Sitting of 27 October 1994

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (SUSPENSION)
  Ordered,
  That so much of the Lords Message [25th October] as relates to the London Local Authorities (No 2) Bill [Lords] and the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [Lords] be now considered.
  Ordered,
  That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  HUMBER BRIDGE BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the Humber Bridge Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private
  988
  Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
  That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered a Second time on Tuesday 1 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conclusions he draws from the trend in manufacturing output.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Manufacturing output continues to grow strongly, which shows the strong competitive position that has been achieved by British industry.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, with the most welcome rising trend in manufacturing output and the further rise in third quarter gross national product, Britain remains on course for a sustainable economic recovery? Does he agree that that is due to the sensible policies that have been pursued by a Conservative Government and, in view of those economic successes, will he assure the House that he will continue to stick to his guns?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are poised for strong recovery that can be sustained and combined with low inflation, and I am particularly glad that British manufacturing is playing such a key part in that. I further agree that this situation would not have occurred had the Government not been prepared to take difficult decisions to get the public finances healthy again, to follow monetary policies designed to maintain low inflation and to put in place the stable framework of which British manufacturing industry is now obviously beginning to take advantage.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: What effect will the interest rate rise and the seven further tax rises that the Chancellor is planning have on output and on the growth of the economy? Does the Chancellor recall the promise that the Prime Minister made when he fought the last election that there would be no extension of VAT in particular? Will he use this opportunity to rule out any extension of VAT to food, to children's clothes, to books or newspapers or to train fares as a result of any Budget that he might introduce?
    Mr. Clarke: I thought that new Labour was in favour of the interest rate rise that I announced and that the new, responsible Labour party followed my lead in saying that we take no risks with inflation. The hon. Gentleman has advised me to reduce interest rates on each and every occasion for the past 18 months. If his former advice had been followed, it would have caused high inflation and brought this recovery to an end. Until the hon. Gentleman states what spending he would cut, as opposed to raise, he cannot really address Conservative Members on inflation. As for budgets, he must wait for the Budget and he knows perfectly well that there are only a few weeks to go.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a floating exchange rate must also be said to have played some part in the present happy state of affairs?
    Mr. Clarke: The exchange rate has been extremely stable over the past 18 months—as long as I have been
    990
    in this post—as a result of the extremely responsible policies that we have pursued in getting on top of our fiscal deficit and showing that we are prepared to follow responsible monetary policies. If my hon. Friend is trying to lead me back to his theory that the present recovery is a sole result of certain changes in the exchange rate that occurred about 18 months ago, he knows that I regard that as nonsense. In fact, the current policies of the Government have very much more to do with the strong manufacturing recovery in Britain.
    Mr. Sheldon: If the manufacturing recovery is to be strongly based, will it not be necessary to do something about investment allowances and the absurd notion that 25 per cent. is the maximum that the Chancellor can afford to give for manufacturing investment? If we are to achieve the capacity increase that we require, he must do something about that.
    Mr. Clarke: Investment, I am glad to say, is strengthening considerably at the moment, including manufacturing investment. The present recovery looks set to be a healthy recovery, led by exports, with investment strengthening rapidly and consumer growth continuing in a sustainable way. I do not accept that indiscriminate investment allowances automatically produce the kind of investment that boosts growth. It is the quality of investment that matters. The old eastern European countries, the Soviet bloc, used to produce marvellous figures for investment, but the quality of the investment was so bad that they were among the worst performing economies in the world.
    Mr. Jenkin: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and the Government on the stable framework to which he alluded, which brought about this upturn in manufacturing output? Does he agree that it is now time to make it clear that we will not flirt with the idea of a single currency in Europe? Will he endorse the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in November 1990 that the single currency in Europe is about the politics in Europe and federalism by the back door?
    Mr. Clarke: In my experience, flirtation requires more than one person. The single currency is not being actively pursued anywhere within the European Union. If the question of economic and monetary union arises in future, I look forward to debating it with my hon. Friend. However, the judgment that we should both seek to make about it is whether it is in British interests at the time to participate. That is the position that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reserved for this country when he negotiated the Maastricht treaty.

    Tax Collection
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount the Inland Revenue failed to collect in taxes for the last year for which figures were available; and what proportion this represents of the amount raised in 1994 from VAT on fuel bills.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): Value added tax on fuel bills, excluding compensation payments, is expected to raise

    991
    £1,120 million in 1994–95, which represents 75 per cent. of the £1,580 million written off by the Inland Revenue for 1992–93.
    Dr. Godman: Could not the money raised by imposing VAT on domestic fuel have been collected by ending the tax relief on executive share options and by closing, once and for all, the tax loopholes that make the United Kingdom such a wonderful tax haven for many rich and greedy people?
    Sir George Young: No, there is no way in which the measures outlined by the hon. Gentleman would meet the shortfall that he has identified. If the Labour party is seriously suggesting that the second stage should be revoked, it owes it to the House to say what other taxes Labour would increase or what public expenditure it would cut.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that since privatisation in 1986, domestic gas prices have fallen in real terms, taking account of the extension of VAT, by 16.5 per cent.? Will he contrast that with the position in the late 1970s under the Labour Government, when the prices of all utilities rose tremendously under very high inflation and interest rates?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been not only the favourable movement in fuel prices, to which he rightly drew attention, but a generous compensation package, costing £2.5 billion over three years, to help those on low incomes pay VAT on fuel.
    Ms Armstrong: Will the Minister now take the opportunity to honour the Government's election pledge to rule out any further extension of VAT to items such as children's clothing or food? Will he please answer the question?
    Sir George Young: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position in the Treasury—[Interruption.] I meant the shadow Treasury team. I have nothing to add to the answer that has already been given.

    Economic Strategy
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Government's long-term economic strategy and the level of unemployment.
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Government's long-term economic strategy and the level of unemployment.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): The Government's economic strategy is to achieve sustained non-inflationary growth and higher living standards. There is a direct relationship between the success of this strategy and a steady fall in unemployment.
    Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but when one compares it to reality, it does not stack up. Are not the Minister and the Government using the large pool of unemployment as the only
    992
    weapon to tackle inflation? If the Government are really confident about sustained economic growth, why did they increase interest rates?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman asks a question about unemployment in somewhat churlish terms. He does not seem to have noticed that unemployment has fallen in the past 20 months by 406,000, and that it came down by 28,000 in September or nearly 1,000 a day. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there has been a 7.3 per cent. fall in unemployment since last year.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a small rise in interest rates, for very good reasons of prudence, to ensure that inflationary pressures do not arise in future. There is no evidence that that has had an adverse impact on the continuing fall in unemployment.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a significant feature of the recent large reduction in unemployment, apart from the fact that it is in direct contradiction with the forecast that was made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), is that it has been accompanied by a significant increase in investment and exports? To maintain that increased investment in the long term, will my right hon. Friend consider capital gains tax reforms, which would more adequately reflect the value of long-term investment?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend mentions the brilliant forecasting skills of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who predicted some 20 months ago that "unemployment will rise" month after month. Since that great prediction, unemployment has fallen month after month. The hon. Gentleman deserves a good kick up his endogenous zone for that wrong prediction.
    On my hon. Friend's second point, he is quite right to say that the growth in exports is most encouraging; it is rising at 10 per cent. a year, which is a remarkable figure. On his points about capital gains tax, I am sure that he will understand that I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Given the importance of his responsibilities for economic strategy, will the Chief Secretary now take the opportunity to tell us that at no time was any part of his bill last year in the Ritz hotel in Paris paid for by a Mr. Ayas? Will he answer the question? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow that line of questioning on a question to which it does not relate. The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue the matter through me to the Privileges Committee. Alternatively, of course, he has the opportunity to— [Interruption.] Please hear me out. The hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to table a substantive motion if he wishes to make a criticism and to seek a statement or a debate through the Leader of the House at business questions.
    Mr. Aitken: With great respect to you, Madam Speaker, I would very much welcome a chance to answer that question, not least because it is my first chance to clear myself of the scurrilous accusations that have been made. With your indulgence, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that, first, I completely deny the

    993
    allegation that he has made. Secondly, I think that he should be aware that the Cabinet Secretary has today sent a letter to the editor of The Guardian, Mr. Peter Preston, repudiating and denying the scurrilous allegation that Mr. Preston made this morning, to the effect that I had lied to the Cabinet Secretary. The relevant sentence from Sir Robin Butler's letter reads:
    "For the record, I confirm that I do not regard Jonathan Aitken as having lied to me or misled me."
    I hope that the House, which is a very fair-minded place, will accept both my assurance and the Cabinet Secretary's assurance and put an end to the hysterical atmosphere of sleaze journalism by The Guardian.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect interest rate reductions since October 1990 have had on the economy.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Low interest rates have contributed to the broad-based recovery that we are now experiencing. Monetary policy will continue to be aimed at low inflation to ensure that growth can be sustained over the years ahead.
    Mr. Booth: As long-term investment, stability and the low interest rates to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred are vital ingredients in the success of our economy—success that is evident in my constituency of Finchley at successful firms such as Pentland, Witherspoon's and Gerson—will he assure us that he will continue to reinvigorate and reinforce those successful policies?
    Mr. Clarke: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will know that interest rates, although raised to 5¾ per cent. from their previous level, are still at their lowest level since 1972. I believe that we will be able to keep interest rates down and consistent with our monetary policy if we act in good time, if our fiscal policy is sound and if we keep on the course that we have set. I agree with my hon. Friend that companies such as those that he named are now well placed to take advantage of that, and I am glad to say that they are beginning to deliver the prosperity and jobs that the country needs.
    Mr. John Evans: The Chancellor of the Exchequer constantly boasts about the successful economy and falling unemployment. Is he aware that no one with any intelligence takes any notice of the Government's unemployment statistics? Will the Chancellor confirm that more than 1 million people are unemployed and are economically active but do not appear in any unemployment statistics? Will he confirm that the latest scam, the job seeker's allowance, will save the Treasury millions of pounds and take another 90,000 out of the unemployment statistics?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman questioned me in the past when I was an Employment Minister. He knows that I have never taken too seriously the figures for benefit recipients as a measure of unemployment in this country; they are used as the basis of fairly lightweight political exchanges inside the House and outside. I take seriously the labour force survey, which I always used to protest was a much better measure of unemployment. I am glad to say that that is currently
    994
    showing real falls in unemployment in line with the headline count and an increase in employment of about 750,000 new jobs. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that the present real recovery in manufacturing and the British economy is generating new jobs—it is the only way that we can generate new jobs—and that we are on course in the medium term to get unemployment down to an acceptable level.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we are living in a deflationary world and that there is still plenty of spare capacity in the British economy?
    Mr. Clarke: I am interested to hear that. I gaze at surveys and all sorts of data, and I have many conversations with people in British business to judge whether capacity constraints are likely to affect our performance. No one can measure it; it is a matter of judgment. So far, we are all satisfied that there is spare capacity in the economy; it has been rising above the trend for some time. I shall make judgments as I go along on the best evidence that I have to keep the recovery as strong as possible and consistent with our monetary targets and the maintenance of low inflation.

    VAT (Fuel)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what income has accrued from value added tax on domestic fuel bills from April to October 1994.
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The Central Statistical Office's estimates of consumer expenditure show that the projected total of VAT accruing on domestic fuel bills in the six months to 1 October 1994 will be £410 million, and for the year to 31 March 1995 the projected total accruing will be £1,120 million.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister agree that 10 million pensioners and 6.5 million people, including unemployed people, have contributed substantially to those figures? Only fools would accept that the 50p allowance introduced by the Department of Social Security to help to pay bills meets the cost. As pensioners, unemployed people and those on income support face difficult winters and difficulty in meeting their energy bills, will the Minister prevail on his colleague, the Chancellor, to withdraw the next issue of the implementation of 17.5 per cent. VAT on fuel bills?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The House decided to implement VAT on fuel bills in two stages. It did so in the knowledge that a generous compensation package gives extra help to all pensioners and widows, disabled people and those on income-related benefits, adding up to some £2.5 billion over three years. The background is that fuel prices generally are falling. Indeed, even allowing for the introduction of VAT earlier this year, electricity prices have remained stable over the past two years and gas prices are now lower by 2.5 per cent. in real terms than two years ago.
    Mr. Biffen: Will my hon. Friend use this occasion to assert the sovereign role of this House in determining fiscal matters and, in that context, acknowledge that there is an economic and social argument for keeping

    995
    our rates of value added tax below those of our European Union partners, even though that may have consequences for direct taxation?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can confirm that the decision on fuel taxation was taken by the House and was not forced on us by the European Community. Our existing zero ratings are protected fully by EC legislation, and we have an effective veto on any changes that are against the wishes of this House.
    Mr. MacShane: The Minister will be aware of today's important article in The Times pointing out that personnel directors have awarded themselves wage increases significantly above those given to their employees. He will also be aware that suppliers are now increasing prices across industry because of the recovery, that large wage claims are in the pipeline and that the latest Union bank of Switzerland prediction on inflation in the United Kingdom next year is 5 per cent. Will the Minister make a bet with me on what the inflation rate will be in 12 months' time? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is on the wrong question: we are talking about VAT on domestic fuel bills. I will allow the Minister to answer, however; I am sure that he can.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can answer in relation to privatised industries in the fuel and power sector. I can confirm that privatisation has led to lower prices. That has been good for customers, as well as for all who work for the industries concerned. There has been an unalloyed benefit from the privatisation programme introduced by the Government in the teeth of opposition from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the growth of the economy.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Figures released last week show that GDP grew by more than 3.5 per cent. in the year to the third quarter of 1994. Let me add that the country's economic prospects are so good that my Treasury team is prepared to answer supplementary questions on any aspect of the economy, in response to any question.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that rising output, low inflation and falling unemployment make our economy the envy of our competitors? Is it not time that the Opposition realised that the one thing that would stop our economy would be the adoption of their policies, with minimum wages, social charters and, inevitably, rising taxes?
    Mr. Clarke: I quite agree. I believe that my hon. Friend has drawn his conclusions in part from the forecast of the International Monetary Fund, which expects ours to be the fastest growing economy in Europe, both this year and next. As my hon. Friend implied, last year we had to make some difficult fiscal decisions, and the Opposition voted against all the public spending savings measures that we had to take
    996
    through the House. Their approach to the economy would pull down our growth rate and prospects and damage what we are currently poised to achieve.
    Mr. Shore: In the interests of continuing the growth of the economy, and taking account of the enormous help that the Chancellor gave us through the 17 per cent. devaluation that took place when we left the exchange rate mechanism, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now assure us that, in the latest movement of interest rates and in any future movement, he is not simply trying to shadow the deutschmark as his last predecessor but one did so disastrously two or three years ago?
    Mr. Clarke: I am tempted to take issue with the right hon. Gentleman's premise. The recovery had started before we left the ERM; interest rates started to fall before we left the ERM; and inflation started to come down before we left the ERM. The fact that good Government policies since we left the ERM have allowed us to retain the competitive advantage of that devaluation without subsequent inflation is to the Government's credit.
    I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not shadowing the deutschmark. I accept that exchange rates either float or are fixed; we are currently floating, and we are maintaining stability through the responsibility of our policies.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the basic rate of income tax would have to rise to fund a £35 billion increase in public spending; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Aitken: To raise £35 billion from income tax, the basic rate would almost have to double.
    Mr. Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me about the importance of continuing to control public expenditure? Does he agree that, by contrast, the Labour party continues to want to spend more and more, which must mean more taxation and—without a shadow of a doubt—taxing not just the mythical undeserving rich but, by implication, all middle-income earners?
    Mr. Aitken: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's first point—that tight control of public expenditure is vital to a healthy economy. The Labour party's policies are still in a somewhat amorphous and unveiled state, but it is clear from its conference pledges alone on such matters as the minimum wage that it has still not shed, or come anywhere near shedding, its well-deserved reputation as the high-spend, high-tax party.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On the subject of tax increases, will the Minister confirm to the House that the tax increases which will come into effect this month, coupled with those which will come into effect between now and April, add up to the equivalent of just under 3p in the pound? Are not the Government presiding over tax increases while talking about tax cuts?
    Mr. Aitken: Income tax rates have not gone up by 3p in the pound, and we have reduced income tax rates time and again. We inherited an income tax rate as high as 83 per cent. at the top rate, which we brought down to 40

    997
    per cent. We also inherited from the Labour party a standard rate of some 30 per cent., which we brought down to 25 per cent., and we now have a standard band of 20p which 5 million people enjoy. We are a low-tax, tax-cutting Government, and we will get back to our core belief of cutting taxes as soon as it is prudent to do so.
    Mr. John Townend: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the recent announcement that the Treasury will be setting an example in reducing the Government's overheads. Does he appreciate that there is enormous support on the Conservative Benches and in the party for his efforts to cut the public expenditure total this year, so that we can change from being a tax-increasing Government and resume our natural position as the party of low taxes?
    Mr. Aitken: I regard praise from my hon. Friend, who is something of a Robespierre of public spending, as praise indeed. Painful decisions have been made about the Treasury and the fundamental expenditure review, but it is worth reminding the House that the administration costs of Government and the running costs of Whitehall are approximately £15 billion per year, which is £13 of taxation for every household. It is entirely right that the Government should look hard—as they have in the past and are now doing again—at reducing that burden of public expenditure where it is prudent to do so.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister admit that the £35 billion referred to in the question is almost equivalent to the amount of money that could be saved if we managed to get those 4 million people who do not have jobs into work? There is another way, of course. That is to increase taxes on those who have received £50 billion in tax cuts in the last 15 Tory years, which would mean taxing people like Al Fayed and all his friends.
    Mr. Aitken: I shall resist the temptation to say anything about the gentleman mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's question.
    The £35 billion figure is in fact the amount by which the Labour party would have increased public expenditure if it had been elected. Those were the pledges that it made. This Government have been doing their best to reduce the burden of public expenditure. We are now doing so, and we hope to bring it down to a satisfactory amount between now and the next election.
    Mr. Brazier: As a fellow Kentish Member, will my right hon. Friend join me in agreeing that local spending as well as central spending must be controlled in the interests of taxpayers? Does he agree that it is quite wrong that the county that we share, which is controlled by a Lib-Lab coalition, should spend £750,000 this year on entertaining and conferences?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is quite right. The spending of Kent as a local authority under Lib-Lab control is giving great cause for concern. It seems to be a case of canapés for the boys, and that should be restrained as much as possible.

    Bank of Credit and Commerce International
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Government proposals for compensation for the victims of BCCI.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): While we sympathise with the plight of BCCI depositors, responsibility for their losses rests with those who committed the frauds, not with the Government. Parliament established the statutory deposit protection scheme to protect those with small deposits and to date more than 17,800 payments have been made to BCCI depositors, totalling more than £76 million.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the new settlement agreement which has been reached between the creditors committee and the sheikh of Abu Dhabi? What necessary steps will the Government take to ensure that those payments are made immediately, bearing in mind the fact that the Government have done absolutely nothing to support the depositors and creditors of BCCI during the past two and a half years?
    Mr. Nelson: While I vehemently reject the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I should like to pay a more generous tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has shown much interest and concern for depositors who have lost out through the collapse of BCCI.
    The factual position is that the $1.8 billion package for the creditors has been the result of negotiations between the liquidators and the majority shareholders, and should enable depositors to win back something like 30 to 40 per cent. of their funds. It will be necessary for the creditors committees in the UK, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg to agree on that. I believe that that has now been agreed, and the only remaining hurdle is for the courts in those three jurisdictions to agree to it. I very much hope that when that is done, the way will be cleared with expedition to pay some recompense to those who have lost out.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity, notwithstanding the claims of some of the BCCI depositors for possible compensation, to reassure the House and the country that investors who take unnecessary risks with their money should not expect to be compensated by those who are prudent in their investments?
    Mr. Nelson: I strongly believe that my hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, both with regard to depositor protection and with regard to investor protection. Not just as a result of directives from the European Union on both issues, but as a result of legislation introduced by this Government on both issues, we have substantial protection schemes to protect depositors and investors. At the end of the day, however, there must be a responsibility—a caveat emptor—on those who place their funds to take some responsibility for the husbandry of their financial affairs.
    Mr. Darling: Do the Government accept that the bank claims and the pension transfer claims arise from the same problem, which is that the regulatory regime in this country does not work? In the light of that, why did the Minister claim earlier this week that the financial services

    999
    regulatory system was working well? Is he surprised that no one has any confidence in the Government's ability to make the regulatory regime work?
    Mr. Nelson: I do not for a moment accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. The fact is that with regard to opt-outs and transfers of personal pensions, it is as a result of the investigations and inquiries, and the process of redress that has been put into place, that people who have been disadvantaged will have it made good. That is the result of an incisive, deliberate and determined approach of supervision and regulation which is proving its worth. It is serving the interests both of investors and of depositors. This week's announcement by the Securities and Investments Board is a good example of that.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what comparison he has made between the corporation tax in Britain and that of major competitors; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir George Young: Levels of corporate taxes in the United Kingdom's major competitor countries are monitored continually. The United Kingdom continues to have the lowest main rate of any of the major industrial countries.
    Mr. Evans: In confirming that the United Kingdom has the lowest rate of corporation tax in the European Community, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is due to the fact that we have given great encouragement to our medium-sized and especially our smaller companies? We have allowed them to keep more of their own money, thereby allowing them to reinvest it in the companies. That has allowed them to increase their productivity, especially in manufacturing, and has led to record exports being achieved.
    Sir George Young: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the small and medium-sized enterprises to which he has referred, which have done so well in the past few years and have created many new jobs. On the substance of his question, I recognise that this country operates in a competitive world market. We need to attract inward investment from some of the multinational companies to create secure jobs in growth industries. The fact that we have one of the lowest rates of corporation tax is a clear signal that we welcome such investment.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: I congratulate the Financial Secretary on his appointment. Will he confirm that the Government have decided not to publish the report on the review of dividend taxation and related matters which was initiated by the former Financial Secretary? Given that the Government's record on investment is so poor, should not the public, industry and especially this House have the opportunity to examine the evidence for themselves on the basis of a full and comprehensive report?
    Sir George Young: There never was a report in the terms that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned; nor was there ever any intention to publish such a document. There will be ample opportunities in the Finance Bill and on other occasions to debate the important issues that he has raised.
    Mr. French: In comparing the tax regimes in Britain with those of other European countries, will my right hon.
    1000
    Friend confirm that he is now fully satisfied that a business that wishes to operate a pan-European mutual fund, including the provision of FCPs, or fonds communs de placement, will not find fiscal reasons for locating in Dublin or Luxembourg as opposed to London?
    Sir George Young: I very much hope that that is the case. There are many letters on my hon. Friend's question and I should like to write and confirm what he has just said. Over the past year or so, a third of inward investment into the European Community came to the UK. That confirms his point: that this is an attractive location from which to base enterprise.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure he has for the level of manufacturing investment in this country; and what this figure was in 1979.
    Mr. Aitken: Total business investment is up by more than 30 per cent. since 1979, totalling about £60 billion in the past year, of which investment in manufacturing is currently running at £11 billion a year compared to £13.6 billion in 1979.
    Mr. Byers: Will the Chief Secretary assure us that next time he visits the Ritz in Paris he will consider why manufacturing jobs in this country have been lost at twice the rate of those in France? Will he confirm that, in real terms, manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom has declined by 13 per cent. since 1979? Does he agree that those figures clearly show the Government's failure to assist the manufacturing sector?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is being very selective in the investment figures that he quotes. Britain is doing well in terms of investment, particularly inward investment from other countries. We are attracting the lion's share of foreign investment into the European Union—far more than France and Germany combined. If the French could see how well we are doing in that way, they would be grateful to have our good record.
    Mr. Forman: In considering manufacturing investment, will my right hon. Friend always give due weight to the argument that it is much better that those decisions be taken by management and firms themselves, than distorted by tax relief, such as the 100 per cent. first year allowances, which would be a bad idea?
    Mr. Aitken: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Government's real priority in trying to attract investment is not to produce all sorts of Government-created advantages but to create a framework like the one that we have now, of low inflation, a flexible labour force, low costs, and a stable and prosperous economic environment in which growth is occurring. Those conditions encourage manufacturers both here and abroad to invest in Britain.

    Tax Rises
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Government's imposition of new tax rises and the standard of living in the United Kingdom.
    Sir George Young: Our policies of sound finance will produce sustained recovery, more jobs and further increases in living standards.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Is not the reality that, as a result of the Chancellor's Budget last year, the poor have been hit hard and those on middle incomes have been hit even harder? Is the Minister aware that, as a result of last year's Budget, a family on average earnings with two children is already £330 a year worse off and faces a further £85 loss in income as a result of inbuilt tax increases? When the Government promise year-on-year tax cuts and increases in standards of living, why do average families have to dip their hands further and further into their pockets to bail the Government out as a result of their economic failures?
    Sir George Young: The actual figure for next year is not the one that the hon. Gentleman gave. The average impact of next year's increases across all households is £3 a week. A large number of households will pay less, and the figure for pensioners is 90p a week. The hon. Gentleman must put those figures in perspective. Since 1979, average families have had an increase of some £80 in real take-home pay.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is it not a fact that living standards in my constituency and throughout the country have risen under this Conservative Government, and is it not correct to say that the average family receives £80 more per week than it did in 1979? That is a tribute to the Government.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Real take-home pay has increased for all earning deciles since 1979.

    VAT (Books and Newspapers)
    Ms Primarolo: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning the extension of VAT to books and newspapers.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer receives a wide range of representations in the run-up to the Budget.
    Ms Primarolo: Is it not the case that, although the Government talk about reducing taxes, they have actually increased them, the scope of VAT having been increased 14 times since the 1979 general election? Will the Minister give an assurance today that the Prime Minister's promise at the last election not to increase the scope of tax will be honoured by the Government?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I take it that the question is about VAT on books, magazines and newspapers, and I can confirm that our zero rating is proof against challenge from the European Commission. Although all other member states except for Ireland levy VAT on books, my
    1002
    right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that he has no plans for extending VAT in that way in the near future.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 October.
    The Prime Minister (John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Cunningham: Can the Prime Minister end speculation in today's London Evening Standard naming an individual as the person who either tipped the Prime Minister off or acted as the intermediary in allegations against Ministers?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said on a previous occasion, the person concerned came to see me privately and in good faith. I have no intention of offering a name. The note of my meeting with my informant has been passed, as I told the House the other day, to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the name is known to her. It is for her to decide how to proceed, and I understand that she has now passed the papers to the Metropolitan police.
    Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his decision to set up an independent and powerful committee to inquire into the conduct of public life is warmly welcomed? Does he also accept that certain areas of conduct should be reserved to the House to look after? Will he therefore continue to resist most strongly the immature and inexperienced proposal of the Leader of the Opposition that the Select Committee on Privileges should meet in public, which would create a lynch trial kangaroo court atmosphere that every democrat should abhor?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of these matters, and I share the opinion that he has expressed.
    As for the committee that I have established, I have made it clear to the House that I am not prepared to see confidence in elected or unelected public servants undermined by the public parading of unsubstantiated slurs and innuendo. It is precisely for that reason that I have set up the committee on the conduct of public life. I look to Opposition Members, who, I understand, support the initiative, to join me in ensuring that the committee is able to work successfully. I also look to them to ensure the ending of the continual peddling of gossip and rumour.
    Mr. Blair: Now that today we have another report by the Cabinet Secretary exonerating another Minister, can we make ourselves clear about the basis on which the Prime Minister is running the Government? A week ago, he said that there were unsubstantiated allegations against his Trade Minister and insisted that he stayed. A few days later, there were allegations that were supposed to be unfounded, as he called them, and he insisted that the Minister concerned went. Now there are new unsubstantiated allegations against the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and he stays. What is the basis on which the

    1003
    Prime Minister decides to retain or dismiss his Ministers—the truth of the allegations or merely the number of them?
    The Prime Minister: I had understood that when the right hon. Gentleman became leader of the Labour party we were going to see a new style in politics. I had not expected to see the right hon. Gentleman step down into the gutters of public life quite so soon. Let me make it clear to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman—I set out my position concerning my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) in my statement to the House the other day and I have nothing further to say. As for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, the examination shows that there is nothing for them to answer to, and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) should be ashamed of using the privilege of the House to raise those matters in this way.
    Mr. Blair: As the Prime Minister knows perfectly well, I have not said that I agree with the allegations against anyone. The idea that, after the resignation of two Ministers in a week, the Opposition should not be entitled to ask questions, is absurd. Cannot the Prime Minister see that the problem will not be resolved unless he understands that the Butler reports are plainly inadequate as, on his own admission, Sir Robin Butler is not able to see the person making the complaints, Mr. Al Fayed, he has forbidden the Nolan committee to look at the allegations, the Privileges Committee is deadlocked because Conservative Members want it to sit in private—[Interruption.] I repeat, because Conservative Members want to sit in private. The Prime Minister will take a grip on the problem only when he understands that there has to be a proper method of investigating Mr. Al Fayed's allegations that has the public's confidence, which means an open, full investigation in public view.
    The Prime Minister: Now there is no doubt. We now know where we are with the right hon. Gentleman and we know precisely what way he plans to play his politics. The right hon. Gentleman says to the House that he does not believe that the allegations are substantiated, yet he is still prepared to peddle them in here. The whole House will have noticed that he is prepared to peddle them. There is only one thing stopping the Privileges Committee from proceeding: the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends will not attend that Committee, which is wholly against all precedent in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is a lawyer; he knows that investigations take place in private and when those matters are over, debate takes place in public. He would change that for his own party advantage. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard that the documents relating to Mr. Al Fayed's allegations were passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions and have now been passed by her, after examination, to the Metropolitan police for examination. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman cannot imagine that I shall add to that.
    Mr. Blair: With all due respect, the Prime Minister is not being asked to add to it. It is not me; it is—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must have some order in the House.
    Mr. Blair: It was not I, but the Prime Minister who dismissed two Ministers. Furthermore, the normal
    1004
    procedure in courts of law is that hearings are held in public. No Opposition Members are saying whether the allegations are true or false—merely that they should be investigated. Why will the Prime Minister not allow the investigations to be held in public?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that the matters may not be true and may be unsubstantiated gossip; yet he wants them peddled in public so that people's reputations—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I shall have order from both sides of the House.
    The Prime Minister: Despite the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe the allegations and does not believe that there is anything substantial in them, he still wants to see them examined in public. People will ask for what party political reason he wants to see them established in public. If that is to be the new, clean politics, let us have the old, dirty politics from Labour that we have been used to.
    Mr. Sumberg: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution from traffic? Does it not dictate an urgent review of the roads programme, and in particular the abandonment of the disastrous M62 relief road which has caused so much damage in my constituency?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, with the ingenuity that we have come to expect of him, has continued his campaign of concern about the M62. I think that the report by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution is a useful one, and we shall be studying it closely. It contains many very helpful things—although there are some parts of it which are uncosted and which would be better for having been costed.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the two Ministers who have been forced to resign from the Government in the past week will receive £3,500 each in redundancy payments for their pains?
    The Prime Minister: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman voted for the legislation which requires that.
    Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Back Benchers are as entitled as Front Benchers to a little quiet in this House.
    Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of us believe that there is a deliberate campaign, based on unfounded allegations, to discredit this Government and him? Is he aware that one of the advantages of Select Committees sitting in private, when required, is that their discussions cannot be debated on the Floor of the House before the reports have been fully submitted and details of all the evidence made available?
    The Prime Minister: It has been well understood for many years in this House that Select Committees, when carrying out investigations, sit under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. That is one reason why they have decided for many years to investigate matters in private. Of course, when the investigations are completed, it is right that the report should be published—and it will be. It is also right that the report should be debated—and it will be. All

    1005
    our predecessors in this House have always agreed, in the interests of natural justice, that those Committees should meet and examine matters in private.
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Raynsford: As the Prime Minister confirmed on Tuesday, and again just a few moments ago, that a note of the approaches made to his office by agents of Mr. Al Fayed had been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and now to the Metropolitan police, does he feel that it would be proper for the Conservative party to repay the £250,000 that it has received from Mr. Al Fayed?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has lived up to his reputation.
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of just how welcome the new strategy to combat drugs is to thousands of concerned parents throughout the country? Does he agree that the way to tackle this issue most effectively is in
    1006
    local communities, to destroy the cancer of drug abuse which has tragically blighted the lives of so many young people across the industrialised world?
    The Prime Minister: I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about the appalling damage that is done to young people by drugs, and I know how much he has done in his constituency to tackle the problem. Including the costs of police and education time, we spend in total about £500 million a year on tackling drug abuse. I entirely agree that we need to ensure that those resources, and indeed all efforts, are deployed as effectively as possible. We believe that that will best be done by implementing the proposals in the report by my right hon. Friend the Lord President and by making sure that action is taken in schools and by the drug action teams.
    Mr. Salmond: The Prime Minister has achieved a welcome success from his policy in Northern Ireland, which has hinged on the principle of consent—the right of people in the north of Ireland to determine their own future. For the avoidance of any doubt, will he confirm that he also believes in the right of self-determination for the Scottish nation?
    The Prime Minister: Every nation has always had that right. The hon. Gentleman is clearly talking about a tax-raising devolved Parliament in Scotland, and he well knows my view about that. I am sure that he would benefit from reading the speeches that I made during the 1992 election campaign; if he had done so, he would not have needed to ask his question.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam Speaker. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 31 OcToBER—Opposition Day (20th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on an Opposition motion, for which the subject will be announced. That will be followed by a debate on transport and the environment, on an Opposition motion.
Remaining stages of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords],
Proceedings on the Drug Trafficking Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
TUESDAY 1 NoVEMBER—Opposition Day (12th allotted day—second part). Until 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on conservation of energy on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
Consideration of Lords amendments which may be received to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments which may be received to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.
WEDNESDAY 2 NOVEMBER—The House may be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
Motion on the Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) Order.
Motion on the Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Construction and Property Services) Order.
THURSDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Subject to the progress of business, the House is expected to be prorogued.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet on Tuesday 1 November at 10.30 am to consider European Union documents Nos. 8441/93 and 8128/94 relating to protection of animals during transport.
[Wednesday 2 November:
European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am to consider unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19 April relating to adjustments to fisheries arrangements for Spain and Portugal, two unnumbered explanatory memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 14 September relating to fisheries; common fisheries control system and fisheries access to areas and resources, and EC Document No. 7541/94 relating to fisheries multi-annual guidance programme 1993.]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. As it seems that it will not be possible next week to discuss further and act on the recommendations of the Jopling report, will he ensure that it is debated and acted upon early in the new Session?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that any debates next week will inevitably be overshadowed by allegations and counter-allegations about the conduct of Ministers, and that that will continue unless the air can be cleared? That requires the Priveleges Committee to meet in public wherever possible. Will the right hon. Gentleman do
1008
everything in his power to make sure that that Committee can meet as soon as possible, to the satisfaction of all hon. Members and to restore the confidence of the general public in that Committee?
Mr. Newton: I welcomed the hon. Lady in a way on Monday, but perhaps I could take this opportunity to welcome her to this first exchange on the business question and congratulate her on her appointment. The hon. Lady asked about the Jopling report. I was glad to have an early opportunity to speak to her on the matter.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as she seems to be continuing the constructive approach of her acting predecessor, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), and I shall seek to respond as positively as possible to her remarks this afternoon.
On the hon. Lady's latter remarks, our business will be "overshadowed" by allegations, as she put it, only to the extent that the Opposition continue to wish and engineer that all other proceedings should be overshadowed by such allegations. As for the Privileges Committee, she will know that it would not normally be open to me to discuss the proceedings of that Committee across the Floor of the House and outside the Committee, because of long-standing conventions. She also knows that the Committee has taken an entirely proper decision in accordance with precedent and after a long and full discussion; I can do no more than report that to the House.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent early debate on the actions of Kent education authority which is seeking to impose a primary school on four villages in my constituency, against the opposition of the two existing schools, the two parish councils, all the district councillors and myself, along with the vast majority of people living in those villages? Is it not a matter of the Conservatives backing the people and the Lib-Lab pact at county hall backing the bureaucrats?
Mr. Newton: Many people beyond the House will have heard with concern my hon. Friend's description of the problems in his area. While I cannot promise a debate, I hope that he may be able to raise the point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who is here to answer questions on Tuesday.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House explain why no provision has been made for a debate on the reform of the procedures of the House? I understood that there was an expectation that there would be progress through the usual channels, so that matters would be put in hand for a trial period, at least, for the next Session. If there is no provision for a debate next week, does that mean that that will now not happen?
Mr. Newton: I do not think it does, because the early part of the new Session will be taken up with the debate on the Queen's Speech and, fairly shortly thereafter, the Budget debate, so there would be an opportunity to pursue the matters that interest the hon. Gentleman in a way which, effectively, would give the House the advantages of it at the point at which it would start to count—when that period is over.

1009
As to the implicit thrust of the first part of the hon. Member's question, I have already said that discussions are continuing through the usual channels. Obviously, I am anxious that we should proceed in the usual way, which is with full agreement.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Prime Minister has frequently emphasised the importance of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom economy. In approximately a month's time, the House will be facing a Budget. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House find time at a early date for a debate on manufacturing in the United Kingdom economy, so that the House can advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the measures we believe are needed to ensure that manufacturing continues to play a vital role in our economy?
Mr. Newton: I anticipate that there would be quite a lengthy debate as usual among the debates on the Queen's Speech when we return for the new Session, and I should have thought that it would be likely to provide my hon. Friend with an extensive opportunity to make the point that he wishes to raise.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the Leader of the House regret the grossly intemperate response given to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) in the House on Tuesday? Will he confirm, either this afternoon or in a statement early next week, that it is not for any Minister to instruct the Privileges Committee, but for the Privileges Committee itself to decide whether it meets in secrecy or in public? Will he also confirm that that was the legal advice given by the Attorney-General?
Mr. Newton: I am becoming extremely concerned at the extent to which an experienced Member of the House is breaking every possible convention concerning the proceedings of the Privileges Committee.
Mr. Morris: The right hon. Member himself made a public statement.
Mr. Newton: I cleave to what I said. I do not wish to say anything intemperate, but I will respond to the first half of the right hon. Gentleman's question. Of course it is not for Ministers to interfere with the activities of the Privileges Committee or those of any other Select Committee. They did not interfere. The Committee made its own decision and it is that decision which the right hon. Gentleman is refusing to accept, to the point of declining to co-operate as a member of the Committee.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on the remit of the Nolan committee? For instance, if a Member of Parliament receives substantial financial backing and then the son of that backer receives privileged access to a job, thanks to the patronage of that Member's wife, would that come under the remit of the Nolan committee or the Privileges Committee? If my right hon. Friend is not sure, would he kindly consult the leader of the Labour party about his conduct in that respect?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it very clear that the remit of the Nolan
1010
committee is to look at issues, as I would put it, in general rather than at specific allegations against particular people. If specific allegations are made against particular people, they can be looked at, or least considered for examination, in a range of ways, either by the committee to which my hon. Friend has referred or by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, or perhaps in some other way of which I cannot immediately think. That would be the proper way in which to consider such allegations; they would not be issues for the Nolan committee.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Tuesday's business, does the Leader of the House have any flicker of embarrassment at the way in which English local authorities—Somerset, Oxfordshire and Shropshire, for example—have gone along and, understandably, said, "Look, we don't like the consultation," and have got their way to some kind of acceptable local government reform whereas in Scotland we have had put upon us an inane, expensive, ill-thought-out, unwanted and vindictive scheme of local government reform, with the break-up of Strathclyde and Lothian? A similar reform in England would have been judged quite unacceptable and would have been rejected. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the poll tax, because the local government reform is another example of us being the guinea pigs?
Mr. Newton: We are frequently told that, in education and a range of other matters in Scotland, there are different traditions, and that it is appropriate to have different arrangements. I see no reason to suppose that that is not appropriate for local government. Certainly it is the case that different ways forward were chosen on local government in Scotland, in England and in Wales to suit what were thought to be the interests and needs of those nations. So I have no flicker of embarrassment at the fact that flexibility has been shown in approaching different problems in different places.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me remind the House that business questions is not when we debate issues, but when hon. Members put brisk questions to the Leader of the House. I also remind the House that there is an extremely important Adjournment debate on Northern Ireland to follow, which is over-subscribed. A number of hon. Members will not be called in the debate because there is such a great deal of interest in it—and I intend to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches. Therefore I shall not allow business questions to last much longer, but I plead for brisk questions and answers so that I can call as many hon. Members as possible.
Mr. Quentin Davies: May I endorse the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for an urgent debate on manufacturing, because something quite extraordinary is happening in the country at the present time? Not only do we have a high rate of economic growth at 3 per cent., but—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have just said that issues must not be debated, and I am not going to allow them to

1011
be debated. If the hon. Gentleman is asking for a debate on manufacturing industry, he should say so, get it off his chest and let us hear the answer.
Mr. Davies: I was trying to present some argument to persuade my right hon. Friend—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is my point: arguments do not have to be presented. The hon. Gentleman has already asked for a debate on the manufacturing industry.
Mr. Davies: The fact, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Speaker: I am not Deputy Speaker, so the hon. Gentleman had better be very careful—
Mr. Davies rose—
Madam Speaker: Sit down a minute. I am a very fair Speaker, so let us have the question again, straight to the point, with no discussion of issues. Come along.
Mr. Davies: Would it not be a very good idea, Madam Speaker, to have a debate on manufacturing, at a time when manufacturing output is increasing much faster than the rest of the economy and at a time when exports are expanding faster than imports—
Madam Speaker: Order. Now the hon. Gentleman is abusing my good will. Let us have an answer from the Leader of the House.
Mr. Newton: I hope that I can restore your good will, Madam Speaker, also be helpful to my hon. Friend and be even more helpful than I was before to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). It has occurred to me that, by some magic foresight, I have already arranged a debate tomorrow on inward investment. It would appear to me that everything that has been said would be relevant tomorrow.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to two related early-day motions, 1670 and 1635? The first states:
[That this House deplores the arrest outside Parliament on Wednesday 26th October of the European representative of the Kurdistan Workers Party on his way to address a meeting of members of both Houses; demands his release; and further demands that the Home Secretary withdraws the deportation order to enable the meeting to take place.]
Will he provide an opportunity next week for the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to come to the House so that the Home Secretary may justify his actions in taking out a deportation order against Mr. Kani Yilmaz and say why Mr. Yilmaz constitutes any more a threat to the national security of this country than the Liberal Democrat peer, the noble Lord Avebury, constitutes a threat to the national security of Turkey?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to engage in a discussion of the particular case. I cannot immediately make an arrangement for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to be here, but, again as it happens, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be here next Wednesday if the hon. Gentleman wishes to try to put that question to him.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a longer debate on transport? Much of the debate which has so far taken
1012
place has not referred to rural areas. Many of the suggestions which have been put forward would be very damaging indeed to rural areas, where people rely on the use of the motor car.
Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend has said, there is a debate next week in which he could raise that matter, and I hope that he may be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate on the very disappointing report on personal pensions, which does not help almost 4 million people who may well be financially impoverished by taking out personal pensions? Will the Government now, just once, confess their own involvement in the matter, including the personal involvement of the Leader of the House as a former Minister, in the advertisements that they put out, which were wickedly deceptive? What will happen to those who are orphaned, whose firms have gone out of business and who have no redress from anyone?
Mr. Newton: As is perhaps evidenced by the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, at my side, we have just had Treasury questions. Indeed, I understand that this matter, which was the subject of an extensive statement by my hon. Friend yesterday, was raised during questions. Certainly I cannot promise to provide a further immediate opportunity.
Mr. James Clappison: In framing a brief question, may I declare an interest as one of the Members of the House who is a lawyer, and married to a lawyer? Would the Leader of the House find time for a debate on training and education in the legal profession? Could it be so framed as to allow debate on entry to the legal profession and whether entry should be on the basis of fairness or merit, or on the basis of any sort of favours through an old boy network or even through a new boy network?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should declare an interest myself, in that one of my daughters is a lawyer as well. It occurs to me that my hon. Friend may wish to raise his question with the Secretary of State for Education who, as I said earlier, is here on Tuesday.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Is the Leader of the House aware that, when the House is prorogued next Thursday, there will have been no opportunity this year for a debate on the Metropolitan police in London? It has been traditional that the Home Secretary has come to the House to debate that subject so that hon. Members who represent London constituencies have the opportunity to ask him about his policy of financing the Metropolitan police.
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly look at that point in view of the way in which the hon. Lady raises it. That will have to be without commitment, and certainly without a commitment to arrange a debate before Prorogation.
Mr. David Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether Monday's debate on the Drug Trafficking Bill [Lords] will give the House an opportunity to debate the policy of legalising cannabis? I

