satisfied with the actions taken by the West Midlands regional health authority to regularise the payment. The loan is repayable at the direction of the West Midlands regional health authority.

    Emergency Communications
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the savings in capital and revenue expenditure of establishing a nationwide managed network emergency communications service.

    Mr. Sackville
    A study to develop a strategy in the national health service for the provision of mobile communications, principally those used by the ambulance service, is planned to report in April 1994.

    Discussions are taking place with the Home Department, which will continue throughout 1994, to examine the feasibility and cost advantages of implementing a communications facility shared by the police, fire and ambulance services.

    GP Fundholders
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total sum of the budgets of those general practitioner fundholders who practise in(a) Lewisham and (b) London for the most recent available year.
    303
    Dr. Mawhinney
    Information about general practitioner fundholder budgets is collected only at regional health authority level. For more detailed information about the London and Lewisham areas, the hon. Member may wish to contact the four Thames regional health authorities.

    Sodium Valproate
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has correlating defects in the newborn with the ingestion of sodium valproate during pregnancy.

    Mr. Sackville
    Sodium valproate is a drug used in the treatment of epilepsy and like several other anti-epileptics is known to be teratogenic. Articles in the medical literature and spontaneous reports received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines indicate that there is an increased risk of birth defects in children whose mothers take anti-epileptics. In particular, the use of sodium valproate in early pregnancy is associated with neural tube defects. However, the risks to both mother and child of inadequate treatment of epilepsy during pregnancy are also well recognised and need to be balanced against the risk of birth defects. For this reason many women continue taking anti-epileptics during pregnancy.

    The risk of birth defects with sodium valproate was drawn to the attention of doctors by the CSM in its bulletin, "Current Problems", No. 9, published in January 1983. A reminder was also issued in June 1993 in "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance", Volume 19. Information on birth defects associated with the use of anti-epileptic treatment can also be found in the product data sheets produced by the manufacturers and authorised by the Licensing Authority, and in the British National Formulary which is sent free to all doctors. Copies of "Current Problems" are available in the Library.

    Manchester University Health Services Management Unit
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has studied the survey by Mr. Michael West and Mr. Rod Sheaff of the health services management unit at Manchester university into issues of probity and honesty in the NHS; and if she will make a statement.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    Yes. The survey of attitudes towards issues of probity among national health service chairmen and board members was commissioned by the NHS Management Executive's corporate governance task force who expressed the view in their report:"the attitudes of respondents to the survey, for the most part, supported a strict application of traditional rules of behaviour."
    I welcome that finding which is the foundation for the NHS code of conduct issued for comment on 13 January 1994.

    Directly-managed Hospitals
    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in England are currently directly-managed; how many there will be on 1 April; and what percentage of total bed provision will be represented by those directly-managed units.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    There are currently 137 directly-managed units; from 1 April there will be 22. Information giving the percentage of bed provision by current DMUs is not available.

    Wharfedale and Seacroft Hospitals
    Mr. Gunnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what public consultations took place before the decision to allow Wharfedale hospital to be taken over by the United Leeds hospital—LGI—trust.

    (2) what budget adjustments are planned for the Leeds health authority and St. James hospital trust to reflect the transfer of responsibility for Seacroft hospital from one to the other;

    (3) what budget adjustments are planned to reflect the transfer of responsibility for Wharfedale hospital from Leeds health authority to the United Leeds hospital—LGI —trust;

    (4) what public consultations took place before the decision to allow St. James hospital trust to take over Seacroft hospital.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    No decisions have yet been taken on future management arrangements for Seacroft and Wharfedale hospitals. The existing Leeds national health service trusts and the two hospitals are discussing proposals to reconfigure their services with the Department and the regional health authority. If expressions of interest are approved in principle, they will be subject to the full application process for NHS trust status, including statutory public consultation, before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes her final decision. I have indicated that any proposals will need to ensure that acute services are provided at broadly the same volume on the Seacroft and Wharfedale sites and that the United Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust and St. James's university hospital NHS trust provide those services but do not simply take over the hospitals.

    Drug Abuse
    Mrs. Golding
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure by her Department for(a) drug rehabilitation and (b) health education in relation to drug abuse each year since 1989–90.

    Mr. Bowis
    The following sums have been or will be made available to health authorities as a contribution towards the cost of drug service provision generally:

    £ millions

    1989–90

    14·79

    1990–91

    15·53

    1991–92

    16·49

    1992–93

    20·04

    1993–94

    24·37

    1994–95

    25·23

    A proportion of these resources will have been used to meet healthcare elements of rehabilitation costs. Responsibility for meeting remaining costs of residential care for drug misusers transferred from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to local authorities on 1 April 1993 with implementation of community care. Local authorities are now responsible for assessing the needs of drug users and purchasing appropriate services to meet those needs.

    Expenditure by the Department of Health on national anti-drug and solvent misuse publicity campaigns is:

    305

    £ millions

    1989–90

    3·81

    1990–91

    2·42

    1991–92

    3·92

    1992–93

    4·96

    1993–94

    15·42

    1 Estimated.

    Abortions performed in England and Wales to residents of South Yorkshire, 1989–92

    Place of residence

    Total abortions

    Percentage of abortions carried out or paid for by the NHS

    Percentage of abortions carried out under private health services

    Barnsley DHA

    1989

    655

    51·3

    48·7

    1990

    665

    50·4

    49·6

    1991

    641

    61·3

    38·7

    1992

    591

    62·1

    37·9

    Doncaster DHA

    1989

    907

    79·9

    20·1

    1990

    871

    81·4

    18·6

    1991

    935

    84·6

    15·4

    1992

    936

    87·2

    12·8

    Rotherham DHA

    1989

    700

    66·9

    33·1

    1990

    724

    66·2

    33·8

    1991

    666

    73·4

    26·6

    1992

    600

    69·7

    30·3

    Sheffield DHA

    1989

    1,503

    59·1

    40·9

    1990

    1,513

    55·4

    44·6

    1991

    1,573

    61·3

    38·7

    1992

    1,392

    62·8

    37·2

    St. Albans General Hospital
    Ms Primarolo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the minor injuries unit in St. Albans general hospital;

    (2) if her Department will instruct North West Hertfordshire health authority to provide a minor injuries unit in St. Albans general hospital that is sufficient to meet the accident needs of 14,000 people;

    (3) if she will publish correspondence between the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) concerning the minor injuries unit at St. Albans general hospital.

    Mr. Sackville
    The minor injuries unit at St. Albans hospital opened on 26 April 1993 and such has been its success that it is on course to treat 7,700 patients in its first year of operation. North West Hertfordshire health authority at its meeting on 17 February approved the further development of the unit as a nurse-led service which will enable the unit to treat up to 11,600 patients a year. The correspondence of the hon. Member for St. Albans, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, is a matter between him and the Health Authority.

    Pregnancy Terminations
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each district health authority in south Yorkshire, and by year from the last four years for which she has figures available, the proportion of terminations of pregnancy carried out under(a) the national health service and (b) the independent or private health services.

    Mr. Sackville
    The information requested is shown in the table for the years 1989 to 1992. For reasons of confidentiality, statistics for district health authorities are presented by DHA of woman's usual residence, not by DHA of termination.

    Hospital Catering
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 927, what considerations underlie her decision not to collect centrally information on the number of hospital trusts which operate two standards of category for patients, one of which requires a payment by a patient; if she will consider holding this information in future; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. Sackville
    No. We have no plans to collect centrally detailed information on income generation initiatives of this kind.

    Local Purchasing Plans
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice her Department has given to local authorities and health authorities on consultation with users and carers in producing local purchasing plans; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. Bowis
    The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 clearly states that when drawing up their community care plans local authorities must consult representatives of users of community care services and their carers. In addition, the National Health Service Management Executive document "Local Voices"
    307
    identified the approach that health authorities need to take to ensure that they involve the general public in their purchasing decisions. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health wrote in January to all district health authorities emphasising the importance the Government attach to responsiveness to the views and needs of local people.

    Mental Health
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce monitoring by the Mental Health Act Commission of arrangements made for the aftercare of patients covered by secion 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

    Mr. Bowis
    The arrangements for implementation of section 117 are already monitored by the Mental Health Act Commission on its visits to hospitals and at meetings with health and local authorities.

    Health Authorities
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public relations agencies are employed by each of the regional and district health authorities to provide their public relations; what is the annual cost of this service to each of the health authorities; and how these costs have varied since the establishment of NHS trusts.

    Mr. Sackville
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 16 February at column 866.

    Patient Priority
    Mr. Meale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that the prioritisation of patients needing treatment should depend on their relative clinical needs rather than the financial circumstances of their general practitioners' budgets.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    The Department and the joint consultants committee of the British Medical Association issued joint guidance in 1991 stating that all emergencies should be seen immediately, and that there should be common waiting lists for urgent cases. National Health Service Management Executive guidance states that all urgent cases should be given appropriate clinical priority. This was most recently set out in Sir Duncan Nichol's letter to the NHS dated 24 February, EL(94)19, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

    Mr. Meale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if it is Government policy that medical surgeons should be prevented from giving patients the treatment they need because of financial management;

    (2) if she will make a statement on the recent findings from the survey of surgeons of the Royal College of Surgeons of England on the number of surgical divisions which had been told to stop or reduce activity.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    There is no evidence of reduced activity. Overall activity is in fact forecast to increase this year. No hospitals have stopped admissions and cases continue to be treated according to clinical priority. All emergencies continue to be treated immediately.

    Abortion
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of apparent failure to report abortions have been investigated by her Department in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; in how many of those cases the matter was referred for further consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service; how many prosecutions were brought; how many convictions obtained; and what were the sentences awarded in each of those cases.

    Mr. Sackville
    There have been eight investigations. Four have been the subject of referral to the Crown Prosecution Service. In one, the CPS decided that police inquiries were not warranted after preliminary Department of Health investigation. A second case was not pursued further after the initial Department of Health investigation. Two cases are currently under consideration.

    Special Transitional Grant
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each English local authority the level of special transitional grant that would have been paid if the 1993–94 formula for distribution had been applied to 1994–95, indicating for each authority the actual grant being paid for 1994; and if she will also state in each case the difference.

    Mr. Bowis
    The figures for individual authorities will be placed in the Library. The figures in columns 1 and 3 do not take account of the 1994–95 standard spending assessment review or of the boundary changes.

    Children (Foreign Trips)
    Mr. Boyes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will produce a table showing the numbers of children who have taken foreign trips(a) by local authority social services department and (b) by length of stay.

    Mr. Bowis
    A great many children go on foreign visits. The Department does not collect statistics on this.

    Population Statistics
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each five-year cohort in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland, the number of persons and the percentage of persons, who were born in (i) each of those countries, (ii) the Irish Republic, (iii) elsewhere in Europe, and (iv) elsewhere.

    Mr. Sackville
    [holding answer 7 March 1994]: Information for England and Wales, from the 1991 census, will be placed in the Library. Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each five-year cohort the number of persons resident in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland, who are members of each ethnic group; and what percentage this is in each case of the total number in each such cohort, together with her projections until 2010.
    309
    Mr. Sackville
    [holding answer 7 March 1994]:Information for England and Wales, from the 1991 census,will be placed in the Library. Figures for Scottland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the
    310
    Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. No population projections are available by ethnic group.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Sex Guide Publications
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and with the permission of the House, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Leader of the House will excuse my intervention, the rule of the House is that unless one has the permission of the person who put the Question down, one is not entitled to ask the Question.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, my understanding of the position is this. The Companion to the Standing Orders states:
"If a Lord is absent when a Motion or Question standing in his name is due to be called and has not authorised another Lord to act on his behalf, the Motion or Question … may not be proceeded with that day",
unless the unanimous leave of the House is granted. I believe that the noble Lord would be in order to ask the Question if the House unanimously agrees to it. For my part, I would agree.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are supporting the circulation of The Best Sex Guide, published by the Health Education Authority, to young people, particularly at pop concerts; and whether they have sanctioned the proposed publication of a further booklet entitled Your Pocket Guide to Sex.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government did not initiate The Best Sex Guide magazine. It was produced by the Health Education Authority in collaboration with BBC Radio 1 and was aimed at young people of 16 and over. The further booklet, Your Pocket Guide to Sex, is being produced by the Health Education Authority's own publishing company for retail distribution. The Department of Health has no part in its production or marketing.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I assume that she has read the document. Does she agree that the document promotes promiscuity, and is certainly an insult to women? Perhaps I may quote two short sentences which state:
"The number of people you have sex with is much less important than how you have sex. If it's safer sex and you use a condom, you could screw hundreds of people and never come in contact with HIV".
1424
I consider that insulting, to say the least, to women. We understand that the Government provide funds for the Health Education Authority. If the Government fund such stuff as this magazine, will they consider funding other material which encourages youngsters, particularly teenage girls, to say no to early sexual activity as a positive choice? I give one example. A video was recently produced and publicised in this House called "Make Love Last". Will the noble Baroness be prepared to consider recommending funding that video if it is in the same category?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, certainly we would consider funding any project that an organisation wanted to put to us. We are anxious to meet the targets that we have set in The Health of the Nation in order to reduce teenage pregnancies. If that were a way of doing so, we would wish to consider it.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the magazine is a glossy but degrading incitement to anti-family behaviour?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I accept that the language used causes offence to many people. It is not a production that I would wish to have in my home. However, I believe that it is a magazine specifically targeted at young people who are already sexually active. It puts over the message very strongly that safer sex should be practised.
The magazine also mentions that sex is about affection, emotion and warmth. It also states that if you say yes to sex, it is not something to be done casually, or under pressure or to impress another person. Of course, sex is illegal for those under 16 years of age.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is the rather difficult duty of the HEA to promote safer sex in accordance with government policy expressed in The Health of the Nation to reduce teenage pregnancies and to limit HIV infection? Is it not the case that the leaflet—I have it in my hand—is targeted at youth and student groups with whom it has been thoroughly researched? As the noble Baroness stated, it explicitly points out that sex under 16 years is illegal.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, I believe that a lot of research was undertaken before the magazine was produced. However, I should like to say that the Government did not initiate this particular production, and I believe that if it had been shown to Ministers before it was produced, Ministers would have had some stringent comments to make.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I speak as a member of the Health Education Authority. Will the Minister agree that much as we, as an older generation well represented in your Lordships' House, may be shocked by the explicit language and direct approach of The Best Sex Guide, it is not written for us? It is directed and targeted towards a very vulnerable group in our society: teenage girls and boys who are already sexually active or determined to be so. Will the Minister further agree that the magazine uses the format and language

1425
which are based on serious research and which we know will appeal to the youngsters and get them to understand the importance of safer sex, including saying no?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree. I think that the publication was not written for the generation of people who predominate in this House. Certainly, when I showed it to my husband he just said that it made him feel "so very old". But I believe that it will have an impact on some young people. If it leads to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and young people not ruining their lives and those of others by contracting HIV, it will have served a purpose.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one word which does not appear in the pamphlet is no?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is right; it does not say no, in terms of total abstinence. It says that if you say yes when you mean no or "I'm not sure", you run the risk of having sex when you are not ready for it. However, the Health Education Authority puts out other pamphlets which promote abstinence as a way of preventing unwanted pregnancies or HIV infection.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, can my noble friend give any indication as to the number of unwanted teenage pregnancies over the past two or three years? Will the Department of Health closely monitor the number of teenage pregnancies following the kind of publication which the Government now support?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, we shall monitor them. As noble Lords will be aware from other debates that we have had in your Lordships' House, this country has a high rate of teenage pregnancies. Recent surveys show that 48 per cent. of 16 year-olds are sexually active, and 31 per cent of 16 year-olds claim that they have had a full sexual experience.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness also confirm that the rate of HIV and AIDS infection in the country is rising most rapidly among young heterosexuals in precisely the age group that the magazine seeks to reach? As I understand it, about half the new HIV infections in the country are in people below the age of 26.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, those figures are correct, and it is something that we must combat. In terms of HIV infection, this country has a good record in preventing it; but we have to keep changing the target areas. The noble Baroness is right, it is the younger generation we now need to target.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I fully accept what my noble friend says about unwanted pregnancies and other such matters. However, will she accept that some of us whose profession has brought them into close contact with the seamier side of life would say that sexual promiscuity was the high road to unhappiness? Should it not be part of the Government's responsibility to put that truth before the young?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords; but to some extent the Government have to take the world as it really is. The world is changing very fast. When one looks at what is on television and in the newspapers, very little is now left to the imagination. Because of that, some of the literature now published is much more explicit than your Lordships or, indeed, I would want. But that is the way in which one has to communicate with young people today.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, finally, despite what has been said, it has been estimated in other surveys that slightly more than half the population of 16 year-olds look for something different from this booklet. They do not accept the politically correct angle that you have to go with the crowd because that is how life is. They do not accept that everyone has to indulge in filthy language because it is in the booklet. That is not what they want. They want something far more positive to support them in their attempts to tidy up the filth that is being peddled around now on the subject of sex and children.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, I accept much of what the noble Lord said. However, just telling teenagers, however sternly, what they should or should not do is not effective. They need to be convinced and there are many ways of convincing them that promiscuity only leads to tragedy.

The Tax System
2.47 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the tax system has become too complex.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the complexity of the tax system reflects the underlying complexity of the modern world. Nevertheless, the Government remain committed to making the system simpler and more understandable wherever possible.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the present Finance Bill is probably longer and more complex than any of its predecessors and that both business organisations and the accountancy profession have complained about its complexity and frequent obscurities? In those circumstances, how can ordinary taxpayers—for example, represented by your Lordships —be expected to understand how they are likely to be affected by the Bill? Will the noble Lord explain how the Government reconcile their avowed intention of removing burdens from industry and making life easier for citizens, if they make the tax system ever more obscure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that the present Finance Bill is a fairly bulky document, or rather I should say two bulky documents. However, it introduces fairly major reforms, for example, self-assessment, which will obviously be a complex task

1427
requiring fairly lengthy legislation, which takes up 75 of the approximately 400 pages. It also introduces two new taxes, the details of which take up a further 50 or so pages. There are a further 40 pages on anti-avoidance and revenue protection, which we estimate should bring in another £2 billion over the next two years.
Much of the Bill was subject as well to extensive consultation with experts and representative bodies from all appropriate fields. Over one-third of the clauses were made available in draft. Further, we issued Notes on Clauses for the first time, which we believe will help with the understanding of the Bill. As regards deregulation and the burdens on business, the Budget itself introduced further deregulatory measures. But obviously we believe that there should be on-going consideration as to the burden of tax legislation on business, and that will continue as part of the Government's deregulation approach.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend understand how agreeably surprised we all were to hear that the Government have established the target of making tax law simpler and easier to understand? Does he agree that they have a terribly long and painful journey to travel?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think I could agree with my noble friend that it is what might be termed a Sisyphean task. Regrettably, taxation is a regrettable feature of modern life. Governments have to raise money to fund the various services that modern societies demand; and, regrettably, any tax system that is to be fair, equitable and efficient will of necessity be complex. But, as I believe I made clear to my noble friend, we will strive to make the system as efficient and simple as we possibly can, while also accepting that it must be both fair and equitable.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest as one who over the years, probably more than most, has introduced complex finance Bills. The Minister said that the Government's intention is to simplify the tax system. Is that why they have introduced this 417-page Bill—to simplify the tax system? Does the Minister agree that much more important than simplifying the tax system is to make it more fair? Given what the Chancellor said last week about the excessively high salaries that are paid to some, will he further agree that, while it is not necessarily too complex a system (inevitably it is complex), it is unfair between the very highest paid and the very lowest paid in the community?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that has nothing to do with the Question. But I believe that the system is totally and utterly fair; rich people pay proportionately more in taxes, as is quite rig-it. They pay more than they ever did under governments of which the noble Lord was a member. As regards efficiency and simplicity, I said that we are committed to making the system as simple as possible. One of the changes introduced in what I said was, regrettably, a very long Bill was a degree of self-assessment. That matter takes up a very large amount of the Bill; obviously to bring in some form of self-assessment is fairly complicated in drafting terms.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am a little taken aback that the noble Lord believes that the tax system is progressive. As I understand it, the system is regressive at the bottom end and at best proportionate from then on. Perhaps he can enlighten us on that matter. The Question on the Order Paper is about complexity and simplicity. Will the noble Lord consider that perhaps we ought to do things the other way round; namely, that if a tax cannot be introduced that can be understood by the taxpayer, it should simply not be introduced? Is it not an alarming state of affairs, especially in a democracy, that, as I would guess, virtually none of us in this House can get from where we started (our gross income) down to the tax that we end up paying? It seems to me that that is not a good state of affairs. I spend quite a hit of time trying to do it. I always get near, but I never get to the precise number that the Inland Revenue wants.
Lord Henley: My Lords, again, the noble Lord's opening remarks were nothing to do with the Question. But I repeat our belief that the tax system is fair. As regards simplicity, one can have a degree of simplicity; and we will bring in as much simplicity as is possible. But I think the noble Lord will have to accept that if you want to raise taxes in the complex modern society in which we live, of necessity those taxes will be fairly complex and difficult to understand. But we will try to make them as simple as is possible, while maintaining that they should be fair, equitable and efficient.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, could not the fiscal code be greatly simplified if, instead of the very complicated provisions against individual sorts of tax avoidance, we adopted the American and Australian general rule that any transaction the dominant purpose of which is tax avoidance should be invalid for that purpose but valid for any other purpose?
Lord Henley: My Lords, from his great experience the noble and learned Lord makes a very interesting suggestion, upon which I should not like to comment in detail at the Dispatch Box at this moment. I shall certainly pass on to my right honourable friend the Chancellor the suggestion that the noble and learned Lord made.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the noble Lord agrees that the tax system has become more complex, does he not think it unfair that individual taxpayers now have to submit their returns in a shorter time and that larger penalties are imposed upon them for lateness?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said that the system had necessarily become more complex, just as society has become more complex, but that we are committed to making it as simple as we possibly can. That is why self-assessment was brought in as one of the simplifications in this year's Finance Bill.
Noble Lords: Next question !
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I think we ought to move on.

Bosnia: Peace Prospects
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the present prospects of the armed conflicts in Bosnia being brought to an end.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, talks continue between the Bosnian Government, the Croatian Republic and representatives of the Bosnian Croats to build on the framework agreement initialled in Washington on 1st March. This represents a useful step towards a political settlement. The ceasefires in Sarajevo and central Bosnia are also encouraging developments. The United Kingdom is working actively with other countries to build on the momentum generated.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. In the new situation of the Croat-Moslem agreement in central Bosnia and the truce around Sarajevo, does she agree that a special effort should now be made to keep and extend this welcome pacification, before the opportunity passes, using more UN troops, as recommended by the general on the spot, including forces offered by Turkey, if needed?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we indeed wish to extend the peace-making that has already occurred. We pay tribute to General Rose and the UN troops for the excellent work that they have carried out. I believe that the agreements are placing considerable extra demands on UNPROFOR, and that is why we have said that we are prepared to make a substantial extra contribution as part of the wider international effort. I can tell my noble friend that discussions are going on in New York at this very time with potential troop contributors to see how we can move forward as quickly as possible. There is obviously a complication about neighbouring countries and where troops, if offered, might be deployed within the region. I believe that there may be a way of working that out. We have a unique opportunity at this time to build on the peace agreements that have been achieved; and we intend to do so.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that from all parts of this House there will be a warm welcome for the role that Her Majesty's Government have apparently been playing in trying to bring together an effective response to the UN request? Can she say a little more as to when she thinks an agreement can be reached? Does she share my view that it is very urgent that the troops be quickly on the ground in order to substantiate the negotiations so effectively carried out by the United Nations, including General Rose?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety on this matter. I cannot give him a definite time. All I can tell him is that our representative at the United Nations is meeting with
1430
his fellow representatives there. We believe that it is important that other countries respond positively to the UNPROFOR request. We have a really important opportunity to secure progress on the ground. Noble Lords may like to know that yesterday the first trams for 23 months ran in Sarajevo as a result of work by engineers and others supplied by this country. They and the Americans are already working on the restoration of water, power and sanitation in Sarajevo. We want to see that kind of work right across Bosnia.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do I understand that the noble Baroness is saying that the Government have not yet made up their mind to send troops; that it is conditional upon other countries sending troops; and that they are not going to respond to the request of General Rose?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it would be fair to say that there is no final decision. Being the second largest contributor, I believe it right that others should contribute too. That is why our efforts have been to make sure that General Rose gets the kind of numbers that he needs. We certainly could not supply those kind of numbers ourselves.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the Russians continue to be co-operative and helpful in influencing the Serbs, who do not respond very well to being bullied?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes, indeed the Russians are being helpful. We need their help very much because the Krajina Serb problem needs solving just as much as all the other problems.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the sad features of the situation has been the inability of the European Union to play a positive part in these proceedings? Will she confirm that the matter is now reaching settlement between the large powers to the exclusion of Europe, which has the problem on its doorstep? Can she now tell us the status of the European peace effort and particularly the status of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who has been responsible for those negotiations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, as the European Union's representative, continues to work alongside all the other efforts that are taking place; and, of course, individual European nations have contributed very largely to the success of UNPROFOR.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, would the Minister confirm that some 19 countries are today discussing in New York sending further UN troops to Bosnia? If that report is right, could she be a little more forthcoming as to what the British contribution to that extra force will be?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I regret, my Lords, no, not at present.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this is a classic case of willing the ends and not the means? Does she agree that it is intolerable that

1431
the commander that we appointed, who has asked for positive help for a purpose with which we all agree, should not be given the means to carry out his job?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the commander is appointed by the United Nations. We shall play our role, but it is not right that Britain alone should bear an increasing amount. We must bear it with others including the French and the Dutch as well as many nations who have not yet put in any troops.

Mountain Rescue
3.2 p.m.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now license emergency position indication radio beacons (EPIRB) for land use in order to help reduce the cost of search and rescue.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not allow the use of EPIRBs on land, so as to maintain the integrity of the EPIRB system for maritime and aeronautical purposes.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Can he say what steps are being taken by the Government to deal with the ever growing problem of loss of life on mountains?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad to say that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Sir Hector Monro, recently announced the funding of a study by the Mountain Rescue Committee into incidents in which the mountain rescue teams have been involved during the past 10 years. That will provide vital information on the main contributing factors.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, can the Minister advise whether any consideration has been given to devices such as transponders as a means of tracing people who are lost? I understand that the transponder is used by the Tracker system for finding lost motor cars. Can the same principle be applied to lost human beings?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is yes, they could be so used. But the difficulty is that many false alarms are set off at sea. Some 90 per cent. of all alerts turn out to be false alarms. That would put a great burden on our rescue services. The Radiocommunications Agency is open to suggestions from people who are concerned about those who are lost in mountains.
Lord Peston: My Lords, would the Minister clarify his answer to his noble friend? Is he saying that he does not recommend that we all acquire transponders? Many of us are in the habit of getting lost from time to time, but is he implying that if we acquire those items it will not help much anyway because they frequently do not work?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no, they work very well indeed. The trouble is that many people let them off inadvertently and that creates a great burden for the rescue service.