1013
am sure that some of us at least are anxious to hear more details of the Liberals' half-baked proposals to do just that.
Mr. Newton: That debate, of course, is a consolidation measure, so it may not offer quite the opportunity that my hon. Friend wishes. Nevertheless, he raises an important point, and I shall bear it in mind whether there may be any such opportunity at some later stage.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House confirm that he has got rid of the debate on the Jopling report on Wednesday? With a spare day before Prorogation, would it not be a wonderful idea for the Government, who are in such low esteem, to pick up the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), give it time, get through its remaining stages, and allow those 5 million disabled people to realise that at long last they are being listened to?
Mr. Newton: In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, the right way forward is for the Government to do what they are doing, which is to look very carefully at the results of the large widespread consultation they have undertaken on these matters and then come to the House with their conclusions.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see early-day motion 1583 which calls for the scrapping of Trident and which is signed by no fewer than 60 Labour Members?
[That this House believes that United Kingdom defence spending should be reduced to the average level of other West European countries, allied to constructive plans for defence diversification, arms conversion and the transfer of the savings made to social priorities by investment in job creation and economic development, and the restructure of the United Kingdom's infrastructure; recognises the importance of making retraining of the defence sector workforce a priority; supports the call for the scrapping of the Trident submarine and weapons programme as an essential step towards eliminating nuclear weapons world-wide; notes with dismay the Government's decision to ringfence nuclear weapons in its front line first defence costs study; believes that in rejecting Trident the United Kingdom would demonstrate concrete support for strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation treaty prior to the review and extension conference for the treaty next April; recognises the importance of a successful outcome to the negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty for the NPT; further believes that the lifetime costs of Trident deployment will be at least £33 billion when re-fit, replacement and decommissioning are included; that it is the hidden extra costs of continuing the United Kingdom nuclear weapons programme, in health, environment as well as financial terms that has drastically damaged the peace dividend; and therefore calls on the Government to support the cancellation of Trident and to plan the investment of resources saved into job creation and industrial innovation in the British civil economy.]
1014
Can we have a debate on that early-day motion at an early opportunity, so that we can discuss the implications for the city of Plymouth, where 4,000 jobs would be lost and our dockyard closed?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly look to see whether there could be such an opportunity. What we may need is a debate on the growing evidence of the unreconstructed Labour party seeking to regain the ground.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on the live transportation of animals? How would the Leader of the House like to be kept in a confined space for ages, crapped all over and, at the end of it, have his throat cut? I know that that sounds rather like a Cabinet meeting, but that is how animals are transported around Europe. There is a lot of debate about that outside the House, so can we please have a debate inside the House?
Mr. Newton: Joking apart, I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's concern. I cannot arrange a debate on the Floor of the House next week, but as I announced, there is a debate on European Community documents relating to the protection of animals during transport in European Standing Committee A on Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that reflects strong and persistent pressure by the United Kingdom Government to advance the cause of animal welfare in Europe.
Mr. Nigel Forman: In connection with the brief debate scheduled for next Monday on transport and the environment, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would associate ourselves with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin)—that we need more time to discuss those very important issues which have been highlighted in the recent report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution? Will he find Government time for such a debate soon after the House returns after Prorogation?
Mr. Newton: Again, given that what happens when the House returns after Prorogation is several days' debate on the Loyal Address, which can range very widely and normally covers all policy, there may well be an opportunity for my hon. Friend then. However, it also occurs to me that remarks of that kind could easily be in order in the Liberal Democrat debate on the conservation of energy next Tuesday.
Ms Janet Anderson: Will the Leader of the House give us an idea when time will be allocated for us to debate the survey of potential demand for child care facilities in the Palace of Westminster, which was published by the House of Commons Commission just before the summer recess?
Mr. Newton: I believe that the hon. Lady is aware of the position following the publication of the report. I clearly cannot promise a debate before Prorogation, but it is obviously something that I shall have it in mind to consider when we return.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on training before the House prorogues so that we may examine the Government's excellent record in that regard, and do something about the new Labour council in Ealing, one of whose first actions was to close the training and

1015
development centre for Ealing, which will be so damaging for my young constituents, and constituents of all ages and both sexes?
Mr. Newton: Such is the assiduous pursuit by my hon. Friend of his duties that I sometimes feel that I am almost a member of Ealing council because I know so much about its activities. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will have noted his very proper expression of concern about what is happening there.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: Will the Leader of the House allow time next week for a statement by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), a sponsor and erstwhile enthusiastic supporter of the Energy Conservation Bill who, as the Minister now responsible for energy conservation, is reneging on his support for that Bill, to explain his position which is now becoming untenable, and which really should lead to his resignation?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to accept any such suggestion as the use of the word "reneging" implies. I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his position clear in any appropriate way, as indeed he already has.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: In light of our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's speech on 24 October and his proposals about a European army, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House find time to debate that matter? I gather that there is deep disquiet in the Ministry of Defence about such proposals, and such a debate would at least give us an opportunity to demonstrate what Government policy is with regard to the matter.
Mr. Newton: Once again, I have to refer to the debate on the Address when we come back for the new Session. Indeed, it occurs to me that it gives me a good defence against almost any request today, because every matter will be in order in it. I am therefore providing wide-ranging opportunities for such matters as my hon. Friend raises.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Leader of the House say within the next few days when we will see the implementation of the changes to the Standing Orders which govern Scottish business? Many hon. Members are anxious to have an early sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee, which would enable us to question Scottish Office Ministers about the scandalous financial circumstances of the failed private hospital in Clydebank, Health Care International. It is an important matter and it is worthy of an early sitting, during which we could cross-examine the appropriate Ministers.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Standing Order changes were debated and accepted by the House earlier in the year. I will bring his request for a particular use of those Standing Orders to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Given that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it plain to the House last Thursday that the Italians should be made to pay for their milk fraud, in full, yet, the very next day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer changed that policy by rolling over in front of pressure from the
1016
Commission in order to pave the way for the increased money for the European Community, should we not debate changes of Government policy that are made in our name in Brussels, without proper debate and accountability to the House?
Mr. Newton: I am tempted to thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), for his helpful question, but I find it difficult to do so. I note the point he makes, and I respond by saying that I do not believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer can in any sense be said to have rolled over. Indeed, I can think of few of my colleagues who are less likely to be rolled over by anybody. My right hon. and learned Friend made substantial progress in the direction that my hon. Friend urges.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Could time be found on the spare day next week to debate the inadequacy of the Government's representation of the Scottish people by having a Minister in the other place representing the Government on social policy, particularly in respect of Scottish children legislation, which has been the subject of several meetings with the Minister and the all-party group on children?
Could we have a statement by the Secretary of State? In the papers which were leaked inadvertently by one of his civil servants, he has said that he does not have Cabinet approval for a Children Act for Scotland, and that he wishes the responsible Minister not to mention it in any press releases. On the one hand, those meetings tell us that we will have a Children Act, but, on the other hand, the Secretary of State denies it.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot speculate, certainly at present, about what he is in effect speculating about—the contents of the Queen's Speech. As for the rest of his remarks, I had some slight difficulty in being clear about what he was driving at. It seems to me to be a compliment to Scottish representation in Parliament that my noble Friend, who was formerly a Scottish Member of Parliament, is now a Minister in the Department of Social Security, but in the other place.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on solvent abuse? That topic was only touched upon in the Green Paper entitled "Tackling Drugs Together", but it is very important, bearing in mind the fact that three quarters of the nation's children sniff solvents, and that each week two die from it.
Mr. Newton: Although my hon. Friend is right to say that the document that was published in my name and others' last week—"Tackling Drugs Together"—was specifically focused on drugs, there is no doubt that the mechanisms and the approaches it suggests are highly relevant also to tackling solvent abuse, and I believe that they will significantly contribute in that direction as well.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The House has only recently returned from a 13-week recess, and now we are to have another fortnight away. It is bad enough having part-time Members of Parliament, but it is a disgrace to have part-time Parliaments—and the two might be related.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman—I make no criticism of him for this—persistently raises these points.

1017
Many hon. Members value the opportunity to be in their constituencies to look after the other half of their business, as it were, and I am certainly not prepared to stand here and apologise for the fact that they will be able to do so to a degree during the next fortnight.
Mr. John McAllion: Despite the right hon. Gentleman's earlier reply, the position of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), the new Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, with regard to the Energy Conservation Bill is not at all clear. Therefore, can we have a statement from the new Under-Secretary next week explaining why he is allowing some Tory Members to use blocking tactics to prevent further progress on the Bill when it had the support of almost 400 hon. Members, including him in his pre-ministerial days?
Mr. Newton: As I have already said, I am sure that my hon. Friend will always make his position clear. As to the suggestion that he is somehow organising in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, the fact is that it is up to individual hon. Members to decide what they will do with regard to a Bill.

Northern Ireland
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
Madam Speaker: I have had to impose a 10-minute limit between 7 pm and 9 pm.
4 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) to her important and demanding responsibilities. She brings with her valuable previous experience of the Province. I must also say that, although I often disagreed with him—sometimes fiercely—I have always respected the dedication of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), over many years.
This debate comes at a very opportune time. I am glad that it has been arranged because it is high time that the House had the opportunity to review the developments that have followed one upon the other during the recess and more recently, and to discuss the way forward for Northern Ireland.
Yesterday, I was in Magherafelt in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). He was present as a member of the council, and I was present at the council. There, the chairman of the district council, Mr. Bertie Montgomerie, welcomed the events of the past two months and described them as amazing. I find that that impression is widely held.
In common with every other council in the Province—I was with Strabane councillors on Tuesday—Magherafelt councillors are making common cause to build on the present peace. They are building on the bright prospects for jobs and for stability that can open up because of it.
Throughout the Province, there is also an altogether new sense of hope—hope in place never of despair, but of a grim and dogged acceptance that violence would go on being inflicted for the foreseeable future.
What is the character of that hope? It is that this time, in defiance of all too many precedents, violence will prove to have been set aside for good; that the overlay of history will no longer dominate the political scene; and that the conflict between national identities and loyalties will at last be managed peacefully and fairly.
At first, it was a tentative, even timid hope. However, as the weeks have gone by, it is increasingly being seen as realistic, although in many minds it is a long way from being an expectation. The agony has gone on for so long that it has been hard for people to hoist in that the guns are, indeed, silent.
As the weeks have passed since 31 August—eight now—people have become less disoriented and a lot less suspicious as well. However, on all sides, suspicion and fear remain dangerous, powerful forces in Northern Ireland, and we must show that we understand that. The fears may be allayed, but they are all too easily revived. Unionists fear above all that an end to the Union will somehow be imposed on the people of Northern Ireland against their wishes, or somehow—by a kind of ratchet process—made inevitable. It will not happen; it cannot happen. But the fear is there.

1019
Equally, nationalists fear a secret plot to reimpose an unrefonned Stormont, with one side of the community permanently dominant and the other permanently subordinate. It will not happen; it cannot happen; no one even argues that it should happen. But the fear is there.
It is worth examining whether these immensely welcome developments really should have amazed us, or whether we should properly see them as simply the outcome of consistent policies followed over a long time. I am sure that the latter is the case. Let us take the Provisional IRA's ceasefire statement. Was it truly surprising, save perhaps that it did not come earlier?
Looking across the Chamber, I can see several right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who were not surprised by that statement. Once the world came to realise that the Irish and British Governments took a common position in the Downing street declaration, surely it was hopeless for anyone to go on using violence to advance his political purpose. The reason is that the Governments declared then that it was democracy that would shape the future for Northern Ireland, and that violence never worked. They declared that, whereas anyone with a democratic mandate could join in the debate and try to shape the future, no one could do so who still seemed willing to fortify his negotiating position with a bomb.
For someone to continue violence for political purposes in those circumstances is to admit to all the world that he knows that he cannot succeed democratically, yet he is not prepared to put up with the position. That is not very attractive; in fact, it looks very bad indeed. So that person has to stop the violence—and that is what the declaration did. Let me add that it simply would not have come about without the vision and courage of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; and I similarly salute Mr. Reynolds.
Mr. David Winnick: It is certainly important for us to mark the fact that terrorism did not triumph over the democratic process, and that at no stage did the British people or the British Parliament abdicate from the fight against it. But if it is important that the two Governments reached an agreement over a period—which includes the joint declaration—is not it equally important that London and Dublin continue that degree of working together? Should not that be the cornerstone of our policy? Should not we also recognise that it is not the Republic's wish in any way to take over Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority, and never has been? Is not it also important that we decide, with Dublin, the nature of the cross-border executive bodies that will give the minority community in Northern Ireland the feeling of security that it clearly requires?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has covered a large sector of the rest of my speech. It is, of course, important for the two Governments to go on working together. They worked together very beneficially to bring about the joint declaration; there was a constructive and useful meeting at Chequers on Monday, and I am certain that that pattern not only should but will continue.
I was saying how much the declaration owed to the two Prime Ministers. Those who were present last weekend in Dungannon, Newry or Lisburn, will have seen the crowds greet the Prime Minister in the streets and shopping centres—right across the spectrum; we should reflect on the character of those towns. It will be apparent to those
1020
who saw those huge crowds that they knew perfectly well how important the contributions of the Prime Ministers had been.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I was in Newry at the time. As the Secretary of State said, we were pleased to be visited by the Prime Minister: he was given a warm and widespread welcome.
May I make two further points, lest they go by default? The real peace people in Northern Ireland are the ordinary men and women sitting in their houses whose names we do not know and who stood up against the bully-boys for 25 years and said that they would not succeed.
May I also recognise the contribution of the leader of my party, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who took enormous risks inside and outside the House to play his part on behalf of our party to bring us towards a peaceful resolution?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is rightly generous in his tributes to all those whom he mentioned in that intervention, and I gladly associate myself with him.
So deep is the suspicion that I mentioned that I need to repeat once more the words used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a little time ago when speaking about the ceasefire declaration of 31 August. He said that no price had been paid, that there had been no secret deals, no secret assurances, no nods, no winks and no tricks with mirrors and that we had not lowered our guard. It is necessary to go on saying that and, of course, it is equally true of the ceasefire announced on 13 October—no less welcome—by the combined loyalist military command. The Prime Minister's promise that the outcome of a resumed talks process would be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum was undoubtedly highly reassuring, and may well have been decisive; I do not know.
So the developments of the past two months have rightly heartened countless people. They have come from policies which we have long pursued and which have always had very great support.
Through all of these traumatic years, our resolve has remained constant. It has been to protect the people, to uphold the rule of law, never to give in to terrorism and, therefore, to give our full support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to the Army which acts only in its support. Mine is now the responsibility for that.
Since long before I became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I have supported the constitutional doctrine that chief officers of police are independent in operational matters. Their duty is owed to the law and to the Crown, not to Ministers. I believe that to be of great importance, especially now when crucial decisions are being taken, which must be taken on the basis of professional advice from that quarter.
Like all my predecessors, I have to see to it that the people in Northern Ireland get the best protection against terrorist crime—and it is crime—that can practicably be provided. Therefore, the response of the security forces to the terrorist threat has always had to be proportionate to that threat and in whatever strength it may necessitate.
That is why, in January 1992, the Army battalions additional to the Royal Irish Regiment were increased in Northern Ireland from 10 to 12 in number. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I are grateful to my right

1021
hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for his agreement that they will stay there for as long as they continue to be needed.
Methods of deployment, too, have always been dictated by the character of the threat, and that continues to be the case in today's changing circumstances.
Ms Clare Short: May I take the Secretary of State back a moment? At an enormously important moment in history such as this when we can make real progress, it is important for everyone to be honest and humble. In his earlier remarks, the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked as if what Britain had done in Northern Ireland had always been fine and good. Does he accept that Britain's failure to secure justice in Northern Ireland during the period of Stormont is a part of the problem and that we must all do better in future?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: If the hon. Lady, who is a close student of these matters, cares to remind herself of a speech that I made in Coleraine in December 1992, she may find that something of that character was addressed.
In some areas, it has been possible to reduce quite markedly the numbers of soldiers accompanying police patrols. It has been possible to make changes in the weapons carried by police officers on patrol in some areas. Flak jackets have in some areas been removed, and berets worn in place of helmets. Camouflage cream is generally no longer used on the streets, and so on.
Wherever practicable, there has been a general lightening in the forward deployment of the military in particular. The General Officer Commanding, Sir Roger Wheeler, has been able to make other changes in his discretion. It is, for example, very exceptional for helicopters to fly below 500 ft. As long ago as December 1992, I made the speech to which I have already referred the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). In that speech, I anticipated that with an ending of violence, it would become possible for the Army to revert in normal times to normal garrison duties in Northern Ireland. There are garrison towns and stations throughout the United Kingdom, so that would be a return to normality. In Northern Ireland and in Great Britain, garrison towns have always been established.
It is not possible as yet, or anything like it, for the RUC to police the Province without the assistance of the Army, but steps in that direction are beginning to be taken and it is important that they should be. The Army does not want to be a policeman any longer than it has to and the RUC, although deeply grateful to the Army, would much prefer to be able to do the job on its own. People can see for themselves that that is now happening.
In that context, I want to make one thing absolutely clear to the House. In no circumstances will risks be taken by reducing security measures to a level below what is professionally seen to be necessitated by the perceived threat of terrorist crime. Nothing has been reduced or discontinued that cannot very quickly be put back should the situation be seen to require it once again. That goes in particular for my rescinding on Friday some 80 closure orders on the remaining closed border-crossing points. Again, I acted on the advice of the Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Annesley. If the situation necessitates it, the border-crossing points can be quickly closed again.
1022
Meanwhile, the protection of those near the border in whose interests the closures were initially made remains a prime responsibility of the RUC. The Chief Constable and the GOC are paying close attention to it.
On the RUC, I shall give one illustration of the benefits that the process that I have described is bringing in terms of enabling it to get on with the ordinary duties of policing. On Friday, I was in a police station where a police inspector said to me how much more effectively the RUC was now able to deal with ordinary policing, such as dealing with non-terrorist crime. He gave as an example an incident in which the police had recently been able to reach a house where a burglary had been reported almost before the householder had put down the telephone. The diminution in the threat accounted for their ability to do that. Accordingly, they were able to arrest the burglar. The householder said:
"if this is peace, I am for it".
What is not recorded is what the burglar said. There is, of course, very much more to it than that. Racketeering, for example, will now get even more attention from the RUC, which it will continue to need.
Mr. David Alton: The Secretary of State will recall that I have questioned him previously about the incidence of protection rackets and racketeering generally in Northern Ireland. He will be familiar with the work of Families Against Intimidation and Terror in Northern Ireland and he will know that despite the ceasefire, welcome though it is, the IRA has continued to try to be the de facto civil authority in parts of Northern Ireland and has viciously attacked young men. A 16-year-old Catholic in west Belfast had his leg badly broken. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) has raised the matter with the Department. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will continue to take every possible action to deal with those who carry out protection threats and racketeering, using political ideologies and terrorist organisations? Will he confirm that they will not be allowed to operate like a Mafia?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am glad that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) raised that point. He is right to refer to the so-called "punishment beatings"—the presumption that those people are entitled to punish anybody, and to deal with anyone without charge, trial or appeal. So much for their view of human rights. I am glad that the RUC has been insistent that such activities should stop. It has been reported to me that, in recent weeks, their incidence has declined. There is no justification for such activities.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Although what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said about the RUC and its new duties means that Northern Ireland will be the Province with the most perfect motorists for at least the next six or nine months as a result of the RUC's vigilance, does he agree that what is now unfolding is what the Prime Minister referred to in his speeches during his recent visit—the very exciting economic prospects that

1023
are beginning to open up? Although it is very early days, does my right hon. and learned Friend see signs of economic optimism returning already?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is right to point to that matter, to which I shall come in a few moments, depending on how often I give way to interruptions.
Before I move on from the security aspects of the scene, I pay tribute to the gallant police officers who ave served or now serve in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They have held the line for 25 years. I believe, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sitting beside me agrees, that without their efforts, supported prodigiously by the Army, the Province would not be at peace today. They have never weakened in their duty to the law and to the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, nor have they ever flinched in the face of the gravest danger. Theirs has been the continuing courage of cold blood, and it has been shared by their families. Their casualties have been high–296 have been killed and nearly 7,300 injured over the past 25 years. But without their service, those of the civilian population would have been far, far higher. They deserve, and I know that they get, our deep admiration and thanks.
With the peace, which we all hope will stick, the police officers of the RUC face new challenges but also new anxieties, especially about their jobs. Those anxieties deserve our understanding and sympathy and a decent and worthy response from us. And they will get them. We shall not turn our backs on the people who have seen us through.
I should like to say something now about the Army, and the Royal Marines who have served in company with it. I do not forget the contributions of the Royal Air Force, the rest of the Royal Navy and the other services. During all this time, the Army has shared the burden of policing the Province under the rule of law. Even now, members of the armed forces must outnumber the police by a proportion of about 3:2. No fewer than 648 members of the armed forces have been killed; and 5,762 have been injured, nearly all of them in each category in the Army. Like the police, they have no privileges or immunities; they have only duties, which are often very dangerous. Generally very young men and women, they have habitually worked 16 or even more hours a day in exhausting conditions. They have fulfilled that role with great discipline and courage and they are a source of great pride to our country.
Dr. Joe Hendron: First, may I formally thank the Prime Minister for putting Northern Ireland at the top of his agenda? I was present when he made his speech in Belfast last week, and the points that he made were extremely well taken.
On the point raised by the Secretary of State, I totally accept the great sacrifices made by the police and the British Army in Northern Ireland. However, is not it insensitive to bring the Parachute Regiment into the streets of west Belfast? I am not noted for making things difficult for the security forces.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not agree with that point, which is unusual in the case of the hon. Gentleman, who lives a courageous life in west Belfast. There is no regiment in the British Army that cannot be trusted to serve with the discipline, care and courage needed in
1024
Northern Ireland. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman, in case he has forgotten, that the second battalion of the Parachute Regiment has been serving in Holywood, east of Belfast, for the past two years with great distinction, engaging in a considerable amount of community work as well as its ordinary duties? It has always had one company detached up at Woodbourne, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not too far away from his constituency. Therefore, I do not accept his argument that the Parachute Regiment should not serve, and nor should any of us.
On the political response to the ceasefire, it has been necessary to assess the true intention of PIRA-Sinn Fein, as it is necessary also to assess the true intention of the anti-nationalist paramilitaries. The fundamental point is that we must not enter into substantive negotiations with people who may still intend to bring a gun or bomb to the table with them. Only they can know their true intentions. The rest of us must rely on their words and actions, or rather on what they do not do. Conduct speaks louder than words.
I make no bones about the fact that, although Sinn Fein and the IRA have sought to convey the impression that the ceasefire is permanent, they have not yet stated that unambiguously. It is fair to say that they have not, which is why we have been very cautious. It is now recognised that we have been wise to be very cautious. However, as the Prime Minister said last week in Belfast, we have been reviewing their actions, which have been more compelling than their words. My right hon. Friend announced then that we are prepared to make a working assumption, in those circumstances, that their ceasefire is intended to be permanent. That means that we can move carefully towards the beginning of exploratory dialogue between Sinn Fein and the Government, which, for so long, we have publicly stated to be the next stage in the process.
If we can continue reasonably to assume that Sinn Fein is establishing a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and if the IRA goes on showing that it has indeed ended its terrorism, we shall be ready, as the Prime Minister has said, to convene those exploratory talks before the year is out. They will, of course, need to embrace the republicans' proposals for depositing and decommissioning their armaments, and that also goes for the anti-nationalists. Continued retention can have no justification whatever, for republicans and loyalists alike. If, on the other hand, the evidence starts to point away from a continuing commitment to exclusively democratic methods, our working assumption will cease. It is up to them.
Just as that has been our political response to the republican ceasefire, it has been no less necessary to recognise the ceasefire announced by the others. We have needed in their case, too, to show an understanding of their desire that their political concerns should be taken into consideration, and not excluded. They, and those close to them, have genuine anxieties, not least on social matters. Those worries need to be heeded, as is the case with anxieties emanating from the other end of the paramilitary spectrum. We shall need, therefore, to consult on that, and consider it further.
I shall now mention the interests of the victims—the people who have borne the brunt. Although all the recent events have brought hope, we must surely not forget the victims and their families, who have suffered so much in the past 25 years. The staff who work in the health and

1025
personal social services in Northern Ireland have responded to those people's needs as caring and dedicated professionals, and I pay tribute to their work, which has been excellent. However, often victims and their families will have long-term physical and psychological scars and disabilities, which need continuing care, compassion and support.
The Government want to do more to help staff in that most important work. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for health and social services, the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), will therefore set up a special fund to provide additional help for people disabled by violence in Northern Ireland, and £1 million will be made available. I envisage that fund being used to help people with physical disabilities in the regional disablement centre, Musgrave Park hospital. It will also help people with psychiatric problems, and those needing bereavement counselling and support.
I recognise that some people still argue, in the case of Sinn Fein, for example, that, by reason of its affiliation and association with terrorists, its members should never be allowed to sit down at the conference table with Governments and parties that have always followed constitutional paths.
I well recognise the bitter feelings of many people whose husbands, wives and relatives have been the victims of terrorist violence. I have seen more than enough to be able to sympathise with them. So great is the grief, pain and anger that has been caused, that it is readily understandable for such people to take that position—but I do not find that it is typical.
To my great admiration, many people who have suffered grievously nevertheless recognise that stability will come to Northern Ireland only if all viewpoints are represented in discussion. They stipulate only that we speak to people who now reliably commit themselves exclusively to democratic purposes and means. I am sure that they are right. That is why the Government have established the stages by which Sinn Fein could, as far as we are concerned, be admitted to a resumed process of political talks. I shall now discuss that process.
The House has always warmly supported that process, so patiently introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), and announced by him in March 1991. The objective of the process has been to achieve a widely acceptable and durable political accommodation for Northern Ireland as a whole. The House is familiar with its three-stranded process. I believe that the House has always endorsed the judgment that only by means of political talks of that composite character can there be a realistic prospect of a more stable, less antagonistic, more tranquil and more prosperous way of life in Northern Ireland.
As for the first strand, for our part we want, for example, more responsibility to be restored to locally accountable representatives in Northern Ireland, in relationships that are fair, and that reflect the principle that the principal traditions in the community should be held in parity of esteem. The British Government are responsible for Northern Ireland, as has always been recognised since the inception of th process. As for the second strand of relationships, we also think that it must make sense to make common cause with the Republic in
1026
areas where there is common interest between north and south. The means by which that can be achieved without impinging in any way upon sovereignty in relationships across the border, is a matter for careful judgment. We want to see whether a new formulation of the relationship between the Republic and ourselves can be arrived at, commanding broader consent than at present.
All those matters were, to varying degrees, discussed during the talks process in 1992. It is our earnest hope that that process will be resumed, again with all the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland participating, and, if the proper conditions are fulfilled, with Sinn Fein as well.
The two Governments want to help the parties to get back round the table. We have resolved to try to develop a shared understanding of the sort of overall accommodation that might have the best chance of winning the wide acceptance across the community that it will need if it is to stick. We continue to work at that. It has come to be called the joint framework document. We have not yet reached agreement, therefore no document yet exists. I greatly hope that we can reach agreement, but it is not certain. We have made some good progress.
We want to achieve agreement and to do so quickly. We want to do so not in order to present the result as some sort of blueprint with which the political parties in Northern Ireland must conform—far from it. We want to do so as a means of helping them realise that it would be worth their while sitting down around the table again because there would be a prospect of carrying the process through to success. It would be a suggestion—an offering—but because some fears have begun to centre on the framework document, we have undertaken jointly that it will be published when it is handed over to the parties. It is for exactly the same reason—because the British Government are responsible for the internal arrangements of Northern Ireland—that we shall publish our suggestions on the first strand of relationships. With the maximum degree of openness thus established, confidence on all sides should grow, which is what we hope and intend.
Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I should very much like to finish my speech as I am taking too long.
Meanwhile, underpinning everything is the unshakeable guarantee that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland will be determined by the consent of its people and that the outcome of the talks process will be submitted to the judgment of the people of Northern Ireland themselves.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: No, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me. I must finish my speech.
This is a time to build. The Northern Ireland Economic Council said on Monday:
"The combination of Northern Ireland going into a seemingly sustained period of economic recovery, together with the benefits that would arise with an end to all violence and the creation of political stability, provides an economic scenario in Northern Ireland that has never been better in the past 25 years".

1027
I very much welcome the generous support that the international community is showing for the peace process. Both the European Union and the Government of New Zealand are increasing their contributions to the International Fund for Ireland, and the Australian Government have announced their intention to contribute to it. The Government of the United States and the European Union are also putting forward packages of economic assistance to Northern Ireland to help embed the peace and promote community reconciliation through economic regeneration. We, as the Government responsible for them, shall be seeking the views of the people of Northern Ireland, across the spectrum, on the projects that we and the European Union should back financially.
We shall convene an international investment conference in Belfast before Christmas. In settling future public spending levels in the Province, we shall continue to take full account of Northern Ireland's social needs. We shall concentrate, above all, on jobs.
The potential and prospects for Northern Ireland are extraordinarily good. It will be the desire and the will of the entire House that, this time, they shall not be blighted.
4.33 pm
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I welcome the timing of the debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, who sits beside me, said at the party conference this year, we need a new politics of courage, honesty and trust. That means being open. If the Government get things right, we shall give them credit; when they do not, we shall say so. I intend to do just that on the subject of Northern Ireland. In that vein I thank the Secretary of State for his open, honest and complimentary remarks about me at the beginning of his speech.
I also welcome the opportunity to do this job at such an important time in the search for a permanent peace within these islands. There is now the best opportunity for many years to enable normal life to return to so many people in the north of Ireland.
First, however, I extend my thanks to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for his tireless work in the interests of both communities over the past seven years. As many of my colleagues will know, his interest in Northern Ireland began long before that. He was a leading figure in a group of Labour Members in the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster in the 1960s. He was tenacious in raising questions in the House about discrimination against the minority community, and active in breaking the Speaker's convention that restricted discussion of Northern Ireland issues in this House.
As I am sure the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) will remember, my hon. Friend was also active in 1969, when he marched with him in the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. My hon. Friend has been a committed campaigner for civil liberties, and he divided this House after internment was introduced in 1971. He has been held in especially high regard for the role that he played in the House during the passage of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, when he worked assiduously to rectify the inadequacies of the 1976 Act.
My hon. Friend has played an historically significant role in raising issues such as the administration of justice in Northern Ireland—the UDR Four, for instance—and in
1028
his astute and effective use of parliamentary questions. He has avidly campaigned for civil rights, justice and fair employment. I am honoured to have the chance to continue his work, and I know that he will be working in the days and years ahead on the same areas. I look forward to his support.
I should also like to record my party's thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). Their hard work in Northern Ireland is readily acknowledged, not least in the letters that I have received in the past few days from various organisations testifying to their assiduous efforts.
Following the changes to Labour's Front-Bench team that have just occurred, it might be helpful if I took this opportunity to reaffirm to the House Labour's full support for the Downing street declaration, and to acknowledge its crucial importance in changing the context in which the peace process in Northern Ireland can be advanced. The Opposition endorse the aim of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, outlined in the declaration, to foster agreement and reconciliation leading to a new political framework, founded on consent and encompassing arrangements within Northern Ireland, for the whole island of Ireland and between Ireland and Britain.
I should like also to reaffirm Labour's historic commitment to the unification of Ireland by consent—always the crucial word. I reaffirm our support for the principles contained in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which states that there can be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of a majority of its people. Labour also welcomes the Government's recognition in the Downing Street declaration that it is right for the people of Ireland alone to exercise their right of self-determination; and the Irish Government's recognition that this right must be exercised with, and subject to, the agreement and consent of a majority of people in Northern Ireland.
We welcome the cessation of violence by all the paramilitary organisations, and acknowledge that the next couple of months are crucial to moving the peace process forward—although everyone in the House knows that there are many thorny questions to be dealt with. It is essential, however, that the peace process keep moving forward. We have to keep on trucking, and unless we do, it will be counter-productive for everyone involved.
No one will have anything to gain from prevarication or procrastination in the hope of a change of Government. Labour, in opposition and in government, will seek to facilitate and encourage a balanced constitutional settlement leading to an agreement that will have the support of both traditions.
We believe that such a settlement requires five features. First, there will have to be provisions that ensure that constitutional legislation in both Ireland and Britain is mutually consistent, and consistent with the principle of majority consent.
Secondly, there must be provision to establish strong devolved government in Northern Ireland—a devolved assembly which will need to be based entirely upon proportional representation to ensure that each party is fairly represented. That principle is now broadly accepted in Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, there must be provision to ensure that each community receives parity of esteem and equity of treatment. Those principles will have to be reflected in a

1029
fair employment policy, policing and the administration of justice. They will require imagination and willingness to break the shackles of our past.
Fourthly, as the Downing street declaration envisaged, deepening cross-border co-operation in Ireland and the encouragement of institutions which reflect that, are simply common sense, irrespective of where one stands on the national question. Those arrangements need infringe no one's sovereign statehood.
Fifthly and finally, any constitutional arrangements that are established must be securely and appropriately guaranteed and protected by both Governments. In that respect, we welcome the recent statement by the Irish Foreign Minister, Dick Spring, in his address to the United Nations on 28 September. He argued that an agreement was needed in which
"the exercise of sovereignty, by whichever government, will at all times, now and in the future, be qualified by scrupulously equal treatment of the two northern communities and their rights, identities and allegiances."
We agree that a balanced constitutional settlement must achieve that objective. That process was assisted by the Government's announcement on Friday, which we supported, and especially by the package of security and investment measures which are crucial to the process of moving towards a stable peace.
If that future is to be one of peace and prosperity, both Governments must take the necessary steps to encourage both the restructuring and the regeneration of the Northern Ireland economy. The Opposition welcome the statement earlier this week in the annual report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, which said that public spending should be maintained at current levels if the peace process is to be moved forward.
We all want to see a permanent cessation of violence, and we must recognise that, as a result, over time that will bring structural changes in public expenditure. There will be a need for the reallocation of public spending not only to tackle the structural weaknesses in the Northern Ireland economy but to respond to changes in the public sector and to the need to stimulate greater private sector investment.
There is no doubt in my mind that Government subventions are a significant determinant of demand in the Northern Ireland economy. We should like assurances from the Government that, in the wake of the ceasefire, the Treasury will not, as it has done elsewhere on public expenditure, be keen to see immediate cuts. We should like a clear statement from the Minister that the Treasury will keep its hands off current public expenditure in Northern Ireland.
Peace as well as conflict present difficult economic adjustments. It is essential for the Government to consider now the implications of economic policies and priorities for an increase in employment opportunities and standards of living for everyone in Northern Ireland. We acknowledge the conference that the Secretary of State is organising in December, but we are interested in the steps beyond that that the Government plan to take.
It is crucial to address the problems of long-term unemployment. It is appalling for anyone without a job, from whichever side of the divide, to contemplate continuing in the long-term unemployment that exists in both communities but especially in the nationalist
1030
community. The fears of people in the police and security forces about future employment are apparent from talking to them, and, as everybody knows, people's fears and insecurities about future employment are powerful and potentially destructive feelings at the best of times. But when going through a process of political change, those insecurities are considerably magnified.
The Government must not fail to address the problems of unemployment, the consequent social deprivation and the structural change in the employment market in Northern Ireland. To fail to do so would be potentially harmful to the peace process.
There has been much recent talk about a peace dividend, but the Opposition recognise that failure to address issues of investment and structural unemployment could lead to an economic peace deficit. Consequently, we welcome the setting up by the European Union of the task force to help regenerate the Northern Ireland economy, and we also welcome the endorsement by the Council of Europe, the Commission and the Parliament of the Downing street declaration and the peace process.
We look forward to the peace summit in December in Essen, where measures to regenerate the Northern Ireland economy will be considered. Northern Ireland has great assets in its young talent and its natural environment, and they must be developed in the interests of stable peace and lasting prosperity. Tourism is a classic example, because in Northern Ireland it generates £120 million of GNP and employs about 10,000 people. There is no doubt that the onset of peace can enable the full potential of Northern Ireland's natural inbuilt heritage to be realised in the medium to long term, and that has potential employment opportunities for another 8,000 to 10,000 people.
As the peace process accelerates, it is vital for all parties to look to the future and to consider everyone else's fears and anxieties, and not simply to reiterate past positions and stay in their trenches.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I ask for succinct speeches.
4.46 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I am flattered to be called so early in the debate. In deference to other hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall restrict myself to specific topics. As I am the first Back Bencher to be called in the debate, I shall make some well-deserved nice remarks about the Government and thank the Opposition parties for their support in the process, which so far is going so very well.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in his place a moment ago, and is well aware of my support. I was one of the first to write to him about his Guildhall speech. He has occasionally been criticised for going too slowly, and perhaps at times I have been a little impatient, as have other hon. Members. However, so far so very good. Our congratulations on the success so far by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State are the best judgment that we can offer. I wish them well as we now enter possibly more difficult successive stages in this historic operation.

1031
I said that I would mention specific topics, and I should like to speak about the nature of the cessations of violence with, of course, particular reference to Sinn Fein/IRA, and to address the immediate problem of weapons and explosives. Last but not least, I shall speak about pace and progress in the immediate future. I shall not even begin to take up all the parameters of this vast subject, but shall concentrate on those specifics.
The nature of the cessations of violence is extremely relevant to what follows, and especially to the attitudes that we adopt to judge such key issues as the surrender of weapons and explosives. On the basic situation—I am mainly addressing the IRA—we need to be realistic, and should perhaps remind ourselves what has been achieved. I dare say that it is more profound than usual, but basically it is an IRA ceasefire in the terms that have been expressed.
I shall remind the House of those terms by using direct quotations. At the outset it was stated that there was
"a complete cessation of military operations … it is unconditional and open ended."
When he addressed the remarks by the Irish Taoiseach, Mr. Adams said:
"The assumption of permanence is correct."
Last but not least, the statement by Mr. Adams and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) outside Government buildings in Dublin perhaps took it even further, saying:
"We are all totally and absolutely committed to democratic and peaceful methods of resolving our political problems".
In the light of that, let me, as a Conservative Back Bencher, make a few comments about what appears to be the IRA/Sinn Fein position. I am not being semantic, but, as far as I understand it—I do not have as exact an understanding of IRA constitutional rules as some others do—the IRA cannot actually use the word "permanent" because it has had no Army Council meeting. IRA spokesmen are obliged to do that if they are to use the word "permanent", as that would mean the end of what they would term "the struggle". There is nothing they will do, or be prepared to do, that could be said to amount to a surrender.
Therefore, without the word "permanent", and with no council meeting or surrender, we begin to understand the terminology that I have outlined to the House. IRA leaders have, however, declared an intention to make it permanent, and deserve an acknowledgement of their considerable contribution to the position. They appear—it has to be put to the test—ready and willing to negotiate and build a permanent peace.
I welcome the other cessation and ceasefire—that of the loyalist paramilitaries—and I particularly welcome its terms. Hon. Members will agree that the terms were generous, to say the least, and that the only condition, which relates to a resumption of violence on the other side, is completely understandable. On the paramilitary side, everyone is ready to talk.
My second point concerns an immediate problem that applies to both sides: the surrender or decommissioning of weapons and explosives. That has to be a matter for our preliminary talks with Sinn Fein. Unless we get over that problem, we shall not get very far with anything at all. It is of paramount importance to getting Sinn Fein into substantive talks at a later stage or whenever we can. We want those weapons handed in. At the end of the day, we
1032
must have them in, but Sinn Fein is unlikely to bring them in without some progress being made, either generally or in negotiation. Hon. Members will have heard that point being made by a Mr. McLoughlin on the "Today" programme on BBC Radio 4 this morning. He made the position very clear. It will not be easy, and will need some patience on both sides.
What can we do about it? Perhaps all we can do at the beginning is to stick rigidly to the logistics. At least we have to talk about it and to quantify the agreed and accepted amounts of arms and explosives. We can categorise—I welcome something that crept in with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time last week—and differentiate between weapons that are undoubtedly offensive, such as Semtex explosives and detonators, and those which can be used for defensive purposes.
We have to consider the manner of handing over weapons and to whom they are handed over. There will be no Falkland Islands stockpiling of weapons and no surrender of weapons. Some people have the idea that it will amount to that, but it will not.
We have to try to establish a political sequence linked to progress, which can lead increasingly to the handover of weapons and the gradual involvement of Sinn Fein in the process. Obviously, the eventual aim is to get it involved in the substantive talks.
Finally, as far as the pace of progress is concerned, I must repeat that the caution of Her Majesty's Government has proved to be completely correct. The main players have to remain on board, and the pace cannot be too fast for those main players. I welcome the attitude throughout—I have done so publicly before, although it is not always recognised that I do this—of the Official Unionist party. It has behaved in a statesmanlike way, as have other Northern Ireland parties.
We need a steady momentum. There need be no rush, but everybody—including Sinn Fein—has to feel that, at whatever pace, we are getting somewhere. We have to remember that each side has to be kept on board. No great rush is necessary, provided we all have confidence that we are getting somewhere.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way at this crucial moment, but will he make it clear whether he envisages talks continuing, or at least starting, while not a single weapon has been handed in? If that is the case, could it not be interpreted that Sinn Fein would have the upper hand and could instigate a process of blackmail?
Mr. Temple-Morris: I was trying to make it fairly clear that I was talking about talks about talks. As for talks about weaponry, surrender, logistics and so on, I set out a whole sequence. Only when we have accomplished an agreed handing over, or at least an agreed sequence that everyone accepts and that will have involved a large-scale handing over, will talks be practicable, because the Official Unionist party and other parties in Northern Ireland have to be prepared to talk to Sinn Fein. I am not addressing the House in a cloud of imaginary optimism; we have to be practical.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Unless I misheard the hon. Gentleman, I

1033
thought that he was trying to draw a distinction between defensive and offensive weapons. What does he mean by defensive weapons?
Mr. Temple-Morris: I was trying to make it clear that that distinction appears to be creeping into the frame. It is for those who take part in the negotiations to determine it. I would guess that, on the loyalist side, it would be extremely difficult for everybody to hand in firearms which they would class as defensive. In practical terms, to expect everyone in Sinn Fein-IRA to respond to an amnesty with every weapon might be a little optimistic.
I am making no distinctions in terms of the desire to get everything handed in, but we should remember in the back of our minds that the absolutely lethal offensive weaponry that would be used right at the front line should there be a resumption of violence and should we fail in all this, would be Semtex and detonators.
Mr. David Trimble: Would the hon. Gentleman regard the knee-capping of someone as an offensive or defensive act, and would he regard the weapon used as one that should be surrendered?
Mr. Temple-Morris: That is a smart point to make in a debating society, and I commend the hon. Gentleman on making it. We all deplore such acts, and as soon as he makes some slight acknowledgement of the desire of the vast majority of the House for peace and his considerable potential contribution to it, which would not include such comments, the quicker we will be able to make progress. It is not very clever to raise that which we all deplore.
Let us get on if we may, now that I have given way a number of times. I just want to make my final point about confidence-building measures which do not all involve formal talking. Obviously, we have to talk as soon as possible about talks—and formally—but on the way there, by way of building up confidence, a crucial contribution can be made by all concerned. My last answer went some way to pointing out the attitudes which could be involved.
Because we are just dealing with speeches and actions, not agreements, things are a bit easier at this stage. In that context, I welcome the measures that have already been taken to lift the broadcasting ban and the exclusion orders, as well as the decision to open the cross-border roads. I also welcome the reduced level of police and military activity, with which my right hon. and learned Friend dealt today.
I do not want to discuss policing in detail now, but it is part of the confidence-building process, and decisions on it have practical implications. There is nothing more prominent, more in the front line or more pertinent now and in the future than the policing of Northern Ireland.
In my humble view, we will not establish a permanent peace without some changes in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That must be accepted. Despite that, we must still end up with an effective police force for Northern Ireland. In that respect, both communities and both sides will need to give. More signs of a willingness to do so by either side would be we come, and would be the best signal we could have to suggest that we might be on our way.
1034
Parity of esteem is a key part of policing and is important in general. A diminution of majorityism and a feeling that both communities belong to the whole are vital ingredients. In terms of building confidence at this stage, it is also important that, last but not least, the framework document is published. I desperately hope that we will reach agreement on that.
I understand why my right hon. and learned Friend said that that agreement had not been reached and was by no means automatic, but it is vital to confidence-building and in general. It is most vital in terms of the constitution and the sort of assembly and Executive that will be proposed for Northern Ireland. Developments on that are pivotal to progress.
Although it is right to pause to offer congratulations to everyone on where we are now, we are but at the beginning. I wish the Government, which has the support of the Opposition—one is very grateful for that support when one merits it—all good fortune and good luck in an historic task.
5.1 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I am delighted to be called in the debate and I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible.
I am sure that my feelings about the progress achieved in Northern Ireland are shared by all those who have been involved in its affairs for many years.
My involvement started with my election to the House in 1979. Throughout those years, many people told those of us who took an interest in Northern Ireland that, at the end of the day, the republicans would say this or the Unionists would say that. Everyone said that there would be no end to that day, that it would go on for ever and that we should not make any assumptions about the violence coming to an end. What so many of us had hoped for and dreamed about has come true in the past few months and weeks. In all honesty and fairness, I must say that the Government and the Prime Minister—I am not one of the right hon. Gentleman's greatest fans—deserve our unstinting congratulations.
I first became hopeful in 1985, with the British-Irish agreement, and those hopes shot through the roof with the Downing street declaration. They were visionary steps forward and I compliment the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and others involved on their achievement. I should love to list some of the other people who were involved, not least the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his party and the Unionist population, who recently have changed their position quite significantly. Time does not permit that, but I should just like to say that our hopes are invested in the Northern Ireland people, who have borne the brunt of the violence. Their future, however, is partly entrusted to us, which is why we must deliver on the important Downing street declaration.
I have always argued that I am not a historian and that I do not understand, nor seek to know in great detail, the history of Ireland. That statement sometimes surprises people, but I have always believed that our duty as politicians is to solve political problems. To do so, we might need some understanding of history, but if we tried to understand the entire history of Ireland we would spend the rest of our lives studying it. We would never solve the problem.

1035
The essential problem was that a significant minority of the state of Northern Ireland did not accept the government of that area. One of the most important developments on the Unionist side, to which I wish to pay tribute, has been the way in which the Unionist population and, I think, now, their political leaders, seem to accept not only that they cannot return to life prior to 1969, but that they do not want to. It is important to recognise the significance of that sentiment.
Although it was always easy to condemn the violence in Northern Ireland, because it was obviously wrong, we would make a serious mistake if we assumed that it had no cause. The Unionist domination of Northern Ireland up to 1969 meant that it was a one-party state. However, I believe that that one-party state did not even serve the Unionist population very well. It broke down in 1969, but it has taken us a long time to address the deep feelings, bitterness and distrust that followed as the two communities struggled to gain domination.
In many respects, the problem with the Unionists is that they feared what would be done to them if they were subsumed into a united Ireland, in much the same way as the minority community in Northern Ireland continued to remember what was done to it when it was subsumed within the majority in Northern Ireland. Because of that struggle for power and that fear of reprisal, we must build confidence in both communities.
In the 1980s, I pointed out to the leaders of Sinn Fein that the violence that they were pursuing was not only wrong in principle but counter-productive, given what it set out to achieve. I also knew, however, that the violence was due in large part to what had happened in the past. Too often we in Britain forgot that many nationalists, republicans and Catholics suffered at the hands of Unionist violence, which we did not always condemn equally. It is always important to do so, because violence from either side is totally unacceptable, and always has been. I am pleased to repeat that assertion.
I also have some pleasure in saying that the Labour party's policy has been proved right. It is one of those rare examples of a political party having a policy that has stood up to the test of time rather well. I had a hand in devising our 1981 policy document on Northern Ireland, which made it clear that there could be a united Ireland only with the consent of the majority of the people. It said that there could be no veto on political progress by any group. It also said that there needed to be greater cross-border co-operation and harmonisation between the two parts of Ireland. All those recommendations are in the Downing street declaration or in the British-Irish agreement, and I welcome them warmly.
It is clear to me that Sinn Fein is committed to peace—that is clear from its actions and, increasingly, from the words of its leaders. Its leadership and that of the Unionist paramilitaries recognise that they cannot possibly go back to life as it was. As Sinn Fein's leaders have said, they want to be involved in the democratic process. That is important. We should make it as easy as possible for the Unionist and republican paramilitaries to give up violence and become involved in the political process. For that reason, it is a little early to talk of the surrender of weapons by either side. I accept that that proviso is important, but if we allow talks to founder because of it, we will not gain the confidence that is necessary within Northern Ireland to enable the talks to make headway.
1036
We must all remember that the followers of Sinn Fein and the Unionist paramilitaries do not necessarily share their leaders' commitment to the peace process. They are bound to have doubts and anxieties and no doubt some will consider that they have been betrayed by (heir leaders. If those leaders are to continue to lead effectively, and if we are to avoid a drift back into violence by either side, we must make it as easy as possible for those leaders to benefit from their involvement in the political process. It is clear to me, however, that the leaders of Sinn Fein consider a return to violence on their part as inconceivable.
We must seize this moment. The developments that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister announced at the weekend were exceptionally important and exactly what was needed. I had been concerned that progress had not been sufficient, but the decision to open all the cross-border roads and the associated measures was exactly right and well timed.
The marvellous reception that the Prime Minister received in Newry and, indeed, that the Secretary State for Northern Ireland received in Strabane, where he was acknowledged by even Sinn Fein councillors, was no accident. Movement was recognised. It goes without saying that the Unionist population showed their support for what the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have done.
The reassurance of Britain is important. That is why I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) made it clear that there are no hidden deals, that Labour Members agree with the Government on this matter and that there will be no transfer of sovereignty without consent. That is a common position between the parties and, funnily enough and despite popular reports to the contrary over the years, it always has been.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who has taken the lead for the Labour party very well, also made the all-important point very clear—again, it frequently was not acknowledged, but I heard him say it at a number of conferences and in a number of speeches—that if there were peace and agreement in Northern Ireland, to which both communities were committed and which they wanted, we would not let our party's policies stand in the way. That was always the line that we took and it was exactly the right line. It would make no sense at all for Britain to say that we were going to impose our views on the people of Northern Ireland once they had agreed a settlement. After all, we have all been working for a settlement over the years.
The role of the British is now crucial. I recently heard an economist at a conference say that a statue should be erected in Northern Ireland to the great unknown British taxpayer. There is a lot in that statement. The cost of running Northern Ireland is immense. One of my views over the years has been that if we could resolve the problems in Northern Ireland, the burden of carrying it would lessen and there would be marvellous opportunities for the people of the north. There is a peace dividend to be had, but it will not arrive quickly.
It is sometimes assumed that once people stop fighting and troops are withdrawn, a pocket of money will suddenly be available. It will not, but there is a process by which, initially, there may be more unemployment. For example, people working in security organisations may lose their jobs. We need to plan the use of the peace

1037
dividend to ensure that such people are retrained and kept in employment. Although I have never believed that the underlying levels of high unemployment in Northern Ireland have been the cause of the violence, they certainly have not helped. There have been quite good recruiting serjeant majors for paramilitary groups on the Unionist and republican sides.
I shall now do what I think is the duty of Opposition parties—make a few suggestions and perhaps press the Government to go a little further in certain areas, which I hope would help both Unionists and nationalists alike. We have to choose from different menus, as it were, to help both, but they are both important.
I want to start with an area that has always been profoundly important to me. I was slightly disappointed—this was about the only disappointment that I felt during the Secretary of State's speech—that we did not hear a statement about the future of emergency legislation in the United Kingdom as a whole. The Secretary of State will know that, for the first time since the second world war, Ireland has abolished the emergency legislation. One of the matters that involved me in the Northern Ireland debate was the way in which we were undermining our own democracy by the use of exceptional powers, such as the prevention of terrorism Act and the emergency powers legislation. I have made the point many times that the prevention of terrorism Act involves internal exile. A former Minister, Lord Coleraine, if I remember rightly, used that term after I had used it. It is the first time that we have had that power since the days of Henry VIII. It is an exceptional power and we need to clarify its future, even though we may not be able to get rid of all those Acts quickly. It would be welcome if the Government made a statement saying that if the peace process continues as it is at present, it would be our intention to get rid of the emergency legislation as early as possible.
A small example of that intention could relate to the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. There has always been an argument for scheduling cases in—to describe a case as being of a terrorist type and putting it on the list for inclusion under that schedule—rather than, as at present, having to schedule them out. The argument for that change must now be overwhelming. It is very difficult to argue that we must go on assuming that all cases in the Diplock courts are of a terrorist type. Similarly, although I will not develop the point for reasons of time, the admissibility of evidence rules need to be brought into line with what we expect from a sophisticated democracy with a commitment to the rule of law.
It is important to continue the process of getting the troops off the streets, with one exception—those areas bordering the peace lines, where the communities say that they want the troops to remain. That is important for both Unionists and republicans in those areas, who feel very insecure at times. If they want them, the troops should stay on the streets of those areas.
We need to consider checkpoints, look-out posts and security bases and generally try to downgrade or mothball them. I recognise the difficulties of moving too fast, but people who live in Armagh especially, or somewhere like that, where the peace process has worked, may ask what they are seeing in return. If they are dominated by a large Army base, which even now is being redeveloped, rebuilt and enlarged because of mortar attacks on helicopters and
1038
so on, it is difficult to see the reason for continuing that process when we are trying to convince the population—not the leaders, but the population—that we are serious about responding to the current window of opportunity. It is a small point, but I remember all the fuss and hassle when the Gaelic Athletics Association pitch was half absorbed in, I think, Crossmaglen. Such changes, by which we can allow the population to use their leisure areas again, could help to reassure the population of those areas.
We need to look at increased resources, especially in housing and jobs in a number of areas. I accept fully the Fair Employment Act and everything that goes with it, but in a number of Unionist areas housing is quite often worse than in neighbouring Catholic areas because of the success of the Housing Executive. There are areas, even in west Belfast, where that is true, so we need to use what money we can—I urge the Government not to cut public expenditure in Northern Ireland—to prevent some parts of the Unionist community from feeling that the money goes to Catholics and not to Protestants. That is one of the arguments that the paramilitaries use when recruiting.
I urge that we use European and other money to develop one of the key prospects for the future in Northern Ireland—the Dublin-Belfast link. It is noticeable that, of the six largest United States personal computer producers, four are located in the south. The opportunities in the north for software development on a similar basis as that between London and Bristol or, indeed, between Edinburgh and Glasgow, which in many ways are similar cities to Belfast and Dublin, are such that they may enable us to create a necessary high-tech belt. I strongly suspect that the Europeans would be able to put money into that.
I thought that I heard mumbling from the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) about further links with Scotland. I am fully in favour of that. It is a great idea, but, as I said in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, just because there is a cultural, political and social link with an area, it does not mean that an economic future lies there. I may well have an affinity with Canadians, Australians or Americans, but that does not mean that I do not recognise the economic importance of Europe. In a sense, that is true for the people of Northern Ireland in relating to the people of southern Ireland to create an economy that works for all the people.
By all means change articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution in the framework document, and I suspect that there is the will to do so, but, in recognition of that, we have to deal with the remaining parts of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. I have said on many occasions that it is a little odd that Britain says in one of our Acts of Parliament that Northern Ireland will stay in the United Kingdom for as long as it likes, because, of course, it is really a statement of insecurity. It allows the United Kingdom to say, "You can stay if you like, but we would not put it into Acts of Parliament relating to England, Scotland or Wales because they do not feel insecure."
Mr. Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Soley: I shall give way in a second.
There has to be new legislation and I hope that, in the process of making it, we can make it clear that we accept that the border cannot be changed without consent, but

1039
that we in Britain, as in the British-Irish agreement and the Downing street declaration, are prepared to look at change.
Mr. Trimble: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I found his comments rather confusing. He said that there had to be changes to the Government of Ireland Act 1920, but he then quoted the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. I agree with him that the 1973 Act does nothing to strengthen the Union, but does he agree that section 75 of the 1920 Act is of no importance whatsoever?
Mr. Soley: I am inclined to agree with that, although not everyone would. That is why I said that it needs to go. I do not believe that there is a difference. I was simply saying that some people perceive it to be stronger than I believe it is. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was right to say that it is not that important. However, it is important to say that it can go. I hope that I have made myself clear.
I understand that cross-border institutions should not be given Irish executive power. However, it is critical that we ensure that they can work if, for whatever reason, they are not being made to work in Northern Ireland. In that sense, the British still need to recognise that we have a role as a direct-rule power. That is important.
I was going to intervene on the Secretary of State about my next point, but I will make it now. I understand that the strand 1 talks are extremely important. I can see that the framework document is even more important. I hope that I am making this point unnecessarily, but I hope that the Government are aware that those two things must work in tandem and that they must in no way be in conflict.
I have kept my comments as short as I can. For many years, I have spoken on a matter that has troubled me deeply, not just because of the violence, death and horror—which we saw primarily on the streets of Northern Ireland but also in southern Ireland and Britain—but because I have watched our great democracy eroding many of our greatest civil liberties and being found guilty before the European Court of Human Rights in respect of issues that often arose from Northern Ireland on more occasions than any other country in Europe and when we were the country that drafted that very code of human rights.
It is deeply sad that such a great democracy as ours should allow itself to slip back because of the crisis in Northern Ireland. We now have a chance to begin to undo that and I fully commend the Government for their achievements so far. I simply ask them to go that bit further and, above all, to begin to restore our democracy to what it used to be.
5.21 pm
Sir James Kilfedder: I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that a statue should be erected to the British taxpayer. The only trouble is that the IRA would vandalise it or, despite the peace process, blow it up. The IRA has nothing but contempt for the connection with Britain.
Tribute should be paid to the British people because, despite 25 years of terrorism which was also brought to this mainland, the British people have stood firm,
1040
shoulder to shoulder, with the decent people of Northern Ireland in the fight against terrorism. That point should be placed on the record.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) on her appointment as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Her appointment is well deserved and she has my good wishes. I pay tribute also to the Prime Minister who, on taking office as Prime Minister, dedicated himself to ending terrorism in Northern Ireland. He deserves the plaudits of the people of this country for being a man of vision and honour. It is regrettable that the press devotes so much time to other matters and not to the serious matter of the peace process in Northern Ireland.
When the Prime Minister announced the Downing street declaration 10 months ago, some people did not believe that it would lead to peace. That declaration, agreed by both the British and Irish Governments, has established that the will of the majority in Northern Ireland will prevail and that if the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain within the United Kingdom, that wish will be respected by the people of this country and by the Government of the Irish Republic.
However, it is important to emphasise that the majority to which I have referred comprises both Catholics and Protestants. It is not simply a Protestant majority. That idea is sometimes put abroad mischievously. Roman Catholics as well as Protestants voted in the last referendum to maintain the British connection. That was the only way in which the number of votes could be accounted for.
That majority in Northern Ireland wishes Ulster to remain fully within the United Kingdom. It is equally important to stress that it is the wish of most Unionists to develop harmonious relations in our Province with all the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives, working together to improve the quality of life for all in the Province without regard to religion or politics.
About a year ago, I criticised the frequent use of the expression "two communities in Northern Ireland" because, in my opinion, there is only one community even though, over the past years, there has been an unhappy division, mainly as a result of the terrorists who wish always to divide the people and sometimes as a result of politicians who always believe that, by dividing the people, they can ensure their position in the political life of the country.
If peace prevails—and I pray that it does—I have a vision of an Ulster at peace with itself. That will take a long time, as some hon. Members have said, and I hope that people will not be disappointed at the slowness. However, we must build up confidence, not only within Northern Ireland, but between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
I believe that the people of Northern Ireland wish to have nothing but the very best relations with people in the Irish Republic. That is perhaps not always understood in Dublin, but I believe that it is absolutely true. Indeed, if someone were to give me a ticket for the Dublin train, despite the sleaze factor which is abroad at the moment, I would be happy to go to Dublin and see any Dublin

1041
Minister. That does not weaken my position as a Unionist because I believe that the way forward is for everyone to work together on an informal basis.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: In view of the hon. Gentleman's willingness to take the train to Dublin, will he accept the very generous invitation that he has already received to participate with the rest of us in arguing the debate on peace and reconciliation by attending the forum opening in Dublin tomorrow morning?
Sir James Kilfedder: I said that I would take a trip to Dublin and of course I would return again. However, I have no wish to attend the forum to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am prepared to engage in any talks with constitutional politicians and anyone who repudiates violence. When those talks begin in Northern Ireland, I am prepared to participate in them. I will not join what is largely a republican organisation in Dublin, although I wish it well and I hope that it fully understands the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. When the real talks begin—
Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir James Kilfedder: No, I promised to take only 10 minutes. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is offering me anything other than an invitation to attend tomorrow's meeting.
The fight against terrorism over the past 25 years required great courage, restraint and dedication on the part of the Ulster people and on the part of the security forces. I join the tribute which was paid by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—I admired the way in which he paid it—to the security forces and the police in Northern Ireland. I echo his words when he said that he had admiration for their service and he thanked them for what they had done over the past 25 years.
That was a terrible battle against terrorism in respect of which most people in Northern Ireland were totally impotent. As civilians, they could do nothing but watch what happened as a result of terrorism on their television screens or, worse still, endure it if they were there when a bomb went off or a bullet killed an innocent person.
With peace, we must fight with the same determination for the peace to prevail. We need to nurture the peace process. I have doubts about it. Like the Prime Minister, I am wary and cautious about it, but I am not going to condemn it because of those reservations: I wish to nurture it and I believe that most people in Northern Ireland would wish to see the peace process go ahead and succeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said that Sinn Fein had definitely and permanently ended the violence. I was appalled to hear on BBC radio this morning a statement by the chairman of Sinn Fein to the effect that the present ceasefire is only temporary—I think that he used the word "pause"—and that there will not be permanent peace until the IRA-Sinn Fein have all their demands met. That is not the language of peace. That is not an indication of permanent peace. It is blackmail, telling the people of Northern Ireland, the
1042
House of Commons and the Government that they must submit to the demands of the IRA or they will return to the gun and the bomb.
Sadly, after 25 years, the IRA realised that it was getting nowhere with terrorism and that it was being defeated by the restraint, courage and determination of the Ulster and British people. The IRA has nothing but contempt for fundamental democratic rights. Having failed in its horrendous campaign of terrorism, it now hopes, in peace, to obtain what it failed to get with the gun. It is vital that the IRA hands over all its Semtex, detonators, arms and ammunition, which was largely provided by Colonel Gaddafi. While such weapons of destruction remain in the hands of the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries—I include them as well—there is little prospect of meaningful discussion and little prospect of permanent peace in Northern Ireland.
It would be possible to devote an entire speech at great length and involving many hours to the negative aspects of the present situation—that is, the threats, to which I have already referred, and the present recruitment of youngsters by the IRA. I do not understand why, if peace has come, it is still recruiting people. I refer also to the work of IRA punishment squads, shooting youngsters in the knees, and so on. We must adopt a positive approach. We must all do our best to nurture the peace process and build bridges.
The way forward is to have a devolved assembly at Stormont. It would provide an arena in which all political parties would be represented. They would be able not only to speak in the Chamber of the Stormont Parliament but to meet in the dining room, smoking room, bars, and so on and get to know each other. Half the trouble in Northern Ireland is that politicians do not meet frequently. A political arena would help to bring about the harmony that we so desperately need in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir James Kilfedder: No, I must finish.
An arena would certainly create the political stability that we need. Stability is certainly required in Northern Ireland, because we need more jobs and we need to deal with the unemployment problem. That is the way forward. I thank the Prime Minister for embarking on the peace process, and I wish him and the Government well.
5.32 pm
Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) is a distinguished former Speaker of the previous assembly in Northern Ireland. I share his hope that, once again, there will be decentralised devolved government in Northern Ireland, so that Northern Irish people together will be able to take decisions there which far too often we have dealt with in this place in a casual way, in one-and-a-half-hour debates and unamendable orders which have prevented the normal business of politics from taking place. By putting Northern Ireland business in such a straitjacket, we have impeded the process that we all want to encourage.
I join others who have expressed their unqualified admiration and support for the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste, the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the right hon. Member

1043
for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), for the way in which they have combined to try to bring about the peace process. I also welcome the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) to her Front-Bench position. I join those who have also paid tribute to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for the distinguished role that he has always played in our Northern Ireland debates.
I particularly congratulate the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister on daring to think the unthinkable. For too many years we have been caught up in the idea that it is impossible to make progress. Coming from a city such as Liverpool—I have the honour to represent a constituency that was once, in part, in the south-west Lancashire division, which Mr. Gladstone once represented—I can be forgiven for recognising the problems of sectarianism in an especially acute way.
A century ago, Gladstone commented that the problem in Ireland was that, when one thought that one had an answer to a question, the Irish would change the question. The Secretary of State must feel sometimes that the goalposts have kept moving during his time in that position. If we could have our time again and could go back to the second Home Rule Bill which Mr. Gladstone piloted through the House but which was rejected in the other place, hon. Members might reflect that many of the tragedies and divisions in Northern Ireland since that time could have been avoided.
The future is what calls us today. On a personal note, with a mother from the west of Ireland who once taught the former Speaker of the Dail his Irish as a boy, and with children who, I am proud to say, have Irish citizenship—as I have—as well as British citizenship, I recognise the importance of my pride in my Irish origins as well as my pride in my British origins. Only when we recognise the enormous contribution and worth of both traditions—the hon. Member for North Down said that there is one community, but there are two traditions—will we see real progress.
I do not think that any united Ireland or United Kingdom solution exists. We must have shared goals, shared power and shared responsibilities. Throughout these islands there is a need for plural systems of democratic, effective and accountable government based on modern concepts of citizenship and the rule of law. That raises fundamental issues for us all. In Ireland, it raises fundamental questions about articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Irish constitution. Hon. Members will accept that, since the 1972 referendum, the previously privileged position of the Roman Catholic Church has been removed. Nevertheless, there are many issues which disturb people in the north about the way in which the Irish constitution still lays claim to the territory of Northern Ireland. Such matters will have to be addressed honestly in due course.
There are many shared ideals north and south of the border, particularly the strength of family life north and south of the border, authentic human values, and the sanctity of human life, which is held in such great regard both north and south of the border. As sectarianism becomes less important, there will be many shared goals, particularly as many committed people north and south of the border see the need to turn the tide of secularism which would otherwise engulf the people of the whole of the island of Ireland.
1044
In Britain, we also need an understanding of the rights of the people of the north who are nationalists and who rejoice in their Irishness, every bit as much as of the rights of unionists who have pride in their Britishness. We must end the way in which we have treated Northern Ireland issues in this place and move as quickly as we can to a devolved and decentralised system of government.
There are also issues that must be addressed by the paramilitaries. Two weeks ago, when I was last in Northern Ireland, I visited the university of Ulster at Coleraine and spoke to young people from both traditions. They showed extraordinary enthusiasm and optimism about the future, but they were also hard-headed and realistic about the problems which must be overcome. After that, I met representatives of FAIT—Families Against Intimidation and Terror—in Belfast.
I intervened on the Secretary of State to point out the continuing problems of operations which are conducted without fear or favour against vulnerable people, some of whom have been driven out of Northern Ireland. We hear much about freedom of movement within the United Kingdom or in the United States of America, but let there be freedom of movement as well for families who have been exiled from Northern Ireland and required to live in the United Kingdom on pain of death if they should return to Northern Ireland.
I want to hear more from the leaders of Sinn Fein and the IRA about what has happened to those families. I want to hear more about such cases as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) has recently raised. Despite the ceasefire, there have been continued assaults on people who might have committed minor offences in Northern Ireland, but the IRA has set itself up as a quasi-judicial authority. The Belfast Telegraph of 20 September states:
"This youth had known for weeks that the IRA was pursuing him. Then one night last week, he was hiding in a friend's house in the Whiterock area, when six men raided the house and took him out.
They laid him down on the ground and broke his wrists and fingers with a metal bar. They beat him about the legs with a hurley stick with a nail through it and punctured the flesh by his shin bone. He had a black eye."
Ms Short: Obviously, we are revolted by such events. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a real challenge to us here? There are areas of Northern Ireland where the police's writ has not run and the IRA has taken on the policing role at the request of the community.
Mr. Mallon: Not in Crossmaglen.
Ms Short: I regret to say that it is true in Crossmaglen. Hon. Members will not allow the truth to be spoken in the House because they are so partial.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) is intervening on the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and should not respond to sedentary comments.
Ms Short: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there was a lot of noise which was preventing me from making my point, and I was responding to that. Surely, the challenge to us—this is the point that I want to put to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—is to improve the policing in Northern Ireland to win the trust of those communities. Of course, we must denounce

1045
all these evil actions, but that is the real challenge to the United Kingdom Government, in co-operation with the Irish Government.
Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady makes a good point which I shall mention in a moment. I was about to say—
Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Alton: I shall give way in a moment. Articles which have appeared in the press, and the human rights updates regularly produced by FAIT, demonstrate that these cases of intimidation continue daily. Once again, I quote from the Belfast Telegraph:
"Since the IRA ceasefire, Provo punishment squads have been beating their victims with iron bars, hammers and baseball bats instead of kneecapping them."
Recently, the hon. Member for Belfast, West raised the case of a 16-year-old who was viciously assaulted with a crowbar; I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue with the RUC.
Such cases are not confined only to one side of the community. Clearly, many of the loyalist paramilitary organisations have become heavily involved in drugs, which is an increasing problem in many ordinary families in the north of Ireland. We also have such problems in our urban areas in Liverpool and drugs can be one of the most powerful pressures for crime. The racketeering, profiteering and Mafia-style activities which have been part and parcel of terrorism must not be regarded as a side issue; they must be central to the future that we are trying to create in Northern Ireland. Military violence may have ended, but violence per se has certainly not ended.
Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As the Member of Parliament who represents the area of Crossmaglen, I wish to make it clear that the people of Crossmaglen have not asked the IRA or anyone else to police on their behalf. The people of Crossmaglen and south Armagh have no time whatever for the type of thuggery involved in the incident identified by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). My own research assistant was subjected to such a beating by thugs in the IRA. Everyone should understand that no one in south Armagh asked the IRA to do that. Did the IRA do it in the name of anyone in south Armagh?
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful and eloquent intervention. He makes the point effectively that no one wants to see a quasi-judicial organisation established with a de facto policing power under the aegis of the IRA. That is not the way forward.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said—the House must recognise that this is a problem—that the nationalist community, the Catholic community, was alienated from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. For good reasons, many Catholics and nationalists have felt unable to join the RUC because of the consequences that would follow if they did.
That must change, and that will require us to reform both the policing and judicial arrangements in Northern Ireland. I hope that we shall not do that by a series of knee-jerk reactions or piecemeal reforms with emergency powers, prevention of terrorism orders, or whatever. I hope that these matters will be legitimate questions for the talks process, and that we shall examine all the questions
1046
together and try to provide an ordered way of moving forward. That is surely what the people of the north want. They want the same freedom of movement that we enjoy in the rest of the United Kingdom. People should not be forced to become exiles in their own land.
It would be a move of extraordinary importance if Gerry Adams were to say—never mind the persiflage of whether he speaks for the IRA and/or Sinn Fein—that he has no intention of resuming violence, whatever gains or defeats he has in the talks process. That would go a long way to reassuring the cynics and pessimists who wonder precisely where the future is leading. It is not good enough to come out with ambiguities and obfuscation about whether violence will be resumed, depending on what happens in the talks. That is holding a gun to people's heads and it will not do.
The Government have shown courage, vision and determination. They are entitled to the support of the whole House, and on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I can say that they will continue to receive it.
5.44 pm
Mr. Nicholas Scott: First, I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for not being present for the whole of his speech. In the same breath, I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and welcome her to her responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench. She takes on those responsibilities at a challenging and important time and I am sure that we all wish her well.
It was 13 years ago when I arrived in Belfast as a Minister. I arrived when the hunger strike was still in progress, a number of hunger strikers had died, the streets of Belfast were littered with debris, the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary were under tremendous pressure and one almost despaired at the prospect of movement towards peace in Northern Ireland.
We seemed to be in a stand-off position, yet patient negotiation behind the scenes and understanding of the feelings on both sides managed to bring the hunger strike to an end. Patient, understanding work—much of it behind the scenes—led to the situation where we have a ceasefire in Northern Ireland. I have the highest hope that its permanence will soon be recognised.
Those of us who follow the cartoonist Matt in his light-hearted interpretations of current events will remember the cartoon of the two ladies waiting at a bus stop in Belfast with one expostulating to the other, "Typical. We wait 25 years for a ceasefire and now we get two coming along at the same time." We have two ceasefires and I hope that they will last.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his vision and courage to go down a route where there was no success guaranteed at the end. He would have been severely criticised by a variety of quarters if the whole thing had failed. However, the Prime Minister, in co-operation with the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has brought about a remarkable success. I know that hard-working people in the Northern Ireland Office and elsewhere have played their part, and they also deserve our gratitude. We can celebrate—hopefully, not prematurely—the progress that has been made so far. We

1047
all recognise that there will be pitfalls ahead, but I remain an optimist, not least because of some of my experiences when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland.
After all, it was the Prime Minister's predecessor who signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The workings of that agreement, which was not welcomed whole-heartedly in all quarters of the community in Northern Ireland, proved that it was possible for those holding ministerial offices in London and Dublin to work against a background of constructive understanding between the two Governments, to develop habits of mutual co-operation without the surrender of sovereignty on either part in the discussions that took place. As each Government began better to understand the position of the other, they made adjustments in their policies and approaches to the issues that confronted us in Northern Ireland.
There was no question of executive power being transferred or sovereignty eroded, but there was a steady development of mutual understanding, which has been immensely beneficial and which may well have laid the foundations for what has been achieved in the latest accord between London and Dublin. If there are new bodies to be formed under the terms of the latest arrangement, I think that they can learn a great deal from the work that followed the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
We stand on the threshold, as it were, of historic steps affecting the future of the island of Ireland. At such a time, we should look back and pay tribute to the security forces which have borne such an immense burden over the years of the emergency. I was privileged to be security Minister in Northern Ireland for a number of years, and I recognised the pressures that those forces were under: I was in no doubt that terrorist organisations, especially the Provisional IRA, set out to do their best to provoke the British Government and the security forces to react—to over-react, it could be said—to the terrorism with which they were being presented.
I recognise, of course, that over the past 25 years mistakes have been made in security policy, but I find it difficult to imagine another Government in a liberal democracy who would have reacted more calmly and steadfastly in the face of such provocation. As I said, undoubtedly mistakes were made, but overwhelmingly we preserved the values of a liberal democracy in the face of immense provocation from the terrorists.
Let us translate the statistics for those 25 years of violence in Northern Ireland into a Great Britain equivalent. That would mean our having incurred about 1 million casualties and nearly 100,000 deaths—figures that put into perspective what the people of Northern Ireland have suffered. To their immense credit, they have endured it; they deserve our understanding and our continued support as the peace process develops.
A number of problems must be confronted if that peace process is to continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) mentioned weapons: I think that they will pose a very difficult problem. If I were a member of either side of the Northern Ireland community, perhaps on the fringes of the paramilitary organisations, I should be very reluctant to hand over weapons that many people—perhaps doubting the good will of the other side—may regard as personal protection. I believe that the heavier weaponry, the Semtex and
1048
detonators, should be first on the agenda. I hope that an arrangement can be made with the paramilitary organisations to ensure that that happens.
There is another problem, in which I took particular interest when I was in the Northern Ireland Office: the prisoners—men and women, many of them young—who have been caught up in terrorist activities over the years, and are now serving very long sentences, life sentences in some cases. The life sentence review board could help us to resolve that problem. The board assesses when it would be possible to release those sentenced to life imprisonment in Northern Ireland.
I recall that one of the major factors in the decision was the risk that released prisoners would reoffend. Given recent events and the constructive atmosphere that seems to be developing in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Ministers will examine the workings of the board and consider how it might play a more proactive role in considering which prisoners could be released into the community. I am certain that, during my time in the Northern Ireland Office, the board's activities had a profound effect in the Northern Ireland communities: it was possible to release a number of people into the community, and I hope that we can build on that achievement now. I was particularly pleased to note that Mr. Gusty Spence—a loyalist former prisoner; I was able to use my influence to secure his release—had played an important part in bringing about the loyalist ceasefire.
Mr. David Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend understand that some Conservative Members see no distinction between someone blowing up a three-year-old in the name of a united Ireland, and someone blowing up a three-year-old just because he is plain evil? They would find it impossible to follow the route that my right hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Scott: My experience was that examining the background of offenders who had probably been sentenced by the courts in Northern Ireland, the possibility of their reoffending if they were released and the part that they could play in persuading others to turn away from the path of violence was a constructive contribution to the process of bringing about a change of mind and heart in the paramilitary organisations. Again, I mention Mr. Augustus Spence in particular.
Let me say a word about the economy. Over the past 25 years, we have spent a vast amount on security in Northern Ireland. I hope that, if peace endures, the extra resources spent in recent years will not suddenly be clawed back by the Treasury and denied to Northern Ireland Ministers; I believe that at least some of them should be deployed in trying to ensure that both Northern Ireland communities have job opportunities in the future. We have seen some remarkable economic successes in Northern Ireland, and the peace dividend—as it is sometimes called—should be reflected in more job opportunities throughout the Province.
Of course, we still face—in the words of the Tanaiste—a great conundrum in bringing about a final arrangement in Northern Ireland. The competing claims of nationalists and Unionists still strike many as incompatible; the Governments of both the Republic and the United Kingdom bear a heavy responsibility in taking the process forward. I hope that they will not be persuaded to rush fences—that they will be patient, take small steps in the right direction and not allow themselves to be panicked

1049
into sudden action that may leave them face downwards in the mud. Patience, I believe, is the key to a final solution to the problems that we are trying to solve.
I believe that the nationalist community in the north of Ireland should take some satisfaction from the progress that has been made since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the recognition of the legitimacy of the nationalist aspiration. We in this country, however, must understand the depth of feeling in the Unionist community. John Hewitt—who could, I suppose, be called the poet of unionism—once said:
"This is my country, nowhere else.
I shall not be outcast on the world."
Those who seek a solution, within the island of Ireland, to the problems of Northern Ireland must bear in mind the depth of passion among Unionists about their identity. It is essential that whatever solution we find can accommodate both traditions; otherwise, we shall write ourselves a recipe for a return to violence and disaster.
The future of Northern Ireland should provide no role for facile slogans such as "No surrender" or, indeed, "Ourselves alone". We must find ways in which the two communities can work together and build confidence. That will not happen overnight; it will take years, if not decades. But we need to maintain the momentum, keep our nerve and keep our vision of peace. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland, as well as to the people of Britain and the Republic of Ireland.
5.59 pm
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) served as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland for several years, and while I must confess that as far as the Ulster Unionist party is concerned, we never really reached a shared understanding, we can say that the hon. Gentleman put his opinions with clarity and force.
One of the reasons for the hon. Gentleman's departure is the fact that the present leadership of the Labour party has decided to upgrade the Northern Ireland post to shadow Cabinet level, so we have a double reason for congratulating the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). The hon. Lady is the first woman in that post, and she will no doubt make clear the Labour party's views on Northern Ireland as they develop in the coming years. We offer her our sincere congratulations.
We are also looking forward to the further clearing-up of the problems that some of us have in trying to define defensive weapons in the hands of terrorist assassins and fellow travellers. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) raised that matter, and some of us found a measure of difficulty with it.
I have had the same measure of difficulty since 31 August with the degree of euphoria that clouds the judgment of so many in Northern Ireland, and indeed further afield, in regard to the present ceasefire, cessation of violence or truce—whatever one cares to call it.
The Government have been refreshingly wise in the way in which they have dealt with the evolving situation in Northern Ireland. I can use that, description, because this Administration have come to understand that they do not need any selfish, strategic or economic reasons to stay
1050
in Northern Ireland, because the people who live there have a vast array of good reasons to remain within the United Kingdom and not a single good reason to leave it. Thus, Ulster's constitutional position depends upon the will of its inhabitants, so it will stay within the United Kingdom.
However, I must say to the House—and particularly to the Government—that the unity of the kingdom is best secured when the central authority also has the wit to understand that it has a role to play beyond a benign neutrality while leaving others to defend the integrity of the Union and the realm. In the long run, of course, the people of Northern Ireland need to know that their constitutional position is secure. The Secretary of State's rejection of the comments made by Martin McGuinness at the weekend as arrant nonsense was both necessary and clear.
More needs to be done, for that exchange highlighted the need to convince people by taking action to restore local accountability. The Prime Minister's carefully constructed speech in Belfast last Friday deserves the most detailed analysis by all who are trying to move Northern Ireland towards real peace and stability, and that careful consideration will take into account all that he and his Government colleagues are saying and have said in the past few months.
The Prime Minister must not be under any illusions as to the complexity of the situation, and clearly he is not. Great dangers are still present as we proceed down the difficult road to stable institutions of government in the Province. In the light of that, he does well to exercise due caution and to say that the Government will judge the situation by the deeds of terrorist organisations, as much as by their words.
In his speech, the Prime Minister said that he now had sufficient evidence of the IRA's intentions for him to proceed on the "workable assumption"—as he called it—that violence by the IRA had come to an end. The noble Lady Baroness Denton of Wakefield, who speaks for the Government in another place, said last week that the time lapse before accepting that violence had ended was to
"enable commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods to be demonstrated."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 October 1994; Vol. 558, c. 80.]
A young man who is in the process of having his bones smashed with an iron bar might not fully share the Government's opinion that the IRA has given up violence. It may well be that such unfortunates will be comforted by the fact that the IRA has construed the term "complete cessation of violence" in a very narrow sense. The IRA has always intended the term to mean only that it has stopped murdering people and exploding bombs. For all its other items of activity, it is simply business as usual—a slogan that we have become well used to in Northern Ireland during the past 25 years.
The IRA is therefore behaving in accordance with the strict letter of the words, and the spirit of good will and common decency that some wrongly detected in the ceasefire statement is simply non-existent. The fact that it has hitherto ensured its continuing dominance of the sections of the community of which it is an integral component—combined with its storage of weapons and explosives, fund raising and all the activities that are needed to sustain, direct and execute a terrorist campaign—is not evidence that it is really dismantling its murderous machine. Rather, it is simply being

1051
semi-mothballed for the moment. The rotation from the IRA's version of peace to a full-blown terrorist campaign would take a very short period, should it decide to change.
The present limited peace is self-evidently fragile, and the action taken by the Garda last Saturday is convincing evidence of the danger that still surrounds us. From what was said in regard to that episode, it would appear that dissident elements within the IRA were planning to take over the organisation and its weaponry. We must also assume that any such takeover would not have been bloodless and that there might have been deadly consequences for the leading peacemakers. The Garda's efforts to protect them are therefore welcome, and show the high quality of intelligence that is now available to that force. Had such information been available and similar action taken in the past, many who became the victims of murder and other crimes would be alive and well today.
The IRA has spent 25 years trying to overthrow the will of the people of Northern Ireland, and even it found eventually that violence would not shift them from their fixed desire to remain within the United Kingdom. It has made no secret of the reasons for its new behaviour—it is to get a united Ireland by other means. It has now spent some eight weeks trying to get its new policy off the ground.
The question now is whether the IRA will persist in the democratic debate and persuasion, or whether it will revert to type. I must say that many of us believe that the latter is the more likely course that it will follow in the coming days, weeks and months. It would be extremely foolish to diminish the capacity of the Army and the RUC, in case they are needed rapidly to restore the defences that have been swept away in recent days.
The opening of border roads and the removal of soldiers from the streets give welcome evidence of a slow return to normality, but so long as the possibility and the threat remain that violence will resume, the capacity to restore defences has to be kept intact. I hope that the soldiers will stay—if not on the streets—in barracks in Northern Ireland where they can be instantly available in large numbers.
One thing of which we can be sure: Irish republicans of whatever shade of green will always find some new product from their factory of grievances about which to complain. We had much experience of that 25 years ago. I hope that the House, and especially the Government, have learnt that no matter what concessions Irish nationalists—again of every shade of green—have been given down the years, they have been received with ill grace, and nothing has ever come back in return.
On the issue of law and order, on which we had hoped to find co-operation—and where every right-minded person would want co-operation—we find that the Social Democratic and Labour party has still not taken up a place on the Police Authority, even to the point where it recently expelled Councillor Rocks of Cookstown because, as a very brave citizen, he dared to play his part on that body.
It is clear to many people in Northern Ireland that that sad rejection of responsibility does the SDLP no good in the eyes of reasonable people, and drives many people in Ulster to ask how it can ever play a responsible part in the Province, a view that we share when it simply refuses to do what it can to make the police service acceptable to
1052
those whom it represents. We had some striking evidence of the need for a police service, even in the most republican areas of Northern Ireland, in the early exchanges on Opposition Benches today.
The SDLP should have the confidence to stand on its own feet and take the lead, and it should not be tagging along with those who want to dismantle the RUC and replace it with something else, which, in the end, would be acceptable to no one. Such a betrayal of that force would not be acceptable either to my party or to the House.
The Prime Minister's speech last week set out a most ambitious agenda, much of which can be put in train regardless of what the IRA does in the coming weeks and months. He set out a considerable programme on the economy, which we warmly support. Four members of the Ulster Unionist party, including myself, were in Washington in September. We found much talk in several quarters about how to help to provide American investment for jobs. It was suggested that there should be a meeting of business leaders to see what could be done.
It is notable and welcome that the Prime Minister went much further. He said that he wanted to draw together possible investment from the whole globe. We already have quite a lot of successful investment from many of the areas mentioned in his speeches. The Prime Minister will also know that the Ulster Unionist party estimates a loss of 25,000 to 30,000 jobs in security-related work in conditions of permanent peace. Such a drop in employment would be devastating to many places that currently supply the persons employed in that work. For that reason, my party has already called for resources to be deployed to ensure that unemployment levels equal to those in the worst black spots do not become the norm in many areas of Northern Ireland.
We especially welcome the Prime Minister's statement that European Community money will be in addition to the Government's expenditure plans over the next few years. In the past, such sums have always been subsumed in United Kingdom Government spending plans. I am glad that the Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, has persuaded that institution to be a little more like Scrooge at the end of "A Christmas Carol" rather than the individual whom we meet in its earliest passages.
The fact that the Prime Minister also intends to consult at council level to hear local opinion on what is needed to rejuvenate and regenerate those council areas is very welcome. For the first time, local voices will be heard where it really matters. We have every confidence that the varying needs of the different council areas will be made clear to the Government by the leaders and chief executives of each council.
The Prime Minister has made it evident that he intends to move ahead on a wide front to reinforce the demand for a peaceful Ulster and, as far as possible, to make it impossible for anyone to return to violence. He is well aware of the great responsibility that he carries as he works patiently to construct a system of governance in Northern Ireland that will command the respect of all well-intentioned people. We all know that universal acceptance is a bit like the holy grail—long sought, but never found. Frankly, it will never be found. Nevertheless, methods of administration and representation acceptable to the great preponderance of the population in that part of the country can be created. The acquiescence of more