Decision-Making: Student Education
3.5 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth rose to call attention to the case for teaching students the importance of reaching decisions on political and other issues on grounds of logic rather than emotion; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, for many years I have wondered whether I might take the risk of suggesting how, to a minor extent, academics could help students to disentangle emotional viewpoints from common sense. If one agrees that, even here in England, to a great extent un-thought out reaction is the governing factor in people's views, anything that could be done to help them analyse their emotions and thought processes so as to arrive at logical conclusions would be useful. The problem is that people's outlooks are very largely determined by their own experiences in life—which are sometimes traumatic, remote or unusual and often influenced by the press.
There follows another aspect to the matter. If one knows why people think as they do, illogical though it may appear to be, it can help toward a better understanding of others' standpoints on controversial issues. There are clearly the counter-claims of the bias in religious convictions. However, bearing in mind that there are at least five major faiths, all of which seem to believe that they alone are right, there must even here be some common ground.
The purpose of the Motion is to suggest just one possible approach; namely, that under some university discipline students should have to consider dramatic situations of the past and analyse their own points of view about them, both emotionally and logically. That sort of exercise could lead to modern problems being given the same approach and one hopes that thereby to some extent people could separate their emotions from their logic.
Unfortunately, whatever we do in this small way, few persons are capable of analysing the several—I say again, several —complicated sentiments which affect their decisions. It seems part of human nature. I end by saying that teachers have hoped in the past that education would provide a magic formula for those problems. That has not yet been shown.
While I am speaking, I must say that nowadays there is a tendency to believe that events in political and public life are always motivated by a single factor and that can be very unfair, except perhaps when the major motive is just personal or party gain. In the latter area, party political ambitions seem to have ousted the old ethic: to serve one's country's best interests first.
Putting that aside, I shall digress and illustrate my theme from a personal and lighter example. As a young man I owned an MG sports car. I decided to visit an aged aunt. On analysis, there were three motivations. First, I hoped that she would enjoy my visit. Secondly, I wanted

1433
a run in the car. Thirdly, she might leave me something in her will. That is a rather old fashioned and silly example perhaps, but all three motives come from common sense. It is important to realise that people's motives are mixed and are not all the same. For example, a politician may do something because he is motivated by several different reasons, both for and against an argument. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.10 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to reply to the noble Viscount because I am not exactly clear as to what one is meant to reply. If he tells us that people's motives are mixed, I am sure that no one in your Lordships' House has ever thought the contrary. If he says that much could be done to improve our understanding of the major political issues of our time, to some extent he is criticising what currently takes place in institutions of higher education. And I find that curious in that, so far as I know—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—he himself has had no experience since his undergraduate days (some time back though not as far back as my own) of what actually does happen.
Fortunately for the House and the noble Viscount, the next speaker in the debate will be the noble Earl, Lord Longford. When I first knew him in the mid-1930s he held the appointment of tutor in politics at Christ Church, Oxford. He actually had experience, which he will no doubt share with us, of what it was like to inculcate logic in the consideration of issues of public policy. He will need to be a little careful when he does so because his recollections cover a number of years. As I remember, when appointed he was a supporter of the Conservative Party. Whether his tutorials were affected by that chance collocation, I do not know. At some point in the 1930s his interests and sentiments led him to attend, as an observer, a meeting in Oxford Town Hall addressed by Sir Oswald Mosley. At that meeting there was, as probably nobody here but me recollects, and perhaps my noble friend Lord Blake—
Lord Blake: My Lords, I do. I was there.
Lord Beloff: —a certain amount of disturbance in the course of which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was hit over the head, to put it bluntly. Subsequently he joined the Labour Party. I am not suggesting cause and effect, but it means that he is doubly capable of answering the noble Viscount because he will have taught politics under both flags.
It was suggested that that could be done best not by tackling immediately the themes, issues and problems of our own day, but by the teaching of events in the ancient or medieval world and thereby enabling people to see how specific decisions were reached. That seems to me to be admirable. It is of course not novel in the sense that in the mid-19th century, when we were the leading country in the world economically as well as in other respects, the basic instruction of our then rulers was in the classics. They were no doubt deeply familiar with what was in Caesar's mind when he crossed the
1434
Rubicon or what made Nero prefer his musical practice to serving in the fire brigade. It has therefore been done before, and I think successfully. The decline of classical studies and the rise of so-called modern studies is one of the reasons that this country finds it so difficult to modernise. But that may be an argument for another occasion.
What is at the root of the noble Viscount's perplexity is the question of what we mean by "logic" in this respect. There are two kinds of problem which are covered by that. Normally, by "logic" one would mean showing people—I imagine that in both his incarnations that was done by the noble Earl, Lord Longford—that if they believe one thing, they must also believe the other. It used to be said that if one believed in reducing a country's armed forces, one must also believe in reducing its external commitments. If one believed that the state should spend more money on worthy causes, one must also believe that it should increase taxes or increase borrowing. Those are examples of logic which do not need us to go too far back to illustrate them.
As was hinted by the noble Viscount when he spoke of the diversity of religious opinion, the difficulty is that the logic normally works for most people for most of the time within a specific commitment. That is to say, one begins with a commitment to equality or to hierarchy; to a belief in a revealed religion or a belief in the unaided capacities of human understanding. I am not certain—I shall look forward to hearing other noble Lords with teaching experience—that it is the business of the teacher to try to shift those fundamental beliefs. That is going beyond the explaining of the use of logic to something which comes closer to proselytisation.
In that regard the noble Viscount was perfectly right. Most people believe and act in politics, as in life generally, on the basis of fundamental beliefs, acquired, no doubt in part, from school and from parents. The society in which they are brought up also plays a part. No doubt it could be traced biographically in the case of any individual. But it is what makes people act. If they did not have a set of fundamental beliefs, why should they do anything at all? Those beliefs may, and often do, produce events which we regard as catastrophic. In today's Question Time we again went back to Bosnia. What is the source of the problem? It is the belief on the part of the Serbs that they are entitled to hold any territory which the medieval Serbian kingdom may at one time or another have claimed; the views of the Croats which are a mirror image of that; and the views of the unfortunate Moslems that, having been there for centuries, they are entitled to continue to live a peaceful life with their neighbours.
All those beliefs are held; they are held to the extent, as we have seen, that people are willing not merely to fight but to commit atrocities on their behalf. We must take it for granted that it will take a lot to get rid of anything of that kind and that the best service that those of us who teach can render our students is at least to make them aware that the world is full of people who hold views which they may find odious or inexplicable, but which are part of the world with which, in their adult lives, they will have to deal. That is as true of groups as it is of individuals.

1435
I shall conclude with an individual point about logic. While your Lordships yesterday were devoting yourselves to the no doubt important debate on Sunday opening, I took the opportunity of going to see the opera Katya Kabanová at the Royal Opera House. Always choose art against politics if the possibility arises! Now the plot of that opera which is based upon a Russian play is very simple. Young lady marries middle-aged husband; middle-aged husband goes off on business; young lady succumbs to the blandishments of another man; husband returns; young lady confesses, is miserable, is torn in her emotions and ends her life by jumping into the Volga. That was a perfectly logical action as far as she was concerned. If you believe, as she did, that she had committed an unutterable sin against the religion to which she adhered—the Russian Orthodox Church —ending one's life is very logical. But if this were generalised, if everyone who committed a marital infidelity were to find it necessary to jump into the Volga, to say the least of it, the Volga boatmen would be much incommoded. So one has to take a great deal of care before assuming that what we can accept in the individual is equally acceptable in the collective.
There are no doubt plenty of things that can be brought to the notice of young people which will help them, including, I repeat, the way in which such problems have been treated in great works of art. It is a humble task. Those of us who have been doing it, as in my case, for nearly 60 years know that the rewards are not great in any sense and we do not mind defending what we are doing. No doubt that will be the case as regards those speaking later in the debate.
3.22 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on raising a subject which at least has the merit of making us think for ourselves. We cannot go to our party Whips and say, "What's the party line here?", because presumably there is not one, so the noble Viscount needs to be very much praised. I am also happy to follow someone who is widely regarded as the most entertaining and thought-provoking orator in the House. He lived up to his reputation just now. He made references to my change of party allegiance in the 1930s. I cannot quite remember where he stood in the old days when I supported Randolph Churchill in 1933 in the "King and Country" motion debate. I do not know which party the noble Lord belonged to. Perhaps he can tell us.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I have changed my opinions frequently through the force of circumstance and the external arguments. But never, I think, after a brawl.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, at any rate the noble Lord is well qualified to discuss change of allegiance.
If we have been involved in the academic world or have been student; of these subjects we know that there are various kinds of logic—deductive and inductive logic to start with—and all kinds of logicians. When I was a young man, the father of the noble Earl, Lord Russell—I do not know whether the noble Earl is
1436
present today—was the most distinguished mathematical logician of the day. My tutor in philosophy at Oxford was the terrifying H. W. Joseph. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, if he were here, would subscribe to that description. Joseph poured total scorn on Lord Russell. He regarded him, to put it bluntly, with disdain. He used to titter at the very mention of Lord Russell's name. In those days logicians certainly did not see eye to eye with each other.
Joseph himself came in for some rough treatment. On one occasion I remember going to some kind of philosophical gathering; I cannot think why I was admitted. I was tutor in some subject or other at Christ Church, as the noble Lord mentioned, and I went along with Professor Lindemann, who later became Lord Cherwell. He delivered an address and Joseph got up in his usual style and said, "What does the noble Lord mean by that last phrase?" Lindemann knew the answer to that one. He said, "What does Mr. Joseph mean by 'mean'?" That flummoxed Joseph and he was silenced. These logicians knew the way to pull each other to pieces in the old days.
Then there was my colleague at Christ Church, Freddie, as we called him; Sir Alfred Ayer. He wrote a famous book, very popular with the students, called Language, Truth and Logic, which proved that all these moral concepts were nonsense and that "duty" was an emotive phrase. I remember being in a discussion with Freddie Ayer, later Professor of Logic at London and Oxford. Freddie Ayer was pouring scorn on duty, to the delight of the undergraduates who were at his seminar. I said to him, "I am sure that when the war comes you will do your duty better than I do", which proved to be the case. He joined the Welsh Guards and lasted quite a time there, which is more than I did in the Ox and Bucks. Freddie Ayer knew his duty when the time came. I remember writing a poem about him:
"He mocked his duty with indignant voice That trembles with a passion for the good".
In other words, his logic had nothing to do with his life. That is fair comment on someone and he was quite pleased with the poem.
Later I worked with Sir William Beveridge for three years. He had first-class degrees in Classical Mods. and Mathematics Mods. and Greats at Oxford. He was about as well qualified as anyone could be in the academic world. I remember when I was working for Beveridge someone saying to him, "Would you say that you are the cleverest man in England, Sir William, or would you say that that is true of Maynard Keynes?" He paused, stroked his chin, and said, "Well, inductively it might be me, but deductively Maynard has it". That was one way of looking at logic and that is what we are discussing this afternoon.
This seems to be a time unlimited debate so I shall bring in just one reference to Maynard Keynes. When I was a young man I hoped to be an economist, rather like a poor man's version of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. With that in mind I was working in a stockbroker's office in which Maynard Keynes was some kind of sleeping partner. He was produced one day. I was sat opposite him and he was told that here was a young man who wanted to come and work with him at Cambridge.

1437
I do not know if any noble Lords knew Keynes but he had very penetrating eyes. He bored into me across the table and said, "The trouble is I can't see into your mind". The trouble was that I thought he could see into it a great deal too clearly and did not really approve of what he saw. He said, "I don't know whether you can keep up with us. We claim in Cambridge to be maybe 10, 20 or 50 years ahead. Could you go our pace?" I reached the same conclusion as he did—that I could not go his pace—and so I abandoned that idea of being a professional economist. Noble Lords might ask what was at work there: logic, emotion or a bit of both perhaps? These decisions are very complicated.
When I worked with Beveridge there he was examining hundreds of people and trying to arrive at social truth and to reach conclusions and help humanity. No one would deny that Beveridge helped humanity as much as anyone in this country this century. He had a tremendous passion for the public good. Whatever one likes to call it, that was what motivated Beveridge. Beveridge, as I knew him, lacked one thing. He lacked religion. He used to say to me, first rather proudly and then rather regretfully, that he was brought up without any religion. At the time of his marriage, which was very happy, I was his bottle-washer or acolyte and made some of the arrangements for the marriage. Beveridge was hoping that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop Temple, an old friend from Balliol, would perform the ceremony. But Temple pointed out that Beveridge had not been baptised so he could not be married by Temple. Nevertheless Temple said that he would perform a service of blessing. Beveridge tried to persuade himself that that amounted to the same thing. However, I think the thought worried him and as time went on I think that he regretted his loss of religion.
Finally, we had a debate in the House in 1961 initiated by the father of the noble Earl, Lord Arran. It was based on Christian unity and Beveridge took part. I was delighted of course, but I was a little surprised that he was joining in this great Christian discussion. I said to him after tea,"Master"—I always called him by that title—"which part of the Christian church do you belong to these days?" He paused, so I then said, "When I was at Eton, if you could not get your boy's name down for a house, you could get him put down on the general list". Beveridge liked that idea and said, "All right, put me down on the general list". So at the end of his life Beveridge was on the general list of Christians. He was a wonderful man.
Everybody here has his own experience and has reached conclusions in which that experience is bound to have played a great part. When I was a boy and still at Eton, I went a lot to the Eton Manor Club in Hackney Wick, over which my uncle presided. So I was in contact with the working class in that well-meaning Etonian way. I played rugger. I used to go to camp at Cookham Weir and all the rest of it. That was the kind of thing which a great many Old Etonians in my time were inspired to do by the wonderful sermons which we used to listen to.
Later I taught for the Workers' Educational Association and there I did get some feeling for the
1438
working class movement. That was autonomous and sprung from those who had been deprived of any real opportunities in life. Even so, I was then still able to work for the Conservative research department. That was true when I first became an Oxford don. The noble Lord is entitled to refer to the Mosley meeting. I would much rather he did that than say it was because I got concussion having fallen off a horse in a point-to-point, which is the other explanation for my becoming a Labour supporter. As I have said elsewhere, I became a socialist through reading the Gospels under the influence of my wife with all the logic, passion or whatever word one likes to use.
When one comes to philosophers and their decisions, there was only one Prime Minister who was a philosopher with professional qualifications; namely, A. J. Balfour. It has been said that when he stayed in a famous house he got stuck on the first landing because the staircase then divided; one set of stairs went down to the right and the other to the left. This philosophy king, A. J. Balfour, used to stay there transfixed because the argument for going down the right hand side of the staircase was exactly balanced by the argument for going down the left. He stayed there indefinitely until someone dragged him down. That is the trouble with academic thinkers; of itself, logic does not suffice.
By my late 20s I knew all the economic arguments. For a short while I was a lecturer, but my standing was not comparable to that of people like my noble friend Lord Peston. For a short time I was a lecturer at the LSE. I knew all the economic arguments—Conservative, Labour, Liberal and all the rest of them. Then other factors arose which I have already mentioned.
Therefore, when we come to the crucial decisions in life which affect everybody in this Chamber and beyond, in the end and if we are fortunate, some higher influence helps us. That is something which is higher than logic or what is ordinarily called emotion. As a result it may be that, if we are lucky, we can make a little difference to the world.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I confess to being slightly puzzled when I read the Motion for today's debate because I have always thought that most teachers in universities did try to teach students to study the evidence and not justify their opinions by repeating, however sincerely, slogans.
Anyone who has studied British history at a university in the past 50 years or more could hardly have failed to do what the noble Viscount wants. He wants universities to take an historical event and see how men and women long ago regarded the issues of their times. Now nearly all history students will have had to study the Civil War in the 17th century and consider the evidence. Indeed, we have in this House two of the foremost experts on the Civil War who have been teaching students to do this very thing; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. They have done what the noble Viscount wants.
The trouble is that there are a lot of other things that a university teacher ought to promote. He should somehow teach his students how to acquire knowledge

1439
and how to express themselves in clear, eloquent English. He should teach them to learn from criticism of their own efforts where they could do better and also, if they can, to rebut the criticism of their teacher and to articulate their dissent decently and without venom. Good manners in argument are the hallmark of a scholar, even if w can all think of great scholars who were famed for their bad manners and their talent for lacerating their adversaries in argument. These are things which dons should do. I am afraid that very few of us consciously teach our students all these things.
Of course, there are indeed remarkable teachers who inspire their students not by their devotion to scrupulous dissection of the evidence but by the strength of their emotion. E. P. Thompson, who died the other day, was just such a one. He campaigned against the Cold War and for nuclear disarmament. He satirised with equal vehemence Stalinism and Thatcherism. He savaged the Establishment and received wisdom. His book The Making of the English Working Class is regarded by many as a classic in social history. But no one ever thought of praising E. P. Thompson for being dispassionate.
Nor did that word spring to mind when one thought of his exact opposite, the ultra-conservative don at Peterhouse, Maurice Cowling, who pulverised liberalism and socialism. Indeed, he preferred to criticise his own side. For Cowling, the conservative philosopher, Michael Oakeshott, was guilty for not endorsing Christianity and he thought that his own mentor, the Christian historian Herbert Butterfield, was far too polite to his adversaries. Yet Cowling influenced a generation of Conservative students at Cambridge.
Both Thompson and Cowling no doubt regarded themselves as being on the side of clear cool thinking, however much some of us regarded them as being carried away by gusts of emotion and failing to understand the nature of politics itself. Still, it could well be argued that university discourse in the past 25 years would have been the poorer without their voices.
It is precisely because I distrust teachers who are dedicated to a cause that I am wary of courses to make students more politically aware, if only because those who want to teach such courses may well be keener to indoctrinate than to analyse. I am also sceptical of courses on western civilisation, or great books, or introductions to contemporary culture. Wisdom cannot be taught. Wisdom is something that is hidden in the folds of a subject. Some manage to acquire it and some do not.
I doubt whether we ought to go overboard for subjects that are suddenly declared to be specially relevant to today's problems. When the League of Nations was founded after the First World War, chairs and departments of public international law were created: for was it not self-evident that what had happened in 1914 had been the breakdown of international law? Similarly, after 1945 when the atom bomb was dropped, high-minded people argued that we need to understand more about the nature of science and the problems that it raises, so departments of the history and philosophy of science were established in astonishing numbers at universities. Very few of those
1440
chairs in public international law exist today. They have been turned into chairs in other branches of the law. I wonder how many of the departments of the history and philosophy of science will be found to be flourishing in the year 2010.
But I am not entirely negative about the Motion. I do believe that universities can train their students to consider evidence dispassionately. I do believe in slightly less specialisation. I think that scientists should be introduced to the ethical problems that they will encounter as scientists. I want economists to be introduced to sociology. I want sociologists to be introduced to old fashioned political theory, and I want modern linguists to study the institutions of the country whose language they are studying.
I remember a course which the philosopher the late Susan Stebbing used to give on "Straight and Crooked Thinking". A course on the straight and crooked use of statistics would be especially welcome today to expose the answers that civil servants give to their Ministers for answering Parliamentary Questions.
The noble Viscount wants universities to make their students understand why people are swayed by emotion as well as by reason. One of Britain's internationally most famous intellectuals, Sir Isaiah Berlin, has devoted his life to doing that. He has reminded us in a series of books and lectures that the German and Russian thinkers of the 19th century wrote in defiance of the rationalism of Locke and Hume and the 18th century French philosophes of the Enlightenment. Those German thinkers, said Berlin, said that human beings are moved more by their culture than by reason—by the language they spoke, their laws, their religion, their sense of belonging to a community or nation. Marx, said Berlin, was wrong: national self-consciousness was more powerful than class solidarity. And can we not see: today that that is true all over the world?
I agree with the noble Viscount that all university teachers ought to offer up the prayer that Aristophanes put into the mouth of Euripides in The Frogs:
"When ranged in argument may I reason aright".
At the end of last year I made a somewhat astringent speech in the House criticising the over-bureaucratic method of monitoring teaching in universities, but I do not question the need to monitor university teaching. Last summer I attended a vast international conference in Jerusalem about the need to promote democracy in a multi-racial society. I was appalled by the incoherent mutterings and mumblings of some of the British contingent from our newest universities. I was appalled also when one professor began by denouncing as a capitalist ploy the need to make pupils at school or students at university more fit to get jobs.
So I thank the noble Viscount for tabling this Motion, but I think that there is a danger in thinking that one can empty political problems of emotion. As was said by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the name of Bertrand Russell—the late father of the noble Earl, Lord Russell —will be for ever immortal as the man who changed logic and the thinking about logic at the turn of the last century. But when he turned to politics, his views were less convincing. What stands in the way, he asked, of stopping war, controlling the birth rate, and improving

1441
living standards? "Only the evil passions of human minds", he answered. Or again, he advocated that whenever disputes between nations occurred, we should substitute for the names of those nations the symbols x, y and z. That algebraic formula would remove, he thought, the vulgar emotional prejudices in the dispute in question. I wish we could do that. I wish it was as easy as that. But we can't and it isn't.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I participate in this afternoon's debate with a good deal of trepidation. A number of extremely distinguished academics are taking part in the debate. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, my noble friend Lord Longford and the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I am bound to say that I was extremely nervous about the whole project until I learnt that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, had only recently read the work of E. P. Thompson on the poverty of theory, in which I became immersed some three weeks ago and to the effectiveness of which I should like to pay some small testimony.
I would not wish to approach the Motion solely from the aspect of university teachers and university students. There is a good reason for that: if I am to draw on my personal experience—and I am encouraged to do so to a modest degree by my noble friend Lord Longford—I never went to a university; I went to a grammar school. Indeed, many of your Lordships have not had the advantage of going to university, so, if I may, I prefer to use the words "teacher" and "student" in their widest sense.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, ventured to make a judgment between logic and emotion. I think that it is a little dangerous to set one against the other because ultimately each is part of the other if only in terms of memory and the impact of human experience upon the human mind.
I am a bit discouraged about the use of logic. Your Lordships will recall that during the course of a debate on the Maastricht Treaty, to which I shall not refer again, I endeavoured in a series of lengthy arguments, using the most impeccable logic that I could command, to get your Lordships to reject the concept that had been advanced by both Front Benches. I failed in that, except perhaps in the case of one noble Lord (whose name I shall not isolate for fear of embarrassing him) who was converted by the argument.
I discuss logic on its own and for good reason. There is a story said to be recounted by Chesterton which your Lordships will immediately recall. It is of three learned gentlemen, all academics, who met to see whether they could find the causes of drunkenness. On the first night they drank whisky and water and they got drunk. On the second night they drank gin and water and they got dunk. On the third night they drank vodka and water and they got drunk. They came to the logical conclusions that, as water was the only common factor in all three instances, water caused drunkenness. So logic in that sense can be a little deceptive.
Perhaps I may also refer your Lordships to the holocaust. Once the Nazi leadership during the war
1442
came to the conclusion—for good or ill, for whatever reason, as a result of whatever instinct and for whatever sense of values it possessed—that the Jews were the basic cause of all the evils which were apparently inflicted on the Aryan race and on Nazi Germany, the steps to the holocaust were completely logical. If one believed that the Jews should not exist, the holocaust and the extermination camps were a logical consequence.
Finally, in the field of economics, in which my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Desai are prominent, a computer on the basis of data fed into it will produce a completely logical response. That is inevitable because if one feeds the same data into a computer it will come out with the inevitable logic. That somewhat depresses me. The results of computerised economics in the shape of computer models, all reasoning logically have, to say the least, been slightly depressing during the past 10 years. Instinct has often proved to be a far better guide to what is likely to happen to the economy.
I turn now to the role of the senses. We all have seven senses and we all suffer pain and pleasure. Aside from the reasoning that we employ and the tuition that we are given, experiences affect us most profoundly. It is often said particularly by people of a Conservative philosophy: human nature being what it is, what can one expect? The inevitable assumption is that human nature is essentially weak and there is something slightly defective about it. Human nature being what it is, one can expect only whatever evil is already there. That is a fundamental misconception. Surely it is basic human nature to react to the environment and to change it and in the process of changing it to become changed oneself. That is the essence of the philosophy of E. P. Thompson, that we are all the product of an accumulated experience. We all judge on the basis of values that we have formed not only as a result of the introspection in which we from time to time engage when trying to reason things out but of the experiences to which our entire bodies have been subjected.
Once one considers that it becomes clear that one cannot isolate logic from emotion. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was slightly autobiographical; perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if briefly I follow the same course. When I was at a grammar school in Lincolnshire I had a formidable history and literature teacher, a middle-aged lady. To this day I remember her describing the rise of the British Empire and the amount of the globe that it then occupied. She illustrated it graphically by reference to a map shown on a slide projector, with the areas highlighted in red. She spoke with pride and indeed passion. She was not going to make a mere academic exercise of teaching us how the Empire had grown; she was vibrant to the point where her hair almost shook. She was proud of the growth of the British Empire and the part that the British people had played in it.
Being an impressionable person I was most convinced by that. I thought, "Well, you are not merely a teacher by rote; you really believe in what you are saying". So I ventured to study the British Empire, as it was then called, and inevitably landed up in the Conservative Party in the Junior Imperial League in

1443
North Paddington. I regret to say that there a mixture of both logic and emotion finally caused me to leave that pleasant experience behind me and to take on almost the opposite philosophy. But one thing I am certain of: had it been left to logic alone—had no sense of values being involved—the result would have been very different.
From time to time we must wonder where we obtain a sense of values from. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, gave us a clue. We search back into our lives to discover where we obtained our concepts of justice, honour and integrity and a conviction of the necessity for compassion. Surely the answer is that we did not get them purely from logic; we acquired them from a combination of experiences in our lives which every day leave us different from what we were the previous day. In changing our environment—and I use "environment" in its widest sense as being everything external to oneself—the genius of the human race is that it becomes changed in the process.
That makes me believe that one should never insert in a Motion of this kind, "logic rather than emotion", because emotions are very important indeed. Emotions make us rethink and in the process of doing so we can once again become emotional. Who can doubt, for example, the history as it will emerge of the Balkan States? It would not have been quite the same had not the human senses been assailed visually by the television pictures of the misery in Sarajevo. If that had been conveyed to us merely in print, would the reaction of the population have been the same? Therefore, emotions must play their part.
Teachers have been referred to frequently in the debate. We need to regard teachers much more highly than we do at present. We should reflect on what we all owe to those who taught us, sometimes under conditions of great difficulty. Those of us who have had a modest degree of success, or otherwise, should ask ourselves where we would have been had not a sense of values been inculcated into us and had we not been taught systems of logic. If we reflect on that we must surely see that the teaching profession should be elevated to a far higher level than appears to be politically feasible or convenient at the present time.
Above all, the function of a teacher is to inculcate in students—whether university or grammar, secondary or primary school—a. love of learning. That is the vital factor for the teaching profession. In this country we should be extreme. y proud that our teaching profession generally has succeeded in that to a great degree.
4.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, a contribution from these Benches might have been expected on the Motion brought forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, although in this case it will not proceed out of any expertise or experience in teaching, but will be based on general principles.
In judging any issue, one starts to make a judgment at some point on a line. No doubt that is a different point for each of us, but it is on a line. At one end of that line logic is more predominant; at the other end, emotion is more predominant As with other speakers in the debate so far, I am bound to incline to the view that this matter
1444
must be a "both/and" rather than an "either/or". But that said, logic must in a sense be primary. Anybody who has been at a public meeting where there is a lack of accurate information, the lack of an ability to think clearly and the lack of ability by the leadership of the meeting to help people to think clearly, will know the utter frustration which results for everybody and for individuals. Therefore, in a sense, logic must be primary in the judging of issues.
One of the essential ingredients is the provision of information for decision making. That means that there is a great responsibility upon the suppliers of information so that they do not abuse that responsibility by partiality or by selectivity in their presentation of information. That applies whether it is the academic historian writing a work of history or whether it is those in the profession of journalism, through whatever medium.
Experience seems to show in our present times that through the medium of television, harrowing pictures can be shown of parts of the world where there is hunger and deprivation to an extreme degree. Those pictures bring forth a great response because of the emotions that are aroused. I make no valued judgment about that because it is surely not to be regarded as anything but good. But is prime time also given —I do not believe that it is in the same proportion—to presenting the historical and economic factors so that people may learn why those things are as they are? In that example, in our public life through public communications, emotion seems to have precedence over logical thinking.
On the other hand, in making decisions as a whole—the whole process rather than merely the start where logic must be primary—emotion has its proper place. Would William Wilberforce have committed his political life to the great cause which he did unless he was deeply moved by human suffering over a long period and would he have done so in the face of enormous difficulties and opposition? There is a proper place for emotion.
Nearly a decade ago in my present capacity as the visitor of one of the Oxford colleges, I was looking from the high table towards the undergraduates and l asked my neighbour, a fellow of the college, what they would be doing next in their lives. Now at that focal point, that place of history and culture, a place which for centuries has been a preparation for service, my neighbour named a certain occupation in which the financial rewards are very great. He said that 25 per cent. would he going into that occupation. Perhaps he exaggerated, but his feelings about it were very clear to me.
A young person of ability assessing how he will spend his life might, by logic, conclude that the amassing of personal fortune is by far the most logical way, given his ability, to spend that life. Surely the element of emotion is needed to play a part in that vital life decision which people of ability need to make for the benefit of everyone else. Other less self-regarding factors need to be taken into account in the making of such a decision.
Therefore, as other noble Lords have said, truth is many-sided. There needs to be room for the intuitive because the intuitive is built in as part of our human