1053
will be certain and only the tiny number who are totally blinded to reality by their detestation of all things pertaining to Britain will oppose those methods.
The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on his cautious advances so far. We wish him well in future and we hope that his efforts and those of many others involved will eventually be crowned with success.
6.12 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I join right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) to the Opposition Front Bench. I assure her that my colleagues and I will be happy to meet her at any time to express our views not only on the general constitutional position, but on social and economic matters where there may be more of a meeting of minds.
In saying that, I also acknowledge the deep interest that the hon. Lady's predecessor, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), showed in his post. Undoubtedly, there has not been much common cause on constitutional matters between the hon. Gentleman and my colleagues and myself, but we recognise that he was sincere in his interest in Northern Ireland—indeed, so much so that, when I came to the House in the 1970s, he regularly expressed his views, different though they may have been from mine, although he did not have a Front-Bench post.
I welcome the opportunity that this debate provides. Like the Secretary of State, I believe that it is high time that we had a debate to consider many of the recent developments in the Province. I recognise that I may well be swimming against a popular tide in the House, although I share many of the hopes and desires expressed for Northern Ireland by other hon. Members. It will not be a surprise to the House to learn that I do not have the expectations that other hon. Members have expressed about the prospects for this process. I certainly have greater fears and concerns than those expressed by others.
I believe that the Provisional IRA has punctuated its activities with what appears to be more a comma than a full stop. However, over the past weeks, the weary and hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland have been enjoying a taste of life without the thud of the bomb and the crack of gunfire.
Much has been said about Northern Ireland and its prospects for peace. Newspaper editors, some politicians, some Churchmen and some people who should know better have been using expressions such as, "Peace is the most precious pearl. Nothing is more important than peace." I expect that many hon. Members share my belief that that statement is not valid. Although peace is undoubtedly a precious gem, to be sought after and cherished, there is a more precious gem than peace. That gem is, of course, freedom, and the protection of the rights and liberties of the people of Northern Ireland.
We would not want peace if it was a peace of slavery or a peace of surrender. Who better than this nation to say that, if peace had been the most precious gem, if peace had been the ultimate objective and if peace had been the most important factor, this nation would have stood aside to Hitler, it would have offered no resistance to Galtieri, and it would have bowed before Saddam Hussein. Indeed,
1054
it would have surrendered to the Provisional IRA several decades ago. Peace, therefore, is a priority, but it is not the main priority. The main priority must be the protection of the rights and liberties of the people of Northern Ireland.
When the Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland a few days ago—I welcome his regular visits—he said:
"Seven weeks after the IRA ceasefire, seven days after the Loyalist paramilitaries' ceasefire, Northern Ireland is at peace."
Those words have been uttered many times before and since his visit, so I must address the question whether Northern Ireland is at peace. Many commentators who have used those terms have not entered certain caveats as carefully as the Prime Minister did in his speech.
For me, peace signifies more than the silencing of guns, more than the stilling of bombs, and more than the easing of the sorrows of war. Peace must be a permanent, enduring and lasting end to violence. It means stability in terms of our political structures. It means that the causes of the conflict have been addressed. What we have is not peace; it is at best a peace process. By definition, if a peace process is real, it may achieve peace at the end, but it is not peace at the beginning.
I shall now look at the prospects for the present process, based on the recognition that the cardinal principle to be observed is the protection of the rights and liberties of the people of Northern Ireland and the acknowledgement that it is yet to be determined whether this process can achieve peace.
As the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said, we have two ceasefires. First, let us look at the stated reasons why those have been announced. On the part of the loyalist paramilitary organisations, the combined loyalist military command said that it called its ceasefire because "the Union is safe". The Provisional IRA said clearly, and has said since its statement, that its ceasefire has been called because it believes that the Union is to be dissolved. It hardly requires me to point out to the House that we therefore have ceasefires called by two of the paramilitary groups on a contradictory belief as to the outcome of the process.
Secondly, let us look at the nature of the ceasefires that have been announced. The loyalist paramilitary ceasefire is conditional and depends entirely on the Provisional IRA and republicans maintaining a ceasefire. The Provisional IRA ceasefire is clearly conditional on achieving its goals. So if the IRA does not have the concessions necessary to maintain its ceasefire, not only does its ceasefire end, but the loyalist ceasefire ends as well.
The Provisional IRA's announcement did not meet the criteria which the Prime Minister set out on a number of occasions for the basis on which he would engage the Provisional IRA in dialogue in exploratory talks. The Prime Minister had consistently declared that he needed to be satisfied that the ceasefire was permanent. I remind the House that, on 8 October 1993, the Prime Minister said:
"No Government which I lead will negotiate with those who perpetrate or support the use of violence."
On 1 November 1993, in this House, he said that, if the implication of the remarks by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)
"is that we should sit down and talk with Mr. Adams and the Provisional IRA, I can say only that that would turn my stomach and those of most hon. Members; we will not do it. If and when there is a total ending of violence, and if and when that ending of

1055
violence is established for a significant time, we shall talk to all the constitutional parties that have people elected in their names. I will not talk to people who murder indiscriminately."—[Official Report, 1 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 35.]
In the Downing street declaration, the Prime Minister made clear the position of his Government and that of the Irish Republic. Section 10 says that the involvement of Sinn Fein and, indeed, any other paramilitary organisation, in the democratic process and the exploratory talks depended on a permanent end to the use of or support for paramilitary violence.
On 31 August this year, the Prime Minister said:
"We need to be sure the cessation of violence is not temporary."
And on 7 September, he said:
"I must be certain that this is not just a short-term ceasefire but a credible, long-term, permanent cessation of violence."
So I am looking for the Prime Minister's reasons for determining that the ceasefire is not temporary but long-term, lasting and permanent. When the Provisional IRA called it several months ago, the IRA official newspaper, An Phoblach, described it as a suspension of the armed struggle. The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) said that the chairman of Sinn Fein used the same terms this morning on radio.
When speaking on the subject of the ceasefire, the well-known Sinn Fein spokesman, Mitchell McLoughlin, made it clear that, unless the British Government came up with the goods, the ceasefire was, to use his term, "doomed". It is also worth pointing out that he laid down a number of demands in that statement: that talks must begin with the Government and Sinn Fein—that condition is on its way to being met; that the electoral and democratic mandate of republicans must be recognised in every area—we saw that starting yesterday; that the broadcasting ban must be lifted—that has been met; that exclusion orders on Sinn Fein members must be lifted—that is already under way; and that the demilitarisation process must begin immediately—that is also under way. But his remarks clearly showed that, unless the Government made concessions, the ceasefire would not be permanent.
Speaking in Boston, the leader of Sinn Fein, Mr. Adams, said once more that, if the reasons for violence had not been addressed in two or three years' time, a new leadership would come along. Whatever one may think about the truth of that, it is clear that he does not think that this is a permanent cessation of violence.
Only last week, the former IRA leader and present Army Council member, Joe Cahill, told republicans in America that violence had not been renounced, and said that the position would be re-evaluated at Christmas. Depending on what concessions had been made by that date, he said that they would go on until Easter, at which time they would take a decision on whether to end their violence permanently.
All those remarks have been accompanied by a break-out at a prison, when the IRA attempted to shoot its way out. That hardly demonstrates a wish for a permanent ceasefire. Members of the IRA have consistently challenged the police and the Army on the streets of Northern Ireland, removing in the first instance cross-border blockages, and trying to pull down the security outside police stations. On the Falls road, Mr. Adams told his supporters that the conflict was not over,
1056
and that they would be called out on to the streets if the Government did not make the concessions that he required.
The punishment beatings continue. Exclusion orders on young Catholic men whom the IRA deems not suitable to remain in its areas are still in force. Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness have had their exclusion orders removed, but they still hold them on young Catholic men, who have been forced to leave Northern Ireland.
A report has appeared in a national newspaper that the Provisional IRA is keeping open its supply lines from America, and the flow of arms is continuing. Indeed, we had an unusual day when my colleague, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is currently in the United States, said that he had information that a containerload or so of arms had entered the island. The FBI managed to put out three statements in the same day, two of which confirmed my hon. Friend's statement.
All those factors do not point to a permanence in the IRA's ceasefire—quite the opposite. Yet in spite of them, the Prime Minister made the statement he did. He sometimes wonders why some of us are so cautious about assurances that he gives us. I believe that that is a further lesson to Unionists not to depend on assurances for their political salvation.
A year or more ago, we were assured that there would be no contact with the Provisional IRA. There was. The Government then explained that it was not really contact: it was simply a channel of communication—but, to the people of Northern Ireland, it was a promise broken, or, at best, a promise diluted. We were then assured that there would be no clarification of the Downing street declaration for the Provisional IRA. There was–21 pages of it. The Government explained that it was not clarification; it was a commentary—but, to the people of Northern Ireland, it was another promise broken, or, at best, diluted.
As I said, the Prime Minister promised us that there would be no move to bring Sinn Fein-IRA into exploratory talks until it had permanently ended its violence—but again, there was. The Government now explain to us that, although it is not permanent, they will make a working assumption that it is intended to he permanent. There is a double dilution for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: another promise bites the dust.
I therefore advise people who are holding on to promises from the Government to look carefully at the bottle of promises they have, because they will see clearly on the label the words, "to be diluted".
Mr. Barnes: Would the hon. Gentleman prefer that there had been no ceasefires in the first place, so that the logical inconsistencies would not have continued?
Mr. Robinson: That must be one of the most absurd views for anyone to take. I think that the hon. Gentleman is being deliberately obtuse—at least, I hope that he is being deliberately obtuse, and that it is not part of his nature.
How on earth could anyone assume that I am worried that promises are being broken because I would prefer violence to occur? I would prefer that the promises were kept. That is the obvious conclusion for anyone to draw from my remarks.

1057
What is the next promise that may be broken? Is it the promise—
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is being quite fair to the Prime Minister. I am looking at the Prime Minister's statement, made on 16 September in Belfast. I think the hon. Gentleman stopped short of the part when the Prime Minister said:
"We shall therefore go on scrutinising both words and actions until—as we hope—we can sensibly make the assumption that the IRA truly intend to end violence for good."
He had previously said:
"We need to know from their words and their actions that this is a firm and unequivocal decision. They are nearly there. I hope they will have the courage to remove ambiguities and make the … statement."
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is being fair. I think that the Prime Minister was recently expressing quite a well-established line of thought. We needed to be able to make a sensible assumption.
Mr. Robinson: I hope that I am not being unfair to the Prime Minister, but I would point out to the Secretary of State that the Prime Minister's undertaking was that he would not start the clock ticking until he was satisfied that the Provisional IRA ceasefire was permanent. The Secretary of State's words obviously showed that he is not convinced that the IRA ceasefire is permanent. Indeed, the opinion of the Prime Minister that events must be continuously monitored shows that the Prime Minister is not convinced that it is permanent. I did not set the criteria. I did not lay down the yardstick. The Prime Minister did. I am asking the Prime Minister merely that he should keep to his own guidelines.
If the Prime Minister continues to monitor events, I wonder whether he was monitoring BBC radio this morning. Did he hear the opinion of the chairman of Sinn Fein that the cessation of violence will not be permanent? Will the Prime Minister therefore say that, in view of his continuing monitoring of the situation, he will now change the opinion that he expressed when he was in Northern Ireland a few days ago?
The Prime Minister also gave a sign to the hon. Member for North Down last week, in answer to a question about the IRA's arms and explosives. I shall happily give way if someone wants to assure the House that I am drawing the wrong conclusion from this matter. The Prime Minister started to change the basis of his previous promise. His previous promise was that there would be no entry to the negotiating process for the Provisional IRA's representatives until all the guns, arms, ammunition and detonators had been handed over. However, in answer to the hon. Member for North Down, the Prime Minister last week said:
"Armaments—especially Semtex and detonators, perhaps more than guns—are a crucial issue that will have to be dealt with as we advance the process"—[Official Report, 18 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 140.]
Mr. Spring—who, until last week, had also been sure that guns had to be handed over before the IRA started the negotiating process—changed his opinion. He said:
"It would be unrealistic to expect the arms to be handed over right now, but I would hope that can be done in, due course.
I don't see a completion of any negotiations taking place until arrangements are made for the handing over of arms by both sides."
1058
It seems to have moved from the start of the process to some time during the process, and I note the views of the hon. Gentleman, where he seems to say that, if the guns were not handed over at the beginning, at least there should be some understanding of at what point they should be handed over.
How could anyone sit down in negotiations with the Provisional IRA or anyone else if they are still holding on to their guns? I believe that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) was right when he said that there should be no guns on the table, under the table or outside the door. That seems to make good common sense to me.
In case I was reading too much into the Prime Minister's remarks in his answer to the hon. Member for North Down, I note that the spokespersons—the spin doctors of the Northern Ireland Office—were at work at the weekend, and that they had been helping our newspapers to interpret those events. The Mail on Sunday says:
"Both governments are trying to get the IRA to hand over most of the non-defence weapons"—
where did we hear that expression used today?—
"such as explosives and mortar bombs".
The Observer said:
"Handing in guns and explosives is not the British Government's priority".
There you are, now.
It went on to say:
"No one will want to create artificial hurdles to stop the process".
A senior Northern Ireland Office source said:
"It's not the guns. The detonators and the bombs do most of the killing."
I would question that, but that is the Northern Ireland Office senior spokesman's views on the matter. Therefore, there is some anxiety that yet a further promise may be watered down.
If the Government cannot be trusted to deliver on those promises, can they be trusted to deliver on the more important issue of the safety of the Union? The quickest glance at all those issues leads me to conclude that I should make a working assumption that the Union is not yet safe.
Mr. Winnick: I cannot understand the logic, for the life of me. If this country has fought terrorism for 25 years, and its international reputation has suffered—in some respects, wrongly, obviously, in our opinion—and if we have made it clear throughout those 25 years under successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, that we will not give in to terrorism, that we will not go against the majority wish in Northern Ireland, why on earth, under conditions of peace, would we abandon that pledge, which has been given by successive Governments and by all the political parties in the House of Commons? I do not understand the logic of what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Robinson: I shall attempt to help the hon. Gentleman.
I do not need to suggest any malevolent intent on the part of those people who are watering down those principles. All I need to show is that they are reducing the standards that they themselves set. The important thing—[Interruption.] I am sorry; let me answer the hon. Gentleman. The important thing is the enthusiasm.

1059
Everyone can understand why people so long for peace, hope for peace, desire peace, that they are prepared to push any process forward.
But the criteria set down by the Government initially were set down in the cool light of day, when they recognised that certain standards had to be met along the route to any peace. The Government are reducing those standards as they go along. That may be due to their enthusiasm to achieve peace, but it is a high-risk strategy. If the people of Northern Ireland are made to believe that peace is on its way or that peace has already arrived, but that peace cannot be achieved, those people will be not only deflated, but without hope. I suspect that many hon. Members will know, without me having to say it, what can happen if people are let down in that way.
I want to make it clear that my colleagues and I will do nothing to present an obstacle to real, lasting peace in our Province. The people we represent have much to gain from unconditional and lasting peace, but, after the decades of vicious terror, nobody should be surprised that those who have endured that terror campaign should closely examine the bona fides of the terrorist organisations and the commitments they make.
I put it to the Prime Minister when I last met him—brief though that may have been—that the vital issue for the future of Northern Ireland, from the perspective of Unionists with fears and concerns, was that their rights must be protected through the principle of consent. The traditional guarantee, which has already been repeated in the House, which is enshrined in statute and which successive Prime Ministers have enunciated from the Dispatch Box, is that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish. But the weakness of that guarantee was brought home to me most acutely in 1985, when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was published.
When the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, it became evident to me that, whatever constitutional guarantees may have been on the statute book or enunciated by Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State, the agreement represented a significant change in the way that Northern Ireland was to be governed in future. That change went to the very core of Northern Ireland's constitutional position. Dublin was now inside the door, but the people of Northern Ireland had not been asked for their consent or been given the opportunity to give it.
I saw a weakness in the constitutional guarantee. It appeared that it was a guarantee only at the end, at the final act of severance—the legal handing over of Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic. It gave the people of Northern Ireland no power or control in any step leading up to that final act. The Downing street declaration also underlines the fact that the people of Northern Ireland do not have a right to give or withhold their consent. They were not asked to give their consent to that declaration and did not have an opportunity to give it.
It is clear that the traditional constitutional guarantee is a limited warranty. It does not apply to each and every step leading to a united Ireland, but only to the final step. There were even some people who looked at the joint declaration and thought that it enunciated and endorsed the principle of consent. They were soon blown out of the
1060
water by Albert Reynolds who, on 10 January in Dublin castle, made it clear to the Irish Association that it applied only to that one constitutional issue. He said:
"It does not mean that all forms of political progress or other decisions by the two Governments are subject to a similar block."
We pressed the Prime Minister to give an undertaking that not only would any constitutional change affecting Northern Ireland be subject to the principle of consent, but any new means of governance for Northern Ireland, or any new institution or structure affecting Northern Ireland. I was heartened by the Prime Minister's statement in Northern Ireland on 16 September, when he said at a press conference at Stormont:
"So for the avoidance of any doubt I want to make clear today that the Government will submit the final outcome of the three-stranded process of talks to the electorate of Northern Ireland for approval by referendum. That is to say, we shall consult the people of the Province on the full package of proposals as a whole. The details of such a referendum will rightly be for discussion with the parties. Let me say to all the people of Northern Ireland the referendum means that it will be your choice whether to accept the outcome."
However, the Prime Minister did not say what would happen were the outcome of the talks process to be a failure. He did not say whether he would then decide—either on his own or, worse, in league with Mr. Reynolds—that they should bring in their own proposals for change in Northern Ireland. He did not say whether those proposals would also be put to the people of Northern Ireland by way of referendum. The only true consent that is meaningful within the context of Northern Ireland is the explicit approval of the people of Northern Ireland—the population—at each stage of the evolution of any change.
But the Prime Minister implicitly suggested that the commitment did not or may not end with the outcome of the talks process. He said:
"My commitment means that no one can go behind your backs—not today, not tomorrow, not at any time."
There is a suggestion that the commitment, while given specifically to apply in the one set of circumstances, might also apply in other circumstances. The Prime Minister should apply the principle of consent to all sets of circumstances and for all time. Once again, I today seek confirmation that that is the Government's position, and that the democratic principle of consent will apply to any future change in Northern Ireland.
The Government should clarify the extent to which they will abide by the principle of consent in Northern Ireland. They should formally submit that principle to the House. That would also give the Labour party the opportunity to commit itself to the principle of consent on the terms under which the people of Northern Ireland decide their future.
The principle of consent makes sound common sense. If one looks back into the recent history of Northern Ireland, one sees that, for about 50 years, there was a system of government that had the consent of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, but not the consent of the nationalist population. It collapsed. Why? Because it did not have sufficient consent within the community. The Sunningdale agreement had the consent of the nationalist community, but not that of the Unionist population. It collapsed after five months. Why? Because it did not have sufficient consent.

1061
We must all learn the lesson that one cannot govern without consent. If the Government commit themselves fully to that principle, they will, apart from anything else, leave my colleagues and me free to concentrate on our next priority—urging the Government to try to overcome the obstacles to our participation in a new talks process. I hope that the Government will ensure that they create a talks process that will not be tied to a fixed or predetermined outcome, or to one that is so circumscribed by Albert Reynolds's principles that agreement cannot be achieved.
No sensible negotiator would allow his negotiating base to be either limited or extended by the terms of agreements reached by others. No one could expect us to allow ourselves to be constrained or steered by an agreement to which we were not a party and which we had not signed. The basis for talks must be on a level playing field.
I shall now make some observations on the state of the Union. Some say that the Union is safe. In November 1985, all Unionists believed that the Union was in peril. When I look at its present state, I must ask myself what has changed since 1985 to make the Union safe. Every change since 1985—whether the outflow of the work of the secretariat and the conference to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing Street declaration or other concessions that have been granted—shows that, if the Union was in danger in 1985, it is in greater danger today.
I believe that the Government's policy is based on a false premise—the idea that ultimately the people of Northern Ireland will go into a united Ireland. There is no sound reason for believing that. The whole strategy of this Government is based on the idea of a transitional process towards a united Ireland, however. They believe that some time, somewhere down the road, the people of Northern Ireland will not want to be part of the United Kingdom. This is why Northern Ireland is not governed in the same way as other parts of the United Kingdom are. It is why Northern Ireland is the detachable part of the United Kingdom.
It is quite false to believe that the people of Northern Ireland will ever want a united Ireland. An opinion poll carried out by the two Unionist parties some years ago showed that the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland wanted to retain the link with Great Britain. Not a single supporter of the Democratic Unionist party or the Ulster Unionist party said that he or she wanted a united Ireland. Only six per cent. of those who support the Alliance party said that they wanted a united Ireland; and only 41 per cent.—fewer than half—of the supporters of the SDLP wanted a united Ireland! Not surprisingly, 91 per cent. of those who vote for Sinn Fein said that they wanted a united Ireland, but that 91 per cent. brought the total who wanted a united Ireland to only 17 per cent.
Just think of the constitutional manipulation, the political transformations and the programmes for further change that have been undertaken to placate this mini-minority of 17 per cent. I believe that the Prime Minister should build the Government's Northern Ireland policy around the inevitability of its remaining in the United Kingdom, instead of being dragged by Albert Reynolds into constructing a road that has only one destination, and for which only the timetable is in doubt.
1062
The Prime Minister should move to ensure that Northern Ireland is more contained within the Union, instead of pushing it towards a united Ireland.
6.51 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I congratulate the Labour Front-Bench spokesman and wish her all the best. I have no doubt that she will talk to everyone and listen to everyone. There may even be a "Dear Marjorie" column somewhere along the line in the years ahead. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and his colleagues. I salute his remarkable contribution to events in Ireland over a long period. I offer that tribute with the greatest sincerity on behalf of those whom we represent in this House.
I came to this debate with an air of confidence and with a feeling that I would see for the first time in this Chamber some signs of hope in the air. It did not take long for that hope to be dispelled and for the sourness that we heard from both Unionist parties today to creep in again.
Spinoza said that peace is not an absence of war: it is an attitude of mind, a disposition towards benevolence, confidence and justice. After listening to the two Unionist speeches this evening, I wonder where that benevolence is going to be found, or where we shall find the generosity of spirit that will be needed to overcome the problems that we will face. How are we to remove the terrible aridity that has invaded those Unionists' political lives?
I should like to refer to an historic statement made by another Unionist in another forum. William Butler Yeats reminded the people of the Republic of Ireland,
"We are not petty people".
Indeed; the Unionist people are not a petty people, and they would not want to be associated with the aridity, negativity and nihilism to which we have just listened. The Unionist people among whom I live have greeted the opportunity of peace with confidence, generosity and the sense of justice that I think will be required to solve this problem.
I do not intend to deal today with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). I shall deal with them in my own good time, and there will be plenty of opportunities. I would, however, like to make one point about what the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said. I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who challenged him, saying that he had the distinct impression that the hon. Gentleman was almost sorry that peace had broken out—that he would have preferred continuing carnage in the north of Ireland and rubble on the streets of London in the wake of bombs and bullets.
There is something terrible about such a begrudging attitude of mind and a disposition that cannot follow the type of leadership offered so courageously by the Prime Minister, the Irish Prime Minister, the leader of my party, and above all by the ordinary men and women, Unionists and nationalists alike, in the north of Ireland. It is they who have stood up to the bullies and resisted the terrorists, telling them, "You are not going to do that to my children, my country or my community." That is what eventually wore down the conflict and created this wonderful thing called peace, which we must nurture and treasure. We must value it, and to hell with nihilism. Those who are

1063
alive today because of the peace will have absolutely no sympathy with the negativity that we have heard from various quarters.
I shall be brief because I know that many others want to speak and we have been detained for some time at the crossroads of aridity by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. I speak from the nationalist point of view. We nationalists want the creation of a united Ireland through peaceful and democratic means—I have never said otherwise. Now the Government and the Unionist parties face a new challenge: how, in the foreseeable future, to create a north of Ireland where nationalists and people who think like me can enjoy equality, self-esteem and dignity while the framework remains. I readily accept the principle of consent—that there can be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. My consent to that idea means that I intend to live in Northern Ireland until a majority of its people decide to change it; but I want to live there with dignity and equality, without my political aspirations or those of the people I represent being compromised by the type of sourness that we have heard today. Together with the Unionist people, we can, for the first time, start to create a settlement in a positive and generous way that will take us beyond the myriad problems that we face.
The coin of consent has two sides. Let us be clear: agreeing that the status of Northern Ireland cannot be changed without the consent of the majority of its people does not mean that I have to agree with the status of Northern Ireland. I have the right politically to disagree with its status while agreeing that it cannot be changed without a majority.
I have a question for some, but not all, the Unionist Members. If a change took place somewhere down the line and the majority of people in the north of Ireland decided that they wanted to change its status, to end the constitutional arrangement with Britain and be part of a 32-county Ireland or to have an independent Ulster, would Unionist Members go on record in Hansard and say that they would readily accept the wishes of the majority of people in the north of Ireland? I will give way to anyone who would like to confirm that on the record. That is the acid test of sincerity about adherence to the principle of consent.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman has any difficulty about understanding the Unionist position on the right of consent. The Downing street declaration was not a document that we would have written, but we subscribed to it because it recognised the right of consent not just for today but for tomorrow and next year and for as long as we have any say in the matter.
Mr. Mallon: I am delighted that I gave way because, with his usual honesty and sincerity, the hon. Gentleman has stated what I believe to be the correct position of unionism, just as it is the correct position of nationalism. If we have done nothing else in the debate, at least we have put both positions on the record for posterity.
I spoke about equality and dignity. It is the job of the two Governments to ensure that what is created will give those to me and to the people I represent. It is an onerous task because when the two Governments issued the joint declaration on 15 December, they decided to remove the cause of the conflict, to overcome the legacy of history
1064
and to heal the divisions of that legacy. They made a commitment to go to the heart of and solve the underlying problems in Ireland. Let us remind ourselves of what was in the joint declaration. It was not confined to Northern Ireland. It states:
"The role of the British Government will be to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of such agreement over a period through a process of dialogue and co-operation based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland."
That is the role of the British Government while they remain in Ireland. By working together that aim can be translated into reality.
Does anybody imagine that, given the sorry history of the north of Ireland, there will not be problems? Does anyone imagine that those can be overcome quickly or that there will not be things said on radio in the mornings that will throw everybody into a tizzy?
A remarkable feature of the speeches so far has been the absolute obsession with Sinn Fein and what it and McGuinness—not the hon. Member behind me—and Mitchell McLoughlin say. That is what the debate has been about, but I should like to put it in terms of the other section of the nationalist community in the north of Ireland, the community which does not bomb anyone and which does not, has not and will not inflict terrorism on anyone. Its stand in the north of Ireland prevented the entire nationalist community from going over the brink after the hunger strike about which we have heard in the debate. How clearly we remember that period. Let us look at the needs of those people to see how we can give them equality and dignity and whether we will have the courage to be able to do that, because that is what the two Governments will have to do.
Will anything given to the nationalist community be by grace and favour of the Unionist parties? Will it have to have Jim's imprimatur in political terms? Will I have to meet an unwritten test of unionism before I can get dignity for the community in which I live? Will we need to have the agreement of all sections of unionism before making changes in some of the matters with which we shall have to deal?
Reference has been made to policing, but as soon as the term is used, hackles rise. I understand the reason for that because I know the emotional conflict in the Unionist community about policing. I remind the House that no section of the community owns the police; that the police are the servants of the entire community. Are we to approach changes in policing on the basis that they are needed for a new and changing situation, or will they be approached on the basis of what unionism will allow? Those are the questions that we and the two Governments must ask ourselves.
Will there be north-south bodies that will allow the expression of my aspirations? Will they have powers to enable them to be dynamic and capable of acting, of serving all the people and of being of mutual benefit, or will we have the sort of north-south bodies that unionism will allow? Does unionism have a veto on the decisions of sovereign Governments so that those Governments cannot make decisions about solving Ireland's problems?
That imprimatur of the Unionist parties is what we reach when we deal with questions of equality, parity of esteem and dignity. If the nationalist position is squeezed out as one squeezes toothpaste from a tube in terms of what unionism will or will not allow, we will not get to the root of the problem. I make that point forcefully

1065
because we are at a crossroads in deciding the philosophical basis from which we should start to address our political problems.
We can address those problems only on the basis of honesty. We can respond to the type of leadership that has not so far been given with generosity of spirit and confidence for the future, and with the courage that is required to take on the unknown, because that is what we face.
Mr. Maginnis: I should like to make two points in answer to the hon. Gentleman. First, as a Unionist I do not have a veto. I have a mandate given at the ballot box, and that mandate must be honoured by me and by others who represent the majority community. The only veto that I know of in Northern Ireland is the veto that is exercised by terrorists through the barrel of a rifle. The hon. Gentleman should be careful when speaking about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I do not want the RUC to be my police force: I want it to be the community's police force, and that will happen only if people such as the hon. Gentleman do not kick them around like a political football. I shall try not to do that if he will do the same.
Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have one minute left but if I had the time I would say thanks very much.
If the Unionist veto means the strong political influence of a coherent community of 900,000 people in the north of Ireland, I accept that: it would be futile not to do so. If it is something extra—if it is something that must be met on every decision that a sovereign British Government will take in relation to the solution of the problem—it is a contrived veto which will do nothing for unionism and which never has over the years. We should look where it has got us; it will bring us all into a position where we can solve nothing.
Generosity of spirit has been shown by the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and others, including the people of the north of Ireland, Unionist and nationalist, with the courage that will be required and with the approach that will be needed to solve this awful, intractable problem—let us face it on that basis and none other.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I must remind the House that between now and 9 o'clock speeches are limited to 10 minutes.
7.10 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: I am grateful to follow the triptych on the wall of Northern Ireland politics made by the excellent contributions of the hon. Members for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I shall draw something from each of those speeches in the few remarks that I wish to make.
Everyone taking part in the debate recognises that there has been a very substantial change since we last met to discuss Northern Ireland affairs. Those of us who had some involvement in them way back are in many ways astounded that this debate is taking place and at its context.
1066
Our first feelings are a combination of relief and gratitude—gratitude to those who, like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, have taken immensely difficult decisions showing great initiative and courage to bring these matters to book.
In terms of the phases with which we have to deal with matters in Northern Ireland, relief and gratitude may well be fairly short-term. We have already seen some signs recently and in the speeches just made that there is a fairly short time limit allowed for both relief and gratitude.
After 25 years of total disruption of civil liberties, during which people experienced difficulties walking round the streets, faced road blocks and body searches, had their handbags emptied on to the pavement and were unable to go Christmas shopping—as was the case when I was a Minister—a remarkable change will have to take place before the various factors that have come into play can cohere to produce a more unified and stable society.
After relief and gratitude comes phase two—suspicion and anxiety, and I suspect that we have seen something of that already in the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, the deputy leader of the Democratic Unionist party. Deep anxiety and suspicion have represented a common view. People want to know what has happened to create such an enormous shift so remarkably quickly after the intransigence, the bullets and the bombs have lasted for 25 years. It is a rational view to be deeply suspicious that some secret agenda has been worked upon. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that that is not the case and has repeated that nothing was underhand and that there were no nods and no winks, but it will take a long time to remove entirely the suspicion that something has occurred. With suspicion comes anxiety about what happens next—the anxiety that, although a hideous nightmare is apparently over, suddenly things will change in a unknown manner and, possibly, in a unstructured way.
In that second phase of anxiety and suspicion, decisions on such issues as disarmament and the role of the Army and the police are absolutely crucial. There cannot be any meaningful exchange between Government and Sinn Fein or the IRA until the issue of disarmament has been addressed. There must be disarmament to a level which is at least understandable and recognisable so that anxiety is reduced.
Those of us who have been involved from time to time in, for example, Home Office activities, know that there are two attitudes to crime: there is crime itself and there is the fear of crime, and sometimes the fear of crime is a vastly more destabilising factor than the incidence of crime itself. The anxiety factor has to be addressed in the next phase into which the Government, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in particular, will be moving. The Army must not be removed, as the Sinn Feiners would wish, until the anxieties and the confidence of the population have been restored to a level at which that can be done most safely.
The third phase is the phase of caution and care. Caution, I am happy to say, is clear in some of the Prime Minister's recent speeches and comments. He is right to move slowly, to behave with great caution and to take note that he can move only in such a way that he carries the confidence of the people with him. I suspect that the vast majority of the citizens represented by Members of Parliament on both sides of the House are extremely

1067
anxious that there should be procedure with care—that it does not outrun the cautious view of many people in the Province that, with the termination of hostilities, there has to be a considerable period of time before people will regard the situation as something approaching normal.
We need a cautious period and a careful period, making sure that the question is not the timetable that the Taoiseach may wish to see. The rapidity with which he himself has moved is surprising—although of course at the last election the Sinn Fein commitment represented about 2 per cent. of the vote in the Republic and a much larger and more important proportion in the Province, so the anxieties that he may have in relation to the pace at which the movements are made are not as great as the anxieties of those who are responsible for the governance of Northern Ireland.
I am concerned that there should not be a timetable and that the only factor that should determine the pace is the real and genuine prospect of success—not an artificial timetable, but moving with caution and care to ensure success.
The final phase—and we do not know how long it will take—will, no doubt, be confidence and then commitment. It is clear from comments across the spectrum of the debate tonight that the confidence of the entire community of Northern Ireland has to be obtained. It may not exist currently in the nationalist community or in certain minds of the Democratic Unionist quarter of the population—a very significant proportion of votes. It may not exist among those who support the majority party—the Unionist party. There is certainly anxiety and suspicion, and it may take some time for confidence to be built up again.
In a sense, the Government have only to ensure that they move in a way that allows the confidence of the people to determine that point at which they can reach commitment. Obviously, within that phase comes the crucial nature of whatever structures are to be put into Northern Ireland to enable the population— the entire community—to be reflected properly in a democratic manner and to start reaching decisions for the governance of Northern Ireland at local or regional level. Those structures have to be built in a situation where they can create confidence so that those who are elected to those structures will represent a people who are prepared to reach commitment.
The consequence of the rather laborious and dangerous process of unknown timing will ultimately, I trust, be that the people of Northern Ireland, throughout the length and breadth of the Province, whatever their view, their religion or their political affiliation —and many will have none—will be the ultimate winners after 25 years of desperate trial and tribulation.
7.19 pm
Mr. David Winnick: As I said in an intervention, it is important to mark the fact that terrorism has not triumphed over the democratic process.
The course taken by the Provisional IRA from the late 1960s onwards, which was designed to force through the union of both parts of Ireland by terror and sustained violence, was always unlikely to succeed. The policy of successive Governments was quite clear—that the majority wish to remain part of the United Kingdom would be respected. Although it is true that the IRA could
1068
not be defeated—if that had been possible, it would have been achieved—nor was there any chance that it would succeed.
In the past 25 years, terrible crimes and atrocities have been committed, obviously mainly in Northern Ireland, but also on the mainland. In the west midlands, we recall the murder of 21 totally innocent people in Birmingham in November 1974. As we all know, they were killed by bombs in two public houses. It is right and proper that we should remember them, as we should remember the victims of all the atrocities of the past 25 years. We should also remember the victims of the loyalist murder gangs, including their last victim, who were put to death for no other reason than that they happened to be Catholics.
I am reasonably optimistic about the permanence of the IRA ceasefire. Just as the leaders of the IRA must have realised that they had not achieved their objectives in 25 years, they must also have realised that, even if they continued their terrorist campaign for another 25 years, there was no sign that they would succeed. They were right to appreciate that victory would not be possible. They, and the leaders of Sinn Fein, must also have recognised that, by continuing with the killings and rejecting the joint declaration of the British and Irish Governments of last December, they were seriously out of step with opinion in the Irish Republic and, I imagine, with that of most nationalists in the north.
Although I believe that the IRA ceasefire is likely to be permanent, I accept that another terrorist campaign could be launched in future years. No one can be certain about that. Other people may come to share the view held by the Provisional IRA in the late 1960s: that Britain can be forced out of Northern Ireland through terror arid violence. Progress towards political reform is therefore necessary to guarantee that any such future campaign is unlikely to succeed in winning marked support among the minority community.
We must recognise, as I am sure that Ministers already do, that there are two distinct communities in Northern Ireland. It is no good obscuring that fact. I am not suggesting that everyone in the minority community is in favour of a united Ireland. It is important, however, to take note of the historical traditions of each community, which are as legitimate as one another. Improvements in the local economy and in the housing stock will also deter violence, because undoubtedly the economic conditions of Northern Ireland aided the forces of terrorism.
I understand that the concept of power sharing is no longer a controversial breaking point among Unionists, as it was 20 years ago. We remember what happened in 1974 shortly after the election of a Labour Government, when the Sunningdale agreement was destroyed on the ground in Northern Ireland. It is unthinkable that any political changes in Northern Ireland would not now be based on power sharing between the two communities. What was once so controversial and a matter of principle to the majority community 20 years ago is no longer so for the majority of Unionists. More is required, however, because a purely internal political settlement will not meet with the approval of the minority community, nor is it likely to meet with the approval of the Irish Republic. An Irish dimension is required. That is why cross-border organisations with some executive powers are as essential as power sharing in any political settlement.

1069
Irresponsible elements within the Unionist community argue that the peace process is part and parcel of a plot to drive Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. They claim that the Irish Republic and what some Unionists call the pan-nationalist front are plotting to bring about a united Ireland. That is absolute nonsense. Irish Governments of successive political parties have decl red time and again that they respect the majority wish of the people of Northern Ireland. They recognise that there cannot be a united Ireland as such without the agreement of the majority community. That has been the Irish Government view for a long time, regardless of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who co-chairs the British-Irish parliamentary body, and I have met many Irish politicians of all parties and we know that they believe that consent is absolutely essential to achieve any united Ireland.
The basis of continued progress must undoubtedly be a working relationship between Dublin and London. The problems with Stormont would probably never have arisen if there had been such a proper working relationship between the two countries. How much better it would have been had that relationship existed prior to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is right and proper that two neighbouring countries should work closely together. It is perfectly understandable for the Irish Republic to have a legitimate interest in the north, as was recognised in the agreement.
Northern Ireland has been a feature of British politics for a very long time. Those of us who read our history know of the fierce debates that took place over home rule in 1886 and afterwards. We know about the even fiercer debates and bitter controversies of the years leading to the war in 1914. That was an unhappy time in Anglo-Irish relations and should not be repeated. It is rather remarkable that, given all the changes that have occurred in Europe since 1914, making it almost unrecognisable by comparison, here we are in 1994, six years from the next century, once again debating Northern Ireland.
I hope that, at long last, we are near to reaching a settlement which respects the wishes of the majority community. The Labour party has no plot. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), the Labour party spokesman on Northern Ireland, and her predecessor made clear, we are in favour of a united Ireland on one basis—that it has the support of the majority of the people. We recognise that without that consent the proposal simply would not work. It would not be possible to transfer a substantial minority of people within a united Ireland if that minority was unwilling to accept that. Such forced transfers do not work, as is clear from what has happened in the Indian sub-continent and in former Yugoslavia. What we say, we mean, because it makes political sense.
It is necessary for political reforms to take place along the lines that we in the Labour party have indicated. Certainly, there should be power sharing, certainly there should be an Irish dimension, and certainly there should be a continued working relationship between London and
1070
Dublin. If we can work on that basis, we shall perhaps at long last end the sickening violence which has disfigured Northern Ireland.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Time is up.
7.29 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: For the sake of brevity, I must be selective. The much welcomed peace process is now nearly eight weeks old. It is far too early to predict the outcome. It is too early to talk in terms of being optimistic or pessimistic. Those are vagaries. We must, however, ensure that our thinking is firmly rooted in realism and reality. There is a very long way to go. Some of the early signs are not very promising. There are many pitfalls to be avoided.
There is good news. The good news, of course, is that a genuine peace process has started. The bad news is that, despite many pleasing sound bites, there are strong reasons for being deeply suspicious about the policies, the motives and the objectives of the IRA. Due to all that, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have, in my judgment, been absolutely right. Their cautious, step-by-step approach has been fully justified. The peace process can maintain its momentum only if it retains the confidence of both sides of the deeply divided community in Northern Ireland. That is why the Prime Minister has been right to move slowly and cautiously, to warn against euphoria and over-hasty action—all of which could jeopardise the process.
The Government's policy has been right from the start. They were right in February last year to enter into the exchange of messages with the IRA after that message was received which began:
"The conflict is over but we need your advice on how to bring it to a close…"
The Government were right to embark on the lengthy dialogue with Dublin which led to the Downing street declaration. The Government were right in that Downing street declaration to assert the concept of consent rather than coercion as the way forward and to underwrite Northern Ireland's constitutional guarantee. The Government have been right since the ceasefire to move the peace process forward, but to do so cautiously and slowly.
We must have no illusions about the IRA ceasefire. When Mr. Adams announced that ceasefire on 31 August, the Provisionals were neither war-weary nor militarily defeated. The IRA had not lost the "arms struggle", nor had it lost its appetite for it. If the IRA so wished, it could tomorrow inflict death and destruction in virtually any part of the United Kingdom, just as loyalist terrorists could do so in Northern Ireland if they so chose. The IRA has not permanently renounced violence. There has been much reference already in the debate to the disagreeable interview with Mr. McLoughlin on this morning's "Today" programme, which illustrates the point.
The cessation of military operations is a long, long way from the renunciation— permanently—of violence. I fear that some Irish republicans can and probably will resume violence if the IRA's present option does not deliver the goods that they seek. The ceasefire statement signalled the Provisionals' belief that, while present circumstances prevail, they can better achieve their objectives by suspending military operations rather than by continuing them. The IRA objective remains to obtain a seat at the

1071
negotiating table and hope that it can so orchestrate events that external pressure will convince the United Kingdom Government to make concessions, to compromise their commitment to Northern Ireland. Alternatively, the IRA could interpret UK intransigence as justification for resumed violence.
We must stand fast against IRA demands for an amnesty for prisoners. We must insist on the surrender of IRA and loyalist weapons and explosives before there. can be meaningful talks. Most especially, we must take note of the fact that the IRA has rejected Northern Ireland's constitutional guarantee and the Prime Minister's promised referendum in the north in absolute terms. When Mr. Adams declared on 19 September that
"the British government's imposed veto based on this artificial majority is undemocratic and unacceptable",
he was restating the Provisionals' willingness to impose a united Ireland, against the wishes, if need be, of the majority of people in the north.
The Government have followed the right course of action. The Government are charting the right way forward. It is right that we move towards "talks about talks" with the Provisionals. It is right that we search for an agreed Ireland under the three strand headings, clearly stressing that strand No. 1 has less to do with the Republic than the other strands. Above all, time and again, we must repeat our irrevocable and absolute commitment to the constitutional guarantee which we have given to the people of Northern Ireland. There will be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, nor will any cross-border structures or institutions be created unless that is the wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. That is the way forward.
7.35 pm
Mr. David Trimble: The speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was delivered with his habitual acerbity, but it contained an important and unequivocal acceptance of the principle of consent and it recognised further that that meant that Northern Ireland would continue to be part of the United Kingdom. I hope that that means that he will accept and participate in any future institutions in Northern Ireland. I do not want to trail over the past, but the problems of Stormont were to a considerable extent due to the hostility and obstruction of nationalists. If, in the future, nationalists will be positive, they will be welcomed and mutual esteem will be generated from there.
The Secretary of State's speech made reference to the joint framework document and acknowledged that there were difficulties with regard to that document. Unfortunately, he did not go into detail on that matter and I would have welcomed more from him. Perhaps we shall hear more about that from the Minister in his winding-up speech.
I shall comment on what appeared to be some of the constitutional issues with regard to that joint framework document with which there appear to be difficulties at the moment. The Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Reynolds, has talked about the need for what he calls a balanced constitutional settlement. So far as we can determine, however, the proposals being advanced by the Irish Government are not balanced and would not lead to a settlement.
1072
The Irish position with regard to articles 2 and 3 of their constitution is not satisfactory. Judging by press reports, they are apparently offering to insert into article 3 a qualification that unification, if it is to come about, will be by consent. That is not an acceptable position. Merely amending article 3 is not enough. It is not clear whether an amendment to article 3 would enable the Irish Government formally to acknowledge that Northern Ireland is de jure part of the United Kingdom, because it would leave intact the assertion in article 2 that the national territory is the whole of Ireland. Furthermore, it would preserve the territorial ambition or aspiration and so it would hold out no prospect of a stable relationship. Unless the territorial claim is explicitly renounced, the Irish Government are, in effect, serving notice that they will still continue to try to realise that claim or ambition and are merely forswearing a means which is not currently in their capacity.
The Irish try to justify that position by saying that they need article 2 to define the nation and they advance what to me seems the ridiculous argument that if they repealed article 2, towns in Northern Ireland would somehow cease to be Irish or that northern nationalists would not be entitled to be recognised in some way as part of the Irish nation.
If that is a real concern—I wonder whether it is merely a tactical argument— there is a solution. There is no difficulty, I should have thought, with drawing a distinction between the nation and the state. That is done in many other European countries, where a part of the nation lives outside the borders of the state. Indeed, that may be hinted at in some respects in the Irish constitution, which contains headings referring to the nation and the state, so that some sort of distinction along those lines may be implicit in their constitution. Unfortunately, the Irish constitution as currently drafted does not draw a clear distinction between the nation and the state. Indeed, the territorial claim comes in the section headed "nation" rather than "state".
There may be a solution to this point if the Irish were to clarify their constitution. They could do so in a way that recognised that northern nationalists were a part of the nation, provided, however, that the state was clearly defined as being only the present geographic entity known as the Republic of Ireland and that there was no implication of a territorial ambition — and, of course, provided that the Ulster British people were not insulted by being described as part of Mr. Reynolds's Irish nation. If there is legitimate Irish concern, it could be met in that way.
The Irish also apparently wish to see changes to the Government of Ireland Act 1920. They say that they are seeking only symbolic changes to that Act. That is a position and a claim by the Irish which I have always found somewhat difficult to follow. The Irish seem to believe that section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 in some way contains a British claim to Northern Ireland. That is simply nonsense. There is no British claim to Northern Ireland.
Section 75 of the 1920 Act is not a substantive section. It is purely a saving clause. It makes it clear that the Parliaments being created by the 1920 Act would not detract from the authority of this House. The authority of this House in no way derives from section 75. It derives from the Act of Union. Section 75 of the 1920 Act is not significant.