1445
nature. It seems to me that the evidence from our life today is that managing personal relationships is being found, in the conditions of today, to be an extremely difficult matter, especially by young people, as we heard earlier today during Question Time. Therefore, in the teaching of students, I submit that there needs to be not only that essential emphasis on logical thinking, but also that to which, perhaps, not so much attention is being given in a formal sense; namely, training in how to handle the emotional side of our natures.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I enter the debate with some trepidation. Quite the favourite Christmas card that my wife and I received last year showed that wonderful Christian concept of a lion and a lamb lying down together. It is a wonderful concept, but entirely illogical. Having fallen among academic lions, I am bound to say that I feel some sympathy this afternoon with that lamb, although I am encouraged while standing here because, be it academic, politician or churchman, it seems to me that we have a common purpose in life which is the carrying forward of society and, if possible, its improvement.
I once owned a black labrador dog who was an incurable romantic. Members of the House who have kept such a dog will recognise both the type and the impossibility of describing him within the bounds of language which is permitted in this Chamber. Despite all reasonable precautions, the dog succeeded one night in doing his vanishing dog act. It was a dark winter's evening and, unfortunately, he forgot his Highway Code: a passing car smashed his hind legs quite badly. Logic dictated that the sensible course of action was to have the dog put down. That would save the vet and myself much trouble and my family a deal of worry and agitation; and, indeed, would also save my neighbours considerable worry and agitation. Emotion suggested expensive surgery and treatment, immense trouble for the vet and great trouble for myself and my family, followed by a long convalescence. The outcome of that sorry tale does not matter here, but the dilemma that it illustrates is very relevant. Again, I am encouraged by the fact that Benjamin Disraeli, at the height of his authority, advanced the view that Britain is not governed by logic.
Coming to this House, as I do, without any parliamentary background and being unused to the practice of debating the most minute points, I must confess that it is still a great pleasure, as well as an honour, to sit in this Chamber and both watch and listen to the cut and thrust of debate. How often one hears a speech of sparkling clarity (and impeccable logic from the point of view of the speaker) only to find it followed by another speech of brilliant lucidity (and impeccable logic from the point of view of the responder) which is the reciprocal of the first speech and entirely refutes the position taken. There are rare occasions when there appears to be a third strand of logic at work, although that is not so easy to detect. Of course, there are the
1446
wonderful non-partisan debates, which do not happen quite so often, where the speeches glitter with as many facets as a sparkling diamond.
We sit here with a flourishing diversity of view and we are asked to consider,
"the case for teaching students the importance of reaching decisions on political and other issues on [the basis] of logic".
Where would this House or Parliament be if human affairs could be entirely regulated by cold logic? I have given limited thought to the question of whether a logical society exists, but my knowledge leads me to the conclusion that there is no such thing so far as concerns mankind. A hive of bees might, perhaps, be considered an entirely logical society, but I fear that we shall never see that Utopian state as long as mankind is around. I am thankful for that fact.
If I am correct—and experience teaches me that it is dangerous to hold any views too positively and too inflexibly—then, on the question of educating students, we are thrust back to the problem that we face here each day in rather a different way. How can students learn to undertake their business when there are often as many views present as there are people to express them? How do they learn to respect and take into account the views of the many who might disagree with them? How do they learn to consider wider perspectives and views other than those of their immediate circle? I know of only one sure route: learning from hard experience and, even more importantly, from one's own mistakes.
We were all students at one time. We need to remember that by far and away the greater number of students in this country do not attend universities, even if you consider the new classification which has brought the old polytechnic sector into universities. In many ways, I sometimes feel that I am still a student. How many of us can stand up and say that today we hold the same views as we held when we were young, and that harsh experience and hard knocks have not had their effect? I certainly cannot. I believe that students are exceedingly fortunate. We should not expect them to be brought together to conform with what we immediately think. Let them enjoy their freedom and their own ways. Harsh reality will catch up with them quite soon enough.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter. In the short time that I have been here—namely, about three years or so—I do not recall speaking on such a splendid and abstract subject. Having been an academic all my life, I prefer speaking on splendid and abstract subjects about which I know more than about practical affairs.
I believe that the noble Viscount wants us not merely to contrast logic with emotion. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, when the late Bertrand Russell revolutionised logic at the end of the last century he reduced it to a very dry and axiomatic subject. That logic is not often of very much use to statesmen or philosophers. The noble Viscount would like us to rely more on reason than unreason. He would like people to be taught to come to decisions on the basis of reasoned arguments

1447
—that is, if I may put it this way, the balancing of costs and benefits rather than merely being driven by unreason or irrationalities.
I am sure that the noble Viscount would agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington that, so far as concerns emotion, there is noble emotion which he would not want to exclude from anyone's upbringing or system of values. What the noble Viscount fears more than emotion is unreason. When unreason drives people to take certain decisions, he is probably quite right to worry that we may all go astray.
Economists have a very simple answer to such problems. We assume that people behave rationally and that that is the end of the matter. We assume that people behave as if they do not take into account irrational sentiments and emotions. However, if they do take irrational sentiments and emotions into account, we proceed to analyse their unreason in a rational way. If someone is a drug addict, we find out precisely what is irrational in his behaviour. When nations impose tariffs we claim that is an irrational thing to do, but we analyse it and say it is done because it gives one group an advantage against another group.
Of course this is a splendid way of arriving at conclusions if one can analyse matters in that way. There is a famous story of an economist named William Stanley Jevons who received a splendid and rather generous offer to go to Australia to teach. He was teaching in Manchester when he received the offer. He carefully analysed the costs and benefits of such a move and realised that he should go to Australia. He calculated all the costs and benefits of the move in great detail. He arrived at the conclusion that the ratio of benefits to costs was in favour of his going to Australia. However, he suddenly realised that he had failed to take one factor into account; namely, that he did not want to go to Australia. When he took that factor into account, the cost/benefit ratio favoured not going to Australia. Clearly, when making a decision one has to take into account one's irrational or primitive preferences and emotions and later proceed to a rational analysis.
I believe the noble Viscount has raised two issues in this debate. One is how we should be taught to reach decisions on the basis of reason and logic rather than unreason. The noble Viscount would like universities to go further down that road with their students. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he said that universities try to do exactly that. A student may hear cogent arguments from two, three or four people who, however, may be saying completely contradictory things. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to that point. However, we hope that sooner or later students will learn what decision to arrive at having heard cogent but contradictory arguments. That is what we try to teach students to do. It is a mistake to believe that universities teach students anything useful or practical. Universities are not good places in which to learn anything useful or practical. Useful and practical subjects can be taught much quicker outside universities. However, universities teach people how to think for themselves and how to arrive at decisions by
1448
themselves. The ability to think for oneself is an extremely rare talent and one that is often lacking in people.
Rather than teaching students to arrive at the correct conclusion, I would rather teach my students scepticism. I should like to teach them not to accept any argument that is put before them at its face value but to think it out for themselves. If people can think for themselves they are much more likely to arrive at the correct conclusion, especially if they have been taught how to think for themselves rather than relying on authority or someone else's say-so. It would be a great mistake to reach a conclusion because it is a popular conclusion. It would also be wrong to reach a conclusion because it is what one has always believed in. One sometimes has to change one's ideas.
Secondly, the noble Viscount also wants us to be able to analyse why people commit irrational acts. That covers the much wider area of history and social sciences. Historians and social scientists try to analyse irrational actions night and day. Perhaps they do not do that very well, and perhaps they have not succeeded in arriving at answers to the deeper questions of life—for example, why there is conflict. People used to think rather crudely that somehow conflicts exist because of poverty. People used to assume there was a simple economic reason for conflict. People used to declare that if only there was less poverty and more prosperity, people would stop fighting each other.
People also used to think that with the growth of knowledge and enlightenment, belief in religion would decline and people would become more rational. I believe we have now reached the conclusion that we do not quite know why conflict exists despite the existence of prosperity. Why is there such trouble in Yugoslavia, for example? In the early 1980s we used to hold Yugoslavia up as a rare example of a society which had avoided both capitalism and Stalinism; as a society which had achieved co-operation among its workers and a good federal system, and had given tremendous autonomy to its regions. Yugoslavia was considered to be an ideal place and a prosperous and friendly country where multiculturalism was recognised. But suddenly it exploded into the grimmest picture of irrationality that has occurred, certainly in post-war Europe.
I do not believe we understand why people behave the way they do when one can perfectly reasonably' point out to them that it is not in their interest, and they will not achieve what they want to achieve, by behaving in that way. That remains a challenge because one thing we have learnt is that we no longer hold the faith the 19th century philosophers held that somehow people are rational or will become more and more rational as time passes. I believe we take the slightly broader intellectual view that somehow reason and unreason are strangely mixed in people's characters, and it is hard to disentangle them and analyse why people behave the way that they do.
My next remark may reveal a slightly partisan view. Society has devoted much money to splitting the atom or to developing accelerators which may cost £500 million or £700 million to enable atoms to collide with one other at great speed. Society has also spent much

1449
money on sending people into space and on researching the general theory of matter. In comparison, we spend little money on finding out why people behave irrationally or why societies are in such difficulties. I am not referring to any particular government. I believe that by and large as regards the more important and bloodier questions of life, society devotes far too few resources to finding out why we behave the way we do.
We devote enormous resources to studying inanimate, controllable matter, or even animate matter as that can sometimes be controlled as in the field of biology. However, we always obtain good results from that. We do not devote enormous resources to the social sciences because we tend to question whether we will discover anything at all from that research. However, I believe that in many ways, if we are to minimise further bloodshed in the future—I do not know how successful we will be in that—we need to think through the matter that the noble Viscount has raised much more seriously. Why is it that despite knowing that reason is better than unreason, or that logic is definitely better than base emotion, people continue behaving not only unreasonably but often, unfortunately, they find that only unreason succeeds in obtaining for them what they want? If they are reasonable, they do not achieve what they want.
The noble Viscount has pointed out a paradox. I can think about this matter as hard as I can, but I still do not know why people behave as they do. I hope that I teach my students to behave if not reasonably at least to be able to think straight and to arrive at conclusions by balancing costs and benefits. However, it is hard to predict what they will do in the future and how they will develop in the future. After all, we must recall that the majority of post-war Prime Ministers were Oxford graduates.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for introducing this debate. I am bound to say that it has turned out to be rather more interesting than I expected. I must tell my noble friend Lord Longford that he was entirely correct to say that there is no party line on these matters. Indeed, I would go further and say I am not even sure that I shall agree with my own speech by the time I reach the end of it.
I can say about the debate in general that if all that is being asserted is that it is desirable for young people to be taught to think logically and even to have some acquaintance with formal logic, none of us would disagree. I would go further and support the view of my noble friend Lord Glenamara, who argued some years ago that the earlier that happens, the better. For example, it was one of the many merits of what was then called the "new maths" that it tried to teach children the concepts of elementary logic rather than the rote learning of tables, the significance of which was beyond them.
More specifically on the subject before us, the point that I must make is that most of the students I have taught over the years have had little or no interest in
1450
politics. This may seem surprising, given that most of them have specialised in one or other of the social sciences. But, surprising or not, I cannot say that I regard it as a bad thing. Indeed I must confess that when I was a student I had virtually no interest in politics, in the sense of current affairs. I knew I was a Labour supporter and certainly not a Tory, but that was that. There were much better things to do as an undergraduate than to get involved with the students' union or the main political societies. I think that is still the case, even though 18 year-olds now have the vote. Incidentally, I was most interested in hearing several noble Lords say over time they have changed their political views. I have stuck steadfastly to two views. No matter how black the day or how bad the score, I support Labour and I support the Arsenal Football Club.
My attitude as an undergraduate is, I think, germane to the present debate. I am sympathetic to the cause of rationality; but I have to say that I do not believe that what side one is on or one's moral beliefs are determined in quite such a cold-blooded way. It is more a matter of emotion and of gut feeling; and in my judgment it is none the worse for that. To give an obvious example, it is clear to me that it is wrong to pursue policies which make the poor poorer. I may try to persuade you of that, my Lords, but if you cannot see it clear, so to speak, I do not see how logic can help.
More generally, although I was brought up in the utilitarian tradition, I find utilitarianism a most unattractive philosophy. To put it at its mildest, to justify doing what is right on the grounds that it is useful or that it generates a net positive social or economic benefit perverts what is meant by doing right. It is wrong to behave badly towards others, because behaving badly is wrong, not because behaving well is useful. The same goes for other precepts of good behaviour.
This does not mean that rational analysis does not matter. The investigation of the probable consequences of one's actions is important, but rational analysis is not all that matters. In my opinion, the rational or utilitarian life is both personally boring and destructive of our finest values. Of course there are practical difficulties, and we have all studied them as students. Killing people is wrong; but there are countless works of philosophy and theology which set out, frequently in terms of the greater good, when it is perfectly permissible to kill the enemy in wartime. Bribery is wrong, but should British industry oil the wheels of commerce when others are doing it and there is no other way of landing a contract?
In teaching, my view has been above all that one has a loyalty to the subject. There is an academic discipline to be understood and one's job is to help the student to understand it. It has always seemed to me—I think other noble Lords would agree—that one wishes to help the student to learn rather than to teach him or her per se. I would go further. I have always said that I can teach macro-economics in about one term, or two at the most; but that does not lead to the conclusion that degree courses are too long: quite the contrary, because understanding takes much longer than gaining the ability to produce a decent set of exam answers. Education is there to facilitate understanding, and that takes time. I, for one, still find myself suddenly

1451
appreciating the significance of what I was taught 40 years ago, not least in the fields of political theory and philosophy. The great philosopher Karl Popper taught us that what was most important was the critical attitude, the sceptism that my noble friend Lord Desai referred to.
As to my interpretation of the present debate, I wish my students to ask questions and to query what they are reading. But that too leads to a paradox, because they have to master enough of their subject before criticism is worthwhile. I do not believe in what may be called the "democracy of the intellect". Criticism which is based on ignorance is tedious and unhelpful. Your Lordships know how much I enjoy being a Member of your Lordships' House When the time comes, of course, I shall have to vote for reform or even abolition; but in the meantime I make the most of it. When I am asked what I most like about your Lordships' House, I say what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said: that good manners in argument are primary. That is what your Lordships' House excels at.
On a more technical matter, I should like to refer to a particular problem encountered in economics. There is a wide tendency to misunderstand the nature of correlation. That two variables are closely correlated —for example, the change in MO and in GDP at current prices—does not tell you which of them causes the other or even whether there is a causal relationship between them. Furthermore, if two variables appear to be uncorrelated that does not imply a lack of causation. I sometimes think that if I were allowed one wish to improve rational discourse it would be that everybody would understand this simple proposition that I have just enunciated.
It is important to recognise that there are many forms of discourse. Academic disciplines have their own styles, and we ought to show some sympathy for the way our colleagues approach problems, no matter how much their way may differ from our own. Many years ago, as a young lecturer I taught simple economics to scientists and engineers at Imperial College, London. I hasten to add that I did that not out of a sense of public responsibility but strictly for the money. They had been instructed in what I may call "Newtonian mechanics", and they believed there was a method which could be applied to solve e very problem. It was all a matter of knowing what the method was and then applying it. They were extremely irritated by a subject—my own —in which for many questions there were no answers while for others there were too many answers. They found it difficult to cope with an alleged academic discipline in which it was quite usual to say "I do not know" or "I am not sure".
I must add, to my regret, that although a few of them were interested in the arts, I could never persuade them to abandon the view that the study of literature was very much easier than the study of physics, and that to consider all this in terms of a hierarchy of difficulty was to show a profound misunderstanding of all things intellectual. I regret to say that there are still natural scientists who hold such opinions. This is germane to today's debate, because there is a danger of going from the desirabiliity of being logical to the error of assuming
1452
that all problems are solvable and that all ignorance is wilful or could be removed by more logical effort. There is also the danger of under-valuing all sorts of human discourse; the style of taste and of understanding. To put it bluntly—here I am following a point made by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington—one may be logical, but starting from premises which are nonsensical one will arrive at conclusions which are at least equally so.
My conclusion is that I do not advocate irrationality, but I do believe that our emotions are central to our existence. They are not incompatible with logic but in a sense they define the universe to which logic may be applied. What I am opposed to is a narrow logicality which seeks to replace good sense. Here I echo some remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. All of us in your Lordships' House hear our colleagues make some excellent logical arguments but deep down we know they are mistaken, even though at the time we are not sure why. I hope we continue to use our judgment and can convey to young people how important that is.
4.40 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for the opportunity to debate such a fascinating and challenging Motion. It has taken us into areas of philosophical abstraction where, if the Government had an interest, they have no domain. I hope that that allows me to make some personal observations without placing my occupation in your Lordships' House in jeopardy.
The Motion in the name of the noble Viscount has an air of pessimism; I believe that most of the debate this afternoon has had an opposite expression: one of optimism. What we are talking about is the teaching and education of young people, and in that we must be always optimistic—for what else can we be?
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, reminded us that hooliganism in political debate was no new occurrence, and he related an instance with himself, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and my noble friend Lord Blake. However, he makes the serious point that logic is exercised within a commitment of values and beliefs. If teachers can indeed bring their students to understand how others can feel deep commitment, they will have performed an invaluable and important service. I envy my noble friend in that he was with Janá č ek last night while we were in the Chamber debating Sunday trading. But, unfortunately, the story of Katya Kabanova would have changed had she lived today. She would have had a raft of services provided by local authorities; she would have divorced her appalling husband; she would have moved out of the house of her equally appalling mother-in-law; and she would have remarried and lived happily ever after.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, produced another of his most enjoyable speeches. I believe that at some stage we have to cease believing in Father Christmas. We have to cease believing in a golden age. However, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, certainly had a golden age, an Arcadia, in his youth. He taught us that with logic and emotion other matters have to be taken into

1453
consideration. There is humanity and there is also faith and religion. To those I add insight and vision. I would hope that any generation would take pains to ensure that the next generation was well equipped with those qualities.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, reminded us that some of the best teachers have combined logic with emotion to put across the need for analysis in a passionate and committed way. He also reminded us that teachers should also help to nurture wisdom if it cannot be directly taught.
I never thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would admit to coming to speak in your Lordships' House with any feelings of insecurity. I was most interested to hear his discourse on the limitations of logic used on its own. He convincingly argued that human beings must surely bring into play many other aspects of human nature when reaching conclusions and decisions. He also sensibly reminded us that we are not only concerned with higher education but also with schools.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter reminded us that we need both logic and emotion, but he stressed the primacy of logic. At a very young age I became fascinated by natural history. I was a compulsive collector, whether with the butterfly net, the moth trap or wandering on the beach collecting birds' eggs as one was allowed to do in those golden days. It soon came to me that the existence of God was self-evident; and it is a view which I have held ever since. But is that a matter of logic or did I need to believe in a being superior to myself? The right reverend Prelate also reminded us that truth is many sided.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, reminded us that we have a rich diversity of human experience and that many individuals can use impeccable logic yet reach very different conclusions. I am sure we all agree that our students should not be too constrained when young into fixed ways of thinking.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made a most useful contribution by suggesting that we should look at decision-making in terms of reason and unreason; and that the greatest service our teachers can render to students is to teach them to think for themselves. He also posed a vital question which it is difficult to answer: why is it that most people behave with unreason when it is all too clear that it will not bring them their desires?
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I share one factor in common. We have remained with a single political party. Most of my friends, and certainly all my enemies, believe that I may have had a liberal view at some stage when I entered my teen years. It soon disappeared and I have remained a member of the Conservative Party ever since. But the noble Lord also expressed more important views on the precepts of morality. It is an important subject.
When we read today of financial frauds which have been perpetrated, we should look back to the morality of a generation or so ago and ask ourselves what has gone wrong. My private view is that we have moved away
1454
from partnerships and firms which ran themselves in a partnership mould in which there was individual moral responsibility. The worth of the firm was its integrity and those who gained the fees and made the income and those who ran the management had an interest in common. I do not claim that they were all totally moral by nature but they were certainly moral by interest. When we have broken that mould up into other forms of organisation, with the fee earners and commission earners at one end, with their annual salaries depending on what they produce, and management at the other, I believe that we have a vacuum in the middle. It is a matter that at some stage we shall have to address.
This Motion goes right to the heart of how we educate our young people, and indeed adults, for the opportunities and challenges they will face throughout their lives. This includes all aspects of their lives—social, cultural, domestic, leisure and work-related.
What are we trying to achieve in providing a sound education? I have no wish to become too philosophical. We have heard much philosophy today. But I would describe the basic objectives as enabling people to develop knowledge, understanding and skills in a wide range of subjects and at a depth appropriate to the type and level of education which they are pursuing, to encourage and stimulate them to learn more about those and other subjects and to develop the skills of literacy, numeracy and so on which they will need for such further study and in order to make an effective contribution as citizens and as workers; and as they move up the educational ladder to develop a constructively critical approach to the world at large.
What this means is that we should help our students, of whatever age, to learn and to think for themselves. We should help them to develop inquiring minds which are prepared to seek out and consider the facts of a situation before coming to conclusions; and those conclusions should follow from a rational appraisal rather than from chance or prejudice. It is also important to recognise that different people may legitimately draw different conclusions from the same situation—a valuable point made by a number of noble Lords.
We must not only encourage our students to think; we must also encourage tolerance of the views of others should they not be in line with their own. What a government must aim to do is to put in place an education system that actively promotes the desirable views of rational thought and assists students to develop into balanced citizens. I believe that our education reforms over the past years have been very much in this direction.
In the schools we have, of course, introduced the national curriculum. We have identified 10 foundation subjects which schools must teach. Of those 10, three subjects—English, mathematics and science (and of course in Wales, Welsh)—are designated as core subjects. The other foundation subjects are art, geography, history, music, physical education, technology and a modern foreign language. Those subjects provide a sound basis for a broad general education which will prepare young people for their future lives and careers.

1455
The Education Reform Act also seeks to ensure that the whole of the curriculum promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at school and of society generally and prepares pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
In the Motion put by the noble Viscount there was mention of politics and political thought. My grandfather sat in your Lordships' House on the Liberal Benches. My father for the greater part of his time sat as a member of the Labour Party before moving to the Cross-Benches. I sit on the Conservative Benches, as did my grandmother. My late kinsman Lord Milford was the only Communist Member of your Lordships' House and last week his son took his place on the Cross-Benches. We all come from a common socio-economic background, as sociologists would tell us; we all come from a common thread of family life. Yet we have all made very different value judgments.
There are societies in this world who believe that the only logical course of politics is to have a single political party, because how logically can you argue that two should exist? However, we believe in a plural system and therefore I would find it difficult to visualise an education system in which political thought could be made. How to make political judgments is one thing, but political thought is another. The Government are, of course, very much opposed to political bias or indoctrination of my kind in schools.
We have 'taken powers to forbid the promotion of partisan political views in teaching and to require a balanced presentation of opposing views when political issues are dealt with in the classroom. Anyone who has grounds for believing that a school has acted otherwise has formal machinery through which to pursue a complaint, with ultimate recourse to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State has no power to forbid the use of particular teaching materials. That is a matter for the professional judgment of teachers. Neither have the Government powers to impose particular teaching methods in schools.
We are aiming to improve the quality and professionalism of teaching by reforming teacher training. Our reforms should help to ensure that new teachers can teach difficult and sensitive subjects in an appropriate and well-informed way.
Nobody should be admitted to a teacher training course unless they have the necessary personal and intellectual qualities for teaching young people. Courses are now expected to focus on the knowledge and practical skills necessary for effective classroom teaching. By the end of their training, we expect teachers to have the subject knowledge they need, and to use a range of teaching techniques and judge when and how to deploy them.
The policies we have adopted for schools have led to more pupils being motivated towards and qualified for higher education. In 1979, the participation rate was one in eight. It is now almost one in three, the target we set for ourselves by the end of this decade. But alongside the growth in numbers of the traditional 18 year-old with GCE A-levels, the university population is
1456
growing in other ways. Nowadays more mature students than young people start HE courses; and there has been a marked increase in the number of applicants accepted with qualifications other than A-levels.
Many noble Lords will be familiar with this description of increased and wider participation in higher education, but I remind the House of it to emphasise the diversity of provision that now exists. Academic staff need to adapt their teaching methods to accommodate to a broader range of students and backgrounds.
It is even truer in higher education than at other levels that the Government have no role in determining what shall be taught and how it shall be taught. Your Lordships have argued long and eloquently in this House to protect academic freedom whenever it appeared to you that it might be under the slightest threat. Your Lordships will recall that in connection with the exercise of the functions of the university commissioners in relation to academic tenure, Section 202(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988 provides that the commissioners shall have regard,
"to the need … to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions".
Nevertheless, it is just as important in higher education as it is elsewhere that teaching is of high quality, that it promotes rational thought and that it does not pander to prejudice and political bias.
The safeguards in higher education are the diversity of provision and the informed consumer. Naturally, I include as consumers the students themselves, but also employers and society generally. The good name and reputation of a higher education institution as a seat of learning and creative thought are vital to an institution of higher education. Those institutions, I am glad to say, are creating ever closer links with employers and with the wider community. As they do so, there is greater recognition that the community needs to know more about how these institutions discharge their responsibilities.
The Government recognise that with increased participation and greater diversity in higher education comes a need to ensure that satisfactory quality assurance systems are in place. Following the policies outlined in our May 1991 White Paper, we have encouraged the representative bodies of the higher education institutions to establish the Higher Education Quality Council, and the higher education funding councils have established quality assessment committees.
The HEQC undertakes academic audits of an institution's quality assurance systems. The funding councils undertake assessments of the quality of the actual teaching and learning that takes place i n institutions.
I am, of course, aware that some noble Lords—and this was a valuable point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Annan—are of the view that the combination of audit and assessment imposes too great a burden on the institutions. The Government have no wish to see an undue burden on institutions, and have encouraged both

1457
the HEQC and the funding councils to consider how this can be minimised, while meeting the objectives of audit and assessment. Those bodies are now co-operating closely and have commissioned reviews of their activities to date.
Higher education institutions also need to satisfy other constituencies about the quality of their courses —the professional bodies and employers. There is close engagement between those bodies and institutions on the nature of courses and the value to employers of graduates.
British higher education is renowned for its high quality and academic standards. The Government are determined to see that reputation maintained and enhanced. I am heartened by reports that the process of addressing the issues raised by audit and assessment has been helpful to institutions in ensuring that they remain institutions of the highest quality whose standards remain at the highest levels.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, gave me notice that he wished me to say a word on how I made a success of my personal life in business. I have no idea what this will add to the value of the debate, but as he asked for it, I shall continue. I have to say that logic had little to do with it, or at least at the start. I can only believe that some divine hand ordered my life, for how else does a man find a wife—a wife who is always as supportive as mine? I was working for an organisation through nepotism, which was not a success. The firm was a success, but I was not. I chose, or rather my wife advised me, to start afresh on my own. From then on, fortune smiled. While I cannot confess to the use of logic in the matter, I put forward the theory that the exchange of nepotism for self-sufficiency released an energy that carried success with it.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, first I must thank all noble Lords who have spoken. As I said at the start of my speech, I had some doubts about putting forward the Motion at all. Thanks to your Lordships, I am now satisfied that I was right in doing so. The debate has been useful. There is one thing that I regret; namely, that I never said that emotion should not form part of a decision. What I was trying to say is that if one can persuade people, one should ask them what that emotion is. To say that logic governs everything is nonsense. That was really my message. It is very, very difficult for people to analyse their motives. But there it is. I am sorry that I could not make that clear. I did send round about 15 papers on what I was trying to say. But in a way I blame this House. It would clearly have been simple for me to alter the Motion to explain just that. But no, the Clerks cut it out; and in the end I was not strong enough, this time, to insist. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Transport Research Laboratory
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn rose to call attention to the future of the Transport Research Laboratory and other similar research agencies; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is very appropriate that this debate should follow the previous one. The Government have shown more emotion than logic in their proposal to privatise the Transport Research Laboratory, which everyone, including the consultants whom the Government appointed as advisers, has declared to be an outstanding centre of research excellence. This is a very important debate on an important issue, and one that is potentially disastrous for the good government of this country. I am sure that we would all agree that the stable supply of expert independent research advice is vital to good government. In no field is that more true than in the field of transport—as I had good reason to know at first hand when I was Minister of Transport, and used to draw heavily on the work of the Road Research Laboratory, as the laboratory was then called. I was in constant, daily touch with it as I evolved my transport policy. I was able to get from the laboratory the proceeds of research into, for example, road construction; the safety of bridges; the design of vehicles, so as to make them less hazardous for those who drove in them; and the specifications of seat belts, which I was then just starting to introduce. As I was about to pass legislation making the fitting of seat belts in new cars compulsory, it was essential to be sure that one could get advice as to which designs of seat belt would do more good than harm to the occupants. I remember the dramatic occasions when I watched the crash tests on vehicles that enabled me to study the effect of particular designs of seat belt on the passengers inside. The Transport Research Laboratory has, as it then had, unique facilities for testing and carrying out research in that transport field. It has a supply of test tracks, simulators and pavement test beds which are unrivalled in any other research agency. It is the future of that complex that we are discussing here this afternoon.
I am afraid that the Government have not approached this question with the objective scientific mind that they should bring to bear. Unfortunately, the Government have an obsession. They have a privatisation mania. According to the Government it is a natural law that anything that is in private hands must be superior to the same thing in the public sector. I do not want to be rude to Mr. MacGregor, the Transport Minister, but he really does remind me of one of the Ugly Sisters in "Cinderella". Noble Lords will remember that when they found that the dainty glass slipper would not fit their feet, they were willing to cut off their toes to make it fit. That is the way in which Mr. MacGregor has approached this matter—not examining first what are

1459
our needs in the research field and then making the machinery fit; he has declared first what the machinery must broadly be.
I should like to remind the House of the history of this matter. In April 1992, the Government announced that they were to turn the Transport Research Laboratory into an executive agency. The Minister responsible for transport at that time was Mr. Malcolm Rifkind. In his document launching the change, which I invite Members 3f this House to read, he paid the following tribute 10 the Transport Research Laboratory:
"The scale of its research, the facilities available and the high calibre of its staff have earned the Laboratory a deserved international reputation as a major centre of road and transport research".
It was not in any desire to destroy the TRL that Mr. Rifkind announced that it was to become an agency; rather, he said, it was to strengthen it. As an agency, he declared, it would have greater freedom and flexibility to meet the needs of all its customers. And he paid the following tribute to TRL staff:
"A noticeable feature of the Laboratory over the years has been the remarkable way in which its staff have adapted themselves to meet the challenges arising from different requirements and new fields of research. I am confident that the same level of commitment and adaptability will be shown in the years ahead".
The Minister was right. There were some advantages in turning TRL from a government department into an executive agency. The staff seized the opportunities that that change brought them. They proceeded to import a "business culture". That is the phrase that most people are fond of. They agreed to voluntary redundancies to trim down the size of the laboratory. They introduced market testing and new forms of accountancy, which overcame any of the obstacles to progress which the existence of the government department brought about, no doubt because of the restraints imposed by Government, and above all by Treasury, policy.
Staff were told that they would have three years to show how the executive agency could work. But exactly one year later Mr. MacGregor, who had succeeded Mr. Rifkind, answered a Question for Written Answer in another place. He announced that he intended to privatise that effective executive agency and would appoint consultants to advise him on how it could be done. That is the starting point from which Members of this House should consider this issue. He was putting the cart before the horse.
The retention of the executive agency was never an option in the consideration of the needs of our research policy. We now have the consultants' report and I should like every Member of this House to read it. The report of KPMG shows that their terms of reference were to devise an appropriate means of privatising and fixed timetables. They were to examine the likely costs and proceeds and to identify possible purchasers. That is a very unscientific way to approach one's responsibilities. The likely costs and proceeds ought to have been one of the issues in the question of whether it was privatised at all. What are we coming to except to a miasma of emotion in which the Government throw logic out of the window.
The result of those terms of reference is a most curious report. First of all it lists the different aims and
1460
objectives. It stated the needs of the Department of Transport in the following order: first, the need for an impartial source of resource; secondly, the need for a clean break with the public sector. If a clean break with the public sector did not give the looked for impartial advice, that was just too bad. A clean break with the public sector was this Government's overriding priority.
That also took precedence over the other needs of the Department of Transport set out by the consultants: a stable source of research supply and the creation of a centre or centres of excellence. If privatisation meant fragmenting the structure, that was just too bad. Where then were the centres of excellence? There was a centre of excellence as Mr. Rifkind himself admitted.
The consultants KPMG are a reputable firm. They took their job seriously. They therefore gave what I think was a pretty honest analysis of how these things could be achieved under different regimes. The trouble is that the conclusions of the report do not fit the analysis because, as I said, the Government put the cart before the horse. For instance, in the terms of the consultants' report, it seems that the executive agency is the best way to obtain impartiality of advice. That is obvious, is it not? Let me go back to my example of the seat belts. If that piece of research had been in the hands of someone who was involved even indirectly in the manufacture of seat belts, what value would that advice have been to me as a Minister? People's lives would have been put at risk.
So the executive agency wins on one of the major objectives; namely, to have a steady and stable system of research. But one can go further than that. One of the arguments for privatising it is that the laboratory will get a more businesslike discipline. Again I quote the report:
"In response to the increasingly market tested environment in which it operates, TRL is taking a number of measures to reduce costs and increase its competitiveness. In particular, TRL is in the process of running a voluntary early retirement programme arid updating its management systems to a more commercial basis'".
So it is doing what the Government said that privatisation would do. It has not been proved—nor has the report proved it—that the only way to achieve the reforms is by privatising that efficient executive agency. So we are in danger of throwing away the great commercial value of TRL's impartiality for changes in business practice which would take place anyhow.
The report also points out that TRL is the best way of having research linked to transport policy. It is not done in a vacuum but as part of the policy decisions of government. Again I quote Mr. Rifkind from the document that he issued when he launched the executive agency:
"It is essential for the safe and efficient operation of the UK transport systems that there is a close link between scientific research and transport policy. TRL currently plays a crucial role in achieving this as the primary source of impartial and authoritative research and scientific advice to the Department of Transport".
One cannot have a better testimonial than that. But in the Government's mind it does not count. So much for Mr. Rifkind, and he has been moved on elsewhere.
The report is full of tributes to TRL by the different divisions of the government department for the quality of the work that TRL has done for them. I should like to endorse that from my earlier memories.