1073
Section 75 of the 1920 Act has been kept on the statute book for reasons that are not altogether clear. The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 repealed virtually all of the 1920 Act. Only three or four provisions from the 1920 Act remain on the statute book. They include some financial provisions which are of no great significance, section 1(2) which defines Northern Ireland and is the only important part of the Act, and section 75. Section 75 could be repealed and disappear tomorrow and make absolutely no difference to the constitutional position.
In some respects, repealing section 75 would be preferable to the sort of amendment that we suspect that the Irish are seeking. The text of a proposed amendment to section 75 was leaked some time ago to the press in Dublin. It was leaked by one of the three civil servants who are members of the liaison group with which Her Majesty's Government are supposed to be in negotiations and discussions. It is a remarkable reflection on the character and integrity of the people with whom Her Majesty's Government are discussing matters that a civil servant involved in the liaison group leaked that document to the press.
The leaked document is horrendous. It would turn section 75, which is purely a saving clause, into a substantive provision which could seriously damage the Union and would create great difficulties for future legislation and practice. The document contains the kind of gobbledegook and nonsense that one might allow to pass in an ephemeral document, but which if translated into law would cause enormous difficulties for this House and for a future Administration. I hope and trust that it will be the Government's position that an amendment in the terms of that leaked to the press will be firmly dealt with and sat on. I should like to hear comments about that in the Minister's winding-up speech.
The Irish are also pressing for cross-border institutions. On that point, the Irish Prime Minister has referred on several occasions to the Council of Ireland, which was provided for in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Monday's Irish Times quotes the Irish Prime Minister as saying that meaningful north-south institutional links with executive functions
"were part of the original compromise on partition in the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and in the Treaty."
He is quite wrong. The 1920 Act, which merely provided for devolution within the United Kingdom to two regional assemblies, did indeed contain provision for common administration of railways, fisheries and contagious diseases in animals by a Council of Ireland. However, those were matters of no great political significance.
In Nicholas Mansergh's recent book "The Unresolved Question", which was published in 1991, the only reference to the Council of Ireland is an unidentified quotation—I think that it is actually from Asquith—in which the Council of Ireland is described as
"a fleshless and bloodless skeleton."
In fact, the council never functioned. The Northern Ireland Parliament appointed members to it in June 1921, but no members were appointed by the southern Parliament. The treaty of December 1921 provided for the abolition of the council with regard to the south. So much for the claim by the Taoiseach that that was part of the treaty.
1074
For the north, the council remained in limbo until it was wound up by the 1925 agreement. Interestingly, the 1925 agreement provided for joint meetings of the two Governments— the Stormont Government and the Dublin Government—to discuss matters of common interest.
It may interest hon. Members to know that two meetings took place under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1925 agreement. There was a meeting of Agriculture Ministers and a meeting at which the Dublin Cabinet Secretary attended a meeting of the Stormont Cabinet. However, those provisions were ended by the Irish Government. Cosgrave, the Irish Prime Minister, said at the time that it was too much of an embarrassment for him to meet his northern counterparts. By containing the territorial claim, the 1937 constitution ended the possibility of further meetings. That remains the case until the 1937 constitution is ended.
Mr. Reynolds's error with regard to the Council of Ireland may be a result of his ignorance. However, the references in the earlier parts cannot be described as ignorance. The conclusion that I draw from the inaccurate description by the Irish of what they are proposing is that they are not negotiating in good faith. The Irish sometimes—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise, particularly to hon. Members from Northern Ireland, for impinging even briefly on the debate, but a matter of considerable importance has arisen and I seek your guidance.
Earlier this week there were reports in the Evening Standard about lobbying that had taken place in support of Ebbsfleet and Blue Circle with regard to the choice of an intermediate station on the proposed channel tunnel link. The central allegation was that the lobbying firm of which the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) is a director had used its influence to secure meetings with Ministers right up to the level of Prime Minister.
Tonight the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has resigned as director of the lobbying firm concerned. In view of the gravity of the allegations and the fact that there appears to be a correlation between them and the fact that she now recognises a conflict of interest as she has resigned, it is of the utmost importance that we have a statement at the earliest possible opportunity on the circumstances surrounding the matter and, in particular, that we have a statement from the Prime Minister about what meetings took place and what influence was exerted on behalf of Ebbsfleet and Blue Circle.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I represent the Stratford area, which is one of the areas being considered for the intermediate station. Will you please advise me how I can possibly represent my constituents fairly and equitably if someone else can use influence with Ministers in a way that I cannot as I cannot therefore represent my constituents in the way that I would wish to?
Will this point of order be reported to Madam Speaker tomorrow, so that we shall have a chance of asking for a statement from the new Secretary of State for Transport and so that I can know that the interests of my

1075
constituency and of Stratford will be considered fairly in terms of the intermediate station and we do not have to involve ourselves with a public relations company that employs a vice-chairman of the Conservative party?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have heard no indication that a statement is to be made. No doubt the points that have been made will have been noted by those on the Government Front Bench.
7.48 pm
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I welcome the progress that has been made on the peace initiative. Many tributes have already been paid to the work of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in achieving this stage. I add my tributes particularly to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, my constituency neighbour, for his ability and success so far. I am sure that his vision, tenacity and, on occasion, his undoubted good humour have helped to move the negotiations forward to the benefit of so many in the Province and in this country. I also pay tribute to the work of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
I strongly support the Government's cautious approach. It is absolutely vital. Not all hon. Members agree with it, but the House generally supports that step-by-step approach. It would be a huge mistake if undue pressure broke that steady and careful approach. We cannot be confident that the ceasefire arrangements will hold while there is no clear way forward in terms of giving up arms and explosives. That must be the next step in the careful agenda.
In balancing the discussions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also demonstrated his readiness to judge the IRA by its action rather than its words, and he has rightly given the clear commitment that, if the ceasefire holds, we can have exploratory talks before the year is over. That must be a correct and sensible way forward. It has been proven beyond doubt by the stage that we have reached in the peace process that the early talks and contacts with the IRA, which were widely attacked at the time and which caused Ministers to stand up to great fire both in the press and elsewhere, have paid dividends.
I was interested in the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), which was that the Anglo-Irish Agreement had enabled discussions to take place between Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and Ministers in the Irish Government. He said that that process had helped them to understand each other's point of view and, therefore, increase trust between them. That must be a sign of the way in which, as negotiations develop between the democratic parties in the Province, better working relationships can be established. Those are vital points.
I shall spend a moment or two referring to the importance of achieving greater employment prospects in the Province. Until now, there has been much discussion of the fact that many employment initiatives have been taken, and that, if only the terrorist problem no longer existed, many of the Province's unemployment problems would be solved. That will not be the case. It will take an awful lot of effort and continuous, work by individual private entrepreneurs and statutory bodies to make progress. As has been mentioned, the reduced need for
1076
Government spending on the security forces could result in initially higher unemployment and that will not be an encouragement to people in the Province. Therefore, it is necessary that no opportunity is lost to use Government funding and, most important, to stimulate entrepreneurial activity in the Province, in particular in small businesses.
Obviously, inward investment by large companies will continue to be an important part of achieving economic development in the Province, but, as in many instances in the United Kingdom, small businesses will generate increased activity at many levels. Increased effort in education and training will be required to equip people for such entrepreneurial work. The Government should focus strongly on activities that will generate additional work within the Province.
My 10 years' experience of the Province gives me great confidence in the business acumen and ability of people there to grip a situation, to make progress and to achieve success. The people of the Province are admirable, as the way in which they have stood up to terrorist attacks from both sides of the political divide for 25 years has demonstrated. I am confident that they will bring such ability to bear in building a more vibrant and active economy and thereby will provide more job opportunities if the peace initiative holds and develops. They have great opportunities. Their history, commitment, energy and enthusiasm give me cautious confidence in the future.
7.55 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is almost unheard of for me to say anything good about the Government, but I must say that I warmly welcome the recent steps to further the peace process in Ireland. I recognise the important roles that the British and Irish Governments have played in that process. In order to encourage the peace process, it was very important—indeed, essential—for the British Government to respond fairly quickly and positively to the declared ceasefire by the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries. I am sure that there is wide support for the reopening of cross-border roads, the lower profile that is being adopted by the British Army, the lifting of the exclusion orders and, of course, the lifting of the ludicrous broadcasting ban. I also wish the Government every success in their efforts to enter exploratory talks with Sinn Fein by the end of the year.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), because it was largely due to his initiating the dialogue that the peace process got off the ground. He showed great courage and tenacity despite being subjected at times to a deluge of criticism and, indeed, vilification from certain hon. Members and others.
I also publicly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who, for many years in the House and elsewhere, has consistently campaigned for peace and justice for all the people of Ireland. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) will continue that good work, and I congratulate her on her appointment. While I am dishing out all those compliments—
Ms Mowlam: It is very unusual.
Mr. Canavan: It is very unusual, yes.
I also give credit to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who has a key role to play in the peace process. I firmly believe that the Downing street

1077
initiative of December 1993 would be as dead as the previous initiative of 1985 if the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and his party had taken the same intransigent attitude as the Democratic Unionist party. I look forward to the day when the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) shows the same flexibility. Unfortunately, judging by the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), that day will not come soon.
I understand people's desire—particularly the Unionists' desire—for an assembly for Northern Ireland. If that assembly becomes a reality, it must not be simply a resurrection of the old Stormont system where the winner-takes-all attitude led to widespread discrimination and denial of human rights. If an assembly is to command wide respect, it must include real power sharing and be accompanied by a cross-border institution, or institutions, with real executive powers.
Previously, I have declared my belief that the partition of Ireland was a gross political blunder and a crime against the Irish people. I have also declared in the House and elsewhere my support for the peaceful reunification of Ireland, and I still see that as a legitimate democratic goal. But I am realistic enough to know—more importantly, the overwhelming majority of people in the island of Ireland are realistic enough to know this—that a united Ireland is not on the immediate agenda. However, what should be on the immediate agenda is the establishment of cross-border co-operation on such matters as trade, tourism, transport, energy sharing and a common strategy to attract inward investment. Such co-operation could be of immediate benefit to the people of Ireland, both north and south of the border. The other day, the chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist board, Mr. Hugh O'Neill, estimated that if the peace process lasts, tourism alone could generate an extra 20,000 jobs in the next five years. I therefore urge the Government to put more emphasis on the all-Ireland dimension with a view to bringing about peace and reconciliation between not only the different communities in Northern Ireland but all the people of Ireland, whether north or south of the border.
I shall finish on this note. Earlier, I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) say that he did not want to take part in the All-Ireland Forum. I put to him an alternative proposal that it is time that he and his Unionist colleagues of whatever party reconsidered the decision to boycott the British-Irish parliamentary body. It has no real executive decision-making powers, but nevertheless it is useful and valuable in terms of encouraging relations between parliamentarians in Britain and in Ireland both north and south of the border. Although it does not have any real executive power, it has some influence in that it is able to make representations to the British and Irish Governments.
Our work would be much more valuable if Unionist Members of Parliament from the various parties participated. They have nothing to lose and the people whom they represent—the Unionist community in Northern Ireland—might have something to gain. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland as a whole would have a great deal to gain if their elected representatives took part in such discussions. Surely, it is
1078
only through dialogue and democratic debate that the peace process will reach fruition and all the people of Ireland, whatever their traditions, will be able to live together in peace and harmony while respecting each other's different beliefs.
8.3 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: It is never easy to admit that one is wrong, but on this occasion I freely admit that my pessimism about the peace process has not been justified thus far. Indeed, I am delighted that my original doubts have not been confirmed by events. I hope and pray that the process will continue.
When one gets something wrong, it is important to understand why. On this occasion, I sense that there are two things that have prevented my misgivings from turning into reality: the active involvement of the Prime Minister, and the state of public opinion in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister's role in the peace process has been pivotal. The Downing street declaration and the progress that has been made since are eloquent testimonies to his personal commitment to the cause, and his political courage and diplomatic skill. Whatever our personal party politics, all of us should unite in giving support and thanks to the Prime Minister for what he has done.
Another reason why I have not been proved right thus far is that public opinion has been overwhelmingly in favour of the peace process. I sense that public opinion has played a key part in producing flexibility in Dublin, establishing both ceasefires and prompting a positive response from the Unionists. The message that I get time and again is that the overwhelming majority of people of both traditions and on both sides of the border have never supported violence and, now that it has stopped, they are all determined to do everything in their power to prevent it from starting again. It is with that in mind that we should turn to the future of the peace process itself.
I sometimes worry that the peace process might be like a high-jump competition: each round sees the bar get higher, each round sees jumping it get ever harder and every high-jump competition ends when even the best fail to clear the final hurdle. I hope that it will not be like that in Northern Ireland.
While I have little doubt that the peace process will make more progress, I see two problems that may prove impossible to clear: the surrender of arms and explosives, and the premature release of terrorist prisoners both north and south of the border. As some people have said, securing the early surrender of arms and explosives is a formidable challenge. Some believe that to push too hard and too quickly for that will wreck the peace process. While I am a realist, I also believe that if we do not push hard and reasonably quickly, that will also wreck the peace process.
Despite everything that has been said today, and despite the experience of the past eight weeks, I agree with the Sinn Fein spokesman who said on Radio 4 today that there is a difference between a ceasefire and permanent peace, and one of those differences is arms and explosives. While the retention of arms and explosives does not need to be a barrier to starting exploratory talks, I at least want to make it clear that I could never vote for any settlement that was founded on the use of arms and explosives as a

1079
bargaining counter or where the surrender of them was a reward for promising political structures that are acceptable to the IRA.
Another difficult issue is the pressure that is building up for the premature release of terrorist prisoners. I choose my words with care, but I want to make my position crystal clear to the House. Murder is murder. It can never be an unfortunate but excusable consequence of political campaigning. I am not interested in why someone chooses to blow up an innocent child or gun down an elderly person who is enjoying a drink. Such evil acts can never be justified or excused in my book. I want my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and in the Whips Office to know that I shall never vote for any settlement that has been bought by or includes an amnesty for so-called political prisoners. I simply cannot go with that.
Despite those two grave reservations, we must press ahead with the peace process. As we do so, however, we need to be aware of two dangers—the danger of over-inflating the status of the IRA, Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams, and the danger of entering into negotiations without an objective that has been thought through clearly. First, we must not lose sight of the fact that the IRA, Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams do not speak for all nationalists. In recent general elections, Sinn Fein polled 10 per cent. in the north and 3 per cent. in the south. In the north, it is a minority within a minority; in the south, it is despised by the democratic voices of legitimate nationalism.
The second danger is that of sitting down with Sinn Fein without knowing exactly what we are trying to achieve. Sinn Fein knows exactly what it wants—a united Ireland—but do we know what we want? Negotiating with nothing more than a commitment to even-handed neutrality may not represent a clear enough objective. If the objective is not clear, the chance of the other side's getting its own way will be maximised. That worries me.
I applaud the progress made so far; I hope and pray that it will continue. I believe, however, that the House must not allow itself to be carried away by euphoria. I have no doubt that all hon. Members, and all those outside the House, want peace and a just settlement. This individual Member of Parliament, however, does not consider the retention of arms and explosives and the release of evil murderers to be the path to peace and a just settlement; I see both as an abject surrender to terrorism. I plead with the Government to avoid that at all costs. I have no doubt that, if they do, permanent peace will be possible; but I fear that, if they do not, I may be proved right after all.
8.11 pm
Dr. Joe Hendron: I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) on her new position as shadow Secretary of State, and thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for the outstanding work that he has done for so many years. I also thank his colleagues, the hon. Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), for their great work.
I am delighted to say that, since the announcement of the IRA ceasefire and the subsequent announcement of a loyalist ceasefire, the atmosphere on the streets of Belfast—and, indeed, throughout Northern Ireland—has been transformed. More people are returning to city-centre stores, families are more relaxed and parents
1080
are worrying less about the whereabouts of their teenage children. Young people, especially young adults, are now enjoying life: fear, apprehension and confrontation are no longer part of their daily lives. After 25 years of violence, murder and intimidation all around them, they are experiencing a peace and tranquillity that is entirely new to them.
I pay tribute to those who have worked so hard for the peace process, although much work remains to be done. Two priests from Clonard monastery have done a great deal of work, and I am sure that their names will be well known in years to come; indeed, many of those present this evening will know who they are. The Rev. Roy Magee also played a significant role. The Prime Minister, helped by the Secretary of State and his colleagues, put Northern Ireland at the top of his agenda; we are very grateful to him for that. I was in the Europa hotel when he made his speech last week, and the points that he made then were well taken.
The Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, and the Tanaiste, Dick Spring, continue to play their part to the full. I emphasised the part played by the Prime Minister because he faced considerable political risk. Both Prime Ministers showed courage in developing and signing the Downing street declaration, which I see as the political bible for the future of the island of Ireland. I also pay tribute to the leadership shown by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who has also incurred considerable risk.
I believe, however, that the central part in the peace process has been played by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), without whom we would not have secured the Downing street declaration. History will record his noble and persistent efforts on behalf of all the people of the island of Ireland—especially, of course, those of Northern Ireland.
Reconciliation between our two communities must now be the top priority. Inward investment in deprived areas such as west and north Belfast to alleviate their massive unemployment is essential. The unemployment rate in my constituency is 35 per cent.—the highest constituency rate in the United Kingdom. At least 60 per cent. of the west Belfast unemployed population are long-term unemployed: that is, they have been out of work for more than a year.
When I visited the United States recently, I spoke to numerous top industrialists in New York and elsewhere. Many would be keen to come to Northern Ireland to get into the European market, but the Republic's 10 per cent. corporate tax rate makes that territory more attractive. Will the Government seriously consider encouraging the European Union, for a limited period—say 10 years—to provide the necessary derogations to enable the Government to apply a 10 per cent. corporation tax rate to new internationally mobile manufacturing projects locating in Northern Ireland? That would provide a level playing field for inward investment in the whole island.
The university of Ulster has proposed a fifth campus in the Springvale area. I strongly support that proposal, because I believe that a campus straddling the Unionist and nationalist parts of west Belfast could do nothing but good. Such a campus should conform to the highest standards of academic excellence, and, I hope, attract students from all over Northern Ireland—and, indeed, internationally. It should also have a close liaison with the Royal Victoria hospital, one of the finest hospitals in these islands.

1081
People will say that we should draw a line under the past. I go along with that to some extent, but I also think of the thousands who have died, and the many hundreds who have died through violence in my constituency: most of them were murdered, and many were my friends. I do not think that people have suffered so much in any part of the island of Ireland, or Britain. I cannot tell others to draw a line under the past, or to forgive; forgiveness is personal, and it is up to those people themselves.
Nevertheless, we must look ahead. We hope that the two Governments will produce the framework document very soon, and I trust that its main points will be based on the principles of the Downing street declaration. A great responsibility rests on all of us to seize the present opportunity to work for a lasting peace in Ireland.
8.17 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Let me contribute to the wave of congratulations, and congratulate the very brave hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) on the role that he has played. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, whose caution has been vindicated: had he not been cautious, the possibility of the paramilitaries announcing a ceasefire would have been very slim.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and, indeed, the Taoiseach. His acceptance, particularly in view of his membership of Fianna Fail, that change in Northern Ireland is possible only with the consent of the majority cuts across 70 years of cultural denial in his party. He has achieved something that Sean Lemass, Jack Lynch and Charlie Haughey never achieved.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I have felt pessimistic at times. It is easy to wake up one morning and ask oneself what is actually in it for the IRA. The IRA has not renounced violence or given up any arms; Gerry Adams and his cohorts have paraded across media studios in the United States, building up propaganda credibility. Gerry Adams can make demands and, if he does not get what he wants, it will be easy for him to say that it is not his fault but that it is entirely the fault of the British Government. Back to violence he will then go, and back with him will go a great deal of extra money and credibility to boot.
On the other hand, during my recent visits to the Province, some of which have been paid in my capacity as a member of the British-Irish parliamentary body, I have detected a real determination among people throughout the island of Ireland to secure peace. That is why every single effort has to be made and why we must go that extra inch to try to achieve peace.
Probably no Conservative Member has as much of a vested interest in Ireland as me. I was brought up in Ireland, I have relations there and I am a sleeping partner in a business in Dublin. I have every interest in being able to go to Ireland without fearing for my own security. Yes, we have to go that extra inch and the prize is well worth having, but it cannot be peace at any price. That theme has run through the speeches of many Conservative Members.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, I believe that some concessions will be demanded of us that we will not even begin to consider, and I share my hon.
1082
Friend's view on prisoners. Obviously I respect the great experience and wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), but many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), whom I congratulate on his recent appointment, have fresh in their minds the IRA break-out from Whitemoor prison, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency. We also remember the violence that was shown against very brave prison officers. Many of my constituents would not accept any abnormal treatment for those prisoners, who have been sentenced for the most heinous of crimes.
I find it difficult to follow the logic of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who tried to draw a distinction between defensive and offensive weapons. I do not think that one can draw that distinction. Does he mean that the Light Barrett sniper rifle is offensive, whereas the Armalite is defensive? I think that that makes no sense at all.
I feel strongly that before we can move forward from the framework document to a proper discussion involving all parties there must be a settlement of the arms situation. Arms have to be handed over by all sides, and there can be no compromise on that.
There can also be no compromise on the prevention of terrorism Act, on which, in some ways, I was surprised by the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), because we have to carry with us the people of this country as well.
On the positive side, I welcome the statement that the Prime Minister made in Belfast the other day. At the previous meeting of the British-Irish parliamentary body, we discussed cross-border roads. It was interesting to hear the views of TDs who represent border constituencies, who said that the IRA is winning a great deal of local propaganda by lobbying to get those roads opened. They have now been opened, and I welcome that.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said about the Gaelic Athletics Association. I think that it was Ernest Blyth, the Finance Minister of the first Government of the Irish Free State, who understood the deep significance of Gaelic football to the nationalist sporting psyche. He said at the time that the free state had to try to bring the Unionist population on board, which meant that the RUC and British soldiers should be allowed into GAA grounds, that the tricolour should not fly and that they should not play on Sunday. Some of that is obviously out of date, but I believe that the Government must carefully consider ensuring that those athletics grounds are returned to athletics use as soon as possible, especially the ground at Crossmaglen. That point was emphasised to me by a number of my friends from the Dail who are on the parliamentary body.
On the economic front, I am optimistic. When the barrier to economic activity comes down, cross-border trade will increase. Artificial barriers to entrepreneurial activity on both sides of the border will come down, and activity will increase. There will be a breaking down of some of the cultural and political divides, which will be extremely healthy. We will then have an even closer economic union between the two countries and everyone to whom I have spoken would welcome that with open arms.

1083
We must abide by the wishes of the majority in Ulster. I feel strongly that peace must not be bought at the price of their future and security. If they wish to leave the Union, that is entirely up to them, but, so long as they decide to remain in it, I will remain committed to their wishes and we must show that we have a commitment to them. We must remain persuaders of their opinions, just as I remain a persuader of my own constituents. In the meantime, I am becoming more optimistic and—like everyone in the House—I hope and pray that it will all work out.
8.25 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: When I spoke during the debate on the defence estimates on 18 October, I dealt with the need that the IRA had for a ceasefire in the wake of the Downing street declaration when the IRA's political justification—even in its own terms—was seen to be non-existent, and when it was seen that the United Kingdom and Irish Republic recognised the right of Northern Ireland alone to decide how it should be governed.
It slowly became apparent that those who used violence either had no mandate or, in the case of the IRA—which one must assume judges itself on an all-Ireland basis— represented fewer than 5 per cent. of the people on the island. The philosophy of Mao Tse Tung that power comes through the barrel of a rifle was the most powerful veto of the democratic process.
People tell us that the IRA has for some time been engaged in a debate as to whether it should cease violence and move into the political mode. One must recognise that this argument is taking place not for any moral reason but because the IRA believes that after 25 years it is moving farther away from achieving a united Ireland through using violence—and that more people throughout the United Kingdom are losing sympathy for it—than if it pursued its objective through political means.
The great problem about spending 25 years using violence to try to achieve one's end is that one detaches oneself from reality. The IRA somehow believed that if it offered to stop killing, people would consider that to be an act of courage; that there would be a great outpouring of sympathy and that it would be handed over—against the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland—the route towards a united Ireland.
That is not going to happen. We must decide not how we drag the IRA forward—that is something that it will decide—but how we can place road blocks behind it so that it will not regress. We have been helped in that respect by the fact that all parties in this House have been discreet in the way in which they have looked at the problem as it evolves from day to day. They have recognised that we cannot tie ourselves to specific words, although in the beginning it was perhaps natural that we should tie ourselves to words such as "permanent". My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was, I believe, the first to point out that actions speak louder than words, and that we must do that which is necessary to ensure that the IRA is not allowed to slip back into the violence mode.
The Prime Minister has been justified in accepting the evidence of almost eight weeks of ceasefire as justification for holding out some hope to the IRA—not
1084
hope that it will achieve its all-Ireland objective but hope that it can free the people of Northern Ireland from the violence to which it has subjected them for 25 years.
The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is to sit in Dublin from tomorrow onwards. Some people have asked why the Unionists are not participating in that forum. I do not need to be reconciled with anyone. I am reconciled with all those who follow and participate in the democratic process, as are my colleagues and the entire party to which I belong. We are reconciled. We have been at peace for 25 years when other people have been indulging in violence.
If the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is to be anything—I use that term in the best sense—the pan-nationalist membership of that forum must work to convince the IRA that it represents a minority of a minority and that it has a long way to come if it is to move from the side of the spectrum that deals with violence to the other side, which deals with the democratic process. It must learn that it cannot, for example, keep guns under the table or behind chairs when it moves into that process. If people wonder why we as a party continue to emphasise the need for total disarmament, the decommissioning of weapons and explosives and the verification of that process, I hope that I have given them some idea why. I hope that I have given them some idea why the IRA must make a tangible movement in that direction before it can hope to benefit and before the community can hope to benefit from any talks that take place. I concede that the forum has that job to do. If it does that job successfully, there will be reciprocal action from the loyalist paramilitaries. They have already said that they want future battles to be political battles. Implicit in that statement is an offer to give up their arms and explosives.
I now turn to those who have placed themselves between the community and the terrorists for the past 25 years. I refer specifically to the soldiers who come from Great Britain and who do their duties in Northern Ireland from the various barracks throughout the Province. At present, there is pressure to have those people removed from the streets. Let us be frank. We all want to see soldiers off our streets. We are not suggesting that if there is peace, they should be there. But in this period of limbo between a ceasefire and permanent and enduring peace, we shall keep those soldiers in Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to reassure me that those young men, most of them between 18 and 25, will not be confined, day in and day out and night in and night out, to barracks. That is a recipe for disaster. They are active and energetic young men, and must be cared for. I do not want a gesture to be made to the community that victimises those who have given so much to the people of Northern Ireland.
As I said in the previous debate in which I spoke, this party is committed to peace. It is committed to helping everyone, including former terrorists, to move across the spectrum to the peace process. I hope that that offer of help, that gesture that we have made to people—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that his time is up.
8.35 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: Today has been another enormously successful day in Northern Ireland. Families have been out shopping, the streets have been full of bustle and we expect that there will be a

1085
bumper build-up to Christmas. This is an enormous tribute to the Prime Minister. I have no doubt that if it had not been for his absolute determination, working closely and harmoniously with Mr. Albert Reynolds, we should never have seen the situation today in Northern Ireland.
The only thing I feel rather sorry about is that this week, the newspapers have been swamped by allegations and they have totally turned aside from the real issues—the lives of people about whom really serious debate is warranted. That is a pity and I hope that we can return to more important matters as time goes by.
I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), although I felt that she focused a little too much on economic regeneration. I say that because it is tempting, when one sees success in the air, to start to leap ahead and to plan how suddenly to have a much better world. How tempting it is to see jobs being created and to see people being more settled. I totally understand that, but I believe that the trouble is that if we spend too much time planning that economic regeneration, tempting though it is, we shall turn our minds away from the infinitely more painful task of how to get Sinn Fein-IRA to knuckle down and to lay down its weapons. That is the big test.
I totally endorse the view of hon. Members who have recognised that this process will be stumbling. It could take months and our patience will be sorely tried. One thing I know for certain is that this is not the time for us to make any more concessions. We have already gone far enough. I am fearful that if we start to discuss, for instance, amnesties, we shall go down the wrong route and pass out the wrong message. What we should be doing is listening carefully to the Prime Minister who is rightly cautious—and I endorse that approach.
Today's announcements over the airwaves by the IRA spokesmen are indications that although there is a so-called "ceasefire", it will not necessarily be permanent. The word "ceasefire" means only a cessation of military operations. It does not mean permanence. Although there is a great debate in which people have said that we should not go down the road of semantics, we should listen carefully to the things people are saying. I do not find it very comforting to hear IRA spokesmen say that there will be
"no handing in of weapons until we have seen progress in talks."
They have said that this is "a pause" and that there is a
"difference between ceasefire and permanent peace."
All of that could indicate blackmail, which i why we must be extremely careful and determined. By all means, when we enter the stage of talks about talks, let them continue and let us keep the IRA talking. But we may reach a point where we find ourselves being dragged up avenues because the IRA-Sinn Fein may hope that, if they spin out talks about disarmament until a general election, they will achieve better favours. On that point, I was grateful that the hon. Member for Redcar said that that organisation should expect no favours from her party. That was important.
None the less, it is essential to establish the vital role of trust. It would be unrealistic to expect parties to sit down together at the same table knowing that they could be blackmailed and that a smoking gun could go off if negotiations went wrong. For a lasting peace, the
1086
IRA-Sinn Fein must pass the Semtex test. That also applies to the loyalist paramilitary groups and their weaponry, which is significant and can inflict appalling damage.
I welcome the Dublin Government's whole-hearted support of our endeavours in that particular area. It will be the most difficult stage of the entire peace process. In any case, it will be messy and probably not that satisfactory. The global trade in guns is so free that the IRA could hand over its 650 AK47 rifles, a dozen general purpose machine guns, 20 heavy calibre machine guns, 100 Webley revolvers and 40 RPG rocket grenade launchers and then replace them within weeks. After all, it is wealthy enough to be able to do so.
The litmus test will be the Semtex, which is not so easy to replace. It is calculated that the IRA took delivery of some 3 tonnes from Libya during the 1980s—more than enough to keep it in explosives until the end of the century. I understand that the bulk of that stockpile is thought to be in bunkers in the Irish Republic.
The omens, therefore, are not that encouraging. Only recently, Martin McGuinness said in an interview that he would be laughed out of the room if he asked the IRA to hand over its weapons. That may be so, but the Prime Minister is absolutely right to insist that he try. After all, if the paramilitaries are serious about peace, what possible use can they have for them? I support the remarks from this side of the House to the effect that it is absolutely fallacious to talk about weapons being "offensive" or "defensive", as though there is a right for one weapon as against another.
The Sinn Fein-IRA has entered the
"unarmed phase of the armed struggle".
I remind the House that there is no evidence that its runners have been stood down. I understand that they are still on active duty both in Ulster and on the mainland. At a moment's call, they could return to the use of fire power, so we need to be alert. If we can get through until the spring without a return to violence, it will be a watershed and we can then look more optimistically to the future.
However, matters are not helped when Mr. McGuinness is reported to have said that the whole process will be reviewed by Sinn Fein-IRA in March. If that is not a threat, I do not know what is. It is no use seeking so-called "British demilitarisation" if it cannot match such a move.
We should take great heart in our improved relations with Dublin. They have been significant in the progress that we have made today, especially with regard to security operations. It is an encouraging sign that the Gardai raided more than 50 homes of members of either the Republican Sinn Fein or the new hard-line military grouping, the Irish National Republican Army, or INRA. INRA is believed to have carried out extensive fund raising both in the Republic and the US over the past couple of months. The fear is that it is planning a series of terror attacks aimed at disrupting the peace process. Undoubtedly, it is the main threat, seeking to attract dissident IRA supporters who do not support the peace initiative.
Previous Gardai raids had sparked off the seizure of seven hand grenades, three pistols and 3,000 rounds of ammunition. A hand gun, ammunition and two walkie-talkie sets were found on another occasion. Also

1087
confiscated in the nationwide swoops were videos, policy documents, speeches and copies of the Republican Sinn Fein internal magazine.
The Gardai's intelligence has since reported that the raids have recently and seriously disrupted a number of terrorist strikes planned by INRA, a small splinter group of the IRA. All that work by the Gardai is an excellent start. After all, it is just as much in the Republic's interest as ours to have peace. That pincer movement is vital to the success of future peace, to show that the IRA-Sinn Fein will have nowhere to run and hide. I therefore congratulate the Taoiseach on his efforts to support our Prime Minister in his important work.
8.45 pm
Ms Clare Short: I wanted to participate in this debate because we have had so many debates on Northern Ireland in which we have denounced injustice and talked about catastrophe that it is a great moment for the House that we can celebrate an optimistic moment in Irish history.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I begin on a personal note. I am proud to represent a constituency in which I was born and grew up, but I am also proud of the fact that I am one of 8 million people of Irish origin who live in Britain. My father came from Crossmaglen in Northern Ireland, a fact with which I am constantly taunted as though I should be ashamed of it—I am not. My mother's great-grandfather came from Ireland during the famine, married a woman whom he met during that journey, and settled in Birmingham. So both sides of my family come out of the pain and tragedy of Irish history and its entanglement with Britain. That is part of what produces me and my politics and my place in my city.
Although I am typical of 8 million people who live in Britain, when we have tried to speak about our experience of the inter-relationship between Ireland and Britain, we have been denounced as fellow travellers of those who use violence in the nationalist cause. That has caused enormous anger among people of Irish descent. Those who know little of Irish history ignorantly tar everyone who simply seeks justice in Ireland with the same brush, imagining that we support terrorism. That has happened in the tabloid press and too often in this House.
The truth is that people of Irish origin in Britain have felt the pain of the violence more; have felt more angry at the IRA's use of violence because they are people who claim to speak on the side of the argument from which we come. So we feel it personally and hate it more. It is absolutely wrong that people should attempt to tar us with those views.
Many people criticise the Irish people's obsession with history. I agree that it is wrong to be obsessed with history, but it is also important to learn from history. In these days of instant politics, instant communication and too much television, too few people now read books and learn from history. This is an optimistic moment in the history of Ireland in Britain. But there have been other historical opportunities before and we have lost them. The success of this opportunity is not inevitable.
I shall not go through a long list, but we all remember the arguments in this House about home rule and how they divided the great parties. Hme rule was never achieved and Ireland never had democracy. The history of the relationship between the two Irelands would have
1088
been utterly different had Ireland had democracy. That was a great failure of British history, yet there were moments when home rule was nearly achieved.
One can think back to 1916, the war against Britain and then the civil war. Talks took place between Britain and Ireland. Michael Collins came to London to talk to Lloyd George about a settlement. What a tragedy for Ireland that it came so early in the process of British decolonisation. Had India been decolonised earlier, and had Ireland been seen in the context of democratic settlements of countries that had been colonised, Britain would have been more generous towards Ireland, and the partition and bloodshed that followed might have been avoided.
The most recent drastic failure—the last time that a historic opportunity was missed—was after the time of the civil rights movement. People in Northern Ireland were determined to follow the example of the American civil rights movement and march peacefully to demand justice and equality in Northern Ireland. Those marches were beaten into ditches by the forces of so-called law and order in Northern Ireland, and the IRA was recreated as a result of the events that flowed from that. The IRA had ceased to exist in the 1960s. It was the call of people in west Belfast, who were being burnt out of their homes, for the young men of their communities to come and protect them that recreated the IRA. I say that only so that we learn the lessons, and do not miss the moment. We must ensure that, whatever happens to the current leaders of the IRA, there is not another period in history when those awful forces are recreated and more bloodshed is generated.
It is obvious to me that, although this is a precious and optimistic time, success is not inevitable. There are forces who would prefer failure. I am sorry to say that the speech that we heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), a member of the Democratic Unionist party, showed that an extremist force prefers to have another extremist enemy to hate and protest against. Forces of extremism live on one another. There was no celebration of the peace, or any wish to nurture the peace, which benefits both sides in Northern Ireland.
There has been an over-obsession with the IRA in the debate. It is, of course, a creation of the disasters of the history of Ireland, but we should not be obsessed with it. It is wrong to say that everything that it demands must be opposed. We should do what is right because it is right. We should not be obsessed with what one of the IRA's extremist spokespeople might have said on one programme. History is bigger than that. Merely reacting to those small people who have used violence in an intolerable way as a trajectory of historic development will create great errors.
Many tributes have been paid to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did not create the opportunity; history created the opportunity. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, the people of Northern Ireland were tired of violence and determined to demand a better future. I think that then the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) worked hardest and underwent the greatest vilification to try to turn that historic opportunity into a process of peace. More than once, he entered talks with the IRA to try to achieve that end.
The previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), made an enormous contribution when he was Secretary of State. His

1089
successor, the present Secretary of State, has continued that good work. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—as might be thought unusual for an Opposition spokesperson—has helped the process along. The Irish Government have made an important contribution. Then the Prime Minister was big enough to take the historic opportunity and move the process forward.
During the Maastricht debate, when the Tory party needed Unionist votes to pass the European legislation, I believed that we would lose the historic opportunity because of the arithmetic of the House of Commons. Thankfully, we did not, and the Prime Minister was big enough to take the historic opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: "You were wrong."] Obviously I was wrong; that is what I am saying. There is no need to heckle. I am trying, in a very short time, to make a serious speech. The House rarely rises to the seriousness of the moment. It deteriorates as time goes on.
The basis of peace is not only democracy and not only consent. The move that everyone makes to say, "We shall accept there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland," requires an extra dimension. It requires justice for the people of Northern Ireland.
Theoretically, there was the consent of a majority in the past, but grave injustice ensured that there was—to put it crudely—a greater rate of emigration from one community to the other, to entrench a majority that would never allow change. If there is justice, if both communities can live in peace and justice, if both can have jobs and both can prosper, I am content that, whatever decision is made, Ireland will be united or not united because the people who live there wish it.
However, I do not think that many hon. Members from the Government side of the House who have spoken are part of that settlement. They are really saying, "We are on one side; we are the Conservative and Unionist party; we cannot tolerate that the other side has a case. We must react to everything that the IRA ever says because that will lead our agenda."
We must not react in that way. We can, in our generation—in the next 10 or 15 years —secure a historic peace in Ireland that will bring to an end the conflict between these two islands and constant recurrence of violence and bloodshed. It is a precious moment in history; it is the duty of all of us to rise to it. It can be achieved, but it is not inevitable.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next Member to speak, may I point out that we have only a short time left, and I hope that those Members who next catch my eye will exercise considerable self-restraint.
8.54 pm
Rev. William McCrea: This is an important debate for me, especially as it is one that the IRA intended and planned that I would never attend.
I say that because, in the month of July, while many hon. Members were in safety and in the quietness of their home, on the Sabbath evening, my wife, my family and I were to be slaughtered by the IRA murder machine. Forty bullets from an Armalite sprayed our home. My wife and
1090
my daughters escaped death by seconds. The IRA gunmen deliberately riddled my 13-year-old daughter's bedroom, having seen her standing at the window after changing for bed. I was, in the providence of God, delayed at church, and once again survived a republican murder bid on my life.
On behalf of my wife and my family, I want earnestly to thank those people who took the time to express their genuine concern, and those who made it known to me that they genuinely cared about that IRA murder attack.
In the light of that, and in the light of other murders of members of my family circle and some of my best friends, peace is something that I desire with all my heart for my beloved Province. Having, in my constituency, walked behind so many coffins, along blood-soaked and stained streets and highways of Ulster and, as a pastor, having sought to show genuine Christian love and comfort to the broken-hearted widows and children of innocent victims of violence, I know that peace—real, lasting and genuine peace—is something wonderful. I have earnestly prayed on bended knees for such a day to dawn.
I have represented the constituency of Mid-Ulster for the past 12 years. Without apology, I say that, during those years, I have wept with numerous families whose lives have been shattered by murder and disability, unparalleled in any part of the United Kingdom.
Every conceivable weapon of evil and destruction has been used in an endeavour to force people of Ulster to surrender to terrorism. In the House tonight I salute the fortitude of the people of Ulster in the face of such merciless republican slaughter. The British Ulster majority has proved beyond doubt that no one can defeat a people firmly rooted on the solid rock of truth, justice and democracy. My mind turns to the many households tonight who have suffered the pain and anguish of a father, mother, son or daughter who has been mercilessly slaughtered by terrorists. Many others sit in wheelchairs or lie totally unconscious, not knowing what the House is debating.
Tonight's debate is important as it permits those with a democratic mandate to express their genuinely held views and place them on the record of the House. I appreciate that there is a desire in some circles to frown on those who dare to challenge what is thought to be the common approach adopted by the Government and several Opposition parties. But my mandate did not come from any such people; it came from the people of Mid-Ulster. As an elected representative for the Province, and my constituency in particular, I shall endeavour to give my honest assessment of our present position, whether or not it is applauded. Much play has been made of the present ceasefire and the peace process. I wonder what evidence hon. Members are examining. Can I examine the evidence and confirm that a lasting, permanent peace is under way?
Eight weeks ago the IRA declared a ceasefire. The Prime Minister stated that he had to be sure that the ceasefire was permanent before civil servants could enter into exploratory talks with Sinn Fein. Our Prime Minister rightly requested those engaged in terrorist activity to express openly the permanency of the end of such violence. Due to the unwillingness of Provisional Sinn Fein to make such a commitment, the Prime Minister weakened the demand to any group of words that would mean that violence was over for all time under all circumstances. The Provisional Sinn Fein did not necessarily have to say the word "permanent". Again,

1091
silence was the order of the day. Dublin and America continued to pressurise London and, finally, that demand was dropped. Last week the Prime Minister came to Ulster to announce that he has a working assumption that violence has ended.
I have listened carefully to what right hon. and hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, have said. I have yet to hear many of them suggesting that they believe that there is an end to violence or that the IRA has repudiated violence. I should like to be directed to any statement from Provisional Sinn Fein which has made it abundantly clear that that so-called political party has renounced and repudiated violence. I have yet to hear that from Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness or any other Sinn Fein spokesperson. When the ceasefire was announced, rather than repudiating violence, the organisation applauded the heroes of the IRA who carried out the murderous activities and the slaughter of innocent policemen, soldiers and people throughout the Province.
Now we are told that actions will speak louder than words. What actions have there been since the ceasefire? It has become evident since the ceasefire that the IRA has not repudiated violence. Five hours after the ceasefire, gunfire was heard in my constituency outside Pomeroy, but it was not reported by the press. Some days later into the ceasefire, shots were fired at a Protestant home outside Keady—again, that was not reported in the press. Six masked men from the Provisionals entered a home in the Ballygawley road estate in Dungannon looking for a particular person. They knocked his wife to the ground. The incident was never reported in the press. Numerous brutal attacks against the Roman Catholic community have been continued by the IRA. Can one suggest that that is a repudiation of or an end to violence? For example, a grandmother in Armagh was beaten by the IRA as she shielded her grandchild. Is that an act of violence or not? In recent weeks two ordinary loyalist constituents of mine were interviewed by the security forces and were told that the IRA was targeting them for murder—the same grouping as is supposed to be holding a ceasefire. I wish to make a categorical statement that cannot be denied: no IRA unit in Mid-Ulster has been stood down by the IRA. These active service units continue to identify and openly target members of the security forces and of the loyalist community for future attack.
Such activity is known to the security forces, and in certain parts of Mid-Ulster the threat is viewed—I use yesterday's security term—as "very high" by those in intelligence circles. In the light of this evidence, how can the Prime Minister, who has all the intelligence reports that he needs, state his "working assumption" that the IRA has drawn its campaign to a close? Does the Secretary of State know that training camps for republican terrorists are still operating in Donegal? That fact is known to the security forces in Northern Ireland and in the south—yet we are told that there is a permanent ceasefire. Does the Minister possess those security reports?
Before the IRA ceasefire IRA weapons were permitted to be moved to the Irish Republic. Since the ceasefire began, the whereabouts of these arms dumps has become known—to the security forces in Northern Ireland, to the Prime Minister and the British Government— and the information has been passed to Mr. Reynolds. Although the actual position of the dumps is known and can be exactly described, they have not been raided. Why not? The dumps contain more than 200 AK47 rifles, sniper
1092
rifles and M60s. They have not been raided because, when it comes to talk about handing in weapons, it will be the dumps that are already compromised and hence lost to the IRA which will be regarded as having been found by the Irish establishment and then taken away from the IRA.
Given the will to do it, those arms could be lifted tomorrow. They are compromised weapons, lost to the terrorists, and they should form no part of any equation. It is known, however, that Reynolds wants to use them as a bargaining counter instead of lifting them now.
Last weekend certain republican Sinn Fein representatives were rounded up for questioning. My constituents and I wonder why so many well-known murderous terrorists were permitted to roam the Irish Republic for the past 25 years and have only now been lifted. Is that being done in response to the unease in the community?
As has been said, the cessation of violence is a cessation of military operations. It is to be reviewed by the IRA on 27 December, and if concessions have been made the IRA will put back a final decision until Easter. I warn the House that the IRA is currently targeting not only people in Ulster but people in London, and that is known to the security services and the security forces.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary has stood against slaughter and against much that has been thrown at it by the IRA. Will the Government give a categorical assurance that the RUC will not lose its revered title because of republican pressure but will be completely backed by the Government? For 25 long years that police force has stood between the people of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom and the terrorist onslaught.
The Minister spoke about the safety of the Union. Will the Government of Ireland Act 1920 be placed upon the table? If, as is acknowledged by so many, it poses no threat, it should not be up for negotiation. Is it correct that Gerry Adams's bodyguards are to be given the right to carry guns? He will have bodyguards because he would not accept the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The names of those people and a history of their terrorist activity, especially those who killed the British Army corporals in west Belfast, could be given.
These matters worry the people of Northern Ireland. There is a great deal of double talk and tongue in cheek, but these are serious matters. Martin McGuinness was and still is a known terrorist. He has been engaged in IRA activity and has not only been part of the gangs but has led gangs and has pulled the trigger. Why cannot Martin McGuinness be touched by the law? He has never been brought in to be interviewed, although two important television programmes were transmitted for everyone in the United Kingdom to see. Brave people from the Roman Catholic community risked their necks to give vital information. I have been told that a file on Martin McGuinness was recently sent to the DPP and that it is so detailed that if he were made amenable to the law, there is no doubt that he would have to be imprisoned.
In the name of justice, which my constituents and the people of the United Kingdom have a right to expect, why is Martin McGuinness the untouchable member of this society? Instead of going to prison he parades in the streets of England and elsewhere in the world as some kind of hero of peace. But no matter what jacket, coat or

1093
tie he Puts on instead of the Jumper, he is still the murderer that he always was. Justice must be done for everyone, and no one has a right to stand beyond the law.
I desire with all my heart to see a genuine, lasting peace. I do not want the people of Ulster deluded or deceived. I do not want the people of the United Kingdom deluded or deceived. There is a real longing for peace. I have that in my heart and I know that other hon. Members who may disagree with me also have it in their hearts, but I have to say that peace, freedom and justice must walk side by side.
9.15 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: I want immediately to welcome the appointment of the new shadow Front-Bench spokesman for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), and her assistant spokesman, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). I wish them well in their positions and hope that their appointment will lead to the normalisation of relations between two of the main Opposition parties in the House.
On entering my 30th year as a elected Member of Parliament for Northern Ireland–10 years in Strasbourg, almost 10 years in the House of Commons in Stormont and the balance here in our national Parliament of the United Kingdom—I have never felt so optimistic about the future of Northern Ireland as I do tonight.
I have had personal experience in meeting IRA terrorists and I know the trauma and the hurt that thousands of families have suffered in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years. My family experienced it, and I know how so many others have felt in similar circumstances.
We now have a ceasefire. A ceasefire is only a halt to atrocities; it is not a permanent peace. However, one's gut reaction is that it is for real. The IRA commenced its campaign in order to bring about a united Ireland by force. It has failed because both the Conservative Government and the Labour Government, when required, provided the necessary security forces to ensure that terrorism did not triumph in Northern Ireland.
Likewise, the IRA thought that it would browbeat the Ulster people into accepting a united Ireland; yet today, 25 years later, the spirit of the Ulster people is more opposed to a united Ireland than at any time in the past 25 years.
In all that, we have to thank the security forces. Certainly the IRA has not been defeated, but as a former member of the Northern Ireland Security Council and a Minister of State at Stormont, on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland I thank all the regiments of the Army that have served in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years. We thank the Royal Ulster Constabulary, many of whom we know personally, and many who lost their lives. We thank them and their families for their service to Northern Ireland and, of course, we thank the Ulster Defence Regiment and its successor the Royal Irish Regiment because, having served in Northern Ireland, those men had to return to their isolated homes where they were in greater danger than anyone else. As a former Minister I have also to mention, the Ulster Special Constabulary, which took the brunt of the campaign at the beginning of the 1970s.
1094
We have also to thank the Prime Minister. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said two years ago that it was time that the Prime Minister recognised that one of the most serious issues facing the United Kingdom was the present campaign of terrorism in Northern Ireland and that it should be the No. 1 issue for 10 Downing street. It certainly is today. We thank the Prime Minister for taking on board the problem of Northern Ireland and give him every encouragement in the way in which he is trying to resolve this terrible problem within the United Kingdom, which affects relations between Northern Ireland and the Republic and between the Republic and the United Kingdom.
We also should say, in passing, that we recognise the role that Mr. Reynolds has played in this matter, although as Unionists we obviously feel that he is too anxious to speed up the momentum. These things must be taken slowly and cautiously and at times he shows too much enthusiasm and could go overboard and damage the whole process.
There are two other people we must thank. One is, of course, the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, who has made such a positive contribution. We cannot ignore that. He encouraged the process forward and we must recognise the role that he played. The other person we must thank is a silent little man who avoids publicity, who certainly does not have a loud mouth and who does not even like to be praised. I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party.
Two main issues are before us today. One is, of course, the question of the arms retained by the terrorist organisations. There must obviously be preliminary talks with those who now say that they want to enter the political process, but in no way can there be meaningful talks with Sinn Fein while it retains Semtex and firearms under the table. That must be understood by everyone, including Conservative Back Benchers. We cannot negotiate under blackmail or under threat from any political party representing terrorism. Those firearms and Semtex must be decommissioned in some way or other before meaningful all-party talks can proceed in Northern Ireland.
Of course we look forward to a form of limited devolution in Northern Ireland, of responsibility sharing, in which those who are elected to the body share in the administration and good government of the state. If members of Sinn Fein eventually get elected, they must of course play their part in that system of administration. But Mr. Gerry Adams is not an elected person at the moment. He was rejected by the electorate, who elected the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) in his place. Until Mr. Adams is elected, he cannot be treated as a normal constitutional political party representative.
I should like to conclude on the issue of north-south co-operation, which will be a major issue as we look to the future. Reference has been made to it during the debate. As Ulster Unionists, we want to see meaningful co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Of that there is no doubt. In fairness, it was the Ulster Unionist party, when it formed the Government of Stormont, which created one of the first joint operations in the island of Ireland—the Foyle Fisheries Commission, which survives to this day and is successful. That is a good example of co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

1095
The whole issue of co-operation, however, can be exaggerated. We have heard a certain claim by Dr. George Quigley that 75,000 jobs might be created if a new Belfast-Dublin economic corridor were created. Those of us involved in business in Northern Ireland look upon that suggestion as pie in the sky and consider it to be totally unrealistic. When the new Ireland forum discussed the subject, the then chairman of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, Sir Charles Carter, said:
"their effects [of greater North-South economic links] on unemployment would be equivalent to the products of nine bean rows on the Isle of Innisfree, when set against a requirement for new jobs in the North".
Queen's university's economics department produced an economic report this year entitled "The Road to Prosperity or a Road to Nowhere?" On page 65 the report says:
"gains from greater co-operation … are likely to be much smaller than those which could be expected from a higher level of competitiveness in the two economies … Scott and O'Reilly"—
two economists—
"projected total gains to manufacturing employment throughout the island of only 5,700 jobs."— and not 75,000.
As I have said, we look forward to co-operation. But co-operation must not be a political means of bringing about a united Ireland. When Dublin talks about co-operation, it must not see it as a mechanism to create a republic of united Ireland. We want meaningful co-operation. There is co-operation right throughout the European Community now. We see co-operation among the regions—regions in various states such as in Germany, in Italy and in Switzerland—but the co-operation since 1972 right up to 1994 is limited to regions within sovereign states. It is never the case that there is co-operation between a sovereign nation and a region of another nation.
We must follow the European example and we can do it. If we agree to do it, it will mean certain things—such as Northern Ireland Electricity, which is a private company now, taking over part of the electricity system in the northern region of the Republic of Ireland. It will mean, perhaps, BT taking over a major part of the Irish telecom system, which is failing economically at the moment. More importantly, in matters of tourism and of transport, it should not be simply co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic; it should be the regions north of Dublin and Northern Ireland co-operating with the regions in the west of Scotland. That is the main economic route for Northern Ireland and parts of the Republic of Ireland. There can be regional co-operation, but not on the basis of a united Ireland, to which people with other political motives restrict their vision. Instead, co-operation must be between regions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Time has cut my speech short, but I want to conclude as I commenced. This is a time of great opportunity in Northern Ireland. It is the responsibility of politicians of all parties to build on it, but if Dublin pushes too hard, the whole thing will collapse in tears. Let us ensure that the IRA does not gain in peace negotiations what it has failed to win through terrorism.
9.26 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: In the few minutes available, I shall make two points that I do not think have been made in the debate so far. The first is to
1096
urge the Government to use their imagination to try actively to include representatives of the Progressive Unionist party and of the Ulster Democratic party in the peace process as it develops—with, of course, all the caveats which have been already added in the debate about the involvement of, for example, Sinn Fein.
Of course, those two small parties do not have the electoral mandate enjoyed by the two larger Unionist parties, but there is no doubt that they give a voice to an important sector of the Northern Ireland people, and one that has to be included and consulted if a settlement is to succeed in the longer term. Moreover, those two parties have shown themselves to be committed to making democratic, peaceful politics work. I do not think that anybody could fail to be struck by the expression of abject and true remorse in the loyalist statement read out by Mr. Gusty Spence of the Progressive Unionists. The history of Mr. Spence was also referred to by the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott).
The Progressive Unionists and the Ulster Democrats articulate a new mood in part of the loyalist community. They have made it clear that they envisage no return to the old days of Stormont and they look positively at power sharing in Northern Ireland and at cross-border arrangements. They represent a unionism which now appears in some respects to be more flexible than that of the major parties, and certainly than what we have heard from the other side of the Chamber today. The two parties also enjoy a good deal of what one might call street credibility in parts of Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to take advantage of the new mood by involving those smaller parties actively in the peace process.
My second point is probably much less controversial. It relates to the content of the talks once they begin and it takes up where the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) left off. Of course north-south co-operation and arrangements are important, but what about east-west arrangements to link and build on the common interests of the British mainland and the island of Ireland?
The arguments for east-west co-operation are the same as those for north-south co-operation. There are obvious areas which cry out for that kind of enhanced co-operation. An example would be the management of the Irish sea, which could include pollution, fisheries management, shipping traffic, submarine activity and the threat that such activity sometimes poses to local fishermen, and creating new marine nature reserves. Such issues could be tackled jointly by the Governments of the United Kingdom and of Ireland in exactly the same way as it is envisaged that tourism could be handled jointly between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
There are many other examples of such co-operation. The virtue of east-west co-operation in parallel with north-south co-operation is not just that it makes practical sense, but that it sends a useful message that cross-border co-operation of that kind is not a slippery slope to a different constitutional relationship between north and south any more than east-west co-operation is a slippery slope towards a reunion between Britain and Ireland. Co-operation is simply a matter of mature voluntary engagement between different Governments and different Parliaments of a kind that we are going to need if we are to develop and build on the existing peace process.
9.31 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) referred in his impressive speech to the paramilitary disloyalists who apologise for what they have done in the past. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said in Coleraine, I believe that we should have intervened more than 25 years ago in respect of employment, housing and political discrimination.
I hope that Sinn Fein-IRA can apologise for what they have been doing over the past 25 years because that would, in effect, sweep the board.
I should like to see various developments. I should like to see the currencies of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom realigned so that they are not different across the border. I should like to see the Republic of Ireland apply to join the Commonwealth. Many people would welcome that.
More controversially, I look forward to a day when every police service in the United Kingdom has the same kind of title. It is noticeable that the only one of the 50-odd police forces which has the word "royal" in its title is in Northern Ireland, which is where that makes a difference. It is better that that sort of remark should come from me than from someone in Dublin. The point about Dublin pushing too hard is a serious one to which Dublin should pay attention.
I hope that people will accept that the border will not change very quickly, if at all in my lifetime, and that it becomes unimportant for most practical purposes. That is one of the aims of the New Consensus group in respect of which hon. Members in all parts of the House and I have shared an approach.
I hope that we shall recognise that we are going to allow people who are Irish to be within the United Kingdom but also to feel Irish. In that regard, I agree with Enoch Powell who, at a fringe meeting at the Tory party conference, said that people are of the nation of which they believe themselves to be part.
We cannot pretend that all 1.5 million people in the north of Ireland believe themselves to be British. One of the effects of the Sinn Fein-IRA campaign has been to persuade 1 million people in the north that they are not Irish at all. That is not something that is in my family's tradition.
I make this plea to those who care about Northern Ireland: let them visit it. If 45 million Americans could obtain passports and visit Northern Ireland in the same way as those of the Jewish faith or of Jewish origin go to Israel, or as those who follow Islam go to Mecca; if 45 million Americans went to Ireland—north and south—once in their lives to visit the border country, Rathlin island and the rest, it would transform the economy. It would also transform some of the ignorance that the American President has helped to overcome. We do not want ignorance or apathy—we want involvement. If all those people cannot visit, they should sleep in Irish linen sheets and drink Irish whiskey.
I look forward to two things. The first is to find political activists in Northern Ireland who are officers in constituency associations whose political parties do not indicate their denominations. That applies to my political association in Eltham, and I look forward to the day when it applies to the 17 Northern Ireland constituencies. I also look forward to the day when, after a gap of 22 years, a
1098
Northern Ireland Member is again a Minister in a United Kingdom Government. For too long, Northern Ireland Members have been excluded and, one way or another, I should like that to be changed.
9.34 pm
Mr. Paul Murphy: The debate over the past six or seven hours causes me to think that, if we are to reform the way in which the House of Commons works, we should have more such Adjournment debates. It has been informed, extremely interesting, and, for someone such as myself who has had just 48 hours in a new job, it has been useful and educative. We have heard contributions from many former Northern Ireland Office Ministers, such as the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) and the hon. Members for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson). All made excellent contributions.
I pay special tribute to my hon. Friends who have served as Opposition spokesmen on Northern Irish matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has had deserved tributes from both sides—indeed, from all parties represented in Northern Ireland—for the assiduous way in which he has fought his case over the years. It is important to record the House's appreciation for his deputies, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), who has spent many years dealing with Northern Ireland matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who brought his considerable experience of local government to the Opposition Front Bench.
My own Front-Bench experience has been limited to Wales, not Northern Ireland, but there are similarities. The economy of Wales—certainly that of south Wales—has suffered because of the decline of basic and staple industries. The same applies to Northern Ireland. South Wales and Northern Ireland have similar youth unemployment problems. Of course, there is also a strong cultural identity.
My name would suggest that my background is not Welsh but Irish. My great-grandfather emigrated from Ballincollig in County Cork in 1865 to work in the iron industry. Interestingly, he came across not just to find work but to flee what was happening in Ireland. In the 1860s, there were people who believed that they were oppressed by the British Government, and there were those who knew that they were outraged by Fenian bombs. My great-grandparents came across because they wanted to live ordinary lives. I rather suspect that the world has not changed and that the people who now live in the south and in Northern Ireland want to live ordinary lives, free from the disasters and the miseries that meant that my great-grandparents had to go to Wales.
My adult and political life over the past quarter of a century has been overshadowed by the misery, killings and constitutional and political failures in Northern Ireland, and people are wearied of it all. That explains the astonishing events of the past few months. Who would have thought a few years ago that both groups of paramilitaries would have initiated ceasefires, as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) pointed out? Who would have thought that proper and real reconciliation, north and south, would start?

1099
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) admirably put the Labour party's view. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said that the problems of Northern Ireland and the peace process will be right at the top of his personal and party political agenda in years to come. That applies to all hon. Members.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), the right hon. Member for Chelsea and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) talked about a commitment based on respect for all traditions. That has been recognised by the British and Irish Governments and by all hon. Members. To that end, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) for all the work that they have done over the past few months to start the reconciliation.
I also thank the Irish Government and, of course, the British Government. As my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) pointed out, the work of the British Government, in particular the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has been exemplary. Without their efforts in respect of the settlement, today's debate would not have been as good or as sensible as it has been. All of us, whatever our party views, express our thanks to the Prime Minister and to those responsible.
It is easy for those of us who live in Great Britain to talk; it is difficult for those who represent Northern Ireland to talk because it is a different world altogether. I appreciate the misgivings of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), although the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) perhaps demonstrated extreme pessimism, if I can put it as strongly as that.
At the Labour party conference this year, we emphasised the need for agreement and reconciliation, leading to a new political framework founded on consent. We entirely agreed with the Secretary of State when he referred to the three strands in his speech today. There must be arrangements that encompass relations between Ireland and Britain, between the north and the south and between the two traditions in Northern Ireland.
It is for the people of Ireland alone to exercise the right of self-determination. We welcome the Irish Government's recognition that agreement on constitutional status is possible only with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. That has been emphasised strongly today by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith.
How do we find out what consent is? Who measures it? What measures it? The opinion polls referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, East might not be as reliable as he thought. Any opinion poll that says that one out of 10 supporters of Sinn Fein does not support a united Ireland must be suspect. A referendum, which the Government are proposing, is obviously the answer to find out what the consent is, and the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland.
Labour supports the referendum proposal. Generally, I am sceptical about referendums, but on certain constitutional matters, they are helpful, and indeed, in this case, vital. We had them on the Common Market and on devolution for Wales and Scotland in the late 1970s. On
1100
the question of devolution, the hon. Members for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to the need to emphasise devolution in Northern Ireland much more than has occurred in the past.
It is certainly Labour's view that devolution should occur in Scotland, in Wales, in the regions of England and, of course, in the Province of Northern Ireland. That is especially important when we see it as part of Europe of the regions, which is fast becoming a reality. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith talked about the need to emphasise the European dimension. The Republic of Ireland has benefited considerably, both financially and in other ways, from its membership of the European Union, and that will be important to the north in the years to come.
One staggering figure that I read in the past two days is that more than 3,000 people have been killed in political violence in Northern Ireland since 1969. If, proportionately, we were to bring that figure into a British context, the equivalent carnage in Britain would mean that every man, woman and child in my south Wales constituency had been murdered. That is the extent of the problem, and it is something that hon. Members must bring to the attention of everyone of good will in Britain.
The right hon. Member for Strangford told us that he is more optimistic about the future of Northern Ireland now than he has ever been in 30 years' experience of government in Northern Ireland and in Britain. It is the duty of all who are involved in public affairs in this country and in Ireland, certainly to acknowledge the past, but to concentrate on the future and guarantee a better world for the children who are now growing up in Northern Ireland. The past quarter of a century has been characterised by despair. We have a responsibility to ensure that the next 25 years are characterised by renewal but, above all, by hope.
9.44 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I welcome the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) to his new responsibilities. Having heard him speak tonight after such a short time in the job, we look forward to hearing many more speeches from him in the future. If he finds his responsibilities as fulfilling as I find mine, he will end his time in the job a very fulfilled man.
I think we would all agree that this has been an extraordinary debate: there has been an enormous amount of unanimity throughout the House. Since I began my period of service in Northern Ireland some 17 months ago, many significant steps have been taken—although I make no connection between those two facts—each of which has increased the chance of creating a new beginning for the people of Northern Ireland. The pace of events has quickened even further in recent months, and it is only right that we have had the opportunity to discuss those developments.
We have had a very good debate. I know that not every hon. Member who wished to speak was able to do so. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who has been present throughout the debate: I know that he will give me his views, although he was not able to give us all the benefit of his wisdom.

1101
I especially welcomed the speeches of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I salute hon. Members who have continued to uphold the principles of democracy throughout the past 25 years, despite the actions of those from both sides of the community who sought to achieve their political objective by violent means. I also salute the courage of their constituents, many of whom have either suffered themselves or shared the suffering of others.
As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said on another occasion,
"The will of the greater number of solid, law-abiding citizens has prevailed … democracy has finally won".
He and his fellow Northern Ireland Members have all played their part in the search for peace. Of course, I also welcomed all the speeches made today by hon. Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom.
Numerous points have been raised; I shall try to deal with as many as possible. Let me begin generally by thanking all hon. Members on both sides of the House who congratulated my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on bringing the process this far. I know that those words of encouragement are very welcome, and will help to ensure that we continue the process in the future.
It was important for us to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who speaks with a great depth of experience not only of politics in the Province but of the direct results of terrorism. His statement that he had never felt so optimistic sent an important message to the House: I hope that it is heard by many more than those who were able to attend today's debate. His is a genuine voice of hope, and I know that it will encourage perhaps even those whose speeches were less than hopeful.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) on her new appointment. We listened to her speech with great interest, and will want to study it in detail. The hon. Lady raised the question of finance—as did a number of hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). Let me quote to them what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Belfast on Friday:
"So let me assure you that the Government will take full account of Northern Ireland's special needs in setting future levels of public spending for the Province. We want to help the Province to enjoy higher levels of economic growth and much greater prosperity throughout the community in the years that lie ahead."
I hope that that demonstrates—not only to the hon. Member for Redcar, but to other hon. Members who raised the issue—that the Government are committed to ensuring that one of the benefits of peace is an increase in the economic prosperity of all who live and work in Northern Ireland.
As always, the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) made an interesting and encouraging speech. I was grateful for his words of support. He, and a number of other hon. Members—so many, indeed, that it would take a long time to read out the, list— mentioned the important question of the surrender of weapons. I appreciate and share the concern that has been expressed
1102
during the debate in relation to arms, but our position is well known. It is quite simply that no one should hold illegal weapons, and that we shall continue to uphold the rule of law.
In that context, we intend to consult the Irish Government on a considered approach to the depositing and decommissioning of guns and explosives, and officials from both Governments have been asked to draw up a strategy setting out the logistics and mechanics of a surrender of arms to underpin the peace process. In any event, one purpose of the preliminary exploratory dialogue which we may enter into with Sinn Fein within three months is to examine the practical consequences of the ending of violence, and the surrender of illegal weapons would provide some of the most convincing evidence of good faith in that regard.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) mentioned punishment beatings and intimidation, and I associate myself with his remarks about the tactics indulged in by certain paramilitaries in recent weeks. Such attacks are, of course, wholly unacceptable. The policing role is for the proper policing authority. That authority is the RUC—not self-appointed vigilante groups—and I hope that we can make that patently clear.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) raised a number of interesting points once again. He referred to the "working assumption" which the Government have announced to begin the process by which we can, I hope, in the end bring Sinn Fein to the negotiating table. The whole purpose of having a working assumption is that one cannot make an assumption based on certainty, and that assumption by definition is contingent on the assumption proving to be true over a period.
That is why the process has certain stages. There was the declaration of the working assumption by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last Friday in Belfast. Then there must be a period to be gone through, which we have said is there to allow us to confirm the commitment to peace of Sinn Fein and the IRA. If we have gone through that successfully, we shall get to the exploratory dialogue.
That dialogue is dealing not with political matters but with the consequences of the cessation of violence, and with how Sinn Fein can be brought back into the democratic process and, ultimately, to the negotiating table to talk about the political future of Northern Ireland. We did not need certainty, because we have adopted a system which, if we are proved wrong anywhere on that road, allows us to reverse the situation and go back to where we were before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) voiced his real fears, as I know he has done previously, in relation to an amnesty for prisoners. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said previously, there will be no secret deals for peace. Criminal law will continue to be applied vigorously with the intention of bringing those responsible for terrorist crimes before the court, and those who are convicted of crimes must expect to serve their sentences in accordance with the law.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked towards the end of his speech whether I could assure him that the strand 1 paper and the joint framework document would be taken together. I would like to take the opportunity to make it clear that that has always been the intention. The

1103
reason why the strand 1 document is to be published at the same time as the framework is that, if one were published without the other, the overall package would be unbalanced and the chances of it achieving its purposes would be very much minimised. I like to describe it as a three-legged stool, in which one of the legs is being manufactured separately. Unless it is attached to the stool when it is completed, the stool will be unbalanced.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea made an important speech. He was right to remind the House that, although a lot has happened recently, this has been a long process and goes back a long way. Tribute should be paid to many other people who have not had tribute paid to them tonight, including those involved in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the processes following that. From my experience, I certainly know that many of the advances which we are making now have been built on the back of work that was done by my predecessors. I pay tribute to all those who have been so involved.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea also cautioned us against moving too fast. It is the Government's purpose to move at the pace that is most likely to achieve success. Negotiations of this sort tend to have their own momentum. If one tries to force them to go too fast, they derail. If one moves them too slowly, they lose momentum. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we shall look at matters as we go along, with a careful eye to trying to ensure ultimate success.
Mr. McGrady: In the euphoria and the joy that are evident among the people of Northern Ireland because of the ceasefire and the absence of killing and atrocities, there is an urgent expectancy of a new beginning, of new structures and of new political dialogue. The Minister has used careful phraseology, and has said that he will hasten slowly. Will he take on board the fact that the people expect the political parties to get together to work out mutually satisfactory institutions?
Mr. Ancram: I very much accept that. I believe that much of the momentum has been created precisely because people are asking their political representatives to move. We certainly want to build on that. Equally, I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that, if one moves too fast, one sometimes loses out of the train the people one needs on board if one is to have a successful conclusion.
I found the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and his colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) distinctly depressing. They took a negative approach. They know that we are not seeking peace at any price and that we have to have a peace that is broadly acceptable in its form and in its structures to the people of Northern Ireland. That is why, as I said, we have a working assumption at present in terms of negotiations with Sinn Fein. That is why we have a process of dialogue which must be gone through, followed by a referendum, before any solution can be achieved in Northern Ireland.
I find the litany of unmitigated despair very discouraging. I hope that, one day, the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for Mid-Ulster will raise their eyes a little. I hope that they will begin to look forward, and that they will try to take a constructive approach. I assure them that, if they do, they will be welcomed by me and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State back into the process, where I believe they should be.
1104
I am sorry that I shall not be able to deal with all the other points raised in the debate. A number of suggestions have been made by hon. Members on both sides, which the Government will wish to consider. We meet today in a mood of cautious hope. It is cautious because history, especially the history of Northern Ireland, teaches us to be cautious.
There is hope because we now have a chance to achieve what many of us thought impossible —peace and political stability in Northern Ireland. We have a chance to achieve a society in which women and men from all parts of the community are able to play a role in the public life of the Province, taking responsibility for their own decisions, a society in which everyone, whatever his political persuasion, is treated with respect and a society in which all have equality of opportunity, equity of treatment and parity of esteem. I hope that those remarks will be heard by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who particularly asked that that should be the case.
Already, the atmosphere in Northern Ireland is different. There is now a real feeling of peace abroad, and we are determined to build on what has already been achieved. We now need to move forward with the aim of resuming negotiations with the various parties, with the object, in turn, of achieving an overall settlement which is widely acceptable in Northern Ireland. No one will be asked to forgo his fundamental principles, but there will need to be flexibility, as there always is in negotiations. At the end of the day, we have made it clear that there is no slippery slope in what we are about, and that the Government will continue to uphold the principles of democracy and consent.
It is worth remembering that, just one year ago, Northern Ireland was coming to the end of a week of unmitigated horror. It was a week that had begun with the horrific carnage of the Shankill bomb, which continued through vicious sectarian killings, and which ended with the terrible massacre at Greysteel. It was one of the darkest times in Northern Ireland's recent history, and it was hard to see any light to relieve that darkness. Yet here we are tonight, a year later, talking of hope in an atmosphere in which the guns and bombs are silent.
The two periods are not unrelated. Out of that horror was born an even stronger desire for peace, an even more insistent call that enough was enough, and an even greater demand that an answer had to be found. In turn, that gave greater impetus to the process that has led to where we are today, not least in the courage and vision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which has played such a central part.
The way ahead is not easy. It will need further courage and vision, not just from the Government but from everyone who must be involved in this vital process. The people of Northern Ireland are looking to us all to provide it, and we must not fail them now.
Mr. Michael Bates: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DRUG TRAFFICKING BILL [LORDS]
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Drug Trafficking Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Bates.]

EDUCATION
Ordered,
That Sir Paul Beresford be discharged from the Education Committee and Mr. Graham Riddick be added to the Committee.— [Mr. MacKay.]

EMPLOYMENT
Ordered,
That Mr. Sebastian Coe be discharged from the Employment Committee and Mr. Warren Hawksley be added to the Committee.— [Mr. MacKay.]

ENVIRONMENT
Ordered,
That Mr. Robert B. Jones be discharged from the Environment Committee and Sir Irvine Patnick be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

INFORMATION
Ordered,
That Mr. Rod Richards be discharged from the Information Committee and Mr. Timothy Wood be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Dr Liam Fox be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mrs. Jacqui Lait be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mr. Rod Richards be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Mr. Warren Hawksley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

PETITION

  Mrs. Helen Tinney
  10 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of many people in the city of Glasgow, following the tragic death of Mrs. Helen Tinney on 12 September 1993. Her death followed the demolition of large multi-storey block in the city in circumstances that have given rise to considerable concern to many people in Glasgow.
  The petition has been signed by 2,158 people, whose names have been collected mainly from the Gorbals district of Glasgow, but also from further afield within that city. Earlier this week, a further 3,000 names on other petitions were presented to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing street.
  The concern of the people of Glasgow has been occasioned by the fact that the procurator fiscal has chosen at this stage not to prefer charges or identify someone as responsible for the death of Helen Tinney. Her family—specifically her widower, Mr. Eddie Tinney, her daughters Maureen and Elaine Tinney, and her son John—and many other people are very concerned about this matter.
  I therefore present this petition:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will do all in its power to ensure that those persons responsible for the death of Helen Tinney are identified and duly prosecuted.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Civil Service (Redundancies)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
10.1 pm
Mr. Peter Mandelson: The debate arises from the announcement last week of a radical transformation of the role and staffing of the Treasury. I record my interest as secretary of the parliamentary Labour party's treasury affairs committee and as a parliamentary adviser to the First Division Association of Civil Servants.
No Opposition Member opposes good housekeeping, but the Treasury is already small, given the job that it does at the heart of Government. Its running costs represent only 0.4 per cent. of total Government running costs. So the downscaling of the Treasury cannot be justified on the ground of its financial burden to the nation. The Treasury's size has already been reduced dramatically under this Government. Only 1,400 people now work in the central Treasury, compared with 3,000 in 1982. Many top jobs were cut less than a year ago. Yet it is now proposed to remove as many as one third of the senior posts, with others to follow. In time, a quarter of the entire staff of the Treasury is to be axed.
It is right to ask why that is being done and with what consequences for the ability of this and future Governments to run economic policies. It is also necessary to ask what wider motivation Ministers have for running down the civil service. A real fear is now growing within the Labour party that the current reforms will have such an impact on the whole government machine that there might hardly be a civil service worth its name, not only in the Treasury but throughout Whitehall, to implement the programme of an incoming Labour Administration if we have a change of Government at the next election.
I ask the Minister to describe clearly the way in which staff cuts will be implemented at the Treasury. By what process will individual civil servants be selected to stay or go, and will that process comply with European law? Will there be compulsory, as well as voluntary, redundancy? What severance terms will be provided, and at what public cost? How will individual civil servants' pension arrangements be safeguarded?
What criteria will be used to select individual civil servants for redundancy? How can the Minister assure the House that those criteria will not include, directly or indirectly, considerations of political suitability? Can he assure us also that there is no hit list of those individuals whom the Government want to remove? The civil servants involved, as well as Parliament, are entitled to answers to all those questions.
Let me suggest to the Minister that, in the approach that the Government are taking, they are in danger of creating the worst of all worlds as a result of the job insecurity that those changes are generating in the civil service.
Those officials with the most marketable credentials and contacts in the private sector will be the most tempted to take voluntary redundancy and go—and CVs are probably being brushed up in every corner of the Treasury as we speak. All too often, that group will contain some of the brightest and best, because they have been pushed into aspects of work, such as privatisation, that have been
1108
a high priority for the Government. On the other hand, the people with the strongest commitment to the public service, but who have not had such glamorous roles and have not had the same chances to develop, will be eager to stay.
Those people who want to get out but are refused will be disappointed and demoralised, which will affect their future work. Others, who are wanted at the top of the range, will have to be paid more to tie them in. That is not a happy or productive environment in which to work in the most crucial Department—or in any Department—in Whitehall.
What is the purpose of the disruption? The Government's justification is to de-layer management, devolve responsibility, focus on key objectives and move away from the "command and control" style of management, as the permanent secretary, Sir Terry Burns, put it in a lecture earlier this year. At one level, it is hard to argue with all that, and no one would if that was the whole story and the only motivation, but it is not. The Government have decided to swing their axe now because they desire to shred the civil service throughout every Department in Whitehall, and the Treasury is going first, to set an example to the others.
The Department of Health and the Department of the Environment are rumoured to be next in the firing line. Sweeping staff cuts in those Departments are predicted, regardless of the needs that those Departments serve and the services for which they are responsible—but the public's needs never have been the Government's priority.
What supposedly started as a cost-driven exercise is in danger of ending up as an ideological vendetta against the public sector, in which notions of quality, performance and standards of work in the civil service barely figure in Ministers' minds. The staff axe is being wielded not for the cause of better government but simply in aid of less government.
Dramatically scaling down the machine itself is the ultimate application of the Tory philosophy that the Government should withdraw—that they should take less responsibility and that they should intervene less. In other words, the radical downsizing of the Treasury is the logical outcome of the laissez-faire policies that have produced the shrunken economy for which the Treasury, under its present leadership, is responsible.
If one examines the proposed new, leaner, directorate structure proposed for the Treasury, its bias is clear to see. It is not proactive or interventionist; it is not pro-industry. It is barely engaged in the real economy—in what is happening among firms and companies, where Britain's true economic success lies. The Treasury's objectives, apparently, are only to maintain affordable public expenditure, improve the efficiency of markets, maintain a framework of Government accounting, maintain the financial regulatory regime, deliver permanently low inflation and promote United Kingdom interests abroad. Those are all laudable aims, but what about the United Kingdom's other interests at home?
The most important influence any Government have is through the money that they spend— 44 per cent. of gross domestic product. An active Government who understand how the power of public action can be used creatively to strengthen the supply side in the economy and help create opportunities for every individual in society need a strong Treasury to co-ordinate that effort. Under the new regime,

1109
the Treasury will not only be failing in that task but its other important role—to manage public spending—will be weakened.
The withdrawal of the Treasury's detailed control over other Departments' spending, which is proposed in the changes, will have bad consequences if it leads to a relaxation of financial discipline throughout Whitehall and to a green light being offered to all the special interests that breed in the spending Departments. One has only to think of the Agriculture and Defence Ministries to recognise the dangers. The Government will have less ability centrally to enforce spending priorities throughout Whitehall. Whitehall needs a strong co-ordinating Department to bang the table and sort out priorities when departmental priorities conflict. That requires detailed knowledge that will be jeopardised by the proposed staff changes.
Ministers may think that in their quest for less government and a smaller public sector the morale and motivation of the civil service is a reasonable loss to incur; if so, they are making a big mistake. The loyalty and dedication of civil servants and their desire to give a lifetime of service to the good government of their country constitute a priceless asset that should not be squandered in the cause of endless fragmentation of that service— contracting out and buying in from outside consultants and numerous special political advisers. When the Prime Minister talks of the problems of maintaining standards of conduct in public life, he should understand that those problems would be much larger without the standards of integrity, independence and political neutrality that are the hallmarks of the British civil service.
There is a further constitutional as well as practical implication of what the Government are doing in the Treasury and elsewhere in Whitehall. It must be asked whether, as a result of the rundown of the civil service, the very machine that will be left behind will be adequate to administer the policies of an incoming Labour Government. It is true that the newly enshrined objectives of the Treasury could easily be "unshrined" or at least "reshrined". But a properly staffed, managed and equipped machine has to be in place to do that. Such consideration is too much to expect from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has a record of undermining public service in each Department in which he has served. From doctors to teachers, from the police to the Treasury, he has destroyed public servants' pride in what they do.
The permanent secretary to the Treasury, however, has a personal responsibility, independent of the Government of the day, to secure the Treasury machine for subsequent Administrations. He has shown some dereliction of duty by not consulting the Opposition about the changes that he proposes. He should have considered whether they would be adequate for the needs of a different, Labour Administration. Upon a change of Government, the Treasury will need to shift radically and quickly to new priorities and ways of working, and there will be no time to waste.
The permanent secretary should not only fully consult the Opposition about the changes already under way—others' views have been sought—e should also, long before the next election and with the agreement and consent of the head of the home civil service, call on the
1110
shadow Chancellor to be fully briefed on Labour's plans so that the Treasury will be ready to implement them from day one.
As the civil service White Paper reminded us earlier this year:
"The Government recognises that the Civil Service is not the property of any single Administration but will continue to serve Governments of whatever party."
I hope that Ministers will think again about what they are doing to the civil service and about the consequences of that for government and for our public life. In implementing any reforms, they have a duty to ensure that there remains a unified, properly staffed and motivated civil service to pass on to succeeding Administrations. I hope tonight for an unequivocal commitment from the Minister to that end, and that, on behalf of the Treasury, he will give me the undertakings that I have sought.
10.14 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert G. Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on securing this Adjournment debate and on his promotion to the ranks of the Opposition Whips Office. I am sure that serving as a Whip, as much in opposition as in government, is a valuable role; and that the hon. Gentleman, like anyone else who has served as one, will learn a great deal about government. Having heard his speech, however, I suggest that a period of silence on his part would be welcomed by many—especially by the people about whom he has been talking.
The hard-working civil servants whom the hon. Gentleman has attacked this evening have every right to resent his attack. As a Minister responsible for the civil service I certainly resent it on behalf of all the civil servants, of every grade, with whom I come into contact.
I am glad to have the opportunity to debate redundancies in the civil service and to set out clearly the true picture. There has been much ill-informed speculation of late, which I am pleased to have this chance to refute. The hon. Gentleman has tonight repeated some of the ill-informed exaggerations produced by the media and the trade unions.
This occasion allows me to discuss redundancy in the correct context of the reform of the civil service. This is an issue to which the Government attach the highest importance and on which, I believe, we have an excellent record. Our aim was well expressed in the citizens charter first report in 1992:
"New management structures are being developed, competition is being introduced or extended; arrangements for pay are changing rapidly. All these changes are in pursuit of a single, worthwhile cause: the safeguarding and improvement of our public services, for the benefit of those who use them, at a cost which the nation can afford."
The hon. Gentleman said twice that he wants there to be enough civil servants in place to implement the programme of an incoming Labour Government. Repeating an argument does not make it true. The fact is that civil servants are there to carry out the functions of the civil service. Although he only alluded to this in his speech, it is common for the hon. Gentleman, the First Division Association and other Labour party spokesmen to say that there has been a change in the civil service's

1111
code of ethics and that it will not be capable of serving a Labour Government. That, too, is an insult to civil servants—
Mr. Mandelson indicated dissent.
Mr. Hughes: That was certainly the tenor of the discussion in which the hon. Gentleman took part at the seminar held by the FDA—and it certainly represents the burden of what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said in a speech last week.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has done us all a favour. When I became a departmental Minister in the reshuffle, I was still in the middle of reading his excellent book, "How to be a Minister". In it, the right hon. Gentleman had some interesting things to say, among them the view that Labour politicians have of the civil service. He writes, on page 45:
"Some officials will just suggest one course of action, for you to take or leave. Others, more cunning, will attempt to confuse you with a choice, while carefully steering you in the direction they want you to go. The key of course is not necessarily to accept any of the courses of action they recommend, but to come up with some others yourself. The really inventive Minister will even reject the very problem posed to him, and map out another and more politically attractive scenario."
That is the sort of contempt with which the hon. Member for Hartlepool has spoken of the civil service.
The White Paper entitled "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change", which was published in July, was the first comprehensive statement of Government policy on the civil service since the Fulton report of 1968. In that document the subject of job losses was specifically and realistically addressed. It stated:
"On the basis of experience so far, recognising the challenging nature of running costs targets, and allowing for further opportunities for outsourcing and privatisation, the Government would expect Civil Service manpower to fall significantly below 500,000 over the next four years."
Incidentally, that fall is from a total at 1 April 1994 of 533,350. The White Paper continued:
"The Government does not intend to set specific manpower targets either globally or for departments; it firmly believes that control should continue to be exercised through running costs rather than staff numbers."
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thought that the kernel of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was the management of Government finance. Does the Minister intend to address that topic, bearing in mind the fact that various reports by the Public Accounts Committee, the Select Committee on Defence and the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service have dealt with the whole issue of costing and control of finance? They have also commented on how the Treasury will deal with it if we lose a complete layer of management. For example, how are we to deal with the burgeoning costs of the Ministry of Defence?
Mr. Hughes: After that uncalled-for intervention, I shall have time to reply to slightly less of the speech by the hon. Member for Hartlepool. I was seeking to speak to those points, but the hon. Member for Hartlepool went wider and I am entitled to respond to the wider issues as well.
1112
It is quite wrong to associate a reduction in civil service jobs with redundancies. One does not necessarily follow the other. As the White Paper went on to explain:
"The Government's aim has been, and will continue to be, that reductions in the size of the Civil Service should as far as possible be achieved without redundancies. Normal turnover in a large organisation gives managers scope for this. In recent years about 5 per cent. of staff have been leaving the Civil Service each year and in the Civil Service, as elsewhere, this figure may rise as the labour market changes."
The Government's aim is borne out by the facts. Provisional figures for the financial year 1993–94 show a total of about 37,000 departures from the civil service, of which only 2,800 were redundancies, and 800 of those were voluntary. In addition, there were 3,100 early departures, and in some cases that avoided later compulsory redundancies. Therefore, when discussing redundancy in the civil service, we must be sure to keep things in perspective.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool made a specific and important point about pensions. Those made compulsorily redundant receive payments under the principal civil service pension scheme related to age, reckonable service and pensionable pay. Terms agreed with the civil service unions when present arrangements were introduced on 1 April 1987 remain in place. I understand that those terms compare favourably with those in the private sector and are on the same basis for all grades. Of course, people are right to be concerned, but I do not think that there is a basis for that concern.
I shall now refer specifically to the Treasury's fundamental expenditure review. I am quite astonished that that review could lead either to this debate or to the cuttings that I have read from newspapers. First, no decisions have yet been made. The fundamental expenditure review did no more than recommend that 31 senior posts should be cut. Two of them are to transfer to other Departments and another three are currently unoccupied. It is surprising that the possibility of 26 redundancies should cause headlines claiming that 100,000 jobs are to be cut and that it should lead to this debate and its tone.
The White Paper stated:
"Every effort will be made to ensure that civil servants will be treated in a way that is fair and reasonable."
I shall reply specifically to the scurrilous points made by the hon. Member for Hartlepool about redundancy on political grounds. Of course, that is not correct; it has never been like that. He also asked whether there would be a hit list. That is an outrageous suggestion, which I emphatically reject.
The Government recognise the value of their staff and they reaffirmed that in the "Continuity and Change" White Paper, which said:
"The Civil Service needs to make better use of its most important resource—the staff of departments and agencies—by providing the prospects of a career with a good employer, offering challenge and reward; by developing their skills to meet the managerial, technical and competitive challenges they face; and by ensuring equality of opportunity for all members of staff, irrespective of background, gender, race and disability."
The Government will not idly throw away staff who have been recruited and trained at expense to the public purse because we appreciate the value of a permanent, well-trained civil service.