1461
The only reason for the sale that the consultants can advance is that it is not very sure what will be the future revenues of the TRL because it is dependent for 85 per cent. of its income on government contracts. But what is going to happen? Are not the Government going to do any more transport research in future years? They have certainly cut it back in the past two years and anything can happen under this Government. So long as the Government have a research programme, TRL has its contracts. But in any case, the report points out that if it is privatised, the people to whom it is sold will want a guarantee of government contracts before they will buy. So once again we are throwing away an asset on a purely dogmatic basis.
There is therefore a sorry tale at the end of the report about the position of a possible sale. I feel that it is important to read it to the House because this is what the Government are selling off. Paragraph 1.4.2 states:
"Of the principal privatisation options, privatisation through a public offer has been ruled out due to TRL's small size and lack of a suitable track record. A management/employee buy-out is not regarded as a feasible privatisation option on its own (although a degree of management and employee participation is desirable) due to difficulties in attracting funding for such a buy-out given the lack of a credible exit route and the lack of significant earnings growth in the medium-term. A trade sale is a possibility although a number of potential trade purchasers would probably be unacceptable [Why?] due to concerns over potential vested interests affecting the perceived impartiality of TRL's research".
Privatisation therefore threatens to take away one of the saleable commercial assets of TRL—its overseas reputation, because it does a lot of work for overseas developing governments.
The report concludes that there must be a non-profit distributing company. It is left with nothing else. It says that that is the only way in which the reputation for impartiality can be preserved and therefore the viability of the whole enterprise. But there is a drawback in that. The Government would receive less revenue from the sale, and is it not revenue that the Government are after? They want to sell all the family silver, including the family's intellectual property.
I hope Members of the House will read the report and form their own judgments as to whether the case for privatisation has been made out. The Government commissioned the report. They will not like its conclusion. Are they prepared to set up a non-profit distributing company as KPMG suggest? If not, what is the alternative? There are rumours that Mr. MacGregor is still clinging to the hope of a trade sale. If he does so, he will ruin one of Britain's great centres of excellence. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the whole House should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, for raising this important subject. I am very much in her debt. I was familiar with the laboratory from my own days as Secretary of State. But I confess that I have not kept up with its development in recent times nor, does it seem, have I kept up with the evolving mind of the Government. I even missed the Secretary of State's Statement of May
1462
1993 in regard to privatisation. As the noble Baroness said, it is not long since the laboratory became an executive agency. The Government certainly moved on with great speed, having made that change, to propose another.
I confess—this is a political weakness in me—that I continue to underestimate the ideological prejudice with which the Government approach issues of this kind, particularly their ideological prejudice in favour of privatisation. The noble Baroness referred to logic rather than emotion being the proper way of determining the future of the laboratory. She referred to a government mania for privatisation. I never believed in doctrinaire nationalisation and perhaps in that respect I sometimes differed from the noble Baroness, Lady Castle. But I do not believe in doctrinaire privatisation either. What might have been good for steel, telecommunications, gas or electricity is not necessarily good for the Transport Research Laboratory. Certainly on the evidence available to us—we wait to hear what is said to us later this evening —it would be against the public interest to privatise the laboratory; there is nothing to be said for that on the merits of the case.
Many years ago I recall the appearance before the estimates committee of the House of Commons of a distinguished Permanent Secretary to the Department of Transport—Sir Gilmour Jenkins. It was a Select Committee of 1952– 53,40 years ago. He was asked a question and replied,
"The best kind of research is experience on the job".
That was a rather original but odd definition of "research". When asked whether his department had ever urged the Treasury to make funds available for research he said,"No, certainly not". It may be that the wheel now comes full circle. If the laboratory is privatised it will certainly be true that within a reasonable period of time there will not be the facilities available to governments and others which have been available in the laboratory with all the qualities that it brought to its work.
The noble Baroness referred to the KPMG report as, "most curious". I should like to see the full report. At the moment I believe we are merely seeing an edited version. I hope in that respect that the Government are not being economical with the truth; while that may win the approval of Mr. William Waldegrave, I doubt that it will be acceptable to this House. It would be interesting to see the full report because I believe it contains some working of the figures which would enable us more clearly to judge what the outcome would be.
KPMG were not asked "whether" the TRL should be privatised, but "how". In any case, like all consultants, they would bear in mind what was expected of them by their clients. Despite that—and this is the important point, and a point made by the noble Baroness—the report is far from a resounding endorsement of privatisation. I confess that, given some simple editing, reversing of sentences and putting "however" in a different place, we may obtain a different result. Perhaps I may explain to the House what I mean by that.
Paragraph 2.3.6 of the report says,
"It is clear that no single consultancy company even approaches TRL's breadth of expertise in a very broad spectrum

1463
of transport research. However, consultancies could, and increasingly do, compete successfully for DoT transport research and consultancy services in virtually all areas".
If I turned that round it would say,
"consultancies could, and increasingly do, compete successfully for DoT transport research and consultancy services in virtually all areas. However, it is clear that no single consultancy company even approaches TRL's breadth of expertise in a very broad spectrum of transport research".
Indeed, if noble Lords look at other sentences and paragraphs they will notice that reversing the order of paragraphs 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 makes the report read in a very different way from the way it does at present. As I say, it is a long way from a simple endorsement of what the Government want to do.
The report is interesting when it talks of risks, and I hope that I shall be forgiven for quoting from it again. Paragraph 1.4.1 states,
"In our view, retention of TRL in the public sector would risk it being unable to respond adequately to changes in its market and runs the considerable risk of TRL going into a cycle of cumulative decline".
The key word there is "risk". Paragraph 5.8.2 states,
"Our judgement is that retention of TRL in the public sector may be unsustainable beyond the short term".
I thought that "risk" was what all businesses lived with; that it was the nature of competitive enterprise. I do not see why the fact that there is a risk that TRL may be unable to respond adequately, should of itself be a reason why it should be privatised. The question the Government should be asking themselves is whether that risk is worth taking. My provisional conclusion is that it is.
There is a reference to TRL being,
"unsustainable beyond the short term".
Let us accept that warning. Let us take it for what it says. It may be,
"unsustainable beyond the short term".
But that is a warning to us to set about preparing to survive; it should not be an excuse for deciding to privatise.
The report sets out very clearly the key strengths of the laboratory: impartiality, quality of staff, knowledge of customers, continuity and flexibility. The first two —impartiality and quality of staff—show most clearly where the public interest lies and so I shall refer very briefly to them. I have been looking at the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House in December 1987. The report was entitled Innovation in Surface Transport. Paragraph 7 of the Government's response states:
"The Government shares the Committee's view that TRRL commands esteem both at home and abroad by the excellence of its work, and is; resolved to maintain this".
We have to ask whether it is still the Government's policy to maintain the excellence of its work. Given the dangers as a result of privatisation, can it be said firmly and clearly and without reservation that the Government are satisfied that the undertaking given to this House in 1987 will be fulfilled if privatisation goes ahead?
As for the quality of staff, which is the second most important point made in the report, the report itself makes clear that privatisation will mean the loss of quality staff from the laboratory. So on the face of it, judging by the Government's previous commitment and by the report itself, privatisation will not result in better
1464
research facilities for the Department of Transport and others who want to use its facilities. It will be impossible to maintain something which we have been able to take for granted for very many years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, has made a plea for the acceptance of one of the alternative recommendations of the KPMG report. I would not go as far as she has gone. The right course—and here I make a constructive proposal—is a very simple one. The laboratory has existed as an agency for only two years. I suggest that three steps should be taken. First, the full KPMG report should be taken as a starting point for the laboratory looking at how far it can meet the standards, in so far as it falls short, particularly commercially, of what KPMG has recommended. Secondly, the Government should give the agency up to 1st January 1995 to produce a three-year business plan for the laboratory with it still within the public sector. Thirdly, the Government should ensure a level playing field for competition for the laboratory and for the private sector with which it might compete. If the Government were to give the agency a chance on that basis we should see what it could achieve and I might be prepared to be persuaded in three years' time, if it has failed, that privatisation is the only course. But that chance must be given to the laboratory because there is nothing available to us today in the evidence of the report that justifies privatisation.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it is interesting to see the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, back on the transport trail, if I may put it that way, with as much vigour as she displayed when she was Minister. Her taking up the point this afternoon clearly demonstrates that element of consistency of hers which made such a significant contribution in the time that she was Minister.
It is difficult to disagree with the noble Baroness on some of the facts. But I totally disagree with her with regard to the philosophy which she espoused as being the reason for the Government's decision to take this course of action. Equally, I cannot recall the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, during his time as Secretary of State extolling the virtues of what was then the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, which was always short of funds and which, always had great difficulty in meeting the commitment that was demanded of it. I cannot go along with the noble Lord on his suggestions that we should try this for a couple of years and have another review later on. We have to make up our minds.
I do not like the way the mind has been made up but I suspect that that is because I am fairly sentimental about the laboratory. It started life in 1933. It has had three changes of name. I have great affection for the old familiar one, the TRRL, but so that no one is confused this afternoon, I shall merely refer to it as the laboratory. We all know the significant contribution that that laboratory has made in recent years and over all this time in a number of areas. It has an international reputation, more particularly for long-term research on a variety of topics.

1465
The noble Baroness mentioned seat belts. If ever there was a crying need for a piece of long-term research, it is into the area of seat belts in buses and coaches, notably brought to our attention by the tragic accidents of recent times. I know of no one who will take this up. It means a fundamental look at the design of coaches themselves. How many coach-builders are there across Europe putting their bodies on different frames? Is it in their commercial interests, one against the other? Has the Bus and Coach Council the resources? The answer to that must be no. Where is that resource to be found? In the universities? Again, the answer is no, because it is a long-term project. The problem of seat belts in coaches and buses will not be solved in two or three years. It is probably a 10 or 12-year project and it can only be funded by an organisation set up to deal with long-term research.
The laboratory has an international reputation in the field of traffic management. It was the laboratory which designed, researched and developed the traffic management system which we know by the name SCOOT. What would London's traffic be like and what would the centres of major conurbations be like if that work had not taken place? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will say that that kind of traffic management research is taking place in direction-finding techniques with Siemens. But those are companies doing a piece of research wholly and solely for gain. There is not the wider impact that a governmental research laboratory would undertake.
The success of the laboratory at Crowthorne, where it has been since about the mid-1960s, has been in large measure because there was in place a secure piece of funding by the Government. I shall not argue this afternoon whether that funding was large enough or right or proper, but its success was that that piece of funding was in place. Its return to an agency will enable it to secure competitively other contracts. I firmly believe that without that funding which the Department of Transport now controls, there will be a major loss in two particular areas. The first is road safety, about which we are pre-occupied daily. We are exhorted about not drinking and driving, going slower for children and so forth, and those policies are all quite properly promoted by the Government. The other area is the environment in so far as transport and the roads are concerned. All those provisions are promoted by government. It is simple logic to say, "If that is what you want, government, then you must put your twopennyworth in".
It is no good saying that as a privatised laboratory it can compete for the contracts which are to be let. It will not compete for the long-term contracts because they are too insecure. The commercial research laboratories compete for the short-term contracts and what I believe are called the near market research projects. That is what we shall lose if the research laboratory goes that way.
I have had a look at a summary of the report. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, will forgive me if I say that I did not have the wit to use his rather amusing ability in turning the words around to make something different, although I understand what he means. As I
1466
read the summary of the report, I have some doubts. It does not to my satisfaction identify a buyer who will have the long-term interest at heart, and that is fundamental. If that team were to be broken up in any way at all—the members may very well go to university-based research laboratories which are very good, and the Government support those research endeavours—that fundamental unit would be lost.
I do not believe that the laboratory is unique in the world, although it is certainly unique in this country. There is another in Germany and one in America and they look at these matters through similar eyes, although the problems may be somewhat different. It cannot be claimed that here is something which is so unique that it must not be destroyed. It is not like a work of art. The laboratory could be put together again somewhere else by somebody else, but what a waste of effort and of 50 or 60 years of endeavour. How much would such a delay cost?
If the laboratory at Crowthorne is hived off, I do not believe that a great deal of the more valuable but less exotic work will continue anywhere else. I cannot identify any laboratory or commercial operation with the capability of doing that kind of work. Therefore, I should like to see it retained in some form or other. I am quite happy for the department to control costs and to direct the area in which research and further development should be undertaken. I have given just one example—that is to say, bus and coach seat belts. There are others such as traffic calming methods, new road surfaces and so on.
All those aspects have had a pre-eminence in the work of the laboratory. They are internationally accepted. The reports were used frequently by myself, by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and by other noble Lords and Baronesses in this House over many years as a source of original and good information. I would not like to see that destroyed and put aside. I believe that there is life left for the laboratory, but it may be that I am just a little sentimental about it.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, that was a most remarkable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I hope that the Minister for Transport takes time to read it. The House should also be grateful to my noble friend Lady Castle for initiating this debate not just because it is important that the future of TRL should be discussed, but because she is probably the best person to raise this matter. She was a very senior Cabinet Minister and a most innovative Secretary of State for Transport.
She mentioned her work with seat belts. They are very important. She may remember me as a very junior minister in her department, but from the Back-Benches later on I managed to get a Bill through the other place concerning seat belts which was ultimately brought to this House and which was passed. The most important single thing which my noble friend did was the introduction of breath tests. She took me with her to a meeting on the South Bank where she introduced this appalling, new restriction on freedom. I cannot remember whether it was in The Times, but a sketch

1467
appeared on the people who were there in force including butch motorists in duffel coats screaming at my noble friend. The complaint was that the new measure would totally ruin country life because no one would ever go again to a country pub. The important factor was that she had the courage to see ahead and the problems involved. Now, the whole climate has changed and people are very conscious about travelling in a car having had too much to drink.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we have to continue to look at the question of coaches. There was an investigation concerning recorders in coaches because of a number of accidents. I do not know how far that has progressed. I am sure that we shall get around to seat belts for coaches, which is a big job. We should be grateful to my noble friend for raising these issues.
Everyone says that the TRL gives absolutely independent information to the Minister when required and to the depart rent generally. The reliance on the important work of the laboratory by the Ministry of Transport is very great. The laboratory has a genuine world reputation. I am not saying that there are not other good laboratories in the world, but ours is one which has gained certain respect. The sad thing is that the Government are searching for ways to privatise it. The consultation report of KPMG Peat Marwick looks at many combinations and permutations about the way to privatisation. It was not an easy report to read if one does not have a strong financial background. I gained the clear impression that the consultants found it hard to make up their minds about what should be done. They felt that this was yet another privatisation too far. It is true that the report uses the phrase that the laboratory needs a "clean break" from the Department of Transport.
I must also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, on recognising the way in which reports can be written. The skill that is involved in writing a report is almost as important as carrying out the research. That has been well illustrated. When one reads that the report states that a complete break is needed, one begins to wonder whether that was the view of the consultants or whether they had been told that it would make life easier if a break was established because it would then be easier to go ahead with the privatisation.
For commercial reasons, the report contains no financial details, but surely there must be some figure in the Government's mind for the transfer from the public to the private sector. They must have some idea of what they will gain from it.
If I have read the report correctly, one option, which I am happy to see has not been pushed with any enthusiasm by the consultants, is the idea of breaking up the department. I think that the disciplines that make it up are too important to be split. An organisation such as the TRL has taken a long time to build and separating the units would reduce the true effectiveness of the whole. The consultants' report strongly suggests that potential purchasers are most likely to prefer the option of a single entity rather than a number of smaller, independent laboratories even if they were located on the same site. I do not know whether it would be
1468
possible to achieve complete independence with a number of purely commercial organisations operating on the same site unless they went to extra expense. There is the question of whether they would use the same or different canteens or other such facilities on what is a relatively small site.
I have visited the TRL a number of times and it is remarkable for the cross-fertilisation of ideas. A wide variety of people work there. Those who have the privilege of visiting it learn that there is a great deal more to motoring than they ever thought possible. Knowing some of the work that is carried out there, I hope that its multi-disciplinary atmosphere will be preserved.
The KPMG Peat Marwick report is really a financial appraisal with little real reference to transport. Its purpose is obviously to find some other way of funding such research other than with government money. From the Government's point of view, it is a combination of raising finance and satisfying political dogma. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank—perhaps it was my noble friend Lady Castle—referred to the "family silver". Remembering the wonderful maiden speech of the late Lord Stockton, I think that we have now gone past the stage of selling the family silver and are now taking the Canalettos out of their frames and selling them abroad. I am sure that the noble Lord would have agreed with me on that.
The TRL has been innovative in safety research, vehicle design, safety testing, environmental quality analysis and in almost every other facet of transport, including road design, computerised traffic systems and road surfaces, which is now a subject coming very much to the fore. Transport costs are notoriously difficult to assess, but I have no doubt that during the years of its existence, the work of the TRL has been of such a nature as to far exceed (by its savings to road transport) its running costs to the department.
However, we must not overlook the intangibles. Reference has been made to the TRL's international reputation. I had the privilege of serving for many years as a member of the Select Committee on Transport in another place. One of our investigations related to road repairs because of the difficulty that we always seem to have with repairs being carried out over holiday periods. We travelled to Italy, Austria and Germany where I heard a great deal of praise for the TRL from road engineers and police. Considering our national hobby of moaning—this topic comes up every year —I was amused to find that road engineers in those countries greatly appreciated the advice that the TRL had given them on the use of coning the roads for repairs. They had sent people over here to examine our road coning and were grateful to us when they saw how complicated it can be when one wants to keep the traffic moving. Whenever people in this country see cones, they say that no one is working on the road and that leads to all kinds of arguments. So, even on what appear to be relatively small matters, such as the coning of roads, experts in other countries think that the techniques that they learnt from the TRL greatly speeded up their repairs and resurfacing. That should make motorists think that at least some system is involved.

1469
We shall hear speeches today from noble Lords who have much more expertise in business and finance than I have. I am sure that they will show how the national asset of the TRL can be retained and improved. I submit that the sentiments and observations of the unique group of employees in the TRL should be heard. I shall quote from one of the submissions from one of the unions that is represented there. It stated:
"We believe there is an approach which could provide the benefits of greater freedom to compete for non-government work while retaining the benefits of remaining in the public sector for our main work for the DoT. TRL would remain in the public sector, its staff would remain civil servants, but with its non-government work separately accounted for in a commercial subsidiary. If our ability to compete commercially really is an important reason for the proposal to privatise us, our proposal would allow this freedom without jeopardising the benefits to the public of our current status".
I hope that the Government will keep that highly skilled group of men and women fully informed of the final proposals before we have a Bill foisted on us.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I know that the whole House is very grateful to my noble friend Lady Castle for initiating this debate. My noble friend was an outstanding Secretary of State for Transport, among other things, and has proved today that she has lost none of her remarkable qualities. When my noble friend was Secretary of State for Transport her innovations were unpopular at the time among a number of people. I remember a passionate and vehement argument with someone who said that her proposals were idiotic. In fact, they have saved thousands of lives. That is a marvellous achievement for any individual. My noble friend can be very proud of her work in this area. I endorse the points that she made in her admirable speech.
Today's debate affects millions of people because the work of the Transport Research Laboratory has tremendous influence on practically everyone: on travellers, on pedestrians and on the economy. I know that the unions concerned are very anxious about some of the Secretary of State's proposals. As a consultant to the federation which includes the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, I know that the unions have consistently and persistently expressed their deep concern. They are naturally anxious for their members, but they are remarkably well informed about the TRL. The evidence shows that mutilating the TRL would damage us all. This is a matter of which the House must take grave and serious note. Apparently, despite the evidence presented by the unions and many other people, the Secretary of State intends to press on regardless. That is remarkable. I believe that the Secretary of State is very short sighted indeed.
Like everyone else, I am only too well aware of the Government's obsession with a market economy and their fanatical determination to privatise anything and everything. They wield privatisation rather like a berserk killer uses a shotgun. They fire in all kinds of directions regardless of who is affected. But the difference between someone splaying a gun and the Government is that the Government appear to believe
1470
that privatisation always revives and never kills. They cannot admit the truth that the public interest can be damaged and sometimes destroyed by privatisation.
The Transport Research Laboratory is an example. One of the most deplorable aspects is that the Government have been warned of the dangers by their own consultants. The report of KPMG Peat Marwick was much quoted by my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, whom I still call my noble friend despite his unfortunate disaffiliation from my party. The consultants in their report were obviously anxious about the demand for profit superseding the public interest. They recommended privatisation by means of a non-profit distributing company. That was an ingenious proposition. Having been debarred by its terms of reference from rejecting privatisation for the TRL, the consultants hit upon the idea of privatisation without private profit. That is a pretty good idea really.
KPMG Peat Marwick produced closely reasoned arguments to reach their conclusion. Yet the Government are pressing on, displaying a fanatical dogma rather than reasoned argument. They are incredibly damaging a research laboratory which for 60 years—60 years—has provided a world-renowned, independent, impartial centre for transport research. Its outstanding work has improved safety, environmental quality and efficiency, which are all in the public interest. It is a centre of excellence of which this country can be rightly proud.
What is remarkable about the present situation is that the consultants commissioned by the Government to produce recommendations on privatisation came up with very important points which endorsed the unions' opposition to private profit privatisation. The poacher and the gamekeeper are united.
The independent consultants, working to the Government's privatisation brief, indicate that privatisation will destroy the TRL's reputation for impartial advice and research and its ability to retain long-term expertise. They say that it would restrict the public availability of information, reduce industry-wide co-operative research, reduce staff morale and cause many key staff to seek other work. That from the Government's own consultants is pretty strong meat and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. It is a devastating catalogue of the consequences, on which the unions and the consultants are in agreement. It is hard to understand why the Government should persist with such a wrong-headed policy.
There has been some speculation of a hidden agenda. It is speculated that the Government may be considering cutting money for safety, economy and environmental quality in transport to finance the development of motorway tolling technology. We do not know and if it is secret we cannot know. However, we can and do suspect. I welcome the Minister's observations. If he wishes to keep secrets, Members of this House will be anxious to probe them as soon as possible.
A distinguished Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, speaking of attempts to reform this House, quoted the saying: "If it ain't broke, why try

1471
to fix it?". Precisely! That is exactly the point that we must press on the Government and I hope that they will listen and respond.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Castle for introducing this Motion today. She is one of the most distinguished Ministers of Transport that this country has ever had. She did not have to obtain the opinions of outside consultants before she acted. Naturally, she consulted the best advice available to her; but on her own volition and with the support of her colleagues she carried out the policies in which she believed. The country will be indebted to her.
I have a particular debt to her; from 1945 to 1950 I had the honour to be her colleague in the House of Commons. She rapidly became known as one of the leading theoreticians of my party, responsible to a large degree for the policies that were so successfully pursued in those years.
The proposed privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory will be seen as one of the most squalid steps that even the present Government have contemplated. It is four years almost to the day—notably 8th March 1990 —since the Government introduced in this House the Government Trading Bill. On the basis of a pamphlet introduced by the Government entitled Next Steps it introduced into our organisation in the United Kingdom the executive agencies. I would not normally weary your Lordships by quoting from a speech, but I shall quote what was said on that occasion by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. He stated:
"The Next Steps initiative seeks to build on the strengths of our Civil Service. It has a well deserved reputation for impartiality, fairness integrity and propriety. Those attributes will continue to be an essential part of public service. People are the service's important asset. By delegating real managerial responsibility for achieving results along with the right tools for the job, Next Steps aims to provide an incentive for people to give their best; a recipe, I hope, for turning the good into the excellent. Next Steps indicate. the Government's genuine intention to improve the quality of the services it offers to the public within the resources available. All of us at some time or other have cause to use those services, and it is right that we should expect to receive a high standard of service.
One of the most important benchmarks of whether this initiative has succeeded will be whether it leads to significant improvements in the standards of service.
The measure which we have been debating this afternoon adds to the range of tools available to help us in this task. For those agents for which it is suitable it will, without any loss of accountability to Parliament, be the key to considerable improvements in value for money. I commend it warmly to the House". —[Official Report, 8/3/90; col.1294.]
In due course the Transport Research Laboratory was added to the list of executive agencies in fulfilment of the Government's statement of their intentions. I should add that that statement was welcomed in all quarters of the House although there was, as your Lordships will gather, even in those days, a note of slight dissent from me. At that time I was speaking from the Front Bench on behalf of the Opposition in relation to that Bill.
As your Lordships will know, I am sometimes a suspicious character and I asked the noble Earl whether
1472
the proposal was a backdoor attempt at privatisation. I was assured to the contrary. In reply to that the noble Earl said:
"The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, spoke earlier about privatisation and will mention the matter in detail at a later stage. Before agencies are set up all other options, including abolition and privatisation, are examined. In most cases, the examination leads to the conclusion that the nature of the service provided by the agencies does not make privatisation a feasible or realistic option. That is not to say that some activities might not be contracted out, but generally our expectation is that most mainstream activities of Next Steps agencies will continue to remain within central government in the foreseeable future".—[col.1292.]
In the later stages of the debate, after the Bill went to another place and returned, we had a firm assurance from the Government that the Next Steps provisions were not to be used as a prelude to privatisation.
Following what the noble Earl said, all I have to do this afternoon is to refer to the testimonies riot only of my noble friend Lady Castle but also of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and my noble friends Lord Ashley and Lord Carmichael. I shall not repeat what they said but those noble Lords have explained what a success the laboratory has been and how indispensable it is within the original context that the Government stated in commending the Next Steps programme to your Lordships.
Why is there that repudiation? There is not a word in favour of privatisation in your Lordships' House this afternoon; there is not even a muted word. Why is there to be privatisation? The answer is remarkably simple. The Government are stuck for money so they propose to flog off yet another of their assets. They will probably offer a sweetener, forgiving all liabilities. In respect of their privatisation programme, they have already written off £7 billion of private sector liabilities, aside from the sweeteners that they have given to the industries that have been privatised. This is yet another sordid chapter in this Government's wretched history in that regard.
What is really at stake is the desire to take some pressure off the public sector borrowing requirement which their own mismanagement has inflicted on the nation as a whole. That is what it is all about. It is about creating another quango which other companies, possibly—probably—subscribers to Tory Party funds can get on the cheap. That is what it is all about. That is the miserable state to which the Government have brought politics in the United Kingdom at present.
When the matter goes to another place for further consideration and returns here, I hope that noble Lords and Members of another place will treat the whole proposal with the contempt which it deserves.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, today the European Parliament is voting on car exhaust rules. Although those rules prepared by the Commission have already been accepted by Ministers, it is not certain whether the standards will be accepted by the European Parliament. It is thought that it wants even higher standards. That is but one indication that we are on the verge of great changes in the transport industry. We are approaching a bend in the road, so to speak. Therefore, I should like to