1113
It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman—the point was repeated by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—to talk in terms of the emasculation or destruction of the civil service as we know it. An emasculated and incapable civil service would be of no use to any Government, let alone an incoming Labour Government or, as is more likely, a continuing Conservative Government. Any wise Minister values the advice that he gets from his officials and, more to the point, knows that its quality is dependent on the robustness and impartiality with which it is delivered.
Good government in this country depends on a good and strong civil service, and the Government acknowledged that in the White Paper, which says:
"Successive Governments have paid. tribute to the service it has provided and have taken care that the Civil Service should maintain its impartiality and its ability to command the confidence of successive administrations. This Government are fully committed to maintaining this approach."
The idea that somehow, either in quality, in its disposition or in the numbers, the civil service would not be able to help or be of value to an incoming Labour Government is, in my judgment, a slur upon the civil servants who are there at the moment.
The exaggerated media stories and spurious figures on redundancies in the civil service that have been repeated tonight are inaccurate and, as I hope I have shown, will not help in the management of what is a difficult period of change for the civil service.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about demotivation and suggests that the Government have a desire to shred the civil service, what effect does he think that has on civil servants and their families? If anybody is demotivating those people, it is people such as the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. McNamara: Market testing.
Mr. Hughes: Market testing is enabling civil servants to do the jobs that they want to do; it is getting good value for the taxpayer. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not care about that; he does not care whether the customers—the people paying the bill—get the service that they want, but what can be the argument against people getting the best quality service at the best possible price? I thought that nobody would argue with that, least of all what we keep being told is the modern Labour party, the new Labour party that believes in value for money. That idea is blown out of the water every time Labour spokesmen open their mouths.
I believe that what has been said tonight will not help in the management of what is a difficult period of change for the civil service. The Government know well the excellent service that the civil service has provided to the country over many years and are determined to maintain an apolitical permanent civil service that is honest, impartial and accountable through Ministers to Parliament. Those qualities have served us well in the past and will do so in future.
1114
The Government are also determined to have a civil service that is effective and efficient. There is simply no reason to maintain within the civil service jobs that can be best done in the private sector. Let me remind the House that our criteria are best long-term value for money. We are seeking to safeguard services for the future, not to contract them out to the lowest bidder.
Alongside our determination for efficiency is an equal determination for quality of service. The citizens charter programme is a 10-year programme designed to raise the quality of public service across the board—and that includes the civil service.
Mr. Mandelson: Does the Minister accept that the fears of the Opposition might be greatly allayed if he were to take up my suggestion that the permanent secretary to the Treasury should call on the shadow Chancellor and reassure the Opposition that the Treasury machine that he is leaving intact, as the Minister has described, will be capable of implementing the policies and programmes of an incoming Labour Government? Why does not he accept my suggestion?
Mr. Hughes: Any reading of chapter four of the "Civil Service Management Code", which is a published document, not unwritten rules, would make the capability of the civil service abundantly clear to any sensible person from any party. That code covers the duty not to misuse official information, political neutrality, conflicts of interest, duties of civil servants in relation to Ministers and rules on accepting employment after leaving. The essential rules for being a civil servant are laid down centrally. They have everything to do with the hon. Gentleman's question. Those are the important issues for the Government to consider, not some fanciful idea of what an incoming Labour Government might or might not want to do.
The reorganisation of a management structure as large and as complex as the civil service is bound to be unsettling for those involved. We shall seek to keep redundancies, particularly compulsory ones, to a minimum. It is in no one's interests that there should be more than are necessary. It must be our aim to limit the number of redundancies as far as possible, in the interests not only of good personnel management, but of good economic management.
The Government now demand and get from the civil service better efficiency and better quality. For instance, the Benefits Agency has estimated that its productivity increase in the past four years means that it is now coping with a work load that would have required 15,000 more people in 1990. Demanding and getting value for money, looking for efficiencies and making the savings that are necessary are part of the duty of the Government to the taxpayer. I do not think that anyone would seriously argue about that duty and I do not believe that the Opposition will be taken seriously if they seek to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department commissioned a survey of public attitudes to the reform of the ground for divorce and procedures. This survey forms part of the Government's wider consultation on these matters and was conducted by Market and Opinion Research International Ltd. during the first quarter of 1994. A national survey of court users was commissioned from PAS Ltd. In August 1994 to gauge customer satisfaction levels in the court service and to help inform the formulation of standards for future courts charters. The cost of these surveys is regarded as commercially confidential.

  Commonhold Property
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to introduce legislation to provide for commonhold tenure.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government intend to introduce this legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for making:

  14 appointments to executive bodies;

  2,061 appointments to advisory bodies; and

  20 other appointments.

  He is responsible for approving 11 appointments to an advisory body.

  This answer does not cover judicial appointments, the 223 quasi-judicial justices' clerks in the magistrates courts or ecclesiastical appointments. The figure for appointments to advisory bodies include 104 appointments to rule committees, where some of the membership is laid down by statute.

  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how the Government intend to implement recommendation 17 of the 1994 report of the Senior Salaries Review Body.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Recommendation 17 of the 1994 report of the Senior Salaries Review Body is that the Government should seek to achieve the salary levels for the judiciary proposed in the 1992 report of the Top Salaries Review Body, plus regular uprating, by 1 April 1999. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the findings of the Senior Salaries Review Body on 3 February 1994,Official Report, columns 848-49. The Government have decided that the recommended salary levels should be achieved by spreading the increase evenly over the next five financial years, starting with 1 April 1995 and on 1 April thereafter to 1 April 1999.

DEFENCE

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on market testing in the Army Base Repair Organisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  A pilot market test of 18 Base Workshops at Bovington was won by the in-house bid team earlier this year. Since then, the Army Base Repair Organisation has completed a study which has concluded that there remains an excess of workshop capacity which needs to be addressed. This overcapacity results from a range of factors including the reorganisation of work load following earlier rationalisation, a reduction in the amount of equipment in the Army, increased reliability of modern equipment and improved repair techniques. The study has recommended that activity at the base workshop at Old Dalby, Leicestershire should cease, and that its work load should be transferred to other facilities. It recommended that the district workshop at Ashford, Kent should also cease operations and that its work load should be transferred either to other ABRO facilities or to industry. The study also recommended that the ABRO's wider market-testing programme should be restructured to take account of the proposed closures and to provide more scope for innovative proposals from industry.

  Our intention is to begin consultation on these proposals with the relevant trade unions as soon as possible with a view to completing the ABRO withdrawal from Ashford by late 1995 and Old Dalby by late 1996. Final decisions will be taken in the light of this consultation.

  If, in the event, withdrawal from the ABRO workshop at Old Dalby is confirmed after consultation, the MOD will first seek to establish whether there is another MOD use for the site and, in the event that there is not, I will seek actively, in co-operation with the local Member of Parliament, local authorities, staff representatives and the relevant local agencies to find an alternative use for the site and its facilities.

  Copies of the consultation document are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the projected capital cost of the Trident programme has been(a) spent to date and (b) committed to date.

  Mr. Freeman
  As at the end of June 1994, £7,401 million had been spent and £8,623 million committed on the Trident programme.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest estimate of the outstanding capital cost of the Trident programme that will remain to be spent and committed by(a) April 1996 and (b) April 1997.

  Mr. Freeman
  At current prices and exchange rates, estimated outstanding capital spend and commitment on the Trident programme at April 1996 will be £1,416 million and £686 million respectively. It is not our practice to provide detailed forecasts of project costs more than two years in advance. By April 1997, however, we expect outstanding spend to be in the region of £1 billion and commitment to be somewhat in excess of £400 million at today's economic conditions.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest estimate of the in-service date for the(a) second, (b) third and (c) fourth Trident submarines.

  Mr. Freeman
  The second Trident submarine is due to enter service towards the end of 1995 or early in 1996, the third in the late 1990s and the fourth around the turn of the century.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total expenditure to date on the purchase of the Trident D5 missiles from the United States.

  Mr. Freeman
  Some £596 million has been spent by the United Kingdom on the purchase of Trident D5 missiles from the United States.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Trident D5 missiles(a) have been purchased to date and (b) remain to be purchased.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United Kingdom has purchased 44 Trident D5 missiles to date. Final decisions have yet to be taken on how many more missiles will be purchased.

  Defence Estimates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which conventional force elements assigned to fulfil the nuclear aspects of defence role 1, "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994", apart from the Tornado GR1s, are intended specifically to fulfil the sub-strategic role.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the specific duties of the 12 regular infantry battalions assigned to the fulfilment of the nuclear role, under defence role 1, "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994".

  Mr. Soames
  The role of the 12 regular infantry battalions referred to under military task 1.1 is to provide protection to the nuclear deterrent in time of tension, crisis and war.

  Departmental Post
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on postage,736
  and how many items have been posted by his Department, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  Expenditure by my Department on postal services during the last five years is as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  12,090,996

  1990–91

  11,208,115

  1991–92

  8,511,910

  1992–93

  8,847,536

  1993–94

  8,537,031

  1994–95

  13,745,595

  1 to 24 October 1994

  The costs are for items sent through the Royal Mail and do not include the cost of providing an internal mail service within my Department.

  The number of items of mail moved by the defence postal service in the last five years, based on average bag-fill factors, is as follows:

  Number

  1990–91

  56,607,788

  1991–92

  56,082,586

  1992–93

  37,567,378

  1993–94

  31,125,393

  1994–95

  128,687,836

  1 estimate for whole year.

  Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the maritime rescue co-ordination centre at RAF Pitreavie to transfer to RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Soames
  The rescue co-ordination centre at RAF Pitreavie Castle is expected to transfer to RAF Leuchars in the first quarter of 1996.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what preparations have been made and at what cost for the transfer of the maritime rescue co-ordination centre from RAF Pitreavie to RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Soames
  Planning work continues within my Department to determine the optimum accommodation, communications and information systems necessary to support the national military rescue co-ordination centre at RAF Leuchars. To date, no money has been spent on the transfer.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the maritime rescue co-ordination centre at RAF Pitreavie.

  Mr. Soames
  I have nothing further to add to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the defence costs study, "Front Line First", on 14 July,Official Report, column 1172.

  Headquarters Transfer
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to transfer the
  737
  headquarters of the air officer commanding Scotland from RAF Pitreavie to RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Soames
  We propose to transfer the post of Air Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland from RAF Pitreavie Castle to RAF Leuchars in December 1995.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence approves 14 appointments to MOD executive non-departmental public bodies and 28 appointments to MOD advisory non-departmental public bodies. As for other public appointments not listed in "Public Bodies", I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 4 March,Official Report, column 938.

  Hercules
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will delay any decision on replacement of the Hercules fleet until the result of the full feasibility study of the future large aircraft is available.

  CVWW commercial accommodation financial year 1993–94

  Organisation

  Location

  Usage

  Rental £

  Church Army

  Sennelager

  Canteen/Bookshop

  6,269

  Herford

  Office/Stores

  2,359

  1Minden

  Bookshop

  706

  1Hildesheim

  Bookshop/Flat

  4,016

  Hameln

  Club/Canteen

  13,278

  1Hannover

  Bookshop/Office

  1,451

  Osnabrück

  Bookshop

  22,290

  Osnabrück

  Bookshop/Canteen

  2,988

  Salvation Army

  1Münsterlager

  Bookshop/Canteen

  903

  Herford

  Office/Cellar

  3,012

  Detmold

  Club/Store

  9,000

  Gütersloh

  Club

  1,499

  Iserlohn

  Shop/Canteen

  703

  1Lemgo

  Shop

  330

  1Soest

  Paper stall

  624

  1Soest

  Club

  1,982

  TOC H

  Paderborn

  Accommodation

  12,175

  Paderborn

  Store

  2,188

  Münster

  Club

  1,243

  Münster

  Shop

  649

  Münster

  Club

  6,180

  Herford

  Offices

  1,457

  1Verden

  Bookshop

  9,673

  YMCA

  Herford

  Offices

  5,952

  Bielefeld

  Shop/Office/Store

  4,942

  Dortmund

  Shop/Office/Store

  2,622

  Dortmund

  Bookshop

  2,733

  Celle

  Bookshop

  3,565

  Hohne

  Bookshop/Giftshop/Canteen

  21,495

  1Bergen

  Bookshop

  820

  Nienberg

  Bookshop

  3,475

  1Bunde

  Bookshop

  1,671

  738
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to await the results of the full feasibility study due to be available in the first quarter of 1995 by British companies for the pending order of the RAF Hercules aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  It would not be appropriate to delay a timely and cost-effective decision on the pressing operational needs of the Royal Air Force. The FLA is already being taken into account in our assessment.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the date when he will make his decision concerning the replacement or otherwise of the Hercules transporter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I hope to make an announcement on the way forward for the first tranche of the Hercules rolling replacement programme around the turn of the year.

  Appropriation Accounts
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the accommodation provided to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work, referred to in the other notes to class I, vote 1 of the Appropriation Accounts 1993–94.

  Mr. Soames
  A list of all accommodation made available to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Workers in British forces Germany during financial year 1993–94 is provided. The following list is divided into commercial and residential accommodation respectively.
  739

  CVWW commercial accommodation financial year 1993–94

  Organisation

  Location

  Usage

  Rental £

  Bunde

  Shops

  2,785

  Osnabrück

  Bookshop/Canteen

  12,601

  Düsseldorf

  Bookshop/Store

  6,501

  Krefeld

  Bookshop/Canteen

  2,862

  Rheindahlen

  Cardshop

  2,286

  Rheindahlen

  Bookshop/Canteen

  26,250

  Fallingbostel

  Bookshop/Canteen/Offices

  19,558

  Herford

  Offices

  2,273

  Herford

  Shop/Office/Store

  8,045

  CVWW

  Herford

  Offices

  1,281

  Services Central Book Depot

  Herford

  Store

  969

  Total

  237,661

  Note:

  1 Property handed back during financial year 1993–94

  CVWW residential accommodation financial year 1993–1994

  Quarter Type

  Annual Rent £

  Number

  Total Cost £

  Type IV

  6,706

  8

  53,648

  Type V

  5,642

  20

  112,840

  D Type

  5,794

  2

  11,588

  C Type

  3,880

  3

  11,640

  B Type

  3,719

  5

  18,595

  A Type

  3,189

  2

  6,378

  40

  214,689

  Total value of waiver during financial year 1993–94: £452,350

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the(a) contractor and (b) RAF leases which led to the extra-contractual payment referred to in the notes to class I, vote 1 of the Appropriation Accounts 1993–94.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not my Department's practice to identify individual contractors where matters of commercial confidentiality are concerned. There were no leases involved in the case in question.

  Number

  Description

  Value £

  Recipient

  30

  RN Flags

  10·00

  Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust

  3

  Deck Plate, Honours Board Name Board—ex HMS Sirius

  150·00

  Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Society

  50

  Liferaft Plastic Shells

  100·00

  Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust

  1

  Bell—ex HMS Scylla

  200·00

  City of Aberdeen

  1

  Name Plate—ex HMS Osiris

  40·00

  Kent and sharp-Shooters Yeomanry Squadron

  1

  Bell—ex HMS Cleopatra

  250·00

  Fleet Air Arm Museum Yeovilton

  1

  Honours Board—ex HMS Ambuscade

  40·00

  Borough of Crewe and Nantwich

  1

  Name Plate—ex HMS Ambuscade

  40·00

  Sea Cadet Corps TS Amberconwy

  1

  Name Plate—ex HMS Ambuscade

  40·00

  Sea Cadet Corpos TS Ambuscade

  740
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the contractors and (b) the circumstances which led to an extra-contractual payment of £11,750,000, as listed in the notes to class I, vote 3 of the Appropriation Accounts 1993–94.

  Mr. Freeman
  Individual contractors are not normally identified where matters of commercial confidentiality are concerned. The contractor had submitted claims against the Department in respect of alleged failures to meet obligations to supply equipment and information. These claims were disputed. However, following legal advice, the Department agreed to accept a share of responsibility for some of the delays and increased cost. The settlement, £19,000,000 payable over two years, was for approximately half the value of the total claim.

  Mr. Mundie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the gifts under £100,00 value recorded in class I, vote 2 of the Appropriation Accounts 1993–94.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:
  741

  Number

  Description

  Value £

  Recipient

  1

  Marine Anchor

  450·00

  The Merchant Seamans War Memorial Society

  1

  Name plate—ex HMS Opossum

  40·00

  St. Edmundsbury Borough Council

  1

  Honours Board—ex HMS Amazon

  50·00

  North Tyneside Council

  1

  Name Plate—ex HMS Arrow

  40·00

  Sunderland Companions Club

  1

  Gun Tampion—ex HMS Arrow

  35·00

  4th Regiment Royal Artillery

  1

  Deck Plate—ex HMS Arrow

  50·00

  Harrow Combined Cadet Force

  1

  Name Plate—ex HMS Arrow

  40·00

  Royal Companion of Archers

  2

  Ships Bell and Honours Board—ex HMS Arrow

  300·00

  City of Sunderland

  1

  Deck Plate—ex HMS Arrow

  50·00

  The Royal Naval Association

  4

  Name Board, deck Plates—ex HMS Alacrity

  180·00

  Sea Cadet Corps TS Alacrity

  1

  Flags—RAF and White Ensign

  30·46

  Gibraltar Museum

  1

  Anchor

  600·00

  Royal Burge of Culross

  1

  AVGAS Bowser

  1,600·00

  Portsmouth Naval Club

  1

  Admiral's Barge

  6,000·00

  Portsmouth Property Trust

  1

  ACR 430 System

  10,000·00

  Albania

  9

  Anchors

  1,000·00

  FIFE Enterprise

  1

  Humber Pig

  1,000·00

  Irish Museum

  1

  25 Pounder Gun

  2,000·00

  Luxembourg National Museum

  1

  Ammunition

  84,092·00

  National Rifle Association Bisley Meeting–1993

  1

  AR Martel Missiles

  30,000·00

  French Air Force

  6

  25 Pounder Guns

  6,000·00

  R A Museum

  1

  Harrier GR3

  1,100·00

  Chilean Air Force Museum

  2

  25 Pounder Guns

  1,500·00

  Military Auster Flight

  1

  Humber Pig

  1,000·00

  RAMC Museum Aldershot

  1

  Saladin

  4,000·00

  RAC Tank Museum

  3

  Combat Support Boats

  4,500·00

  WEU (Romania and Bulgaria)

  1

  Transport for CSBs

  32,000·00

  WFU (Romania and Bulgaria)

  1

  Medical Stores

  1·00

  Latvia

  1

  Harrier GR3

  1,200·00

  Belize Government

  1

  POL Equipment

  1·00

  Secondary School

  2

  Gliders

  5,000·00

  RAFGSA

  1

  1000 Rounds of Ammunition

  375·00

  Zimbabwe National Park

  1

  Grand Projector

  150·00

  RAF Museum

  742 743

  Number

  Description

  Value £

  Recipient

  1

  Jet Provost Fuselage

  150·00

  RAF Museum

  1

  Parachute

  298·00

  Russian Air Forces Museum—Ryaza

  2

  Film Drying Drum and Meteor Fuel Pump

  10·00

  RAF Museum

  147

  £195,722·46

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give(a) the name of contractor and (b) the circumstances which led to £1,175,000 payments as listed in the notes to class I, vote 3 of the Appropriation Accounts 1993–94; and what disciplinary action was taken.

  Mr. Freeman
  Individual contractors are not normally identified where matters of commercial confidentiality are concerned. Without admission of liability, a payment of £1,175,000, VAT included, was made to a contractor in respect of extra-contractual claims made against the Department. The claims were founded on the allegation that Government-furnished equipment had been provided late and in an unserviceable condition while Government-furnished facilities were not made available as planned. Disciplinary action was not considered to be appropriate in this case.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which naval base was involved and what was the gross cost of purchasing the property referred to in the order notices to class I, vote 1 of the Appropriation Accounts 1993–94.

  Mr. Soames
  The property referred to was purchased in connection with works at the Clyde submarine base. Some £203,500 was spent to purchase land to facilitate the construction of new mess and living accommodation at Faslane.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the type of goods which led to £1,331,000 being lost as set out in the loss statement in class I, vote 2 of the Appropriation Accounts 1993–94; and what disciplinary action was taken.

  Mr. Soames
  The type of goods referred to form part of the marine engineering spares inventory and are wholly or mainly manufactured of rubber. The introduction of British standard 3574 in 1987 resulted in shorter shelf and working life periods for many rubber goods held at RNSD Eaglescliffe. A review which was carried out to test all rubber components against the new British standard revealed that a number of rubber items should be classified as non-conforming stock. An exhaustive study into this matter concluded that no blame could be attached to an individual or individuals in this case.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now set up a full public inquiry into operations at the atomic weapons establishment.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The Health and Safety Executive Review of the AWE was comprehensive and detailed. The AWE's response was published as part of the report and actions which accord with the recommendations form part of AWE's current safety development programme. A744
  public inquiry would divert effort from the important safety improvement work now in hand.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to remove AWE's immunity from the licensing requirements of the Nuclear Installations Acts.

  Mr. Freeman
  Decisions will be taken in the light of discussions with the HSE on the timing and implementation of licensing.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution about safety at AWE following review by the Health and Safety Executive of AWE; and if he will ask Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to carry out a similar review of AWE and publish the results.

  Mr. Freeman
  The HMIP, and also the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, in the case of AWE Cardiff, the Welsh Office, routinely monitor AWE under the provisions of the relevant environmental legislation. They are independent regulators and judge for themselves appropriate timing for reviews and audits.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has made to the recommendation made by the director general of the Health and Safety Executive in his recent report on the safety of atomic weapons establishments in respect of Crown immunity; and when and in what form, he expects to respond to the other recommendations.

  Mr. Freeman
  As I said to the House on 18 October 1994 during the defence debate,Official Report, column 240, we accept in principle the argument for licensing AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield under the provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, subject to discussions about timing the implementation. The report's other recommendations are addressed to the operating contractor, Hunting BRAE, and its response is incorporated into the HSE's report.

  Rosehearty Test Range
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for daily sound monitoring of the night-time sorties at the Rosehearty test range; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans for sound monitoring of night-time sorties at the RAF air weapons range at Rosehearty.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to extend night-time flying at the Rosehearty test range to other months of the year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans to extend night flying at the RAF air weapons range at Rosehearty beyond the period, from 1 May to 31 August, already proposed.
  745
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions will be taken to protect fishing vessels in the vicinity of the Rosehearty test range following the extension to the operating times of the range; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The present regulations governing the use of the air weapons range at Rosehearty allow fishing vessels to operate safely within the range danger area both during the day and at night. No further action is therefore necessary.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for RAF officials to meet the residents of Rosehearty to discuss night-time bombing sorties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  None. Public consultation on this issue is a matter for the local council. Officials from my Department and the local council met at RAF Lossiemouth in August when the RAF requirement for extended operating hours at the air weapons range, Rosehearty, was explained in full. Council officials were given every opportunity to raise any public concerns at that meeting.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what emergency procedures have been adopted in the event of an accident at the Rosehearty test range; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF requires all air weapons ranges to develop their own set of procedures for dealing with accidents in consultation with the appropriate local emergency services. Procedures in place at Rosehearty require the unit, in the event of an accident, to advise civilian emergency services and air traffic control at RAF Lossiemouth, render all possible aid at the scene of the accident and provide co-ordination assistance to the emergency and rescue services.

  Pilot Training
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the possibility of simulated night-time sorties for training pilots; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  A considerable amount of night-flying training is carried out by aircrew of all three services using flight simulators. As simulator technology improves, more night training will be undertaken using synthetic training devices. However, for safety and operational reasons, the requirement for some live night-flying training will always remain.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outbreak of dysentery at Vitez army camp in Bosnia; whether the source of infection has been identified; and what action has been taken to eradicate it.

  Mr. Soames
  Between July and September 1994, some 250 soldiers in Vitez and the surrounding areas reported sick with diarrhoea. In the majority of cases no causative organism was identified, although some specimens revealed a mix of organisms including salmonella and shigella. No specific source was identified but the in-theatre British military environmental health inspector believed contributing factors to be: damaged sewage systems and inadequately maintained waste disposal 746
  facilities in the surrounding area; faecal contamination of a river running through the camp; hot water; a high incidence of disease-carrying insects; and poor hygiene practices among the troops.

  As a result of his report, structural improvements were made to waste disposal systems, fly proofing was installed, food-handling and storage practices reinforced, water purification processes were checked and a theatre-wide campaign aimed at improving personal hygiene was introduced. The number of cases peaked in August and there have been no cases reported so far this month.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the level of expenditure by RAF Finningley on supplies and services from the local area.

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

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) total and (b) mean annual salary cost of service personnel located at RAF Finningley.

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

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what developments, improvements, equipment upgrades or other physical works have been undertaken at RAF Finningley in the past five years; and what has been the cost of each of these works projects.

  Mr. Soames
  Details of works expenditure at RAF Finningley for financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95 are as follows:

  £

  Property Management (including maintenance and minor works)

  12,808,000

  Officer Married Quarter refurbishment

  5,200,000

  New Air Navigation School

  4,660,000

  Airman Married Quarter refurbishment

  4,600,000

  Barrack Block refurbishment

  1,242,000

  Supply Hanger

  772,000

  New Motor Transport Facility

  745,000

  100 Squadron Accommodation

  580,000

  Station Heating upgrade

  274,000

  Total

  30,881,000

  These figures include estimated expenditure of £2,423,000 for the current financial year.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the existing facilities at RAF Finningley could be used for civilian aviation purposes.

  Mr. Soames
  If the proposed closure of RAF Finningley goes ahead, and the site is disposed of, the runway, taxiway, hangarage, parking and handling areas could, subject to planning approval, be used for civilian aviation purposes.

  Fixtures such as radar and air traffic control equipment would be removed by the RAF prior to disposal. If the RAF continued to use Finningley as at present, and capacity for civil use of the airfield was identified, only the runway and taxiway would be available for use by civil aircraft on a regular basis.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what improvement works are required at other bases to which it is proposed that existing RAF Finningley
  747
  activities will transfer in order that the facilities at RAF Finningley are matched; at which RAF stations the works are required; and what is the estimated cost of these improvement works.

  Mr. Soames
  The detail requested will be covered in a consultative document concerning the proposed closure of RAF Finningley. That document will fully explain the rationale behind the proposal, including financial considerations, and will be issued shortly.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each, the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  Period

  Commissioned by

  Subject

  1992

  November

  Army

  ACIO Research

  December

  Army

  Army Officer Creative Development Research

  1993

  March

  RAF

  Recruitment Advertising Strategy Research

  May

  Army

  Officer Advertising, Creative Development Research

  December

  MoD

  NECL Creative Development Research

  December

  Army

  Soldier Slogan Research

  1994

  February

  RN

  Advertising Strategy Development Research

  March

  MoD

  University Finalists Survey

  March

  MoD

  NELC Research

  May

  Army

  Slogan Confirmation and Creative Development Research

  June

  Army

  Army Recruitment Targeting Research

  June

  RN

  Asians Language and Communication Survey

  August

  MoD

  NECL Tracking—Autumn 94

  September

  Army

  Army Recruiting Advertising Tracking

  The objectives of the research are to monitor the effectiveness of advertising and attitudes of members of the public towards a career in the armed forces. The cost of the studies and the name of the successful contractor is commercially confidential information.

  The commissioning of public opinion surveys by my Department's agencies is a matter for the chief executives of those agencies. I can confirm, however, that none of the chief executives has commissioned such work since 1 October 1992.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to introduce height-recording equipment in all fast jets included in low-level and ultra-low level training flights.

  Mr. Soames
  We have no plans to introduce such equipment.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to date for the decommissioning of each nuclear-powered submarine withdrawn from service; and what information his Department has sought from the Defence Ministries of the United States, France and Russia on their respective experience in such submarine reactor cores and hulls.

  Mr. Freeman
  The approximate costs of undertaking the defuelling, de-equipping and lay-up preparation process for those nuclear-powered submarines which have been taken out of service to date are as follows:

  Submarine

  DDLP costs £ million

  HMS Swiftsure

  11·5

  HMS Warspite

  11·3

  HMS Churchill

  11·2

  HMS Conqueror

  10·6

  HMS Courageous

  10·8

  HMS Revenge (SSBN)

  18·7

  HMS Valiant and HMS Resolution have not started their DDLP process yet.

  Those costs do not include the costs of final disposal, the policy for which is still under consideration. It is also not possible to provide costs on the decommissioning of HMS Dreadnought, which was the first nuclear submarine to be withdrawn from service in 1982 and the information requested, in so far as it may be available, could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  A regular exchange of information between the United States and the United Kingdom Governments continues on all nuclear matters under the 1958 mutual defence agreement. No detailed discussions have taken place with France or Russia on these matters.

  Gordon Foxley
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has undertaken a study of the costs to the Government arising from acts of corruption for which Gordon Foxley has been convicted.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department's study of Gordon Foxley's corrupt activities has been unable to establish specific costs to the Government arising from these.

  South Africa
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Government of South Africa regarding allegations of sales of arms by British companies to the former South African Government in breach of the United Nations arms embargo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Ministry of Defence Headquarters
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the costs of constructing the new MOD headquarters at Abbey Wood; and what are the expected running costs.

  Mr. Freeman
  The estimated works cost of the Abbey Wood development, inclusive of site acquisition, construction, fitting out, professional works management fees and VAT is £254·136 million at 1993 prices. The construction programme continues to proceed within
  749
  budget and against the planned time scale, which remains tight. Phased occupation of the accommodation is targeted to commence in autumn 1995, with the aim of completing by autumn 1996.

  We are in the process of inviting bids for facilities management at Abbey Wood. The core facilities management costs are projected to achieve savings in excess of 40 per cent. compared to existing accommodation, with energy costs estimated at one third of those for typical modern buildings.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what conclusions for United Kingdom policy he has drawn from the recent report commissioned by the United States Department of Defence concerning the military utility of anti-personnel mines to the United States armed forces;

  (2) whether Her Majesty's Government will commission a report on the military utility of anti-personnel mines for the armed forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are not aware of any specific United States Government report concerning the military utility of anti-personnel mines for the United States armed forces. The need for, and the role of, land mines for the United Kingdom armed forces is assessed as part of overall military strategy.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's armed forces have been(a) killed and (b) injured by anti-personnel mines since 1980; in which countries, and with what effects on operations in which British armed forces have been involved.

  Mr. Soames
  Precise data are not available on the individual weapons systems responsible for deaths and injuries of service personnel.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has conducted into the impact of anti-personnel mines on civilian populations; and what conclusions he reached.

  Mr. Freeman
  No such research has been carried out by the Ministry of Defence. The use of anti-personnel land mines by United Kingdom armed forces is fully in accordance with the laws of war, which prohibit the use of land mines against civilians.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has conducted on the failure rates of anti-personnel mines with self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanisms; and if he will publish specific details of failure rates and the general conclusions of the research.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 18 April 1994,Official Report, column 416.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has conducted to compare the levels of military utility to the United Kingdom armed forces of anti-personnel mines and anti-tank mines; and with what conclusions.

  Mr. Freeman
  Anti-personnel mines and anti-tank mines have separate roles although they are often laid within the same area. The anti-tank mine is intended to prevent physically the passage of military vehicles with 750
  consequential effect on the enemy's fighting capability. Anti-personnel mines are intended to lower the enemy's general effectiveness. Consequently, the military utility of the two cannot be compared to useful advantage.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  In respect of his ministerial responsibilities, my right hon. Friend is responsible for making 95 appointments to six executive bodies and 53 appointments on five advisory bodies. Ten further appointments to an advisory body require his approval. All of these are listed in "Public Bodies".

  In respect of his non-ministerial responsibilities for the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor is also responsible for 186 appointments to 21 advisory bodies, and six appointments with a historical connection. These are not listed in "Public Bodies".

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total number of public appointments made by Ministers, or requiring their approval, including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of(a) appointments to executive bodies, (b) appointments to advisory bodies and (c) other appointments.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  There are 42,606 public appointments listed in "Public Bodies 1993". Of these, 4,116 are appointments to executive bodies, 10,022 are appointments to advisory bodies, and 28,468 are other appointments such as those made to tribunals and NHS bodies. Statistical information is not held centrally about other appointments not listed in "Public Bodies" which include the posts of utility regulators, and non-executive appointments to agency and departmental management boards.

  Official Report
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the price per copy, in(a) real and (b) current prices of a daily copy of the Official Report in 1970, what it is at present; what has been the percentage change in the price since 1970; and what has been the change in the retail prices index over the same period.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The price of House of Commons daily Hansard in 1970 was 2s 3d, which adjusted by the percentage change in the retail prices index of 787 per cent. is equivalent to 87p today; the price since 1991 has been £7.50. The 1970 price was heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, and this is no longer the case. HMSO announced last year that prices for routine parliamentary publications, including the Official Report, would not be increased during the life of the present Parliament.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to meet the officers of the
  751
  Hansard Society to discuss their report on the decline in the sales of Hansard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  I have no such plans.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to achieve maximum distribution of the Official Report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Market research on the prospects for increasing sales of the Official Report has recently been undertaken by MORI on behalf of HMSO. The findings are currently under consideration.

  Telephone Information Lines
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many telephone information lines have been established under the auspices of the citizens charter; and how many of these are currently in operation.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Many public service organisations have set up and run their own telephone information lines to ensure that their customers can make easy contact with them. The Office of Public Service and Science does not hold central records of all these lines, but is aware of Government helplines in the following sectors:

  AGRICULTURE

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Helpline: 0645-335577. Local rates. 0900-1700 weekdays.

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

  Customs and Excise Helpline: 071-202 4227. Standard rates. 0900-1700 weekdays.

  EDUCATION

  Department for Education Enquiries: 071-925 5555.
  Standard rates. 0900-1700 weekdays.

  EMPLOYMENT

  Dial a Job: 071-287 0100. Standard rates. 0900-1700 weekdays.

  Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Information Centre Helpline: 0742-892345. Standard rates. 0900-1700 weekdays. HSE Autofax: 0742-892333. Standard rates. 24 hours a day.

  Redundancy Payments Service Customer Service Unit Helpline: 0800-848489. Free. 0900-1700 weekdays.

  Work Permits Information Line: 071-273 5337. Standard rates. 0900-1700 weekdays.

  ENERGY EFFICIENCY

  Energy Efficiency: 071-276 6200. Standard rates. 0900-1700 weekdays.

  Energy Action Grants Agency (grants for improving energy efficiency): 0800-181667. Free. 0830-1730 weekdays.

  Building Research Establishment Saving Money on Heating: 0923-664664. Standard rates. 0900-16.30 weekdays.

  ENVIRONMENT

  National Rivers Authority Emergency Hotline for Environmental Incidents: 0800-807060. Free. 24 hours a day.

  Air Quality Information: 0800-556677. Free. 24 hours a day.

  752
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

  Foreign Travel Advice Unit: 071-270 4129. Standard rates. 0930-1600 weekdays.

  HEALTH

  Health Information Service (Information about health, local NHS services, waiting times, common diseases, conditions and treatments): 0800-665544. Free. 1000-1700 weekdays.

  AIDS Helpline: 0800-567123. Free. 24 hours a day.

  HOME OFFICE

  General Enquiries: 071-273 4599. Standard rates. 24 hours a day.

  Nationality and Citizenship Enquiries: 051-236 4723. Standard rates. 0900-1600 weekdays.

  Immigration Enquiries: 081-686 0688. Standard rates. 0900-1645 Monday-Thursday. 0900-1630 Friday. 24 hour recorded information for visitors: 081-760 1600.
  Standard rates.

  Students: 081-760 1622. Standard rates.

  Work permit holders: 081-760 1644. Standard rates.
  Au Pairs: 081-760 1666. Standard rates.

  Home Office Publications Unit: 071-273 3072/2302.
  Standard rates. 0915-1700 weekdays.

  INLAND REVENUE

  Taxback Information Line: 0800-660800. Free. 24 hours a day.

  POST OFFICE

  Post Office Counters Helpline: 0345-223344. Local rates. 0815-1800 weekdays. 0830-1300 Saturday.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Security Freeline:

  English: 0800-666555. Free. 0830-1630 weekdays.

  Urdu: 0800-289188. Free. 0900-289188. Free. 0900-1600 weekdays.

  Chinese: 0800-252451. Free. 0900-1630 weekdays.

  Punjabi: 0800-521360. Free. 0830-1630 weekdays.

  Welsh: 0800-289011. Free. 0900-1630 weekdays.

  Language line: Details available from Benefits Agency local offices.

  Family Credit Helpline: 0253-500050. Standard rates. 0730-1830 weekdays.

  Benefit Enquiry Line for people with Disabilities: 0800-882200. Free. 0830-1830 weekdays. 0900–1300 Saturday.

  Minicom: 0800-243355. Free.

  Disability Living Allowance Customer Care Helpline: 0345-123456. Local rates. 0730–1830 weekdays.

  Child Support Agency Enquiries: 0345-133133. Local rates. 0830-1800. weekdays.

  Social Security Advice Line for Employers: 0800-393539. Free. 0900-1630 Monday-Thursday. 0900-1600 Friday.

  War Pension Agency Helpline: 0253-858858. Standard rates. 0815-1715 Monday-Thursday. 0815-1630 Friday. Minicom: 0253-859999. Standard rates.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  General Enquiries: 071-215 5000. Standard rates. 0830-1730 weekdays. Answerphone at other times.

  Innovation: 0800-442001. Free. 0830-1730 weekdays. Answerphone at other times.

  Business in Europe Hotline: 0272-444888. Standard rates. 24 hours a day.
  753
  DTI Services for Businesses: 0800-500200. Free. 24 hours a day.

  TRANSPORT

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Customer Enquiry Unit (Drivers): 0792-772151. Standard rates.0815-1630 weekdays.

  Customer Enquiry Unit (Vehicles): 0792-772134. Standard rates. 0815-1630 weekdays.

  Cones Hotline: 0345-504030. Local rates. 24 hours a day.

  London Transport Travel Information: 071-222 1234. Standard rates. 24 hours a day.

  The citizens charter unit has itself set up and run a number of telephone information lines:

  (a) 0800 100101 sent out copies of guides to the Citizen's Charter White Paper. Calls to this line were free. The service ran from 22 July 1991 until 16 March 1994.

  (b) 0345 300130 provided information about how to obtain copies of the follow-up charters produced by departments and agencies. Calls to this line were charged at a local rate. The service ran from 25 November 1992 until 16 March 1994.

  (c) Charterline (0345 203040), a telephone information helpline service for local and national public services. was piloted in the East Midlands from 19 May 1993 until 6 May 1994. Calls were charged at a local rate.

  (d) The Citizen's Charter Publication Line on 0345 223242 was set up on 16 March 1994 to send out copies of the Guide to Citizen's Charter White Papers; details of how to obtain the follow-up charters; the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; Charter Mark Award Scheme information; Charter News; and Complaints Task Force information. The service is still running; calls are charged at a local rate.

TREASURY

  Vineyards
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will pay a visit to an English vineyard to discuss what steps he can take to better help the commercial vineyards in the United Kingdom in relation to harmonisation of the tax regime.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to visit an English vineyard at present, but he is fully aware of the concerns of the industry.

  Income Levels
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the changes in disparities in income level over the last decade.

  Sir George Young
  Since 1979, real incomes have increased by an average of 36 per cent. Some groups have done even better—real incomes of pensioner couples are up 56 per cent.—but there have been gains for all groups.

  VAT
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to impose value added tax on private medical insurance, university or college fees, school fees, school lunches or other charges levied by the state or private schools.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I cannot anticipate the Budget statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning the extension of VAT to public transport.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer receives many representations on a wide range of issues in the run-up to the Budget.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further plans he has to end the exemption of goods and services from VAT.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Tax changes are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his Budget. However, the range of goods and services which member states exempt from VAT is covered by Community law. Most are mandatory exemptions, but member states have the option to extend certain exemptions to non-profit making bodies, subject to certain conditions.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional income he will gain in a full year from increasing VAT on fuel to 17½ per cent.; and what its effect will be on the weekly household bills of a family of four.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Application of the standard rate of VAT to domestic fuel and power will yield around an additional £1·5 billion in a full year. The impact on fuel bills will depend on fuel prices and on what happens to spending patterns.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the growth of the United Kingdom economy in the first three quarters of calendar year 1994.

  Mr. Aitken
  In the first three quarters of 1994, gross domestic product was 3½ per cent. up on the same period a year earlier. We are now seeing a highly favourable combination of strong growth and low inflation, with underlying inflation at a 27-year low.

  Financial Products
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about different fiscal treatment of financial products in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a large number of representations from organisations and individuals on a wide variety of subjects, as is customary in the run-up to the Budget.

  Tax Cuts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average amount each of the top 1 per cent. earners in the United Kingdom has received in tax cuts since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  A calculation of the tax change for those who are currently in the top 1 per cent. of earners would require extensive information on their income levels and tax reliefs over the period since 1979. Since such information is not centrally available it is not possible to estimate an average figure.

  Demand
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the levels of total demand in the economy.

  Mr. Aitken
  The most recent figures for total domestic demand relate to the second quarter of 1994. By then, demand had risen for nine consecutive quarters, to a level exceeding its previous peak in the second quarter of 1990.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross domestic product is taken by public expenditure; and what the figure was in 1979.

  Mr. Aitken
  General Government expenditure excluding privatisation proceeds as a percentage of GDP was 44 in 1979–80 and 44.25 in 1993–94.

  Tax Burdens
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax burden of a married couple on average earnings, with a £30,000 mortgage and two children.

  Sir George Young
  Real take-home pay, after tax, for this group has increased by around £83 a week since 1978–79 compared with an increase of less than £2 a week between 1973–74 and 1978–79.

  EU Budget
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effects of fraud and waste in the European Union budget.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Fraud and waste in the Community budget is at an unacceptably high level and brings the Union into disrepute. It is essential that member states and Community institutions alike intensify their efforts to deal with it. The United Kingdom will continue to take the lead in the fight against fraud in the Community.

  In March, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced a joint action proposal, under title VI of the treaty on European Union, to combat serious fraud against the Community budget. The Commission has also recently presented two proposals to the Council designed to reinforce the protection of the Community's financial interests. Those proposals and the United Kingdom's proposal are under consideration in the Council.

  Budget Representations
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received suggesting proposals for his forthcoming Budget.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a large number of representations from organisations and individuals, as is customary in the run-up to the Budget.

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new proposals he has to safeguard the jobs at the Central Statistical Office in London and Newport.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Central Statistical Office publishes annually its future staffing estimates in its "Programme Strategies". The most recent relate to the period 1994–95 to 1996–97. These plans are rolled forward each year and are revised in line with changes in expenditure provision and business needs.

  Tax Changes
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between tax changes and the incidence of poverty in the United Kingdom.

  Sir George Young
  Since 1979, real incomes have increased for all economic groups. The policies of sound finance now being pursued will produce sustained recovery, more jobs and further increases in living standards.

  Postage
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by his Department, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nelson
  Expenditure by HM Treasury on postage for 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 to date was £67,612, £73,104 and £28,238 respectively.

  The number of items posted for 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 to date was 311,010, 355,908 and 155,602.

  The information for earlier years is incomplete and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tiger Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of tiger products and material containing tiger products seized by HM Customs and Excise in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  HM Customs and Excise made the following seizures over the period.

  1989

  Musk and tiger plaster— 2packets.

  Tiger bone tablets—number not known.

  1990

  Tiger skin–1.

  757
  1991

  Tiger skin handbag–1.

  1992

  None.