1473
congratulate my noble friend Lady Castle of Blackburn on her excellent timing in calling our attention to the future of the Transport Research Laboratory and to say how much I welcome and admire her fighting spirit.
I should like to demonstrate that the future of the TRL should not lie in the private sector and that some government Ministers agree with me. I would like to show also that some rather old-fashioned accountancy is an unsuitable way of assessing the value of the TRL to the country and that there are wider considerations and other models. I should like to show that privatising the TRL would strain the partnership between government and industry.
The signs of change in transport are all about us: dissatisfaction with the new roads policy to accommodate more cars; the uncontrolled growth of heavy goods traffic and all the associated environmental considerations; and our commitment to the Earth Summit. The legal requirements in California for the electric car are another sign. The overproduction in the European car and truck industry means that not only will there be changes in the technology of those companies but also that there are implications for their size and for their sub-contractors.
Part of the task of the TRL is to help manage that change by independently researching those products and processes which are less polluting; to find better forms of transport which are in keeping with today's ideas of sustainable development; and to interpret for our transport industry why the Swiss are prepared to build the equivalent of two Channel Tunnels under the Alps to force goods from road to rail.
Perhaps the Secretary of State feels as his predecessor did at the turn of the century, when he was concerned about the overwhelming number of horses and their requirements and the pollution which they deposited on the roads. Change came to him in the form of the motor car. We do not know what will rescue the current Secretary of State.
How fortunate, therefore, we are at this time to have in our science base the Transport Research Laboratory to do longer term impartial, basic and social research into the costs of congestion and pollution and environmental considerations; to research technological change and transport alternatives. The Secretary of State has described the TRL as:
"the primary source of impartial and authoritative research and scientific advice to the department".
The TRL will be a source of knowledge and information for the entire industry: cometh the hour, cometh the institution.
In those circumstances it would seem sensible to nurture and build the TRL. We want to strengthen it and ensure that it can better carry out its work. What do the Government propose? Amazingly, they propose to privatise it. I say "amazingly" because only last Thursday, when your Lordships debated the report of the Science and Technology Committee, a continuous thread through that debate was an underlying feeling of exasperation at the private sector's failure to spend money on basic research.
1474
When replying to that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made clear the Government's position and commitment to basic research. She said:
"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". —[Official Report, 3/3/94; col.1164.]
That exactly describes the work of the TRL. Yet the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Transport wants the transport industry's basic and strategic research to be carried out in the private sector. Perhaps the noble noble Lord can perform a useful service to us all by getting his colleagues to talk to one another. That mixed message only causes confusion and helps destroy the credibility of government.
I now turn to the consultants' report. For obvious reasons, many consultants' reports set out to tell the client what they want to hear. As previous speakers have pointed out, this report is no exception. The consultants are specialists in corporate finance, and their concern is how best to put the TRL in the private sector at least cost and maximum return. That may well be the objective of the Treasury. The broader concern should be how the TRL may best serve the Government, the local authorities, the transport industry and its other customers in this time of change while maintaining the highest of standards. It is an accountancy-driven report applied to a people-driven organisation. Best business practice today tries to avoid that sort of thing.
If ever there was a people-driven organisation, the TRL is one. If the consultants are to come to a balanced conclusion, they must also look at the morale and ethos in the organisation. Are the staff involved, and will the atmosphere attract the best scientists? Is there enough critical mass to ensure that nothing is forgotten, and is there enough variety for cross-fertilisation? Is there the right atmosphere for people to engage in that very important scientific exercise of having a "hunch"? The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to that in the debate last Thursday. The consultants considered those aspects only in relation to the financial restructuring, not as ends in themselves. Now that we have a new bench-marking centre in the country—welcomed by the DTI but possibly still unnoticed by the Department of Transport —we have a new tool to carry out that work.
That broader approach of dealing with research institutes is not new. A good example is the Oceanographic Institute in Southampton. A committee of your Lordships' House recently examined the problems of the Marine Institute. The solution was to transfer it to the University of Southampton, which has an excellent marine engineering department and a school of oceanography. All these entities are being combined in a new building, currently under construction, which is a joint venture between the Marine Institute, the university and the National Environmental Research Council. Incidentally, your Lordships may be interested to learn that that building is only three feet above sea level, which says something about the institute's views on global warming. The plan has the advantage of not only creating a centre of excellence and adding to our science base but will also provide good graduates to the marine industry for many years to come. Can the Minister consider that as a

1475
model? Perhaps I may also ask the Minister to compare the cost to the taxpayer of the consultants' report on the TRL with the cost of the report prepared by your Lordships regarding the Marine Institute.
The Motion on the Order Paper refers to "other similar research agencies". Undoubtedly that refers to the four scientific laboratories currently under review; namely, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the National Physical Laboratory, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory and the National Engineering Laboratory. Many fine words have been spoken by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government about the Government's support for basic research and the partnership between government and industry in science and technology. I quoted the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, earlier. Indeed, one of the very few areas where government can assist industry under the rules of the European Union is in the field of science and technology. That makes the partnership particularly important and sensitive. Sentencing those laboratories to the private sector means that those institutions will in future work on short-term, fairly narrow based projects and will, thereby, render meaningless some of those fine words.
I believe that many people in industry will interpret such actions as the Government reneging on their part of the partnership. The place for those laboratories is in the science base—not in the private sector. Therefore, before reaching a decision, will the Minister reflect on the contradictions that I have tried to point out? Is the private sector a suitable home for the TRL and other laboratories, despite words from his colleagues to the contrary? Would it not be a more coherent approach if he used the model of the Oceanographic Institute? Does his decision reflect the stated aims of the Department of Trade and Industry to support the science base to help Britain be more competitive in the 1990s?
6.26 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Castle for introducing the Motion. Indeed, many noble Lords have, justifiably, paid tribute to her reputation when she was a Minister. Today, my noble friend has shown us that she has lost none of her enthusiasm for supporting proper and just causes. We are grateful to her for both introducing the Motion and for speaking to it in such an enthusiastic and impressive way.
I am afraid that the Minister will find himself in something of a lonely position because all speakers in the debate thus far have agreed that the proposals to privatise the Transport Research Laboratory are, by their very nature, absurd. I say "absurd" because the points that have been made by speakers from all sides of the House lead to that conclusion. First, there has been a certain amount of criticism of the consultants' report. It is, perhaps. unfair, but my experience of consultants —and I have a certain amount of experience with them —is that if you give them something that you want them to say, they will, generally speaking, say it. However, in this case, the consultants did not say what they were told to say; indeed, they produced a somewhat ambiguous report which was, I imagine, certainly far from what the
1476
Government had expected. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, quite rightly pointed out, if you turn round certain sentences you come to completely different conclusions. So, the consultants were themselves doubtful about the project.
Secondly, the consultants concluded—and, indeed, I would conclude—that no one is really going to buy the Transport Research Laboratory unless there is some form of government guarantee either in terms of a Treasury guarantee as to its financial stability or in terms of business from the Department of Transport, which, after all, provides something like 85 per cent. of the existing business of the laboratory. Therefore, no one will rush in and buy it unless those concerned are satisfied that they will get that business. The only solution under those circumstances would be to break up the laboratory. If we are talking about a consortium buying the laboratory and each taking out of it the individual expertise that it wishes, whether it is for bridges, roads or whatever, then we would be almost completely destroying a centre of excellence.
Finally—and this is all that I have to say about the TRL, because I wish to pass on to other matters—the Government now seem to have decided that they will pay no attention to the impartiality which can only be guaranteed by an operation in the public sector. I have much experience of consultancy work, as I am sure does the Minister and I firmly believe that if the Government wish to have research carried out which will provide results without fear or favour, that work should and can only be carried out in the public sector. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I maintain that what the Minister is proposing is absurd.
My noble friend Lord Ashley asked whether there was a hidden agenda and I believe there is. My noble friend Lord Haskel mentioned some of the other laboratories and research establishments that are at present under threat of privatisation such as the National Physical Laboratory, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. I would add to that list the Warren Spring Laboratory at Stevenage, which is an executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry set up under the legislation to which my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington referred. The Warren Spring Laboratory has an international reputation as an impartial centre of excellence in the fields of process technology and environmental pollution—work which is a vital element in the sustainable development programme to which the United Kingdom subscribed at the Earth Summit at Rio. What is to happen to this essential laboratory? It is to be shut down and the staff will be pushed into part of the Atomic Energy Authority, AEA Technology, and, by the end of March, into something called the New National Environmental Technology Centre, which will then (what a surprise !) be privatised. That is privatisation by stealth. Non-profitable, public interest research—the kind of long-term research that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned—which is by nature uncommercial and high risk as one does not

1477
know what the results of it will be, if there are any results at all, will not be carried out by a commercial enterprise. It is as simple as that.
So far I have referred to the Transport Research Laboratory, Warren Spring Laboratory and the other laboratories mentioned by my noble friend Lord Haskel. However, the matter is even more serious. I refer again to the hidden agenda mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ashley. On 2nd February the Government embarked on an exercise to draw up proposals for privatising, contracting out or cutting back at any or all of 49 public sector research establishments. The Government's view, set out in their specification, was that many services currently provided by their research establishments could be carried out in the private sector. The Government's study covers some 49 public sector research establishments employing as many as 30,000 scientists. Will this be a two-year or three-year study, as these are complicated establishments? No, conclu-sions will be drawn from this exercise in 90 days. In 90 days, proposals will be put before the Government to privatise, contract out or cut back on any or all of 49 research establishments. The members of the official team conducting the exercise are in such haste that they have told unions representing staff that they have no time to consult the unions at local level. Therefore they will go ahead and write proposals for the Government without talking to the unions at local level. That, again, is absurd.
What conclusions do we draw from what we have heard this afternoon? I draw three conclusions. First, the Government have abandoned any interest in impartiality of research, which can only be guaranteed if the establishment which is conducting the research is free from commercial pressures. The Government have also abandoned the idea of non-commercial, long-term research. Secondly, the Government do not care about pure public interest research, which is by definition unprofitable and indeed uncommercial. Thirdly, the Government are not bothered about the fate of their own employees. They are only bothered—as many noble Lords have said—with the short-term cash flow of the Treasury. Worst of all, they appear to be locked in a mental time warp. They are not prepared even to entertain the thought that privatisation has run whatever course it had. It is simply no sort of policy just to scrape together whatever is available and sell it off for the sake of a dogma that is becoming increasingly anachronistic.
6.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, as other noble Lords have already said, the House is, I am sure, grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, for the opportunity to discuss the important issue of the future of the Transport Research Laboratory. Indeed we have had two preliminary canters round the course at Question Time thanks to the noble Baroness. I am not entirely sure whether, when I replied to the noble Baroness at Question Time on the subject of the
1478
Transport Research Laboratory, that was my maiden appearance for the Department of Transport, but it must have been close to it.
This debate, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, is particularly timely because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has recently announced his provisional conclusions on the future status of the laboratory. I know that he will wish to be informed by your Lordships' view in coming to a final decision. One of your Lordships—I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Williams, —said that I must be feeling pretty lonely as regards my defence of this privatisation. I can recall that on the occasion of almost every previous privatisation I have been surrounded by the serried ranks of Socialists and I have also felt pretty lonely. However, I have noted with interest that as privatisations have occurred over the past 15 years, each one was described in disparaging terms. For example the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, used the term "a privatisation too far". On hearing those words, I noted down,"Wasn't every one a privatisation too far?"
It is interesting to note that the Labour Party opposes and complains about privatisations but then says afterwards,"Oh well. We will live with it". The word "renationalisation" no longer crosses the lips of Labour Party members. There was a good example of that just the other day when the party opposite launched its programme to encourage private capital to fund projects such as roads, hospitals and schools. The Leader of the Labour Party suggested—I have the quote before me to ensure that my memory serves me right—
"Old dogmas and battle lines should be swept aside to attract cash"—
from the private sector of course
"for vital improvements to roads, schools and hospitals".
It was not that long ago when that policy was anathema to the Labour Party which considered it to be part of the evil conspiracy of this Conservative Government. Therefore I shall treat with a little scepticism some of the over-the-top statements that have been made about the privatisation of the laboratory that we are discussing.
Most noble Lords know the laboratory a good deal better than I. Indeed not only do we have the laboratory's original parent here this afternoon, but also a number of its foster parents down the years. Just occasionally, as I was subjected to verbal attacks from those foster parents, and the parent in the person of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, I felt that I was about to be accused of being the abortionist of this healthy child which is so dear to the hearts of the various noble Lords through whose hands it has passed.
The laboratory is based at Crowthorne in Berkshire. It has a small satellite unit—I do not think anyone mentioned this—at Livingston near Edinburgh, and it has indeed been responsible for a wide range of significant transport research and development. The noble Baroness can rightly feel proud of her role in establishing the laboratory at its current site. Indeed noble Lords have mentioned some of the other projects which the noble Baroness started and of which she should rightly feel proud, such as the introduction of breath tests and progress over the matter of seat belts. I did not notice the Humber Bridge coming into this

1479
eulogy: nor indeed In place of strife, which I suspect formed a very major roadblock, if I may so describe it, in the noble Baroness's career in the party opposite.
The TRL was launched in April 1992 as an executive agency, operating on Next Step principles. I will come back to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, later on. At the same time—this is important—a proper client-contractor relationship was established between the policy divisions in the Department of Transport which are responsible for buying the great bulk of TRL's output and the laboratory. Responsibility for managing research budgets passed to the customers, who now identify and manage the research they need. Examples range from research into new and improved road materials, construction techniques, through to driver behavioural research, including novice drivers. The driving seat changed from TRL, who devised the research programmes on the basis of what it thought was needed, and came to the Ministry where a budget was suggested. The situation has changed to one in which the policy divisions of the department decide what research they require. Of course that leaves TRL free to concentrate on the specialised research work which is its hallmark. Indeed a number of your Lordships—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—were concerned about long-term research work. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth raised the question specifically of research into safely in coaches and seat belts in coaches. Of course we all accept those are very important.
I point out to my noble friend that TRL is not at the moment working an this issue for the department, but in the future the department's bus safety programme will require some long-term and some short-term research on the subject. It will then go out for bids. It is not guaranteed that it will go to the TRL, but the important thing to remember is that long-term research does not exist in a vacuum: it exists because the customer—in the case of road and transport research, the department —wants it done. Therefore if the department put out contracts for long-term research it is there for this laboratory or any other laboratory or institute to bid for that contract. That will give, whoever wins it—and it is to be hoped that in many cases it will be the TRL—the long-term security of which noble Lords seem to think they are going to be deprived. The customers in the Department of Transport are not suddenly going to want only short-term research. They, like many customers who seek research projects over the whole field, will want many long-term projects as well. Therefore the mix will not be any different from the mix at the moment demanded by the department and so I do not see that this argument that somehow or other long-term research will be sacrificed by TRL being privatised stands up to any logical examination.
The key feature of the role of the customer—in this case the department—is the choice of supplier. Departmental' policy customers were therefore allowed to seek competitive tenders for their projects. My right honourable friend recognised that it would take a little time for the laboratory to adjust to a competitive environment, and so he provided for a transitional period of three years. In the first year,1992– 93,
1480
departmental customers could put up to 40 per cent. of new projects out to competitive tender. The remaining 60 per cent. went as before to TRL by direct commission. In the following year,1993– 94, the proportion of new projects which could he put out to tender rose to 50 per cent., and we had planned for the proportion to rise to 60 per cent. in the coming financial year.
Of course TRL could still bid for Department of Transport work for which competitive tenders were sought. It quickly became clear that TRL, could not compete effectively. It was constrained by its place in the public sector. For instance, like any government agency, TRL is required to cover its costs in full through charges. It would not be permissible to run loss leaders, for instance, in order to attract business. That could end up with taxpayers having to fund any deficits and that would be wrong. It would be wrong for taxpayers' money to be used to market services against private sector competitors.
In the light of the difficulties which TRL faced, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport considered whether TRL would be able to secure its future more effectively in the private sector, freed from public sector constraints. He concluded in May of last year that in principle TRL should be privatised. Shortly afterwards he appointed KPMG to advise him on options for privatisation and their feasibility. My right honourable friend has been very open with the trade unions about the consultancy study. Their views were invited on the terms of reference arid their suggestions were taken on board. He readily gave a commitment that once the consultants had completed their work he would consult the unions on his provisional conclusions before reaching any final decision. He has also made available to them, as indeed I said he would in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, as much as possible of the consultants' work.
KPMG completed its work towards the end of last year and copies of the report are in the Library. The report is complete, save for information which is commercially confidential: for example, information given in confidence by outside bodies or material which would be prejudicial to any sale. My right honourable friend has given the KPMG report very careful consideration. His provisional view is that the laboratory should be transferred to the private sector; but I should emphasise that no final decision has been taken. I can repeat the assurance that I gave to the noble Baroness in January, when we last discussed this matter, that we will not take any final decision until my right honourable friend has discussed his view with the trade unions. That said, he is keen to make as early an announcement as he can, as he does not want to extend the period of uncertainty for the staff. Officials in my department have been in contact with the TRL unions in order to arrange a date as soon as possible for a meeting.
Before I comment on the report from the consultants and their conclusions, I want to make it perfectly clear to your Lordships that I join them in their warm tributes paid to the work of TRL. The Government fully recognise the quality of the work there and the important contribution it has made to road safety, the avoidance of

1481
road congestion, traffic management and a range of related areas. The quality of its work, together with the facilities available and the high calibre of its staff, have earned the laboratory a deserved reputation as a major centre for road and transport research. It is rightly held in high regard by industry both here and abroad.
However, I can see no reason why the quality of its output should change were TRL to be transferred to the private sector. What is important is the reputation of the organisation and the quality of the staff, not whether ownership resides in the public sector or the private sector. That is, I think, in the words of Mr. Robin Cook,
"a Maginot Line we can do without".
Before I turn to the report and refer to one of its paragraphs, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who asked whether the consultants were instructed to consider the retention of TRL in the public sector, that they were appointed to examine the option for privatisation. Their judgment of feasibility was against that background. That is the background against which they produced their report. They looked at the status quo option and came to the view that the retention of TRL in the public sector ran the real risk of the laboratory going into a cycle of cumulative decline. The terms of reference were to examine the long-term commercial viability of privatising TRL. Perhaps I may now turn to paragraph 1.4.1 in the consultants' report. Here they say:
"We have considered the principal ownership issues of whether it is feasible and sensible to privatise TRL and, if so, which privatisation option should be pursued. Retention of TRL in the public sector as an Executive Agency has been considered as a default option and compared with a range of privatisation options. Invariably, however, retention of the status quo has not proved favourable by comparison to privatisation options. In our view, retention of TRL in the public sector would risk it being unable to respond adequately to changes in its market and runs the considerable risk of TRL going into a cycle of cumulative decline. Privatisation, by removing some of the public sector constraints on its operation, enabling TRL to exploit fully its intellectual property and to develop a more commercial approach will make it better able to respond to its changing environment".
I have read out the words carefully. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, I have not changed them around. I have read them in the order in which they are in the report.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was concerned about critical mass. I fully appreciate that concern with regard to any research laboratory. On the basis of what the consultants say, if allowed to continue research would suffer a spiral of decline. That would certainly cause it to slip below the critical mass position. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out to the House, it is an important factor.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has the noble Lord considered the possibility that when considering the prospect of TRL remaining in the public sector, the consultants probably had in mind the disastrous consequences that might occur were the existing Government to remain in office?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure what the noble Lord is getting at. If he means, as I suspect he does, that KPMG would not receive any more work from the Government, I
1482
absolutely refute that suggestion. The KPMG consultants were employed for this task and, whatever the result, it would not alter the Government's position on their future role. I am sure that the noble Lord makes the point in jest. But I find it an insulting suggestion both from the Government's point of view and from the point of view of KPMG. I do not believe that they would take that point into consideration when giving their considered view on such an important subject.
As I have just quoted, it is clear that retaining TRL in the public sector is not a viable option. It would risk the laboratory being unable to respond adequately to changes in the market and would lead to a cycle of cumulative decline. That confirms the view that TRL is constrained as a government agency in competition with other research suppliers. KPMG concluded that privatisation would make TRL better able to respond to the changing environment. That must be right. Privatisation would free the laboratory from the restraints it currently faces and enable it to market its services to public and private sector clients alike without any of the red tape of covering each cost pound by pound and penny for penny. It would allow TRL to compete more effectively across a wider market than is currently available to it. The skills and facilities which TRL has to offer mean that it would be in a strong market position in certain areas. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that that is the definition of a level playing field, not one in which TRL is still in the public sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made certain remarks about government promises to keep executive agencies inside the Civil Service. No such promises were made. It is true that we have decided to keep the Driving Standards Agency, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Vehicle Certification Agency and the enforcement functions of the Vehicle Inspectorate in the public sector. What we have done is to review agencies. We are quite prepared to keep them in the public sector where that is appropriate and sensible for their continued long-term health and for the quality of the service they supply to customers. We are equally prepared to move them into the private sector if we think that that is the better option.
In confirming that privatisation was feasible, KPMG examined a number of sales options. They included a trade sale to a single buyer, purchase by a consortium of trade buyers and sale as a non-profit distributing company. Their preferred options were sale to a consortium and a non-profit distributing company. Many noble Lords made the point that perhaps we should have taken their advice entirely and gone for the option of a non-profit distributing company. However, KPMG also made the point that prospective bidders may have been hindered by a lack of knowledge of TRL's business and in such circumstances it would seem sensible to keep all possible options open at this stage.
We are therefore minded towards a competitive sale process in which bids would be invited from as wide a range of possible interests as we can find. But that does not mean —and I was asked this specifically by the

1483
noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn—that we have taken a final view on the non-profit distributing company idea.
In coming to that final view we shall wish to be satisfied that there are good prospects for a successful privatisation—successful both in terms of transition to the private sector and in terms of my right honourable friend's continuing requirement for high quality transport research and development. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that we continue to fund an extensive research programme, costing about £100 million over the next three years. Therefore there is no question of privatisation leading to a reduction in the level of government-sponsored research.
Neither can I see any reason why privatisation should lead to important long-term research being abandoned, as I have already explained, in favour of more short-term commercial work. Policy units within the Department of Transport responsible on Ministers' behalf for specifying research requirements to be met by both TRL and other suppliers will be looking at both long-term research needs and short-term. Privatisation, as I explained earlier, would not affect the nature of the research we require.
It has been suggested that privatising TRL would risk undermining its reputation for independent and impartial research Obviously we place particular value on TRL's independence and the impartial advice that it offers. If privatisation is confirmed, prospective purchasers would need to demonstrate that they were able to meet those requirements of independence and integrity. I do not for one moment prescribe to the philosophy that one only has independence and integrity in the public sector. I also believe that most of the Labour Party has moved away from that point of view, at least so far as concerns its story to the electorate.
Considerations of independence and integrity are important, but they are not the only factors. We also wish to create a competitive supply market for transport research. We would look to prospective buyers to demonstrate an ability to meet obligations to staff transferring to the new organisation. Finally, we would wish to ensure that proceeds from the sale maximised the return to the taxpayer.
As I said when I started, the debate could hardly have come at a more opportune moment. Your Lordships' comments have been, as ever, illuminating and informative. I know that my right honourable friend is keen to know your Lordships' thinking and will be hurrying back from Dresden overnight from a meeting of fellow European Transport Ministers in order to receive my report on your Lordships' thinking in the morning. However, leaving aside that slightly jesting remark, my right honourable friend will indeed be keen to read reports in Hansard of the debate in order to help him to arrive at a firm conclusion on the future of this important facility.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I am grateful to my colleagues on this side of the House for their contributions to the debate and to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Rodgers, for joining in. We have had a succession of telling speeches which culminated in the
1484
brilliant summing-up by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He widened the debate to the whole prospect of research in this country. I cannot congratulate the Minister on his reply. Of course he is in a difficulty. He seeks to defend a totally illogical case. The barrenness of his argument was reinforced by two factors: first, the total lack of support from the Benches behind him; and, secondly, his compulsion to draw in In Place of Strife as a distraction from his lack of transport argument.
I was particularly touched by the picture of Mr. MacGregor dashing home to receive our comments, and to hear that he would stay up all night to consider them. I am sorry, but I do not find it convincing. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion. But we do not withdraw from the fight.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Treasure Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Where do I start? With hesitation and humbly, since, after all, I aim to amend a law which has been unchanged for nearly 1,000 years. But its original purpose as a source of revenue for the Crown has gone long ago. Today, it aims to preserve portable antiquities if they are of gold or silver. At least as important, it seeks to record where they are found, which may in its turn tell us something about our past history. If it is not reported, then again and again, alas, our history is irrevocably lost. I beg those who find something in the future to report it.
The law of treasure trove as it now stands is inadequate to cover the various antiquities, especially with the growth of the metal "detectorists"—if there is such a word. However, perhaps I may say at once that the Bill is not directed against them in any way. What they do is welcome, if they behave properly. I shall come back to that in more detail later.
I am not the first to try to reform the Bill. Lord Abinger, as far back as 1981, introduced a Bill a little less all-embracing than mine which passed through your Lordships' House. Sadly, it got lost in the Commons and my hope and wish and, I am sure, that of anyone who supports the Bill, is that the same will not happen if this Bill is given a Second Reading and is passed. I think your Lordships know that it will all depend on the Government's support. I know that they are not entirely happy with it as it stands today; but there is no good reason why, over the next six weeks, we do not have time to change the Bill so that it has the wholehearted support and backing of the Government. Then when it goes to the Commons, in one way or another they will see it through. My aim in this has been to listen particularly to them and to enlist their help. I do not think of it in terms of "we" and "they", I think of it in terms of all of us together trying to get the law changed.
Thirteen years have gone by since the Abinger Bill. Again and again, especially in the last few years, many of us have urged the Government to bring in a Bill; but to no avail. There has, however, been one good event in

1485
the past year. Now there is one department—the Department of National Heritage—which is responsible for the Bill. That makes it much easier. Earlier, when I was trying to get something into shape, I used to tackle various departments which in those days had some responsibility; but they clearly did not take the matter on board. The kind of answer I received was: "We are considering the whole issue" or, "We have in mind to consult all concerned". But nothing has ever come from those words. During that time, we have lost a considerable number of valuable objects and, more important or at least as important, a record of where they were found and the implications for our history.
How did I come into this? The Surrey Archaeological Society who had seen the tragedy of the pillage of their great find at Wanborough, and a little later the British Museum and all the archaeological and other societies concerned with the Bill, became desperate. They approached me, knowing that I had an interest in the subject and asked whether I would help. The result is the Bill. But it has taken five years to hatch, and that is too long. There have been endless consultations, not only with government departments but with great numbers of those associations and others who are interested in the subject. I shall return to that in a moment.
First, I wish to say thank you to all those who, over the past five years, have patiently worked on the Bill —the lawyers and everyone else—and advised us so that we have a Bill which, while it may not be entirely right, is real progress and something we can discuss and change as appropriate.
In earlier times I wanted to make it simpler in the sense that we would say "Trespassers will be prosecuted". But the Home Office would have none of it. I do not blame them; I understand the reasons, but I ask your Lordships and those concerned to realise that we had to get around such difficulties. I like to think that we have succeeded.
We have consulted endless people. For example, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers Union have both shown goodwill and support. They have suggested an amendment which I shall not quote now but which is wholly acceptable for the Committee stage and will do a good deal to remove worries about the rights of landowners and others and will do something to ensure that those who misbehave will suffer accordingly.
We consulted many people. I have a list which I shall not read in full. We consulted something like 30 bodies: the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, the Society of Antiquaries, the British Antique Dealers Association, the British Archaeological Trust. They all say they are wholly behind the Bill. Then we come to another group of bodies who, while they have not been specifically asked their opinion on the Bill, have given us their support in general. For example, magistrates, coroners, the police, the county councils and district associations. They have all indicated their support in one way or another; and if they wish to make amendments, I can only say that they are welcome. I
1486
have listed those bodies to show how widespread is the general wish that something be done. As it stands today, the treasure trove legislation is inadequate.
Earlier, I said that the Bill was not directed against those who operate metal detectors. I wish to quote from the leaflet of the National Council for Metal Detecting. It lists a code of conduct in which the first item states:
"Do not trespass. Ask permission before venturing on to any private land".
The sixth item is:
"Report all unusual historical finds to the landowner".
The seventh item is:
"Familiarise yourself with the law relating to archaeological sites".
Nothing could be more acceptable than all of this—if it happened. But alas, while there are many very responsible metal detectorists, there are others who do not care and who ignore the code of conduct. Part of the purpose of this Bill is to give teeth by means of a clause that will ensure that if they do not behave—if they steal, I was going to say, which is right—then they face punishment. Clause 4(3) makes it a summary offence not to report a find of treasure. The offence is punishable by up to three months' imprisonment or a fine. That sort of deterrent is essential against the cowboys, the plunderers, the thieves—for that is what they are. They damage for ever the history of our country.
I want to touch on just one other matter before I go very quickly through the various clauses of the Bill as it stands. I have been astonished and heartened, as I am sure have many other noble Lords, by the great interest and support for this Bill among the media. The press, television and radio have all shown their interest and support. I want to thank them. I say to the Government: the people want this measure and you must help us to make the necessary changes and achieve our aim. It is a non-party matter. Not only is the Bill supported by the various Parties, but its aim, which is to save treasure and record our history, is one that is recognised by the people as being of real importance. It is for the common good. It is essential that the Bill, in amended form, should go through this House with Government support and does not suffer the fate of the Abinger Bill, but becomes law.
I should like very briefly to go over the various clauses in the Bill. The explanatory memorandum which accompanies it, in broad, tells us all that we need to know. The one point that is left out of the general paragraphs is that the Bill provides teeth for those who do not follow what they are told to do.
Clause 1 vests treasure in the Crown. It is a complicated matter that it refers just to "treasure", and not "treasure trove". I shall not go into it in detail. It was done in this way because we were advised that, otherwise, there would be problems with the Royal Prerogative. (I am no lawyer, and I do not altogether believe what I am told—or anyway, I think that there is probably a way round it.)
Clause 2 defines what is "treasure" and widens the definition. Importantly, it covers not only gold and silver but objects which are associated with the find. For example, if there is a huge hoard of coins, the copper cannot be separated from the gold and silver, as has happened to date.

1487
I need not go into all the details on the subsections of Clause 3. The clause is very important because it extends the responsibilities of the coroners; and they do not have to try to decide, with or without a jury, whether the object was buried with the intention of recovery or whether it was lost. That has caused endless difficulties and there have been endless court cases. The distinction is out of date, and the Bill simplifies that matter. Quite simply, the treasure stands on its own.
Clause 4 is very important. It is perhaps the most important clause of all. It lays down the duty of the finder of the treasure; namely, to tell the coroner. From that duty, many matters flow. Without it, anything can happen. People can simply find an object and go away with it in their pocket. But if we look at subsection (3), we see, as I have already stated, that it will be a summary offence not to report a find to the coroner.
Clause 5 lays down the duty of the coroner, who has obligation to the occupier of the land. We shall amend that clause. It is the wish of the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers Union to include, in one way or another, the landowner. Clause 6 states that there is no need for a jury.
The Bill come; into force three months after its passage in both Houses. It covers only England and Wales. Perhaps it is rather strange that I, a Scot, should be introducing this, Bill. But in Scotland I like to think that our system or treasure trove works. I shall not go into it. I have talked for long enough. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Perth.)
7.17 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for bringing this timely Bill before the House. It is a matter of great importance nationally. It affects what we know about our country's history and it affects our understanding of our national heritage. It is a very much needed piece of legislation which effectively enjoys the support of all heritage and archaeological bodies in this country. Perhaps that is, a sweeping statement. I shall rephrase it: I know of no heritage or archaeological body in this country that does riot recognise the Bill as a significant step forward.
As I shall indicate, the Bill goes only so far. In some ways it is less than ideal. At first sight I find the distinction between "treasure trove" and "other treasure" infelicitous. But on closer study I do not have any serious objection; it is simply a matter that requires explanation when one speaks about the Bill.
A more serious objection is that there is perhaps a need for more wide-ranging legislation to protect our archaeological heritage. However, I do not think that is to be used as an objection against the present Bill. It is simply a matter of which we should be aware.
The most important aspect is that this Bill at a serious level is not about gold, silver or treasure. In fact, I and many archaeologists are always rather unhappy at the prominence given to the concept of treasure. What it is about is our shared history in Britain and our understanding of the past, our heritage and who we are, which come from what has been discovered. The
1488
process of archaeology is to make sense out of the past through the material finds. Many of the material finds are chance finds and are portable antiquities of the kinds dealt with in the Bill.
It is the case that this country falls far behind most civilised lands in lacking an adequate antiquities legislation. We have no all-embracing antiquities legislation. One can find a Greek marble statue in one's back garden or on somebody else's land and certainly it is not treasure trove. Nor is it likely to be if this Bill is carried. We do have ancient monuments Acts which protect ancient sites and monuments. That is one area which, by the system of scheduling, listing and guardianship, is in general rather well organised through the Department of National Heritage and through English Heritage. There is also a measure of protection for sites and monuments under planning legislation.
But at present the only protection in this country for archaeological finds (objects and materials) other than those coming specifically from scheduled monuments is through the treasure trove legislation. We have no portable antiquities legislation. However, it is the case that much of what we know in this country about our ancient past—that is in fact the past before the medieval period because we have only limited documents from Anglo-Saxon and Roman times and no written documents whatever from earlier times—comes from chance discoveries of important finds, which may be gold or silver but just as often are bronze, pottery, stone or other material. It is because of the importance of those materials that the treasure trove legislation and to some extent the proposed change to the legislation are somewhat inadequate.
I remind your Lordships that one of the greatest finds, perhaps the greatest single find in the archaeology of Britain, was the Sutton Hoo ship burial, found in 1939. That has added a whole chapter to our understanding of Britain in the early Anglo-Saxon period. But that find was not treasure trove because it was clearly buried as a burial and not with the intention of recovery. Very fortunately the landowner of the day, Mrs. Pretty, behaved in the most generous manner and donated that find to the British Museum, where it remains the most important single collection of objects from our soil in the national possession. But that was not treasure trove under the existing legislation. Happily, under the proposed legislation of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, it would be classed as treasure and fall within the purview of what he proposes.
Moreover, circumstances are changing. The inadequacies in the treasure trove law become ever more pressing and ever more tiresome. That is partly because of the increasing pace of recovery, not least through the use of metal detectors. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, dealt with that matter in some detail. It is indeed the case that those persons who use metal detectors and then report the find promptly are perhaps doing a service. The very happy circumstance of the recent find of the Hoxne treasure, which was a stunning find, is a very happy case in point. Noble Lords may know the story. A person with a metal detector was hunting for a hammer which the farmer had lost. The farmer invited him onto the land

1489
and he began to find gold coins. He reported them at once to the competent authorities and a proper excavation followed.
That is the point that I want to make more than any other in my comments. It is not the objects themselves and certainly not the ownership of the objects, be they gold, silver or whatever, that matter. What matters is the information that those objects can give us about our past. In my view what truly matters is not the ultimate ownership of the materials but that those materials are reported at once and then published, so that the find becomes part of the information available to us, and in a serious sense in terms of information it becomes part of our archaeological and cultural heritage. That is what happened in the case of the Hoxne treasure, thanks to the very efficient, prompt and responsible action of the finder.
As a result of the existing legislation, we have absurd inadequacies. Your Lordships will be well aware that at present when a treasure is found it is necessary to hold a coroner's inquest on the intentions of the persons who deposited that treasure as they might have been 2,300 years ago. Did they intend to recover it or did they leave it there as a votive offering or as a burial? It is self-evident that in many cases it is not feasible to ascertain the intentions of persons who died 2000 years ago without any written indication as to what their intentions might have been. So there are coroner's inquests with little more point than determining how many angels might dance on the point of a needle. There are many unsatisfactory, time-wasting circumstances.
Secondly and equally damaging is that, at the moment when important finds are made, only those objects which are of gold or damage to our understanding of the past. Fortunately silver are declared to be treasure. The law as it stands brings about the splitting up and destruction of contexts and the loss of information through the separation of one part of the find from another. That is of great, in some cases that is avoided, for instance, in the case of the most important recent find, the Snettisham Iron Age find. Most of that find was declared to be treasure trove because most of it was of gold or silver. The bronze objects, through the generosity of the landowner, also found their way to the British Museum with the gold and silver, but it could have been otherwise.
A third consequence is that many important coin finds of great significance to our understanding of the history and past economy of the nation are not treasure trove. Most of them will be so if this Bill is enacted. It is also relevant to point to the pace of looting, as I did a moment ago. There have been some very serious incidents, such as that of the Icklingham bronzes, where an important collection of Roman bronzes was looted from a site without the knowledge of the landowner and ended up in New York in very murky circumstances. It is a very sad story. It is said that the owner intends to bequeath those objects ultimately to the British Museum. In any case, the point that I make is that the information which would come from a proper assessment of those objects has in large part been lost.
1490
As I said, it is information and not ownership which is of the greatest importance. That has recently been recognised by the Council for British Archaeology, the Museums Association and the Society of Antiquaries of London, which last year produced a statement of principles on portable antiquities. I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to that statement of principles because it illustrates how much more is needed than the present Bill, though happily the Bill conforms with those principles and will be a step in the right direction. Those leading and eminent authorities pointed out that:
"In Britain today there is no coherent statutory provision for the management of our archaeological inheritance. Britain's archaeological inheritance is a unique resource for the study and understanding of human history … In England and Wales, only Treasure Trove, limited to certain gold and silver finds, provides any requirement for finds to be recorded or studied. There is no other legislation relating specifically to portable antiquities. This omission is illogical. It is contrary to the public interest: an interest which rests in opportunity for public knowledge of our national history".
The five principles are then set out:
"1. The archaeological inheritance is an entity. Archaeological structures and objects form an essential part of the archaeological heritage. Therefore portable elements of our heritage should be accorded a status in law which is commensurate with their importance".
I may add that in most other countries of Europe they are indeed accorded such a status. It continues,
"2. The archaeological inheritance is irreplaceable. The nation should seek to ensure that all aspects of its inheritance are subject to appropriate stewardship.
3. All archaeological material has a potential to contribute information which will help to retrace Britain's history. There is thus a valid public interest in the reporting by a finder of items which are found by chance.
4. The purpose of such reporting is to allow competent recording of information. Such reporting should be made a legal obligation upon the finder (as is currently the case with Treasure Trove), and failure to report should be an offence".
It goes on to suggest that,
"The Crown should wish to retain material of national or regional significance in museums, for purposes of study and public display. Where the Crown retains material, a financial award may be made to the finder and/or landowner".
Of course that is the practice with treasure trove today; that is, that financial rewards to the full commercial value of the finds are made to the finders if the Crown retains those finds. It also states that,
"In the case of material which it is not in the public interest to retain, the Crown would normally wish to reassign title to the finder or landowner".
That is the ideal. But it would present some difficulties. It would require staffing in the sense of who the finder would report the materials to. For that reason the Council for British Archaeology, the Society of Antiquaries and the Museums Association have not sought to bring forward legislation to change the position, though I hope that that day will not be far off.
However, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, showed, this legislation brings a number of benefits with it. First, we would be saved the absurd squabbling as to whether the person burying the treasure intended to recover it. That is something that in general we simply cannot know. Secondly, it would avoid the splitting of finds. If there is a treasure which contains gold and silver then the entire treasure—including the pottery, the bronze, the bones; the whole enterprise—would be part of the ensemble, and that is the only reasonable way of

1491
proceeding. There are other merits, but I shall not take up too much of your Lordships' time by going through them. It seems to me that those are the two principal merits of the Bill.
I had hoped that the Government would support the Bill outright. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, was extremely modest when he indicated the wide range of authorities whom he had consulted. He certainly alerted the Department of National Heritage at its inception on 1st April last year. I was sorry to learn from him the likelihood that the department, in the presence of my noble friend who will speak in a moment, may not feel able to embrace the Bill as it stands. I should of course be delighted if my Ahnungen, my uneasiness, in this matter were refuted by my noble friend Lady Trumpington standing up and saying that the Government are delighted to support the Bill in every way. But I suspect that I shall be disappointed in that regard.
However, in my view the Department of National Heritage ought to support the Bill because it is very much the business of that department to be concerned with the issues that I have raised. Moreover, there was hope—I trust that I am in order in quoting the words of a Minister of the Crown in another place on 27th October 1993—when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, Mr. Iain Sproat, in summing-up in response to a question, said,
"But treasure trove has severe shortcomings in its present form. It relates only to objects with a substantial gold or silver content, reflecting its origins as a means of raising revenue for the Crown rather than furthering archaeological research. Even when objects of base metal are found closely associated with gold and silver objects, they cannot be declared treasure trove, whatever their potential archaeological importance, and even gold and silver objects ale treasure trove only if they were deliberately hidden with the intention of later recovery—a point that may be virtually impossible to decide after 2,000 years or more.
We recognise these inadequacies and are considering proposals for a private Member's Bill to reform the present law … put forward by Lord Perth and the Surrey Archaeological Society, with support from the British museum. As my right hon. Friend made clear to the sponsors of the Bill earlier this year, we felt unable to support some of their original proposals, but detailed discussions are now under way and I certainly hope that it will be possible for us to give our support to a modified package before long". —[0ffic, a1 Report, Commons,27/10/93; col.951.]
If the Government are not able to give that support, I should like to know the reason why. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, has been assiduous in his attempts to meet every point raised, not only by the Department of National Heritage but by the Home Office, the Treasury, the Treasury Solicitor and even by the Foreign Office. It is my view that the Department of National Heritage should have been sorting out those problems for the noble Earl. But though he spoke with the greatest mildness and generosity, he did not say that the Department of National Heritage had sorted out the problems and I fear that that may indeed be the case.
I look forward therefore with the greatest interest to what my noble friend Lady Trumpington will say. I have spoken for too long, but I should like to mention two more points. First, I should like to quote from a letter written by Professor Cunliffe, a professor of archaeology in Oxford, to the Independent last week. More significantly, he is president of the Society of Antiquaries. He said,
1492
"Lord Perth's Bill may not go as far as many may want, but it will be a dramatic improvement on our present medieval laws and will move antiquities in England and Wales a little closer to the state they enjoy in most of the rest of the civilised world".
Finally, I was formally asked by the Trustees of the British Museum—I am one of their number—to inform your Lordships that this Bill has their unequivocal support.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, your Lordships will deduce from my high place in the order of speakers, for which I am grateful, and also from my semi-funereal uniform, that I have a long-standing and official engagement which will prevent me from being here until the end of the debate. I tender my humble apologies and beg to be forgiven. I am also authorised to say that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham approves the principles and present details of the Bill and hopes, as do we all, that it will be given Government backing.
The law of treasure trove is notoriously uncertain and eccentric. The Bill does not replace the law of treasure trove; it supplements it in a way which will get rid of some of the very oddities which now cause anxiety. For example, treasure trove is limited to gold and silver articles which are hidden in the earth or "other secret place", the authorities say, with the intention of their being recovered. Therefore if articles have been lost, abandoned or, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, found in a grave from where there was no intention that they should be recovered, then nothing can be done about them and they can be destroyed, sold or reposed in bank vaults by some misanthropic millionaire.
The Bill applies, by Clause 2, to coins, which are precious metal; to plate or jewellery which have at least 5 per cent. by weight of precious metal—precious metal being defined as gold and silver—provided that they are or appear to be,
"at least 200 years old when found".
There is one important addition; that is, it applies also to objects at least 200 years old where the Secretary of State has by statutory instrument designated its being a. class of object which he considers to be of,
"outstanding historical or archaeological importance".
The whole thrust of the Bill therefore is to preserve the national heritage and articles which really belong to the nation. It will only apply to some articles which have been lost for 200 years. In that sense no finder who stumbles upon them can really claim ownership and no farmer who bought his farm and paid a price for the agricultural content of it can really claim that he is an owner and is entitled to all the benefit of all the articles found on his soil. This is a preservation of the national heritage for our posterity.
I am not myself aware of any defects in the Bill. I understand that some nervousness has been expressed on two grounds; first, what is said to be an extension of the prerogative of the Crown; and secondly, what is said to be some possibility of ownership. So far as concerns ownership, your Lordships will see that under Clause 2(3):
"An object is not treasure … if its owner at the time immediately before it came to be in the place where it is found, or his successor in title, establishes his title to the object".

1493
So the Bill is really confined to articles which for 200 years or more have given up the ghost so far as concerns ownership.
As regards the Crown, the prerogative of the Crown is rightly preserved in relation to treasure trove by Clause 2(2). I apprehend that what is meant by the extension of the prerogative is the fact that Clause 1 vests treasure in the Crown. I do not consider that to be an extension of prerogative. It is Parliament saying to the Crown, "Will you please take over these objects?" The House should not be nervous about giving this title to the Crown because it is quite clear that the Crown takes it on only as trustee. The Crown will, as with treasure trove, consider the merits of persons who find and will make ex gratia payments, as they now are, in relation to treasure trove. The whole object is that the Crown, through Ministers and through the Heritage Department, will be able to ensure that these objects, having been lost by our ancestors, are preserved for our posterity.
That is the whole object of the Bill. If there are any defects in it, as my noble friend Lord Perth said, they can be corrected in Committee. With the massive support that has been obtained from all quarters and with the present unsatisfactory state of the law, I very much hope that the Bill will be given a fair wind and that we shall get some results after what have been years now of endeavour.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, like others before me, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on bringing forward this highly important Bill; indeed, one might almost say this precious Bill. When considering a subject I find it a good discipline to proceed from the general to the specific. So, first, I ask myself why is treasure important? I believe there are two principal reasons. First, but rarely most importantly, for its intrinsic value in its content of precious metal or metals. But, secondly and most importantly, for the information which scholars and others working in the field in museums, galleries, institutions, universities and members of the dealing profession can obtain about our island's history, principally its people, their customs and skills and their distribution of population.
Then I ask myself why this Bill is so important. It is important because it is estimated that some 2 million "portable antiquities" are found each year in Britain by some of the 20,000 users of metal detectors, quite apart from structured, methodical and fully reported architectural excavation. One of two things happens; the finds are reported or—as happens in the majority of cases—they go unreported and are sold on. I should like to deal first with what now happens if they are reported.
The relevant law is that of treasure trove, under which we have laboured since mediaeval times: I was going to say "since time out of mind" but find as a non-lawyer that this means on or before 1189, the commencement of the reign of Richard I. I am not aware of the precise date of the treasure trove law, if indeed there is one, but its purpose was to fill the royal coffers. For reasons which seem opaque to me, any item
1494
substantially of gold or silver left with the intention of retrieving it later became the property of the Crown, while that deemed "abandoned", including burials, went to the finder. The Daily Telegraph, in a substantial article on 2nd March last, quoted Dr. Ian Longworth, the British Museum Keeper of Prehistoric and Roman British Antiquities, as saying:
"It is absurd to think that we can today understand the motives that led their owners to bury objects such as gold torcs several thousand years ago".
This Bill will greatly assist coroners' inquests by deeming all items clearly specified in Clause 2 as treasure without dereliction of designation as treasure trove or of the Royal Prerogative over such items. Therefore, if I dig up something, it may be treasure trove as mediaevally defined, but if it falls within Clause 2 it is treasure and all the strictures of the Bill and powers of the law protect it. Some who have given the Bill a cursory reading only have commented that a weakness lies in the fact that precious metal content is required. But that is not so, for subsection (5) of Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument—this, I understand, to be an affirmative resolution of Parliament—to designate as treasure any class of objects at least 200 years old which he considers to be of outstanding historical or archaeological importance. I further understand that this is not a Henry VIII clause.
I am very glad that the noble Earl has specified a time as recent as 200 years ago in his Bill. It is, I believe, a common misconception that the older something is, then, more or less automatically, the greater is its importance. I, my Lords, am an amateur silversmith and now show you a ring I made containing a William the Conqueror silver penny. At their auction Christie's did not give it away, but there was much coinage in the Conqueror's reign, whereas I believe coins of subsequent and sometimes much later reigns are far rarer and consequently more important and, for that matter, expensive. It is said that Spencer Churchill, the great collector of antiquities, on being introduced to another collector used to ask, "Are you a BC or an AD man? I'm a BC man". Perhaps he thought himself rather superior in being a BC man, but I think it is very important that we should not lose sight of AD, and particularly more recent AD, in terms of our island history. There is much treasure in AD, not least in comparatively recent AD.
I earlier asked the rhetorical question as to what happens when a detector operator discovers something, and have just now endeavoured to answer what happens when the find is reported. However, in what is believed to be the majority of cases, the find is unreported and the object is sold on. There are perhaps two reasons for this. First, the finder is aware that he or she is trespassing under the potential penalties of the law of trespass. This is in itself an offence, and it means that the finder will never gain title to the find. Secondly, the finder has a muddled appreciation even of the law as it stands at present; that is, the law of treasure trove alone. Under this, if declared treasure trove, he will get the market value of the item, or its return with legal title to keep or sell if not wanted by any museum or comparable

1495
institution, and its return and legal title if not. The finder can expect a far better price on sale with legal title than will result from sale to shadowy dealers where both sides are aware of its illegal possession.
The great sadness of a treasure being unreported and smuggled out of the country is that it is important to us here for our understanding of our island's history. Its relevance and likely scholarly study once it leaves our shores for another country is greatly diminished. After all, the find is probably not part of their history and, if studied at all, will be with a rather detached intellectual interest largely divorced from the additional emotional adrenalin that significantly butters our own scholars' bread. This Bill will, I hope, be a great deterrent to such illegal export.
A key element of the Bill is that the definition of treasure supplements and greatly enlarges the category of property falling within the protection to scholars of treasure trove by defining a new property of treasure, combined with the: legal reporting strictures of Clause 4 which, in paraphrase, are first: to report it, and, secondly, to do so within four weeks, failing which up to three months in prison is risked or a fine of up to level 5—that is, £5,000—or both. Thus this excellent Bill puts teeth into the law of treasure by greatly widening the property under protection and requiring almost immediate reporting. Additionally, Clause 5(1) of the Bill requires that the coroner shall:
"within a reasonable time inform the person whom he reasonably believes to be the occupier of the land that the property has been found on the land",
and, in subsection (2) (b) of that clause, the latter has to be given,
"a reasonable opportunity to appear at the inquest",
which, as per Clause 6, may be without a jury. Also, for the avoidance, of doubt, if the circumstances of the find indicate the possibility that the find might be treasure, it will be assumed to be such until an inquest determines otherwise or the legal owner comes forward. Thus, this Bill seeks to remove the grey area of doubt rather along the familiar lines of the declaration of income to the Inland Revenue that if you are in any doubt you should declare it.
Importantly, the Secretary of State may publish a code of practice for the guidance of finders, museums and other relevant parties. By doing this the Secretary of State would both shed public light on a dim and confused area and greatly increase awareness of this legislation. I certainly hope that this would be done.
In conclusion, I wish to emphasise the support given to this Bill by leading bodies. That the Bill is being backed by the British Museum speaks volumes. Additionally, as other speakers have mentioned, it is supported by the Council for British Archaeology, the Museums Association, the Society of Antiquaries of London, the Royal Numismatic Society and the Country Landowners' Association. Many antique dealers are said to support it and the National Farmers' Union, when last contacted 18 months ago, were behind it. The Magistrates' Association and the chief police officers' and coroners' bodies support it. I feel rather humble in saying that I too support it. Although the weather in another place may be stormier, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a fair wind. I wish it well.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I must first apologise for batting out of order. There seem to be two different lists in circulation this evening and I must have got hold of the wrong one. But I am grateful to those who have allowed me to speak at this point.
I am certainly not an amateur silversmith like the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, but for many years I have had an interest in this subject. If I mention one or two of the capacities in which that arises it is purely to demonstrate that, coming from all the different directions that one can to this complicated subject, I have come clearly to the conclusion that this is a Bill which ought to be supported. I have the honour to be chairman of the British Academy Committee for Sylloge of Coins of British Isles. I am also an advisor to the National Art Collections Fund which frequently assists museums in acquiring objects which come forward as treasure trove.
But, from a different angle, since childhood I have been a collector of coins and have written about them. Also during many years in another place, because of these interests, I have found myself the recipient of views on the subject from all kinds of people outside the archaeological establishment. One of the strongest views which was expressed some years ago was that it was not right for the British Museum to be the arbiter of value in respect of objects of treasure trove which the museum itself wanted to acquire. That seemed to me to be a reasonable position. I am glad to say that almost 20 years ago I was able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury and responsible for these things, that it would be sensible to set up an independent body to deal with valuations.
The Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee which has fulfilled that role ever since has, I believe, completely removed from debate some of the more contentious aspects which had arisen hitherto when there was questioning as to whether the valuation of objects had been correctly carried out. Whether or not that was true, if the perception was that rewards (ex gratia payments) were not adequately reflecting market value, then that would be an incentive to some not to declare their fines. I want to take this opportunity of expressing my own appreciation of those who have served on the Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee in recent years because I believe that they have removed that area of contention from the scene.
I congratulate the noble Earl for bringing forward this Bill and thank him for the enormous amount of work and effort which he has put in in bringing it to this state. It is an exceedingly complicated subject. I hope that he will not be embarrassed, but I greatly admire his ingenuity in bringing forward the definition of "treasure" alongside that of "treasure trove". The practical problems of altering the definition of treasure trove itself in legal terms are considerable. It may be that we shall now have a Bill which will achieve the right result without having to open the very complicated issue of the definition of "treasure trove" itself.

1497
Of course, the definition of "treasure" will frequently overlap that of "treasure trove" and that is well understood. But it is very important to bring within the ambit of the law those anomalous cases where, for example, a hoard of coins consists partly of coins containing precious metals and partly not—associated objects and so on; or there is some doubt as to whether the coins had a sufficient element of precious metals in them to justify them as treasure trove at all. I believe that the noble Earl's solution to that by setting up a definition of "treasure" alongside that of "treasure trove" is extremely ingenious. I hope that it will commend itself not only to your Lordships' House, but also to another place.
There are one or two practical questions which I would like to raise and to which I hope that my noble friend will respond when she winds up at the end of this debate. I have had it said to me in the past week or two that there is a possible danger that this definition is too all-embracing and that it might cause too large a number of individual objects to be defined as treasure and therefore bring them into the full processes of the proposed legislation with penalties, reporting and many other things. I have no idea whether or not such comments are justified, but since the Government have clearly paid careful attention to the proposals put forward by the noble Earl, I hope that they may have made some assessment of whether there would be a problem in the sheer number of objects.
The noble Earl mentioned that there is a different system of treasure trove in Scotland. I remember some years ago discussing this with, sadly, the now deceased Robert Stevenson, who was a very distinguished Keeper of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland for many years. I asked him how the Scottish law worked in relation to the very large range of objects to which it potentially could be applied. His answer was that in Scotland they took a pragmatic view about the implementation of the law. He thought that it did not really matter whether they tacitly waived rights over a whole range of objects so long as they had the ability to apply the law to those objects which came to their knowledge and which were of historical, archaeological or cultural importance. I do not know whether the same would apply in the case of the noble Earl's Bill if it were implemented in England. Clearly, the size of England and the amount of activity in the South East of England would be very different from that in the Scottish context. But it is a question which I hope that my noble friend can help us on a little later on.
The other matter that I should like to ask about is whether it is the Government's view that the proposals would require an increase in staff at the British Museum. I am very sympathetic to the members of staff of the British Museum's coin department because under the existing treasure trove arrangements, they receive enormous quantities of coins and have the prime responsibility for recording them. They take the opportunity to make acquisitions, but only of a very small fraction of those which pass through their hands.
I should like at this stage to pay a compliment to Dr. Andrew Burnett, the Keeper of Coins and Medals at the
1498
British Museum, who is making strenuous efforts for his department to catch up in its work on the publication of hordes. It is a sad fact that some very important hordes that were found some 20 or more years ago have still not received adequate publication. Students of those series are seriously handicapped if such information (although retrieved under the present treasure trove arrangements) is not disseminated and published within a reasonable period.
I mention that not because I want to cause serious embarrassment to the British Museum, but merely because it is one of the more serious complaints which over the years that I was a Member of another place I used to receive from many people outside. As I have said, I know that the museum is now making great efforts to catch up, but the question then arises of whether widening the definition of treasure trove will increase the amount of work that has to be carried out there. If that is likely to be the case, I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at strengthening the numbers of those required to do it.
As my noble friend Lord Renfrew said, some of the main problems with metal detecting arise when finds are not reported, particularly in the case of scheduled sites. The other great mischief is trespass, when those who find objects are reluctant to reveal the provenance of their finds because they should not have been at the place of discovery. I was encouraged by the noble Earl's comment that his Bill would make it much more difficult for the cowboys in the metal detecting fraternity. I hope that it will serve to track down not only the objects, but also information about where they were found and in what context. The context is enormously important. Perhaps I might illustrate that by saying that in my own area of interest, which is the first century of English coinage (the second half of the seventh century and the first half of the eighth), almost the only clues that we have about in which of the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms the coins were produced is where the coins are found. The find spots of the objects are enormously important. If they are not preserved at the time of discovery, they can rarely be discovered afterwards.
The other point about the importance of context is that the value of hordes lies not only in the fact that they contain rather larger numbers of antiquities than those found singly, but also hordes provide vital information for the relative dating of objects because, on the whole, hordes (particularly of coins, but also of jewellery and other items, not to mention pottery and other associated objects) tend to be of similar date. A picture of the chronology, which can then be used for dating archaeological sites more generally, can often be built up as a result of the accurate recording of coin hordes. Therefore, I strongly support the intention behind the Bill to encourage greater reporting and recording of discoveries.
There have been times—I do not know whether this still applies—when those who use metal detectors have got something of a bad name for themselves in archaeological circles. That is not surprising if they have been engaged in looting, because in those circumstances they deserve it. But many of those who use metal detectors do not deserve such censure—in fact, they

1499
have added greatly to our knowledge. They have added to the repertoire of material on which we work. The information that they have provided about find spots and associations of objects and coins has been exceedingly valuable. I should like to think that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will encourage still greater co-operation between archaeologists and what I think one should call "meta: detectorists". The two should not be frightened of each other.
I was astonished to read last week, in one of the newspapers which covered this subject, about the Surrey Archaeological Society which had carried out an excavation at Wanborough and published information on it. Somebody with a metal detector had then come along and found the largest-ever horde of Iron Age coins two feet from where the society had been digging. Does nobody in the Surrey Archaeological Society have access to a metal detector? Should not archaeologists themselves take the trouble, if not before they excavate —although that might be very helpful—at least before they make known the location of a site, to apply such techniques to see whether areas of the site should have been given more mention in the first place?
I hope that the Bill will proceed. I hope that it will get through your Lore ships' House and another place. If by any chance it does not, either through lack of time or for any other reason, I very much hope that the Government will recognise that the support which the Bill has attracted represents a strong wish that legislation along these lines, if not exactly that in the noble Earl's Bill, is urgently needed and that they might then come forward with legislation themselves.
8.7 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, other speakers have already stressed tie limitations of the law of treasure trove which is centuries old and was designed only for the purpose of lining the king's pocket where possible. For that reason, I should like briefly to relate the story of Wanborough which is a known Romano-British site just outside Guildford, lying north of the Hog's Back. Here in 1983 some responsible metal detectorists found that there were Iron Age and early Roman coins and they correctly reported that fact.
If I may digress, I would remind your Lordships that many, indeed the majority of metal detector users are highly responsible people who record their finds and report them. They can be invaluable members of an official excavation; for example, by scanning spoil heaps for small finis which could otherwise slip through the net. In very many localities nowadays there is active co-operation between metal detectorists and archaeologists to their mutt al benefit.
However, sad to say, in the Wanborough case the Surrey police soon became aware of people who were battening onto this with more sinister intentions. Unfortunately, when a coroner's inquest was held in 1985 the coroner inadvertently gave out in open court the exact location where the treasure had been found. From then on the site was raided by a new breed of treasure hunters who descended on it in droves, to the great distress of the landowner and local residents. They called themselves 'night-hawks" and it was evident that
1500
some of them had been hired to do the job. They went on digging through the summer and autumn nights despite creditable police vigilance and even while a controlled excavation with electronic wiring was set up.
Something in the order of £2 million-worth of gold and silver coins were removed and dispersed across Europe and into America. The site turned out to be a Romano/Celtic temple; the coins were earlier than the temple by over a hundred years. They seem to have come from outside it; from ground which had been so thoroughly churned up that it was impossible to decide for sure what, if any, the relationship had been. The coroner's inquest decided on the balance of probabilities that they were treasure trove. In the subsequent rescue excavation rare and elaborate bronze priestly regalia, some of it quite unique, was recovered from inside the temple; more may have been lost. Since it was made of bronze it would not have counted as treasure trove, so the finds could have been split up. Treasure trove may be only gold or silver; the requisite precious metal content has been debated very often. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, once laid down that it should be as high as 50 per cent, which is not practical in many cases.
Splitting a hoard into what is precious metal and what is not is only one of the many anomalies of the present system. One of the most necessary reforms is the proper recording of all finds. If relevant facts are placed on permanent record scholars can build up realistic accounts about the past. But if things are dug up in secret and disposed of equally secretly the loss to knowledge cannot be calculated. The irony is that the individual metal detectorist is often unaware of the true value of the object he finds.
It was in 1989 that the Surrey Archaeological Society became convinced of the need for further action. In July of that year one of the Wanborough convictions was quashed on appeal on the grounds that the trial judge had failed to make clear to the jury that in a criminal trial the standard of proof required in a civil court was insufficient. Therefore, any presumption available in the coroner's court as to treasure trove or as to the Crown's entitlement did not apply in criminal cases. That decision would leave only the option of a prosecution for theft from the landowner under the Theft Act. But this is fraught with difficulties; at Wanborough part of the site was private farmland and part was a county council footpath. Formerly it was an offence to conceal treasure trove but this was abolished by Section 32(1) (a) of the Theft Act 1968. In theory, such cases would still constitute theft but in practice doubts concerning ownership and establishing mens rea have meant that prosecutions have either failed or not been attempted, even in the most extreme cases.
In October 1989 a letter to The Times was written by the then president of the Surrey Archaeological Society suggesting that, although earlier attempts at reform had not succeeded, it might be time to try again. Among the replies that came back was one from a judge who had been involved as counsel in one of the Wanborough cases at Kingston Crown Court. While agreeing the correctness of the appeal decision, he wrote:

1501
"This does not mean that I and other members of my profession do not support your point of view; on the contrary, we do. The law of Treasure Trove seems just as arbitrary and absurd to us as it does to you. There is no doubt now what the law is, and how totally inadequate it is for the protection of our heritage. You should use this case as a goad to prod our rulers out of their disgraceful inertia, and good luck to you".
The point remains that if the Bill is not passed there will be a delay, which almost certainly will be three years. During that time a great deal of our heritage will be lost permanently.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall deal in a moment with the interesting comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on metal detectors. I too warmly support the Bill and congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on the trouble that he has taken to get it into print, and to present it today in such an interesting way.
I express my main reason for supporting the Bill slightly differently from noble Lords who have spoken. The ancient law of treasure trove is not only artificial but has only one main original and continuing purpose; that is, theoretically, to enable the Crown to acquire gold and silver. Its purpose was decided upon in the reign of King Richard I—Coeur de Lion—because at that time and until 1914 we were on the Gold Standard. Gold was the foundation of our currency and of our economic credibility and it was helpful for the Crown to obtain gold.
Of course, silver and copper were also part of the coinage. However, over the years, experience has shown that to say merely that the Crown shall have the right to gold and silver when it is found in certain circumstances is an artificial and narrow way of protecting the heritage.
Much else besides gold and silver which has been buried in the earth of England and Wales during the past 5,000 years is of historic, archaeological and even artistic value. One does not want to be legalistic in this matter because that will get us nowhere; but the items should be regarded as Crown property or public property which should be put on view in museums to which the public have access. Displaying such items in museums for the benefit of the public is especially important for the understanding of our past by future generations.
The fact that metal detectors have been used increasingly during the past 30 years is incidental. The Bill would be necessary whether or not metal detectors had been discovered. Let us consider the part that metal detectors can play, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, with a vivid illustration. They can play a most valuable part or they can play a part which has the opposite effect. I am glad to say that today the All-Party Arts and Heritage Group, of which I am an officer and which supports the Bill, visited the Museum of London. The people who run the museum told us that they have a good understanding with people who use metal detectors in the Inner London area. I assume that includes those who are working on the banks of the Thames. The Bill could help those who use metal detectors, because Clause 8(3) (c) deals with the opportunity for the finders to receive rewards.
1502
I turn to the treasure trove law, which is artificial and unsatisfactory. The Crown has no right to the property unless it was hidden in the earth with the intention of recovering it. As was said by my noble friend Lord Renfrew in his most telling speech, it is generally impossible to say what was the intention of the original owner who may have been dead for 2,000 years. Coroners have overcome that difficulty in many cases when in doubt and have applied the principle of a prima facie presumption that the treasure was indeed originally hidden with a view to being dug up at some later stage. Of course, in those circumstances, the finder is frequently unable to rebut that presumption.
The artificial distinction which applies to treasure trove will not apply to the new concept of treasure as described by the noble Earl because Clause 1 provides that the property which is in treasure would vest in the Crown irrespective of where it was found and the circumstances in which it came to be there. Therefore, that would overcome a great difficulty which has existed in connection with gold and silver.
We shall have to consider Clause 2 very carefully in Committee. It provides a definition of treasure. One might have hoped that all objects of outstanding archaeological, historical or artistic importance would be treated automatically as treasure. But in Clause 2(5) and (6) we find that such objects will need to be described in an order to be made by the Secretary of State and approved by affirmative resolution of each House. We are placing that important definition into secondary legislation. My opinion is that it would be much better to write as much as possible of that definition into the Bill.
Clause 5 provides that the coroner must inform the occupier of the land that the property has been found there. But the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers Union have suggested wisely that the owner of the land should also be informed of the find. I suggest that that should be the responsibility either of the coroner, as has already been suggested, or when the coroner has told the occupier, the occupier might have responsibility for telling the owner; or it may be that we could even give the finder a responsibility in that matter. That is a point which we may wish to consider in Committee.
The National Farmers Union has made another good point by suggesting that no ex gratia payment should be made to any finder who is a trespasser. That is fair enough. I suggest that could be written into the Bill instead of being included eventually in a code of practice which the Bill envisages at present.
I most earnestly hope, as do other noble Lords, that the Government will support the Bill although I concede that Ministers may well wish to table amendments in the light of advice given to them. I have studied some of the advice given by eminent Civil Service lawyers, but I find the arguments somewhat legalistic and unhelpful and in one or two cases, I do not believe that the law has been stated correctly.
This Bill is in the public interest which the Government have a duty to protect. The fact that it is so widely supported by every speaker so far in your Lordships' House, by the British Museum and the

1503
Museums Association, by the CLA and the NFU, by the Council of British Archaeology, the Society of Antiquaries, and the Royal Numismatic Society must carry weight. It will be interesting to hear what my noble friend Lady Trumpington has to say in answer to the arguments put forward this evening in favour of the Bill.
I ask my noble friend what is the point of having a Department of National Heritage unless it does something to protect those parts of our heritage which are at risk of vanishing. This Bill or something like it would protect our heritage in vital respects.
8.25 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I warmly support the Bill and I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for giving us an opportunity to discuss it this evening.
First, I must declare an interest as a landowner. On the land that I own there are several ancient monuments and I am also a member of the Country Landowners' Association. I live in a 300 year-old house which has been in my family for 237 years. I am not sure whether that makes some of the odd bits and pieces that I find in it subject to the provisions of the Bill regardless of how they come to be there. But I support the Bill because it gives us an opportunity to knock some sense into a situation which is manifestly unsatisfactory. Grave-robbers and bounty-hunters, like loose cannon, having no obligations or co-responsibility, have been with us for centuries and the present day has merely added a technological dimension to that.
As always. it must be said that it is the few who prejudice the interests of a larger number of responsible members of the public who pursue their pleasure by using metal detectors. It is an opportunity also for the House to consider which artefacts may be considered to be treasure arid, therefore, rightly belong to the nation and perhaps also those which do not necessarily belong to the nation but which may belong to individuals.
I was not quite sure that I understood correctly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, but I believe that he was referring to items which had been lost for 200 years. As I read the Bill—and no doubt noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong—it is if the item is 200 years old when it was found, regardless of when it came to be lost, which could be much more recent.
There are several personalities in this situation. First, there is the finder whose direct labours result in the discovery of artefacts. I make no comment on the motives which may have led to that. Secondly, there is the state, which ha; a legitimate interest in ensuring that important artefacts are kept so far as possible—and I put in that qualification—within the country and, more particularly, that their locational relevance is established and categorised. Thirdly, there is the property owner on whose land the find is made. We should not forget him, and noble Lords will forgive me for flying that flag. He is the one enduring personality and it is often through that personality that the relevance of a find may be validated, authorised or otherwise put in context from a standpoint of local knowledge; and that should not be forgotten.
1504
The finder has no locus standi unless he has asked the permission of the person on whose land—and I include buildings in that—he is carrying out a search. Otherwise, quite honestly, he is a trespasser and a thief. The Bill goes some way towards covering my anxieties about that and I support in particular the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in that regard.
The state has very little governance over that of which it has no knowledge. I have some anxiety about a blanket declaration of ownership and the degree to which that has effect where it is circumscribed by what amounts to its own ignorance. Also, if it cannot engender the necessary respect for authority in terms of its controlling powers, it does not carry with it the necessary measure of practical expediency.
The landowner is the person with the longest standing enduring economic, managerial and legal interest and I do not believe that he can be eliminated from the calculation. He is the fixed object of legal and managerial relevance in all this. It follows that if good practice is to follow the law, the legislation must ally itself with the person or body which has the long-term, on-site commitment.
We were given earlier the example of the circumstances near Guildford, which I must say fill me with great concern. That is a typical example of where no one is in overall control of the site. However, who other than the landowner can give access, provide that essential additional information and have possible access to estate records which can throw light on the relevance of the find and, apart from anything else, validate the claim as to where the artefact might have been found? Archaeologists, on their own admission, are not omniscient: they can be misled by the information that is given to them. There are great gaps in our knowledge generally on archaeological matters, including the extent or even the existence of sites and their relevance. I must say that the idea of putting everything in a museum is really not an answer: it is a collectivist approach which I for one—bearing in mind the fact that I am a proud custodian of all sorts of things from family papers to individual artefacts—cannot accept.
Who takes responsibility for the consequences of a find? Well, perhaps it came from a previously unrecorded site. In terms of land management and maintenance, what will happen in the future? Who will make the investment in the land management to procure the security of the site and ensure that it is properly investigated for the future? The site itself may be a great deal more important than the odd item that is actually dug out of it. To create a dislocation of the find from the actual site and from the stewardship which comes with the long-term ownership (together with the obligations that that carries) is an important point which should not be missed. If the artefact is not in the event related to the site, it must be looked at on its own merits as to whether it is something that should be retained for the nation or whether it should rightfully be the property of an individual and so on. Good voluntary endeavour in the public spirit does not come from a process of legislative exclusion. That point cannot be underscored too heavily.

1505
The Bill seeks to control what is currently something of a free for all. That is very welcome. If I have any criticism at all, it is that the Bill does not reflect the essential interest of the property owner. I was especially glad to note the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on the points raised by the CLA with him and on the views of the NFU, which I also support. Both can be dealt with during the later stages of the Bill's proceedings.
In terms of the Bill as expressed in Clause 1, I have some difficulty about the circumstances in which items might be found, especially where they relate to domestic property—for example, a house or a garden, especially an old one such as the one in which I live. I believe that it may be wrong in principle and that it may be unenforceable in practice if the law seeks to make the property of the Crown that which comes within the domain of the private residential occupier. It is a different situation if it occurs in open countryside. There should perhaps be a distinction in that respect. However, that would not be fatal to the Bill. The circumstances of a find are important. I do not think they can be dealt with by a catch-all provision.
Clause 2(3) appears to me to reverse the onus of proof. It seems to make clear that the item will become the property of the Crown unless some other person can show title to it. There may be a great deal of circumstantial evidence, but I am not clear how that particular test will be made. I should just like to flag that point because, if it is not possible to deal with it in a satisfactory manner, we may return to the situation where there is deliberate non-disclosure rather than the converse. Perish the thought that as a result of the Bill that situation should continue or increase.
I admit that I would like to see unauthorised entry on land with metal detectors subject to much more severe penalties. I certainly do not favour the disposal of treasures abroad, although I have difficulty in seeing how that can be prevented with any absolute certainty, especially if the nation puts a lower value on its heritage than is placed on it by overseas buyers. For reasons that I explained earlier, I do not think museums are always the right place to house hordes of artefacts which cannot reasonably be displayed or which may see the light of day only once in every 20 years. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am much obliged. I do not believe it to be the Bill's intention that all hordes should necessarily end up in museums, any more than that is the current practice of the present treasure trove legislation. It is the case that, only if the museum wishes to secure the objects and is in a position to put up the money to do so, will those objects go to the museum at a market price. Otherwise, the ex gratia provision is in practice not maintained and the objects are returned to the finder. We need not envisage the museums of the country being filled with undesired treasure objects.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that point. In the context of the Bill, I would prefer to see a provision actually
1506
stating that fact. I speak from a point of view of some experience in that my family has portraits which are on loan to museums and such places and they see the light of day only very infrequently. For the rest of the time they remain locked in vaults. I would not like to see that happen in this case. I would be much happier if the items concerned sat on Mrs. Jones's mantelshelf to be appreciated by her and her friends when they come to tea. Perhaps the misanthropic millionaire of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, would please take note of that point.
It is the denial of the knowledge and circumstances of an artefact which is the important feature that we need to deal with under new legislation rather than the principle of who actually owns the goods in question. I speak as a depositor of important documents with learned institutions. More particularly, in terms of the object-specific nature of any study in the matter, there is also a site-specific element which must not be overlooked. I have in mind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, on that general point.
There are aspects of the Bill which obviously I should like to see amended. It is to be hoped that at a later stage we shall have the opportunity to deal with such matters. To the extent that there is a black market in portable antiquities, I should like to ensure that that is stopped as far as possible. There must be some question of the general responsibility and general consciousness of the need to keep items within the country—not every item but the more important ones.
I warmly support the Bill. I have no objections to it in principle. I certainly think that it should be given a Second Reading. I wish it a very good passage, subject to necessary amendment, through to its final stage.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, there appears to be complete unanimity that this should be a government Bill. As someone who spent most of today either on this Bench during the course of the present debate or in a Committee Room talking about the National Parks Bill (which also is to come before your Lordships' House and which also should be a government Bill) I begin to wonder about the Government's priorities. They fill the House with Bills which get totally wrecked. Half of them have to be withdrawn. They have not been thought through, consultations have not been taken upon them and your Lordships' time is spent on something which has a very small output. However, the Bills which are admitted by everyone to be necessary and which have been worked through cannot find time, or, if they find time, they merely find it in the hands of unselfish Peers such as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who are then placed in an almost impossible position from time to time, particularly with regard to what happens to the Bill when it goes to another place.
I should be interested to learn from the noble Baroness, and possibly from the noble Earl, Lord Perth —although this may be a slightly delicate question—what are the prospects of this Bill in another place. As I understand it, not least from talking about the National Parks Bill, there is in another place a situation where, if

1507
the Government take over the Bill, they may not be allowed, or be able, to proceed with it satisfactorily. I believe that the matter should be clarified so that we know where we stand. I was reassured when the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said we would have the chance to amend the Bill because one of the real problems with Private Members' Bills, as your Lordships know, is that they proceed in an enormous rush and we are all told that we may not amend them. I very much welcome the fact that we have the opportunity of amending this Bill and I look forward to that.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, whose speech was, I thought, very clear. He told us exactly what this Bill is all about and what should be done. Not that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, did not explain his Bill, but the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, gave us a crystal clear portrait which I believe many of us will return to when we are trying to get to the heart of the Bill. Clearly there is a need for wider legislation and for antiquities legislation, and indeed there is a need for a policy on this subject. I join with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when he asked what the new department is doing about this matter and why it is not behind this Bill.
I do not myself have any expertise in this particular field. In the field or conservation in general I have some knowledge but I cannot hold a torch to the personal experience of my noble friend Lord Hanworth, who made a notable contribution to your Lordships' debate this evening. However, I greatly look forward to seeing this Bill go through. I believe the principle behind it is that of stewardship. We acknowledge that we have the stewardship of properties from the past. I believe the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, tonight, as on other occasions, was slightly too apt to talk about ownership when I believe the correct position is that we are stewards of what we have been left from the past. We are stewards of the objects themselves and stewards particularly of knowledge, arid that is something that we must ensure is preserved at all cost and is able to be used. It is in that area that I feel I am for once wholeheartedly able to join in any effort to try to keep the kind of artefacts or the kind of finds we are talking about in this country. I run a mile when appeals are made to keep some wonderful picture in this country which was painted in Italy 300 years ago and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our heritage. But the things we are discussing have something to do with our heritage. They are part of our history, our heritage and our information from the past and we should preserve them.
The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, mentioned the difficulty that could be posed by any additional burden on the British Museum, given its understaffing. I have a question about coroners' courts. I ask my question of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, because no doubt the Government have considered this matter, and of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. If this Bill goes through—we all hope it will—how many finds are we likely to be talking about in the course of a year and how much greater is that number than the number of finds which come before coroners' courts under the present restricted legislation? Will coroners' courts be able to cope with this number?
1508
I understand that, as this is a Private Member's Bill. the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has not been able to suggest an alternative machinery. He is rather limited to sticking with coroners' courts and it may be his opinion that we should stick with coroners' courts. However, if there is to be a much greater burden on coroners' courts, that is something we will have to consider in the course of this Bill. That is the piece of information which I would most like to find. As I have said, I wish the Bill well. We on these Benches will do our best to see that we can help conserve that part of our country's heritage which is most useful to the present and to the future.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we also wish to commend the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and his associates outside the House for devoting so much time and effort to attempting to tackle this long-standing problem. As I believe every Peer who has spoken has said, the present situation is highly unsatisfactory. The development of sophisticated metal detectors has led to a massive increase in the pillaging of our archaeological heritage. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, reform would have been needed anyway.
Under our "finders keepers" tradition, I have seen it estimated that some 20,000 people now regularly use metal detectors and find anything between half-a-million and 2 million portable antiquities a year, although the estimates vary. Not all of those are of great value, and almost certainly not the majority. But it is certain that of those which are of archaeological or financial value, a large number are not reported; and many are sold on, often abroad. Therefore we suffer a cultural haemorrhage. The legal protection for portable antiquities is probably weaker in Britain than in any other European country.
Hitherto, a few of these finds were covered by the ancient treasure trove law. That procedure is deficient, as many noble Lords have pointed out. Therefore there is no need for me to repeat those deficiencies. For that reason the Opposition welcomes any attempt to reform the law. We note the widespread support from outside the House and, so far, the universal support from within it on this matter. That leads me to question whether this Bill is entirely satisfactory as regards remedying the situation. I believe that the noble Earl, in introducing the Bill, was honest in saying that the Bill may not be perfect, and that this House can help to improve it.
I trust the drafting of the Bill is all right. I note we have had various problems recently, even as regards official drafting. The lotteries Act was under attack from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for alleged defective drafting. I noted what he said about certain clauses in that legislation. I thought on the whole however his comments were encouraging. Perhaps the Minister will assure us that various departments have scrutinised this drafting, have co-operated positively and are reasonably content with the result. If that is not the case, we would welcome amendments from those quarters at the earliest possible stage. However, I should point out that we would welcome positive amendments and not wrecking amendments. We certainly would not approve of any department—however, this is an unthinkable thought

1509
—opposing this drafting simply on the basis of the "not made here" principle. I am sure none of us have ever come across that in Whitehall. Particularly, we would not welcome it when they have palpably failed to come forward with their own Bill so far.
On points of detail, noble Lords have raised many of the points I had in mind, and I will not detain the House by repeating them. One particular point which concerned me has not arisen: that is, compensation. It is not clear how that is dealt with in the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister's help over this in due course.
Another aspect is that in reading the Bill I felt that the principles of the ancient treasure trove and the new treasure are in compass together within the Bill. I hope that has been done satisfactorily. I can see the problem faced by the drafters, but it just seemed to me an uncomfortable mix. I suspect there is no way round it, but I wish there had been. Compared to the scale of the problem we face, the Bill struck me as being very modest in scope, and that may help it to make progress in Parliament.
However, there is a good case for a much more radical approach and a much more radical law on portable antiquities, sweeping away totally the medieval concept of treasure trove and, for instance, making it compulsory to report all archaeological finds to local museums for registration. We on this side would look upon such a Bill with interest, but it would need government action and I should like to hear what the Government's view is on a more radical approach. After all, I am told that even were this Bill to pass, some 90 per cent. of all finds are likely to be unreported.
In conclusion, I stress that we on this side welcome any attempt to deal with the problem of archaeological theft and the serious deficiencies of treasure trove. As I have said, I have one or two reservations about particular aspects of the drafting. If the Bill progresses, there will need to be some clarification, particularly on compensation. We shall look with interest at constructive amendments in these areas at any later stage. We shall listen most carefully to what the Minister has to say about the Government's attitude tonight. If the Government have doubts about particular aspects, I should like to ask whether it is their intention to come forward with some suggestions for position improvement, or will they aim to kill the Bill? If they kill this attempt, will the Government say something specific about their own intentions to protect our historical, cultural and archaeological heritage? That is needed most urgently.
Whatever may be our particular reservations about this Bill, we all surely must agree that it confronts a most serious issue. It would be little short of scandalous if the department does not have its own ideas already drafted for dealing with such a long-standing problem. Simply to criticise the drafting of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, without suggesting positive amendments would be unforgivable. If that were to happen, it would be Whitehall bureaucracy at its most negative. The authors of "Yes Minister", with whom I once proudly worked very closely, identifying various Whitehall "Spanish practices", would have something amusing to say about
1510
that. The Government should either co-operate to iron out the wrinkles in this Bill or they should come forward with their own proposals. Such proposals could profitably be much more radical than the modest ones which are before us tonight.
8.54 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like first of all to join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for his promotion of this Bill. Archaeology is fortunate to have such a persuasive champion in this House: perhaps I should say "two champions" because of the support of my noble friend Lord Renfrew. I should like to express my great admiration for the energy and determination which the noble Earl and his colleagues have shown in preparing the Bill, which I know is the result of several years' hard work. Without any doubt it has taken everyone's thinking much further forward on a complex issue. This evening's debate will be a further contribution to that process.
Having said that, I think it is only fair to make clear straightaway that the Government are unable to give their support to the Bill. I am sorry to have to say that because I know it will be a disappointment to the noble Earl and his team—though I know it does not come as a total surprise to them. I should like to take a few moments to explain the reasons for our decision.
The Department of National Heritage took over policy responsibility for treasure trove less than a year ago, in April 1993. Last August we made a special part-time appointment to enable an official with knowledge of the subject to work exclusively on treasure trove and to liaise with the Bill team and the British Museum, who have a major interest in all this. I hope the noble Earl would agree that the arrangement has worked well. I mention these points to assure the House that we understand the importance of this issue for archaeology and we are determined to address it.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew was correct when he quoted my honourable friend in another place, and indeed we approached the task hoping that a Bill would emerge which we could support. Over the last few months there have been extensive discussions between the Bill team and officials of my department and the Home Office. Many problems have been ironed out, particularly on the Bill's implications for the criminal law and for the role of coroners.
On a number of points the Bill team's aims are ones which I imagine practically everyone with an interest in this subject would support. For instance, I think we would all agree that it is time to remove the test that an object is treasure trove only if it was deliberately hidden with the intention of later recovery; and that treasure trove procedures should embrace artefacts, of whatever material, which are found in close association with gold or silver objects. So far so good.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, specifically asked me what increase there would be in the workload of the coroners' courts. Of course it is difficult to make a precise estimate of the likely increase in reported finds, partly because not all of them come to

1511
public notice at present: but it is certainly not likely to cause an enormous, increase in the current workload. That is not our objection to the Bill.
A number of key questions remain to be addressed. The most important is whether the basic approach adopted by this Bill would result in a satisfactory reform of the present law. I have to say that we do not think it would. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, the law of treasure trove is an astonishing archaic survival, going back perhaps a thousand years, with its origins in matters far removed from archaeology. Because of its long history, the law is complicated in ways which have really nothing to do with the present-day needs of archaeology. Our view is that the Bill would not actually remove these anomalies. It would have the effect of creating a new concept of treasure, alongside the existing concept of treasure trove. All the existing rules and procedures would continue to apply to objects which fall within the current definition of treasure trove. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, that far from simplifying the arcane complexities of the present law, this Bill would leave them in place and would in some respects add to them.
Alas, the original aim of achieving a simplification of the law has not been realised. For instance, the Bill does not address in any comprehensive way the issue of compensation. There may well be owners or occupiers of land whose property would in future vest in the Crown as treasure. Should they be compensated? If so, should they be compensated as well as finders or instead of finders? If the later, what would be the effect on the main object of these provisions, which is to encourage finders to report their finds?
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, has had to leave. I wish to comment on his remark that the Royal Prerogative is no problem. I would, of course, defer to the noble and learned Lord on the question of the prerogative. That was a technical point and not one which would prevent reform. However, other difficult legal issues remain to be resolved. For instance, we cannot assume that objects found in the ground are ownerless goods. If someone owns them now, the effect of the Bill would be to vest them in the Crown. The issue of compensation must arise. The Bill does not address that issue.
Our view is that it is most unlikely that those issues can be tackled properly by amendment during the passage of the Bill They raise fundamental issues about the Bill's whole approach, and about the need for more far-reaching reform of the existing law which require fuller scrutiny. I am supported in that view by the Law Commission which studied treasure trove in 1987.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I am reluctant to interrupt her, but I believe that the point is important. My noble friend states that the Bill provides nothing about compensa-tion. However, in Clause 8(4) (b) the Bill states:
"The Secretary of State may publish information about the making of ex gratia rewards in respect of finds of treasure".
That does not meat necessarily that the provision must be confined to ex gratia payments towards the finder. In Committee we could make it quite clear that it could be compensation for the owner too.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the way in which my noble friend puts the point makes it sound very simple. However, I do not believe that it is quite as simple as he states. Perhaps I may go back to what I was saying. I was supported in that view by the Law Commission which studied treasure trove in 1987. It concluded that the objectives sought by those advocating a change in the law were fundamentally different from those for which the law of treasure trove was originally designed; and that it would not be appropriate to seek to achieve those objectives merely by altering or enlarging the law of treasure trove.
The Government accept the case for reform of the present law. We want to build on the work that has gone into the Bill, but we also want to step back from it and —if I may use a dangerous phrase—go back to basics. What are we trying to achieve? Could it be clone more simply and directly than it is at present? Do we really need all the complications of the Crown interest in finds, the jurisdiction of coroners' courts, and so on? Do practices in other European countries offer pointers to a simpler approach which we might usefully follow?
My noble friend Lord Renfrew made the interesting point that it is not ownership of finds which matters, but reporting and information. However, if that should be the basic objective of the system, do we really need all the complexities of the present law which the Bill would preserve? My noble friend's point suggests to me that we need a more fundamental look at what we seek to achieve. The Government's view is that it would be. better to look more closely at such issues before: deciding how best to amend the law. We shall therefore publish a consultation paper later this year which will set out those issues fully and will identify what we see as the main options for reform. That paper will look al: all types of portable find, not just those falling within the present definition of treasure trove. We expect that the responses to the consultation will confirm our present view: that comprehensive legislation to reshape the present treasure trove arrangements is needed.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, commented on the extent of consultation already undertaken. The noble Earl's list of consultees was very impressive, but I do not believe that it was entirely comprehensive. For instance, there is a wide range of museum interests to be taken into account. Nor is it clear to me that the detail of the Bill has either the full support of all those who have been consulted or could be amended into satisfactory shape.
I hope that the undertaking I have made to consult will lessen the disappointment which the noble Earl and his colleagues are bound to feel that the Government cannot offer support for the present Bill. Even if it is not destined for the statute book, the work that has gone into the Bill will be a valuable contribution to the wider review we now have in mind, and in that sense will certainly not be wasted. Indeed, we look forward to future collaboration.
Perhaps I may end by assuring noble Lords again that my department fully understands that it is an important issue for archaeology, and one of some urgency. We are not trying to kick the issue into the long grass. One of the stated aims of the Department of National Heritage is to preserve ancient sites and monuments and to

1513
maintain and increase our national collection of records and artefacts of the past. Treasure trove is directly relevant to that aim and my department feels a more direct responsibility for that issue than was perhaps felt by some of its predecessors. I hope that we have demonstrated that already. I hope that that answers the rather cruel criticisms that I thought were levelled at my undeserving department. We shall wish to make progress just as fast as proper consultation and legislative constraints permit, but we also want to get the matter right.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will feel that he has achieved a great deal of what he set out to achieve by securing from the Government a firm commitment to address the issue without delay.
9.7 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I shall come to the Minister's statement at the end of my remarks. Although it is late, I begin by saying how grateful I am for the splendid and powerful speeches that have been made by all noble Lords. It would be invidious of me to name one or other of your Lordships because all gave us food for thought and full support. Having said that, I shall make an exception by mentioning the legal opinion outlined by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Templeman and Lord Hailsham, although he is not here. It is important to have the legal opinions because in a degree they may contradict what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington.
Under those conditions, I feel it would also be inappropriate to answer the questions that have been put to me but I shall ensure that in one way or another—I hope with the help of the Department of National Heritage—they will be answered. That is not an unreasonable expectation. I look on the problem as belonging not solely to those who produced the Bill and support it: it is also the duty of the DNH to help us at this stage.
I shall touch on one point: that the Bill is rather restricted. I point out that we can—and we have every intention of doing so if the Bill goes through and the Government play—widen its scope. Subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 2 lay down that the Secretary of State can list other things as objects of treasure and can accordingly cover such items as bronzes, iron objects, sculpture and what you will. However, that should be at stage two. I have a motto: "Gang warily", which I think noble Lords will all understand. My belief is that to do it in two stages is probably right.
We were told bluntly by the Minister that the Government are unable to give their support to the Bill. However, a little later she used the words "the present Bill" and, being eternally optimistic, I shall take that seriously. If the Bill cannot have the Government's support, it is the present Bill which cannot and my hope is that at the various stages of the Bill we shall reach a point where the Government will change their mind, recognising that the good is enough and the best can come later.
I shall now turn to the attitude of the Government. We heard undertakings that they would study the matter
1514
carefully and suggestions that perhaps we had not consulted enough people. The only reason that I did not go further on those whom we had consulted was because of time. I could have read out another 10 or 15 groups which we consulted and which have all given us their backing. I should like the noble Baroness to realise that we have consulted every single group that has a worthwhile opinion on the subject.
I must confess that on hearing some of the Minister's words I felt: "Here we go again". It is the same kind of thing as we have had before—undertakings to consult, to start radical thought and so forth, as has been going on for five years. I beg the Government to consider this: the Bill may not be perfect but it could be much better with their help. If we could get through the stages, if the Bill could go through Parliament, what is to stop the Government bringing in their own Bill in two or three years? I say that in all sincerity because during those two or three years, without legislation much more of our history will have been lost. That is not good enough. Please take this Bill, get it to a further stage and let us go forward together.
I can say no more, but I refuse to be downhearted. Rather do I look to consultation such as we have had recently with the Department of National Heritage. It is in the Government's interests and all our interests. Just consider what the media and the public will think of that kind of commitment. Without it they will not only be disappointed: they will not understand. I therefore beg the Government to think again. I shall co-operate in every way I can with them and I invite all noble Lords to tell me what they would like to change. We can do that at Committee stage, and then we must go forward together. I do not believe that the public will understand talk on the lines of: "Oh well, we must look at these matters very seriously". I have heard it all before. I wish to proceed with the Bill and I conclude by asking the House to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1994
9.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. This is one in a series of financial orders covering Northern Ireland departments which come before the House each year. The draft order before us today authorises expenditure of £195.9 million for Northern Ireland departments for the current financial year. This is in addition to the £5,492 million voted by the House last July. The order also authorises the Vote-on-account of £2,533 million for 1994– 95 to enable the services of Northern Ireland departments to continue until the 1994– 95 main Estimates are brought before your Lordships later this year.

1515
Before turning to the details of the Estimates, I should like to set them in the context of the recent performance of e Northern Ireland economy. It is widely accepted that the local economy has held up well in the face of adverse national and global economic conditions. Over the past five years the output of Northern Ireland's production industries grew by 18 per cent. The local economy as a whole continues to perform well. That is reflected in the figures for those in employment and those out of work. The number of people in employment over the two-year period to September 1993 increased slightly. Seasonally adjusted unemployment in January 1994 fell to its lowest level for two-and-a-half years. That is encouraging, as is the marked upturn in business confidence and the high levels of planned investment revealed in recent surveys of Northern Ireland business. While it is welcome news, we cannot afford to be complacent. Government will continue to assist local industry to improve its competitiveness and to maximise the opportunities offered by the eccnomic recovery now under way.
I now turn to the main items in the Estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. In Vote 1, a token increase of £1,000 is required to reflect changes in the Vote; some £7 million is required for milk quota compensation payments and £0.8 million for a number of capital schemes; £0.4 million is for expenditure under the 1992 crop potato support arrangements. The increases are offset by savings elsewhere in the Vote and by EC receipts.
In Vote 2, covering local support measures, some £5.3 million is sought. This includes £3.2 million to enhance the disease eradication programme and £2 million for the agricultural development operational programme, where uptake has been higher than predicted. A sum of £0.6 million will enable the department to develop its information technology programme. These increases are partially offset by reduced requirements in other areas of the Vote.
I turn now to the Department of Economic Development, where some £14 million is required, in Vote 1, for the provision of new factories for recent inward investment projects. That reflects the continuing success of the Industrial Development Board in attracting internationally competitive companies to Northern Ireland. Also in this Vote, £2.4 million is for assistance to the shipbuilding industry. The increases are offset by increased receipts and reduced requirements elsewhere.
A net increase of £3 million is sought in Vote 2. This includes £4.1 million for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit. That will enable the unit to increase its efforts to improve the competitiveness of local industry through increased industrial research and development, in innovation and technology transfer. Savings have been found elsewhere in the Vote.
In Vote 3, covering the Training and Employment Agency, some £0.7 million is sought. The sum of £1.6 million is to meet increased expenditure under the youth training programme, as a greater number of young people are pursuing higher level qualifications. One million pounds is for the job training programme, where an increasing number of trainees are undertaking
1516
programmes leading to a national vocational qualification at level 2 or above. Offsetting savings have been found elsewhere.
Vote 4 covers the expenses incurred in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. These costs have been met from the proceeds of the sale.
I now turn to the Department of the Environment. Some £6.2 million is sought in Vote 1, covering expenditure on roads, transport and ports. That includes £2.5 million for maintenance of the road network and new road schemes. For street lighting £0.5 million is required and £1.7 million is for capital works in the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency.
In Vote 2, covering housing, a token increase is sought. There are various reallocations within the Vote, resulting in a net increase of £3.6 million for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, mainly for maintenance. Gross housing expenditure in Northern Ireland this year is now expected to be about £552 million, some £17 million more than in 1992– 93. Much has already been achieved in improving housing standards in Northern Ireland and this will enable further progress to be made.
Vote 3, which covers water and sewerage services, also shows a token increase. There are various adjustments in expenditure within the Vote, including an additional £4 million for capital expenditure on sewerage services.
In Vote 4, covering environmental and other services, an additional £2.2 million is for the Belfast action teams. There are nine teams based in areas of multiple deprivation, working with local people to improve employment prospects and promote community development. One million pounds is for urban regeneration grants, to stimulate private enterprise and investment activities in inner city areas of 13elfast and Londonderry. Our urban regeneration policy aims to achieve an overall public to private sector investment ratio of one to three. Those increases are offset by savings within the Vote and by increased receipts.
Turning now to the Department of Education, where a net increase of £9.2 million is sought in Vote 1, some £7 million is for grants to education and library boards, mainly for school transport, maintenance and equipment. A sum of £1.1 million is for voluntary schools and £1 million for grant maintained integrated schools. I know that this House takes a keen interest in the development of integrated education in Northern Ireland. There are now 21 integrated schools in operation, with over 4,000 pupils in attendance. It is planned to open three new such schools this year, while the additional expenditure in the Vote will enable the purchase of sites for two new grant maintained integrated schools. These are encouraging developments.
In Vote 2, an additional £8.5 million is sought. Some £8 million is for mandatory awards and student loans, reflecting increased demand. Some £0.6 million is for universities and £0.4 million for arts and museums. Increases are also required for the youth services and for departmental administration. There are reduced requirements elsewhere in the Vote.

1517
I turn now to the Department of Health and Social Services, which seeks a net increase of £18 million in Vote 1. The main increase of £14.2 million is for expenditure on hospital, community health and personal social services; £3.4 million is for health and social services boards' capital expenditure. Net increases of £1.7 million are required for health and social services trusts and £6.1 million for family health services.
Moving to Vote 3, additional net provision of £4.3 million is required. That includes £7.9 million for the Social Security Agency. Increases are offset by reductions elsewhere, including an increase in receipts of £1.8 million from the National Insurance Fund.
In Vote 4, which covers social security, £121.1 million is sought. Demand for income support and disability benefits, in particular disability living allowance, has been greater than anticipated. That is offset by lower than anticipated claims in other areas.
Finally, £100,000 is sought in the Department of Finance and Personnel Vote 3 for increased expenditure on grants to community relations and reconciliation bodies. Together with expenditure by the Department of Education, that brings total spending on the community relations programme this year to £7.2 million.
I hope that that summary of the main components of the order has been helpful. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th February be approved. —(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
9.26 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for her extremely clear and helpful exposition of the appropriation order. We should start by recognising that we are talking of massive sums of money and therefore, even though it is late at night and there are few noble Lords present, we should give the order the attention it deserves.
It is worthwhile reminding ourselves that we are discussing a subsidy of £200 a year from every household in mainland Britain to Northern Ireland. We should not begrudge that; we all know why it is needed. However, it means that we should look with some care at how the money is spent. As the noble Baroness said, we should begin by reminding ourselves of the economic realities of Northern Ireland.
It is true that Northern Ireland has coped relatively well with the recession compared with some other parts of the United Kingdom. But at the same time, we should remember the underlying structure of the Northern Ireland economy. We are looking at an area of the United Kingdom where private sector output per head is only 64 per cent. of that in Great Britain, whereas consumption is 82 per cent. That is why there has to be this level of subsidy of economic activity.
There is a fragile and faltering recovery beginning. But the Government may agree that we could see some damage to that due to the tax rises of approximately £10 per family per week that are in the pipeline. Meanwhile, of course,52 per cent. of the unemployed in Northern Ireland are long-term unemployed. That is higher than
1518
the proportion of long-term unemployed in Britain. A deep structural problem exists and I fear that many 17 and 18 year-olds who are currently in the second year of a youth training programme may leave when they find their benefits cut from £35 to £25 a week.
It is also worth reminding ourselves that the Northern Ireland economy is a fragmented one with only 20 firms with more than 1,000 employees. The noble Baroness spoke of inward investment. We on these Benches would support the efforts of the Government and all those concerned with attracting inward investment and there have been some successes. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness agrees that the Northern Ireland economy desperately needs a greater critical mass of economic activity and more larger employers. The most likely route to that is by inward investment as well as by organic growth.
I have one other observation to make on the economy as a whole and the trends in spending. In 1987– 88 social security amounted to 31 per cent. of the spend. It must be a matter of some dismay to the Government that, as a result of unemployment,33 per cent. of the total is now devoted to social security—I am talking here of the 1995 projections—whereas the proportion devoted to energy, industry, trade, employment initiatives, housing and spending has dropped dramatically over the same period. If we look at the total amount of subvention, more is going on social security and less is going on the areas which are crucial to the future of the Northern Ireland economy and society as a whole. Those are some general observations. Perhaps I may now ask the noble Baroness one or two specific questions on the order.
In another place on 7th March Mr. Peter Robinson said that he understood that there was now a moratorium on capital expenditure on schools. Would it be possible for the noble Baroness to let us know whether that is the case? It is of great importance that we should know that there is adequate investment in education in Northern Ireland since the high educational levels and the high skills of Northern Ireland are some of the great assets of the Province.
On page 4 of the order Vote 4 deals with the funds devoted to electricity privatisation. We understand that it was a manifesto commitment of the Government to privatise electricity. But if the point of electricity privatisation is economies, why was there a £228 million increase in appropriations in aid in order to privatise the industry? It seems perverse that in order to achieve long-term economy the Government should have to spend so much money making the industry attractive to private investors.
The noble Baroness referred in her introduction to the Department of Finance and Personnel. Within this vote an increasing amount of the overall budget appears to be devoted to financial administration and bureaucracy. What is to be £29 million in 1994–95 was only £10 million in 1987– 88. I would welcome her explanation of why the costs of administration have gone up so much in relation to what is a smaller overall budget. However, as she said, within this area the aspect which may be of most interest to the House is Vote 3 which is concerned with community projects. I understand that a number of community projects, including Extern and Relate

1519
Northern Ireland, are now being evaluated by Price Waterhouse for their general efficiency. I would like to be assured that what I know from personal experience to be the rather high fees of Price Waterhouse will not end up being squeezed out of the funding of these important agencies.
I move on to the question of funding from the European Union structural fund. I should like a little guidance from the noble Baroness on how the money from the fund is being allocated in Northern Ireland. Are the Government involved through consultation or do they tend to reduce: their spending in areas to which the structural fund is targeted. Considerable concern has been expressed in another place that the Republic is getting a relatively better deal from the structural fund than Northern Ireland. Are the. Government satisfied that Northern Ireland is getting all the funds it is entitled to from the structural fund as well as the regional development fund. On the regional development fund, will the principle Behind the City Challenge initiative, as regards which the President of the Board of Trade has been so active, and which seems to put depressed areas in competition for funds, be applied in Northern Ireland?
Finally, I give a warm welcome for one piece of news which the noble Baroness gave; namely, the increase in the scope of integrated education in Northern Ireland. I believe that all of us who care about the future of Northern Ireland recognise that this is indeed an important way forward. It is only achieved in the face of what is often guile considerable opposition from one sect or another. So to get an increase is a great achievement. I hope that the Government will maintain the priority of funding to see that this welcome sign of a new approach to inter-communal life grows and continues to develop. With those words, and looking forward to the answers of the noble Baroness, in general we support this order.
9.35 p.m.
Lord William of Mostyn: My Lords, I too am grateful for the care with which this order was introduced. I endorse immediately the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, about integrated education.
A number of significant questions arise relating to expenditure of this magnitude. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is barely below 14 per cent. The questions which we ask are: what amelioration, if any, is looked for and on what timescale, arising out of the expenditure of these vast amounts of money? As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, rightly observed, more than half of the jobseekers in Northern Ireland have been out of work for more than a year. That is desperately gloomy news in financial and economic terms, but it has a far more corrosive effect in social terms.
What one does not find is any clear strategy designed to reduce either of those two gloomy figures. In particular, the industrial development budget has declined from £430 million in 1989– 90 to £141 million this year. It is further intended to decline to £115 million in 1995– 96.
1520
There is an extremely useful report from Coopers Lybrand Deloitte issued as recently as January of this year, which puts the point admirably as we see it:
"Many of the long-term structural problems remain. GDP per head is still only about 80 per cent. of the UK average, easily the lowest of all UK regions. The problems of local labour markets remain with unemployment at 14 per cent. still well above the next worst UK region".
Unfortunately, we see little evidence of a systematic tackling of these long-term problems. The same report states:
"Public expenditure is equivalent to two-thirds of GDP in Northern Ireland. The fiscal squeeze imposed in the two 1993 Budgets has potentially serious consequences for Northern Ireland".
There is nothing in the deployment of these expenditures which gives me any confidence that that gloomy prognosis will not be borne out. What is required is long-term planning for full-time secure work. I know of the recent modest increase in employment of 2,200, but unfortunately most of that is for female, low-paid, part-time work in service industries. That offers no long-term solution at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has pointed out the figure which leaps from the page—that is to say, £228,658,000 for expenditure in connection with the privatisation of the electricity industry and one wonders what for. Was it simply the old story of fattening up for sale public utility assets which historically have been undervalued so that there will be ultimately substantial bonanzas for the subscribers and not least for those who dealt with the sale of public utilities? That seems an enormously large figure and one for which I have been unable to detect any satisfactory explanation.
The imposition of VAT on fuel will hit the poorest hardest. Is the figure of £10 per week for the average family in Northern Ireland accurate? That is the figure that was given by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. If it is not accurate, I should be interested to know the Government's estimate of the extra tax payable per year in the case of a married man on average Northern Ireland earnings who has two children at school and a wife not working. Our belief is that it will be a very severe blow to living standards which are lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I should like to raise a final particular matter, of which I have given the Minister notice. What is the present or future intention of the Government with regard to the future of the equivalent of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board scheme in Northern Ireland? As is well known to your Lordships' House, the proposed amendments for the rest of the United Kingdom have recently been the subject of bitter and sustained criticism—minute and well-informed criticism, in my opinion. Is it suggested that part of the increased amounts by way of social security and other related payments is required to compensate those who are the victims of violent crime in Northern Ireland? Is part of the extra expenditure to make up for the loss of future earnings, the loss of damages for care arid attention?
I am pleased to be able to say that many who work in the public service in Northern Ireland have contacted me about this. Policemen and prison officers have

1521
expressed their deep anxieties about carrying out their public duties. Members of the public suffer extraordinary risks in their everyday lives. They are in fear of criminal attacks and their fears are often justified. Is the scheme in Northern Ireland for the victims of violent crime to be altered downwards in the same way as in the rest of the United Kingdom or is it to remain intact?
Those are very important questions which derive entirely from increased expenditure in other aspects of government spending. I hope that I shall not be faced with the reply that that does not derive from the draft appropriation order because, in my submission, it does. There is serious concern—I think that I could fairly describe it as bitter concern and serious anger—at the prospect that compensation for the victims of violent crime in Northern Ireland may be reduced. I should be grateful for reassurance and confirmation that that will not happen.
Those are fairly limited questions of which I have given notice. Generally, I adopt the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Holme; namely, that the expenditure is unfortunately necessary and is a part of the price that the rest of the United Kingdom must be willing to pay.
9.42 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Williams of Mostyn, for their continuing and informed interest in Northern Ireland. It is much appreciated in the Province. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, this is an important order, whatever the hour and whatever the extent of the empty Benches. I am grateful to both noble Lords for, as always, asking pertinent and searching questions which I know are based on interest and concern. If I cannot answer them on any specific area immediately, I shall make certain that I do so later in writing.
Turning to some of the areas that have been raised, we have reason to feel that the resurgence in the economy, although fragile, is moving in the right direction, and that despite the inevitable movements, it will work towards continuing to reduce unemployment. Seasonally adjusted unemployment at January 1994 was 13.5 per cent. of the workforce, which was a decrease on the previous month. The underlying trend is firmly downwards.
Employment levels in Northern Ireland have remained relatively stable. The number of employees in employment increased marginally on the previous year. Noble Lords were critical of the spend in working towards increasing employment. It is very much an individual company and a one-to-one effort in ensuring that jobs become available, in particular working towards easing long-term unemployment in areas which experience special difficulty.
With my experience as Minister for small firms in mind, I see small firms as the creators of future employment. I have great confidence in the large number of small firms in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, quoted the Coopers & Lybrand report. That report also stated that almost 60 per cent. of local firms are committed to expansion in
1522
1994, and that industrial output is expected to grow by between 1 and 7 per cent. in 1994, with a growth of 4 per cent. reported as quite achievable.
The IDB work has targeted exceptionally well companies to invest in Northern Ireland. Previously it has targeted and identified in a specific manner. In working on the information that was obtained it will require less support. The noble Lord will appreciate that at this time less inward investment is available to the United Kingdom in general. Competition for that is extremely intensive. The skills that have been finely honed in the IDB will allow us to ensure that we are represented wherever the competition is keen.
The noble Lord asked about the criminal injuries compensation scheme. He was kind enough to notify me in advance that that was one of his anxieties. I join him in praising the work of the police and the security forces in Northern Ireland. I assure him that the Government recognise their high standards and complete commitment. The situation in Northern Ireland is that the Secretary of State has studied the Home Secretary's proposals for reform of the compensation scheme in Great Britain in order to see what that means for Northern Ireland. The consideration remains at a formative stage. Should my right honourable and learned friend decide to make changes to the compensation scheme in Northern Ireland, there would be a full public consultation exercise with all interested parties.
Noble Lords said that fuel bills being subject to VAT at 8 per cent. from April 1994 would be a hard burden for families in the Province. Resources have been extended to help not only people on benefit but pensioners. There is also input from the homes insulation and energy grant scheme. Individually, it depends on the nature of the house, and so forth; but much work is being done on that area to ensure that the people with needs are given the maximum assistance.
Anxiety was expressed about the cost of electricity privatisation. The total cost of the Northern Ireland Electricity privatisation, including trade sales of power stations and the flotation of NIE, will be announced in the next few weeks. That will give your Lordships much of the detail that is required. Privatised companies have been extremely successful in improving their services and the benefits which they provide to consumers. They have also protected jobs. Therefore, there can be no argument against the case for privatisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about EC structural funds. We believe that Northern Ireland has done well to retain its objective 1 status. Our 52 per cent. share of the UK allocation reflects the priority which Ministers attach to the very special needs of the Province. Overall, we should receive over £1 billion, and more is to come from Community initiatives such as a new cross-border interregnum programme. It is a constantly moving scene. I assure the noble Lord that all efforts are made to ensure that Northern Ireland's needs are represented and fought for in Brussels with the maximum effect.
It is not correct merely to make a comparison between how much the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland will receive from the structural fund

1523
for the next six years. Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, receives a considerable subvention each year from the Exchequer and the Republic of Ireland receives no equivalent subvention. The Commission obviously takes that into account in making its allocation.
The question of the growth of the Civil Service pay bill was raised. I should tell your Lordships that 80 per cent. of Civil I Service costs are pay related and much of that is due to pay inflation. The number of permanent staff in the Northern Ireland Civil Service has declined since 1988 and we are conscious that value for money must be obtained throughout. To be able to manage, it is necessary to be able to measure. We must make sure that the resources which we have, and which both noble Lords recognise that the Province needs, are well managed.
The matter of a moratorium on capital spending in education was raised. That point was answered in another place by my honourable friend responsible for education in Northern Ireland. He said that, given the nature of the block this year, he felt that it was important to concentrate available resources on classroom and teacher provision. The result is that a moratorium on capital spending was announced. It will not need to last long. It allows my honourable friend to match resources in terms of the budget which we set this year, but I hope that as a result of that we shall see only small delays rather than the stoppage of any particular project. I hope that that is reassuring.
The noble Lord asked also about the evaluation of community projects. Obviously we should expect to use the best available services to evaluate. Substantial sums are going into these areas and it is important that they are spent effectively for the benefit of the other voluntary activities in the Province. The audit is a key part of our programme. I assure the noble Lord that the programme remains a major part of our consideration.
I have been pleased to bring forward the order to the House this evening. It facilitates so much of the good and encouraging work which is taking place: more inward investment and more jobs, which are a key element of all that we wish to see improved; the improvement of kills at a high-tech level and among youngsters who are taking their first steps on the ladder; better housing standards, which are crucial for people's welfare; and a growth of committed local involvement in community health and social services.
1524
However, as I said in my introduction to the order, there is far to go. We have much to do in Northern Ireland. The approval of the order will allow us to continue our intent to work towards ensuring the provision of the quality of life which the people of Northern Ireland deserve. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may simply ask for clarification so that I may understand perfectly her response to my question on the criminal injuries compensation scheme. First, as I understand it, it is the position that no decision has been made whether the Northern Ireland scheme will be altered; and, secondly, it follows from that that the scheme in Northern Ireland may or may not be altered and, if altered, it will not necessarily be the same as the proposed amended scheme as discussed only recently in your Lordships' House. Can the Minister confirm that that is correct?
Finally, the Minister spoke of formative stages and said that if there were a preliminary decision to change the Northern Ireland scheme, there would be extensive and full public consultation. Can the Minister give an indication of when that preliminary decision is likely to be made? I do not expect the noble Baroness to give an answer by the week; but perhaps she could say something in terms of months. That would be helpful to those of us in the House who are interested in the operation of the scheme, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. However, on hearing the noble Lord's summary of what I said, I believe that he has accurately taken note of my response. The proposals of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for Great Britain are being looked at in Northern Ireland to see whether there are any lessons to be learnt. However, that process is in its early stages. That means that I cannot at present give the noble Lord any guidance as to when the matter will be brought forward or an announcement made to the effect that there will be no changes. I can assure the noble Lord that any consideration will be full, and that, should there be any suggested changes, the same will apply to the consultations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before ten o'clock.

  STABEX: COMPENSATION LEVELS
  STABEX: COMPENSATION LEVELS
  SYSTEM OF NATIONAL ACCOUNTS
  SYSTEM OF NATIONAL ACCOUNTS
  RUSSIA: DISCUSSIONS WITH IMF
  RUSSIA: DISCUSSIONS WITH IMF
  DEFENCE EQUIPMENT EXPORT SALES
  DEFENCE EQUIPMENT EXPORT SALES
  COMBINED JOINT TASK FORCE
  COMBINED JOINT TASK FORCE
  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE: WORKING PARTY
  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE: WORKING PARTY
  DoE SPENDING PLANS
  DoE SPENDING PLANS
  CONTAMINATED LAND
  CONTAMINATED LAND
  AIR POLLUTION CONTROL: CHARGING SCHEME
  AIR POLLUTION CONTROL: CHARGING SCHEME
  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION SCHEME: RULES
  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION SCHEME: RULES
  SCOTLAND: DEVELOPMENT BODIES' COST
  SCOTLAND: DEVELOPMENT BODIES' COST
  DISPENSING DOCTORS: DRUG CHARGES
  DISPENSING DOCTORS: DRUG CHARGES
  UNDER PRIVILEGED AREA SCORES
  UNDER PRIVILEGED AREA SCORES