  1993

  Tiger skin–1 whole, 1 piece and 1 pair of shoes.

  Tincture of tiger bone–2 bottles.

  Tiger bone plaster–43 packets and 30 strips.

  Tiger bone pills–51 boxes and 420 tablets.

  Tiger bone medicine–1 packet and 3 sachets.

  Tiger claws–2.

  1994 (to date)

  Tiger bone plasters–22.

  Lion and tiger claws–13.

  Tincture of tiger bone–20 x 70c1 bottles.

  Tiger bones—number not known.

  Pension Transfers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the cost of compensation to(a) public funds and (b) pension companies for pension transfers based on bad advice; what assessment he has made as to whether compensation from pension funds will be paid in full; and what representations he has received regarding the sources from which it should be paid.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 25 October Official Report, columns 507–10.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  Expenditure by HM Treasury on official hospitality for 1990–91 was £E51,424; for 1991–92 £85,873; for 1992–93, £303,523; for 1993–94, £74,007; and spend to date in 1994–95, £27,732.

  The large increase in 1992–93 results from a number of one-off events including the informal meeting of the Economic and Finance Council during the United Kingdom presidency and the International Organisation for Securities Commissions conference.

  Expenditure by the agencies for 1990–91 was £44,832; for 1991–92, £45,955; for 1992–93, £36,593; for 1993–94, £53,051 and for 1994–95 to date £16,600.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the public appointments for which he is responsible(a) in the west midlands region and (b) in Shropshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary.
  758
  Mr. Nelson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for six public appointments in the west midlands region and one in Shropshire. All appointments are to VAT tribunals. The duration of each appointment is three years. Of the appointments in the west midlands region one new appointment is due on 1 October 1995; three on 1 October 1996 and two on 1 October 1997. A new appointment is due in Shropshire on 1 October 1997. All appointees are paid a daily fee when they sit, which is currently set at £149.

  Tobacco and Alcohol
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the average price of(a) cigarettes, (b) cigars and (c) rolling tobacco in each EU country; and what percentage of that price is excise, VAT or other tax;

  (2) what are the rates of excise duty and VAT on tobacco products in each EU country; and what is the difference in each case from United Kingdom levels.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The most popular price category for cigarettes, cigars and hand-rolling tobacco in each EU country and the excise and VAT elements of those prices are shown in the tables. Average prices of these products in other EU countries are not available.

  MPPC £ per 1000 cigarettes

  Excise Duty as a percentage of MPPC

  VAT as a percentage of MPPC

  Cigarettes

  Belgium

  91·96

  57·76

  17·01

  Denmark

  145·94

  64·56

  20·00

  France

  82·80

  59·16

  16·32

  Germany

  100·49

  58·68

  13·04

  Greece

  60·59

  56·62

  15·25

  Ireland

  122·33

  59·95

  17·36

  Italy

  59·07

  57·00

  15·97

  Luxembourg

  65·32

  57·96

  10·71

  Netherlands

  80·43

  57·00

  14·89

  Portugal

  52·46

  67·17

  13·79

  Spain

  27·27

  55·36

  14·53

  United Kigndom

  127·00

  61·20

  14·89

  Cigars

  Belgium

  935·97

  10·00

  17·01

  Denmark

  5577·10

  10·37

  20·00

  France

  1199·98

  29·26

  16·32

  Germany

  1168·99

  5·00

  13·04

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  Ireland

  366·88

  22·06

  17·36

  Italy

  —

  —

  —

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  2449·;46

  5·00

  14·89

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  Spain

  2528·24

  10·00

  14·53

  United Kingdom

  388·00

  19·99

  14·89

  Hnand-rolling

  tobacco

  Belgium

  26·29

  37·55

  17·01

  Denmark

  69·99

  40·96

  20·00

  France

  24·72

  56·38

  16·32

  Germany

  44·09

  46·22

  13·04

  Greece

  45·78

  57·50

  15·25

  Ireland

  101·43

  67·33

  17·36

  Italy

  26·48

  54·28

  15·97

  Luxembourg

  23·50

  31·50

  10·71

  Netherlands

  29·25

  60·47

  14·89

  Portugal

  11·10

  30·00

  13·79

  Spain

  22·31

  30·00

  14·53

  United Kingdom

  142·40

  57·49

  14·89

  759

  Rate of Excise Duty

  Actual Tax Amounts £ per 1,000

  Amount less than United Kingdom levels £ per 1,000

  Ad valorem Per cent.

  Specific per 1,000

  VAT Rate per cent.

  Total exercise

  VAT

  Exercise

  VAT

  Cigarettes

  Belgium

  50·00

  7·11

  20·50

  52·91

  15·58

  35·02

  5·10

  Denmark

  21·22

  63·26

  25·00

  94·22

  29·19

  -18·04

  -12·35

  France

  54·95

  3·49

  19·50

  48·98

  13·51

  39·63

  7·63

  Germany

  24·80

  34·04

  15·00

  58·97

  13·11

  27·37

  8·23

  Greece

  53·39

  1·96

  18·00

  34·31

  9·24

  56·45

  12·56

  Ireland

  16·83

  52·74

  21·00

  73·33

  21·23

  8·61

  -2·20

  Italy

  53·35

  2·16

  19·00

  33·67

  9·43

  58·42

  12·62

  Luxembourg

  54·30

  2·39

  12·00

  37·86

  7·00

  54·00

  15·93

  Netherlands

  21·05

  38·92

  17·50

  45·85

  11·98

  44·00

  9·67

  Portugal

  56·00

  5·86

  1600

  35·23

  7·24

  57·77

  15·73

  Spain

  49·00

  1·74

  17·00

  15·10

  3·96

  82·53

  19·72

  United Kingdom

  20·00

  52·33

  17·50

  77·73

  18·91

  —

  —

  Cigars

  Belgium

  10·00

  0·00

  20·50

  93·60

  159·23

  N/A

  N/A

  Denmark

  10·00

  20·64

  25·00

  578·23

  1115·42

  N/A

  N/A

  France

  29·26

  0·00

  19·50

  351·11

  188·19

  N/A

  N/A

  Germany

  5·00

  0·00

  15·00

  58·45

  152·48

  N/A

  N/A

  Greece

  26·00

  0·00

  18·00

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Ireland*

  0·00

  80·93

  21·00

  80·93

  63·67

  N/A

  N/A

  Italy

  23·00

  0·00

  19·00

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Luxembourg

  10·00

  0·00

  12·00

  N/A

  N/A

  NA

  N/A

  Netherlands

  5·00

  0·00

  17·50

  122·47

  364·81

  N/A

  N/A

  Portugal

  26·21

  0·00

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Spain

  10·00

  0·00

  17·00

  252·82

  329·77

  N/A

  N/A

  United Kingdom*

  0·00

  77·58

  17·50

  77·58

  57·79

  N/A

  N/A

  Hand Rolling Tobacco

  Belgium

  37·55

  0·00

  20·50

  9·87

  4·47

  71·99

  16·74

  Denmark

  0·00

  28·67

  25·00

  28·67

  14·00

  53·19

  7·21

  France

  56·38

  0·00

  19·50

  13·94

  3·88

  67·92

  17·33

  Germany

  18·12

  12·39

  15·00

  20·38

  5·75

  61·48

  15·46

  Greece

  57·50

  0·00

  18·00

  26·32

  6·98

  55·54

  14·23

  Ireland

  0·00

  68·29

  21·00

  68·29

  17·60

  13·57

  3·61

  Italy

  54·28

  0·00

  19·00

  14·37

  4·23

  67·49

  16·98

  Luxembourg

  31·50

  0·00

  12·00

  7·40

  3·07

  74·46

  18·14

  Netherlands

  16·53

  12·85

  17·50

  17·69

  4·36

  64·17

  16·85

  Portugal

  30·00

  0·00

  16·00

  3·33

  1·53

  78·53

  19·68

  Spain

  30·00

  0·00

  17·00

  6·69

  2·91

  75·17

  18·30

  United Kingdom

  0·00

  81·86

  17·50

  81·86

  21·21

  —

  —

  * Duty on cigars in United Kingdom and Ireland is in £ per Kg and therefore comparison of differences in levels of Excise duty and VAT with United Kingdom are not available.

  Life Expectancy
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the life expectancy for(a) men and (b) women in each year since 1979 in each EU country.

  Life expectancy

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  (a) Males

  Belgium

  70·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  72·4

  72·7

  72·8

  73·1

  Denmark

  71·2

  71·4

  —

  —

  71·6

  71·6

  71·8

  —

  —

  72·0

  72·0

  72·5

  72·6

  France

  70·2

  —

  —

  70·7

  —

  —

  71·5

  72·0

  —

  72·5

  72·7

  72·9

  73·2

  Germany

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  72·0

  72·1

  72·6

  Greece

  72·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74·2

  —

  74·5

  74·6

  74·6

  Ireland

  —

  70·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  71·0

  72·0

  72·2

  72·6

  Italy

  70·6

  —

  —

  71·4

  71·6

  —

  —

  —

  73·2

  —

  73·6

  73·6

  —

  Luxembourg

  —

  70·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  72·0

  71·9

  Netherlands

  72·7

  72·7

  72·7

  —

  72·9

  73·0

  —

  —

  —

  73·7

  73·8

  74·0

  74·3

  Portugal

  67·7

  —

  68·9

  —

  —

  —

  70·2

  70·7

  —

  70·9

  70·3

  70·2

  70·7

  Spain

  72·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  73·4

  —

  —

  73·3

  73·3

  —

  United Kingdom

  70·6

  70·8

  71·1

  71·4

  71·5

  71·7

  71·9

  72·2

  72·4

  72·7

  72·9

  73·2

  73·6

  (b)Females

  Belgium

  76·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79·0

  79·4

  79·5

  79·8

  Denmark

  77·3

  77·4

  —

  —

  77·5

  77·5

  77·6

  —

  —

  77·7

  77·7

  78·0

  77·9

  France

  78·4

  —

  —

  78·8

  —

  —

  79·7

  80·3

  —

  80·7

  81·0

  81·1

  81·5

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested—as far as it is available from publications of the Statistical Office of the European Communities and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—is as follows.
  760 761

  Life expectancy

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Germany

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  78·2

  78·7

  79·1

  Greece

  76·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79·3

  —

  79·5

  79·8

  79·8

  Ireland

  —

  75·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  77·0

  77·5

  77·7

  78·2

  Italy

  77·4

  —

  —

  78·1

  78·1

  —

  —

  —

  79·7

  —

  80·2

  80·3

  —

  Luxembourg

  —

  76·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  77·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79·1

  78·5

  Netherlands

  79·3

  79·3

  79·4

  —

  79·7

  79·6

  —

  —

  —

  79·9

  80·1

  80·1

  80·3

  Portugal

  75·2

  —

  75·8

  —

  —

  —

  77·1

  77·5

  —

  77·9

  77·4

  77·5

  78·1

  Spain

  78·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  80·1

  —

  —

  80·3

  80·5

  —

  United Kingdom

  76·6

  76·8

  77·0

  77·2

  77·4

  77·5

  77·6

  77·9

  78·0

  78·0

  78·5

  78·6

  79·0

  In some cases the expectation is given for the two-year period beginning with the year in the table heading and in some cases for the three-year period centred on the year in the heading.

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many man hours were taken up by adjusting the clocks throughout his Department.

  Mr. Nelson
  No record is kept of how long it takes to adjust clocks in the Treasury. Members of staff adjust clocks in their own rooms and would spend no more than a few seconds on this procedure.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has not conducted any public opinion surveys since October 1992.

  Since 1988, the Historic Royal Palaces Agency has undertaken an annual summer visitor survey, to provide valid and reliable research data to inform management decisions regarding the development of visitor facilities. In 1993 the survey was conducted by MEW Research and in 1994 by CC&C Research Ltd. In addition, HRPA has also commissioned research among visitors to monitor performance in relation to its visitors charters. In 1992–93 the research was conducted by Numbers M R Ltd. and from then on by Vital Statistics.

  The Royal Parks Agency has commissioned the centre for leisure and tourism studies at the university of North London to undertake market research on all royal parks over a three-year period starting in January 1994. The survey is designed to obtain a visitor profile and seek visitors' views on services and facilities available in the parks.

  The fees paid for those surveys are a matter of commercial confidentiality and therefore cannot be disclosed.

  Departmental Accommodation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the cost to date to his Department of the leasing of property for his Department's use from the Department of the Environment.
  762
  Mr. Sproat
  The rents paid for Government offices are a commercial-in-confidence matter between the Government and their landlords.

  Since my Department was established in April 1992, we have paid £692,057 to Property Holdings in respect of service charges for all Department of National Heritage properties.

  Postage
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much his Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by his Department, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sproat
  Although my Department was established in April 1992, we did not become responsible for our own postage until we moved into our new headquarters in May 1993. Since then, a total of £51,426 has been spent on postage. On average we post about 8,000 items a month.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Newton
  Expenditure by the Privy Council Office in respect of official hospitality for the years in question was as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure £

  1990–91

  4,450

  1991–92

  7,234

  1992–93

  9,776

  1993–94

  9,892

  1994–95 to date

  2,309

  I am not responsible for any agencies.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each the subject, objectives, total cost, the

  763
  period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. Goodlad
  One opinion survey has been conducted on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office since 1 October 1992. This was carried out by Gallup from 26 to 31 January 1994 and the objective was to learn about attitudes in the United Kingdom to Bosnia. The fee paid to Gallup was £1,292.50.

  No surveys have been commissioned by FCO agencies.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure before any contracts are agreed between Her Majesty's Government and Indonesia for the procurement of any military equipment by Indonesia from the United Kingdom that inquiries are made to ascertain whether the International Labour Organisation convention of 1956 concerning the right to associate in free trade unions is being observed in Indonesia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A country's human rights record is one of the criteria we take into account when considering licence applications for the export of military equipment. There is no ILO convention of 1956 concerning the right to associate in free trade unions.

  Negative Security Assurance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals his Department intends to submit to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty extension conference regarding the strengthening of the United Kingdom's negative security assurance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom, in common with other nuclear weapons states, has given a general assurance to all non-nuclear weapons states parties to the non-proliferation treaty that we will not use or threaten to use our nuclear weapons against them except in the case of an attack on the United Kingdom, its dependent territories, armed forces or allies by such a state acting in alliance with a nuclear weapons state. The same assurance applies to states not party to the non-proliferation treaty but which have made similar internationally binding commitments not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons.

  In the context of the non-proliferation treaty extension conference in 1995, a number of states parties have asked that the nuclear weapon states give new and enhanced assurances. We are discussing this with the other nuclear weapons states in the hope of agreeing a common approach.

  Year

  FCO

  ODA

  Cost £

  Number of Items

  Cost £

  Number of Items

  1989–90

  153,767

  n/a

  91,867

  202,638

  1990–91

  133,281

  n/a

  116,514

  236,185

  1991–92

  154,785

  n/a

  161,304

  303,886

  1992–93

  169,321

  n/a

  153,374

  282,269

  1993–94

  174,104

  n/a

  124,904

  205,300

  Turkey
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding(a) the imprisonment and trial of eight Kurdish Members of Parliament by the Turkish Government and (b) the six Kurdish Members of Parliament currently in exile in Brussels.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have made clear to the Turkish Government our strong concern about the action taken against the Members of Parliament of the banned Democracy party. We continue to take every opportunity to remind the Turkish Government of the need for improvement in Turkey's human rights record in general. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue with Mrs. Ciller in Istanbul on 14 October.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he expects will be the outcome of Turkey's application to enter the European customs union; and to what extent it will depend on Turkey's human rights practices regarding the Kurds.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Kingdom is contributing positively to the negotiations between Turkey and the EU to achieve customs union. The Turkish Government are aware of the United Kingdom concerns, shared by European partners, about human rights abuses in Turkey, but there is no direct link between the process of moving towards customs union with Turkey and Turkey's human rights record.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what outbreaks of cholera have been reported to the World Health Organisation by Turkey.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No cases of cholera have been reported to the World Health Organisation by Turkey for the last two years.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether future sales of military equipment to Turkey by NATO will be made contingent upon Turkey improving its human rights record with particular reference to Kurdish minorities.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Turkey is a NATO member with genuine external defence requirements. United Kingdom defence sales to Turkey are considered on a case-by-case basis. Arms which are likely to be used for internal repression are not granted licences.

  Postage
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by his Department, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The FCO expenditure on postage during the past five years, with ODA expenditure stated separately, has been:
  765
  The number of items sent by the FCO has not been recorded during the period ending 31 March 1994. Records maintained since that date show that the number of items sent to the end of September was 268,460.

  British Embassies
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. (1) if he will publish the rules governing expenditure which may legitimately be incurred by British embassies on visits made abroad in a private capacity by British citizens;

  (2) what expenditure has been incurred by British embassies in the last five full financial years, and in the current financial year, to date in connection with private visits by British citizens.

  Mr. Baldry
  British embassies incur expenditure in connection with a large range of British private visitors including commercial visitors. It is not possible to identify that proportion of an embassy's overall expenditure which is used for these purposes.

  China
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise allegations of torture in prisons in China, in(a) the European Union and (b) the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  At this year's United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the European Union expressed its concern at reports of torture in China and called on China to co-operate with the special rapporteur on torture. It looks to China to fulfil its obligations under the convention against torture. We will continue to raise human rights in China with the Chinese authorities and in international forums at every suitable opportunity.

  Siberian Tiger
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make resources available to the Russian Government to assist their efforts to save the Siberian tiger.

  Mr. Goolad
  We have not received a request from the Russian Government to assist their efforts to save the Siberian tiger.

  We have, however, given TRAFFIC International—Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce—£97,500 to carry out a study of the Asian medicinal trade and its implications for the conservation of tigers. The project aims to:
  —reduce poaching and smuggling of tigers and other endangered species;
  —identify illegal trade routes to consumer nations and help governments halt illegal shipments; and
  —identify ways to alter consumer behaviour and reduce the demand for tiger parts.

  We believe that this contribution will substantially assist international efforts to stamp out the illegal trade in tigers, rhinos and other endangered species and thereby to promote their conservation.

  Princess of Wales
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what were the 766
  costs to the British embassy in the USA arising from the visit of HRH The Princess of Wales in October 1994;

  (2) what was the cost to his Department with particular reference to United Kingdom posts of the recent visit of the Princess of Wales to the USA.

  Mr. Baldry
  The recent private visit of the Princess of Wales to the USA involved costs to the embassy in Washington on entertainment, transport and staff time. The costs were part of the normal functioning of the embassy. The full costs cannot be readily identified.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he was(a) informed of or (b) authorised the expenditure incurred by the British embassy in respect of the recent visit by the Princess of Wales to the USA.

  Mr. Baldry
  This private visit by the Princess of Wales involved costs to the embassy, on entertainment, transport and staff time. These are part of the normal running of an embassy, within the head of mission's discretion.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval, including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is responsible for making 103 appointments, and 47 require his approval.

  The breakdown requested by the hon. Member is:
  Appointments to Executive Bodies
  58 appointments made, 22 appointments approved
  Appointments to Advisory Bodies
  25 Appointments made, 25 appointments approved
  Appointments to other Bodies
  20 appointments made, none approved.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support has been given by Her Majesty's Government to the United States Administration's decision in March to sanction Taiwan under the terms of the Pelly amendment because of that country's failure to enforce a ban on the trade in tiger products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United States action followed the March meeting of the Standing Committee of the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which tasked a number of countries, including Taiwan, to take further measures to stamp out illegal trade in endangered species. We expect progress reports to be presented at the ninth conference of the parties to CITES to be held from 7 to 18 November. Once we have studied them, we will consider what, if any, action is necessary, in consultation with our European Union partners.

  In June, at the instigation of the United Kingdom, European Union Environment Ministers expressed concern about pressure on tiger populations, condemned

  767
  the illegal trade in tiger products and undertook to be particularly vigilant in enforcing CITES for that species. We are keeping the situation under close review.

  Rights of Children
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government will be reporting to the United Nations Committee on progress towards implementation of the UN convention on the rights of children.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We submitted our initial report detailing progress made towards the implementation of the UN convention on the rights of the child in March this year. Copies were laid in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  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 in Luxembourg on 3 and 4 October.

  Mr. Hurd
  I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 3 to 4 October. The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), also attended.

  The Council discussed Commission and presidency proposals for the development of relations with the associated countries of central and eastern Europe. Ministers endorsed the principle of regular ministerial meetings with the CEEs and invited the Commission to prepare a White Paper on the approximation of laws.

  Lord Owen briefed Ministers on the deployment of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia monitoring mission. Ministers welcomed this development and discussed how to take forward the peace process, reaffirming the importance of the contact group.

  Over lunch, Italy announced its intention to continue negotiations with Slovenia following the Slovene declaration of its decision to harmonise property purchasing legislation with that of the EU. The Committee of Permanent Representatives was invited to finalise the negotiating mandate.

  Over lunch, Ministers also discussed the EU's aid package for Albania, but were not able to reach agreement on its release.

  The Council asked the Commission to examine a proposal for a further aid package to help the middle east peace process, and invited the Commission to make further funds available for the Palestinian police force. The Council agreed on the importance of concluding negotiations with Morocco, Tunisia and Israel for new agreements by the end of the year.

  Ministers approved a presidency strategy paper on Ukraine and instructed COREPER and the political committee to prepare a draft common position within the common foreign and security policy procedure.

  The Council agreed to resume negotiations with Belarus on a partnership and co-operation agreement and to institute exploratory contacts with Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Ministers requested a report on human rights in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan before any opening of exploratory talks.

  The Presidency gave an oral report of the EU/Association of South-East Asian Nations ministerial meeting in Karlsruhe.
  768
  The Council agreed the text of a draft interim agreement between the European Community and South Africa.

  My Irish colleague and I briefed the Council on developments in Northern Ireland. There was a general welcome for the progress achieved and for the idea of an EU support package for the peace process.

  Ministers agreed the guidelines and annex for the conference on security and co-operation in Europe review conference in Budapest — 10 October to 3 December.

  Ministers agreed arrangements for the production of a report on plutonium smuggling for the Foreign Affairs Council 28 and 29 November.

  The presidency reported to the Council on its discussions with the European Parliament and the Commission to resolve outstanding inter-institutional issues resulting from the implementation of a number of Maastricht provisions. These include temporary committees of inquiries, comitology, keeping the EP informed of business in the second and third pillars and the appointment of the new Commission.

  In the light of the failure to agree a new global regime for outward processing trade, OPT, the Council discussed the idea—which the United Kingdom supported—of separating from the Commission's proposal those provisions allowing for the immediate exemption from the duty of OPT conducted with the CEEs. This idea did not, however, command majority support. The Council therefore invited COREPER to prepare a global regime in time for the November Foreign Affairs Council.

  The Commission reported to the Council on the conclusion of multilateral negotiations on an agreement to curb subsidies to the shipbuilding sector. The Commission will bring forward a proposal for the Community to approve the agreement. A number of member states, including the United Kingdom, welcome the outcome of the negotiations, but France made clear that it had serious difficulties with the agreement as negotiated.

  The Council approved the text of a draft decision to ratify the Uruguay round agreements, and agreed to seek the assent of the European Parliament on the basis of this draft. The Economic and Social Committee will also be consulted. The European Court of Justice hopes to give its opinion on the Community's competence to conclude the Uruguay round agreements by 15 November, and the aim remains to complete their national ratification procedures by the same deadline. The proposal for a code of conduct governing Community participation in the World Trade Organisation will meanwhile be considered further in COREPER: a final decision on the proposal will be taken once the European Court of Justice has ruled.

  The Council also asked the Commission to prepare a report on the compatibility of the US Uruguay round implementing legislation with the World Trade Organisation agreement.

  The Council endorsed the recommendations emerging from the visit of the Development Ministers troika to Rwanda and neighbouring states. These recommendations will form the basis of a common position on policy towards Rwanda.

  The own-resources decision was discussed over lunch. No agreement was reached.

  UN Year of Tolerance
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department will be taking to support the UN year tolerance in 1995; and what specific sums has the Government earmarked for this purpose.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 October 1994]: My Department has no plans at present to engage in specific activity to mark the UN year of tolerance in 1995: specific sums have not therefore been earmarked for such a purpose. While we are content that non-governmental organisations should play an active role in the activities of the year, it is not our policy, given heavy demands on public expenditure, to commit scarce resources to the marking of UN years dedicated to specific themes.

PRIME MINISTER

  Visits
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit a state-funded children's nursery.

  The Prime Minister
  I plan to do so on one of my forthcoming visits around the country.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 October.

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

  Charter Advisory Panel
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the members of his advisory panel on the citizens charter and the charter mark assessors.

  The Prime Minister
  The panel of advisers on the citizens charter is made up of people who have been appointed for their expertise in their own particular fields in the private sector. The composition of the panel is currently as follows:

  Sir James Blyth—Chairman.

  Mrs Angela Heylin.

  Neil Johnson Esq.

  Dr. Madsen Pirie.

  Nick Rawlings Esq.

  The right Hon. Baroness Perry.

  Lady Judith Wilcox.

  A number of retired public servants were appointed to assess applications for the charter mark award. Some of these, together with members of the panel of advisers and staff from the citizens charter unit, were involved in visiting some of the short-listed organisations:

  Charter Mark assessors

  Panel Members

  CCU staff

  Alan Grocott

  Sir James Blyth

  Genie Turton

  David Bower

  Nick Rawlings

  David Paul

  John Offord

  Lady Judith Wilcox

  Charles Ramsden

  770

  Jim Brown

  Dr. Madsen Pirie

  Judith Lempriere

  Tom Corrigan

  The right Hon.

  Chris Matthews

  George Georgiades

  Baroness Perry

  Elizabeth Hunter

  Harry Nicol

  Johnston

  David Dewick

  Simon Lawton Smith

  Peter Canovan

  Aleck Thomson

  Vivian Emerson

  David Bromley

  Dave Keating

  Peter Cockram

  Peter Summerscale

  Ernie Dinn

  Peter Selby

  Tony Poole

  Brian Smith

  John MacDonald

  Sybil Brown

  Margaret Chiverton

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister how many man hours were taken up by adjusting the clocks throughout his office.

  The Prime Minister
  No precise record is kept of such estimates.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Post
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by his Department, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Howard
  The readily available information, relating to headquarters postage expenditure by my Department and its agencies, except the fire service college, is as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  1,959,459

  1990–91

  2,047,841

  1991–92

  2,651,686

  1992–93

  2,519,033

  1993–94

  2,993,258

  The figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 do not include the forensic science service as that information is not available.

  Information on postal expenditure by regional offices, outstations and individual establishments, and on the numbers of items posted could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval, including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Mr. Howard
  Details of appointments for which I am responsible are given in "Public Bodies 1993", a copy of which is in the Library.
  771
  I would also refer the hon. Member to my answer of 4 March, Official Report column 963, when I gave details of appointments for which I am responsible in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies" including non—executive agency and other departmental management boards.

  Police Files
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to regulate the use of unused material in police files being given to the defence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 24 October,Official Report, column 465.

  Byelaw Applications
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to speed up the processing of byelaw applications by his Department.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Home Office endeavours to deal with byelaw applications as quickly as possible. I am aware that in a particular case about which my right hon. Friend made representations recently, there had been some delay; the application is now being given priority.

  Tiger Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken by the Metropolitan police in respect of information passed to them in August by the World Wide Fund for Nature about the sale of tiger bone products in London.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police the Metropolis that an investigation is in progress.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if individual applications for United Kingdom citizenship are defined as operational or policy matters.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  They are not categorised in this way.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times since his appointment his advice has been sought regarding individual applications for United Kingdom citizenship.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Our records show that 10 applications for British citizenship have been referred to my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Ali Al Fayed
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he and his predecessors have received in regard to the granting of British citizenship to Mr. Ali Al Fayed; and when and from whom they were received.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessor have received representations from five people concerning Mr. Ali Al Fayed's application. It is not our practice to disclose details of private communications.

  Firearms
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces have adopted the recommendations of best practice identified in the working group report on firearms licensing.

  Mr. Maclean
  All police forces are fully aware of the recommendations made by a Home Office working group in 1991. The extent to which forces follow the detail of these recommendations is regularly monitored by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. I am satisfied that they are widely complied with.

  Homicide Statistics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the annual rate of infant, neonate and childhood homicide in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The readily available information which relates to offences currently recorded as homicide for the years 1982 to 1992, where the age of the victim was under one year, from one to under five years, and from five to under 16 years is published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1992" (Cm 2410), chapter 4 and table 4.6.

  A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Provisional figures for 1993 are as follows:

  Offences currently recorded as homicide in England and Wales

  Number

  Victim aged under 1 year

  28

  Victim aged under 1 year and under 5 years

  29

  Victim aged 5 years and under 16 years

  16

  Fountain Pens
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks have been made by his Department on the importation into the United Kingdom of fountain pens that conceal a 4 inch blade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No checks are made on the importation of these items. They are not among weapons which it is an offence to import.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total expenditure per English and Welsh local authority under section 11 for each year since 1992 and the current year to date; and what proportion of this was borne by his Department and by the local authority concerned.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 26 October 1994]: Readily available information is shown in the table. This lists all authorities in England and Wales with section 11 projects approved for funding since 1 April 1992, including those which, since 1 April 1994, have received such funding from the Department of the Environment's single regeneration budget.

  The figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are for grant claimed in relation to authorities' expenditure within those financial years, when grant was normally paid at a set rate of 75 per cent. of authorities' expenditure.
  773
  The figures for 1994–95 show the grant allocation which has been notified to each authority provided that

  Expenditure(grant cost)

  Allocation

  Total minimum expenditure

  Authority

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1994–95

  Avon

  761,771

  818,931

  615,251

  885,098

  Barking and Dagenham

  334,550

  323,379

  230,860

  332,114

  Barnet

  1,443,463

  1,006,318

  748,243

  1,076,420

  Bedfordshire

  3,068,086

  3,206,333

  2,361,022

  3,396,558

  Berkshire

  1,343,514

  1,423,166

  1,053,875

  1,516,101

  Bexley

  92,990

  161,586

  100,138

  144,058

  Birmingham

  7,432,641

  5,802,182

  4,046,501

  5,821,282

  Blackburn

  57,749

  68,107

  49,539

  71,267

  Bolton

  1,089,458

  1,171,230

  880,505

  1,266,691

  Bradford

  5,891,883

  5,717,323

  4,204,150

  6,048,075

  Brent

  2,714,377

  2,496,137

  1,742,385

  2,506,589

  Buckinghamshire

  1,474,520

  1,490,141

  1,095,250

  1,575,623

  Burnley

  18,356

  25,772

  18,774

  27,008

  Bury

  409,210

  486,477

  354,547

  510,050

  Calderdale

  1,072,798

  1,165,370

  853,361

  1,227,642

  Cambridgeshire

  1,359,939

  1,335,704

  976,563

  1,404,880

  Camden

  1,371,927

  1,552,686

  1,111,346

  1,598,778

  Cardiff

  8,834

  10,727

  7,888

  11,348

  Cheshire

  90,747

  99,664

  73,862

  106,258

  Cleveland

  638,348

  657,082

  479,638

  690,006

  Coventry

  2,852,760

  2,836,578

  2,108,375

  3,033,101

  Croydon

  1,203,239

  1,337,072

  949,775

  1,366,343

  Derbyshire

  1,070,613

  1,432,669

  1,046,415

  1,505,369

  Devon

  15,596

  15,816

  11,949

  17,190

  Doncaster

  111,754

  137,275

  100,338

  144,346

  Dudley

  1,247,764

  1,136,839

  877,198

  1,216,934

  Durham

  96,532

  170,774

  119,090

  171,322

  Ealing

  2,750,445

  3,476,557

  2,591,454

  3,728,057

  East Sussex

  178,051

  179,216

  139,412

  200,558

  Enfield

  1,240,331

  1,432,895

  1,058,164

  1,522,271

  Essex

  33,143

  34,685

  25,755

  37,051

  Gateshead

  30,774

  32,918

  22,732

  32,702

  Gloucester

  17,250

  41,082

  28,983

  41,695

  Gloucestershire

  328,631

  362,423

  265,008

  381,240

  Greenwich

  1,573,087

  1,819,983

  1,329,673

  1,912,863

  Gwent

  149,533

  268,583

  192,662

  277,163

  Hackney

  4,357,490

  4,021,298

  3,147,620

  4,528,155

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  866,260

  962,912

  713,289

  1,026,135

  Hampshire

  674,973

  748,448

  558,367

  803,265

  Haringey

  2,183,264

  3,214,058

  2,604,874

  3,747,363

  Harrow

  877,243

  755,341

  556,992

  801,287

  Havering

  51,960

  50,636

  39,169

  56,348

  Hereford and Worcester

  204,564

  238,339

  175,235

  252,092

  Hertfordshire

  2,209,385

  2,051,062

  1,492,311

  2,146,833

  Hillingdon

  439,974

  418,911

  317,055

  456,114

  Hounslow

  1,754,451

  1,899,331

  1,389,502

  1,998,933

  Humberside

  309,419

  392,438

  275,863

  396,856

  Hyndburn

  17,397

  23,426

  17,860

  25,693

  Islington

  1,980,042

  2,032,924

  1,434,673

  2,063,916

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,140,253

  1,162,052

  899,845

  1,294,514

  Kent

  1,225,489

  1,508,814

  1,095,957

  1,576,640

  Kingston

  119,547

  152,223

  106,742

  153,559

  Kirklees

  3,143,316

  3,288,925

  2,402,511

  3,456,244

  Lambeth

  1,259,627

  1,514,744

  1,109,603

  1,596,271

  Lancashire

  5,787,041

  5,955,560

  4,629,966

  6,660,653

  Leeds

  2,190,816

  2,207,876

  1,725,338

  2,482,065

  Leicester

  122,641

  165,214

  115,597

  166,297

  Leicestershire

  4,310,964

  4,363,683

  3,228,512

  4,644,526

  Lewisham

  2,078,456

  2,178,120

  1,637,467

  2,355,654

  Lincolnshire

  61,564

  76,285

  61,319

  88,213

  Liverpool

  176,355

  216,630

  165,185

  237,635

  London Boroughs Grants Unit

  100,766

  160,067

  123,071

  177,050

  Manchester

  2,746,353

  2,879,000

  2,225,999

  3,202,314

  Merton

  521,304

  706,067

  490,246

  705,266

  Middlesbrough

  6,254

  7,178

  —

  —

  Newcastle

  438,153

  411,262

  303,140

  436,096

  Newham

  2,939,058

  2,906,063

  2,181,976

  3,138,983

  Norfolk

  70,466

  78,002

  68,285

  98,235

  774
  the authority's own expenditure within this financial year is not less than the minimum figure indicated.
  775

  Expenditure (grant cost)

  Allocation

  Total minimum expenditure

  Authority

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1994–95

  North Tyneside

  150,759

  161,692

  115,586

  166,282

  North Yorkshire

  58,154

  65,123

  49,312

  70,940

  Northamptonshire

  1,036,878

  890,134

  663,758

  954,880

  Nottingham

  55,678

  84,003

  61,435

  88,380

  Nottinghamshire

  2,120,817

  2,030,884

  1,519,199

  2,185,514

  Oldham

  2,442,777

  2,549,312

  1,909,961

  2,747,663

  Oxford

  —

  7,649

  3,322

  4,779

  Oxfordshire

  825,094

  871,818

  684,260

  984,374

  Preston

  14,907

  18,157

  12,834

  18,463

  Redbridge

  1,182,178

  1,238,587

  918,005

  1,320,639

  Redditch

  12,591

  17,935

  12,971

  18,660

  Richmond

  62,850

  76,799

  56,225

  80,885

  Rochdale

  1,455,121

  1,581,705

  1,193,213

  1,716,552

  Rotherham

  431,632

  442,280

  327,313

  470,871

  St Albans

  12,327

  23,628

  18,105

  26,046

  St Helens

  10,307

  18,975

  14,043

  20,202

  Salford

  62,118

  64,834

  47,498

  68,330

  Sandwell

  1,512,832

  1,644,471

  1,228,775

  1,767,711

  Scunthorpe

  25,687

  31,615

  16,103

  23,166

  Sheffield

  2,641,874

  2,397,773

  1,697,662

  2,442,251

  Shropshire

  104,866

  114,218

  84,104

  120,992

  South Glamorgan

  458,378

  591,518

  444,978

  640,144

  South Yorkshire FCDA

  15,158

  16,649

  12,751

  18,344

  Southampton

  9,991

  5,930

  11,422

  16,432

  Southwark

  2,339,236

  2,542,825

  1,955,157

  2,812,682

  Staffordshire

  1,108,417

  1,257,176

  924,043

  1,329,325

  Stockport

  100,051

  103,265

  76,079

  109,447

  Suffolk

  297,375

  317,330

  237,235

  341,285

  Sunderland

  110,656

  115,825

  87,284

  125,566

  Surrey

  384,578

  400,899

  291,845

  419,847

  Sutton

  56,121

  62,779

  46,902

  67,473

  Tameside

  808,680

  771,609

  585,940

  842,931

  Tower Hamlets

  8,890,804

  9,181,040

  6,826,782

  9,820,985

  Trafford

  286,589

  329,296

  242,981

  349,552

  Wakefield

  348,232

  404,567

  296,729

  426,873

  Walsall

  2,049,091

  2,147,295

  1,579,939

  2,272,895

  Waltham Forest

  1,893,462

  2,084,056

  1,585,015

  2,280,197

  Wandsworth

  1,851,387

  1,860,091

  1,434,386

  2,063,503

  Warwickshire

  994,864

  1,051,670

  785,021

  1,129,328

  West Midlands FCDA

  85,142

  86,633

  65,241

  93,855

  West Sussex

  304,087

  280,628

  212,623

  305,879

  West Yorkshire FCDA

  119,524

  129,533

  95,651

  137,603

  Westminster

  1,876,395

  1,991,411

  1,498,548

  2,155,806

  Wigan

  56,170

  60,071

  44,078

  63,410

  Wiltshire

  160,950

  163,864

  121,565

  174,883

  Wirral

  64,145

  95,393

  75,839

  109,102

  Wolverhampton

  1,973,768

  2,104,031

  1,575,008

  2,265,801

  Notes

  1. Since currently approved projects came into effect on 1 April 1992, a number of schools which were previously covered by local authority projects but which have since opted for grant maintained status have chosen to set up their own project funded directly under section 11.

  2. Since 1 April 1993, most further education colleges, and a small number of sixth form colleges, which previously benefited from section 11 funding paid to the local education authority have begun receiving grant direct.

  3. Some projects approved with effect from 1 April 1992 were, in the light of their particular circumstances, approved for periods of 2 years or less.

  4. Some projects approved with effect from 1 April 1992 were, in the light of their particular circumstances, made subject to a tapering rate of grant (ie, in the case of a 3-year project, 75 per cent. in year 1,60 per cent. in year 2, and 40 per cent. in year 3).

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in research to find an alternative to organo-phosphorous sheep dips.

  Mrs. Browning
  Alternatives to organo-phosphorous sheep dips are already licensed for use in the United Kingdom. They include flumethrin dips, as well as pour-on and injectable products. The development and marketing of alternative products is a matter for the 776
  commercial judgment of the manufacturers concerned. The veterinary medicines directorate will do all that it can to complete the assessment of any such products as quickly as possible.

  Sheep Quotas
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in resolving difficulties about allocating sheep quotas to
  777
  those involved or previously involved in farming partnerships.

  Mr. Jack
  Producers involved in partnerships will be able to lease quota within the group, for up to three years, during the second transfer and lease periods for 1993 and 1994. This will enable them to redistribute quota to match their stock holding. The second transfer and lease periods will open when all allocations from the national reserve for the relevant year have been made. For the longer term, following pressure from the United Kingdom, we expect the European Commission shortly to bring forward proposals which would, under certain circumstances, exempt transfers of quota within producer groups or partnerships from the operation of the siphon.

  Bovine Semen
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what has been the cost to the United Kingdom dairy and beef cattle industry of the ban on importation of semen;

  (2) if he will list those countries that prohibit the importation of semen from the United
  Kingdom herd; and from what date in each case the prohibition applied.

  Mrs. Browning
  The following countries prohibit the importation of bovine semen collected in the United Kingdom.

  Country

  Effective date of prohibition or date notified

  Argentina

  13 August 1991

  Australia

  1 December 1988

  Austria

  30 May 1990

  Bulgaria

  September 1994

  China

  4 September 1990

  Costa Rica

  23 March 1992

  Indonesia

  10 March 1993

  Iran

  26 July 1989

  Jamaica

  11 August 1994

  Japan

  July 1990

  Malaysia (Sarawak only)

  February 1991

  Mexico

  23 October 1992

  Russian Federation

  10 April 1990

  Sweden

  21 October 1988

  Taiwan

  21 February 1991

  United Arab Emirates

  30 June 1990

  Uruguay

  9 July 1990

  It is not possible to quantify the cost to the United Kingdom dairy and beef cattle industry of these problems.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has that the BSE agent can be found in the offal of calves under the age of six months.

  Mrs. Browning
  There is no scientific evidence that BSE agent can be detected in offals from naturally infected calves under six months of age.

  However, on 30 June 1994 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced preliminary results from a pathogenesis study in cattle. These showed detectable infectivity in the terminal ileum of calves six months after experimental oral challenge at the age of four months with a large dose of brain material from confirmed
  778
  BSE cases. After careful consideration of these results Ministers decided, as a precautionary measure, to extend the specified bovine offals ban to include the thymus and intestine of all calves presented for slaughter for human consumption. Legislation to enact this will come into force on 2 November 1994.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to allow planting of short rotation coppice in environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Jack
  Entry into the environmentally sensitive area scheme is voluntary. In cases where farmers in an environmentally sensitive area do opt to enter into an agreement with the Ministry to manage their land in an environmentally friendly way, the test of whether to allow the planting of short rotation coppice on such land would be whether its proposed extent and location would be compatible with the landscape objectives of the scheme.

  Farmers within the area of a designated ESA who do not enter into such an agreement are free to plant short rotation coppice on their holding.

  Departmental Post
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by his Department, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  Departmental, including regional service centres, expenditure on postage in the last five years has been:

  Year

  £

  1989–90

  1,746,325

  1990–91

  1,867,217

  1991–92

  1,984,450

  1992–93

  2,232,975

  1993–94

  2,577,039

  We do not maintain records of the number of items posted. They run to many thousands per week and include individual letters, mail shots and press releases.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval, including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Mr. Jack
  Information about ministerial appointments to public bodies sponsored by the Ministry are given in "Public Bodies 1993". Except where otherwise stated in that publication, appointments are made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food either solely, or jointly with the Ministers of other Departments. On appointments to bodies not listed in "Public Bodies", I have nothing to add to my reply to the honourable Gentleman of 3 March 1994,Official Report, column 811.

  Badger-related TB
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 8 December,Official Report, column 260, what progress has been made in introducing the test for tuberculosis in the live badger announced as part of a package of measures to address the problem of badger-related TB breakdowns in cattle.

  Mr. Browning
  We have undertaken four pilot trials of the new badger control strategy based on the live test and have discussed these with the consultative panel on badgers and bovine tuberculosis. The original proposal envisaged three approaches: no action at all against badgers; the continuation of the existing interim strategy of trapping and killing badgers on the farm or part of the farm where the disease outbreak occurred; and finally the continuation of the interim strategy on the breakdown farm and an extension beyond the farm to apply the live test and to trap and test badgers on neighbouring farms. The trapping and testing would be carried out on a sett-by-sett basis; where a sett is found to contain one or more badgers positive to TB in the test, the positive badgers and any other badgers caught from that sett will be killed. Setts which test negative will not be disturbed.

  On the basis of the views expressed by members of the consultative panel, Ministers have decided that, in cases where the live test is applied on neighbouring farms it would be more appropriate to apply the live test on the breakdown farm instead of the interim strategy. The live test will be used on the same basis as on the neighbouring farms and will result in fewer badgers being killed.

  The other elements of the strategy will remain. In particular no action will be taken where there is no evidence to suggest that the original breakdown in the cattle herd was related to badgers, and the policy of not killing any lactating sows which are trapped because of the resulting impact on the cubs, which are dependent on her, will also remain. The strategy on the revised basis will start to apply from 1 November.

  Milk
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report those articles of treaties of the European Community and consequential regulations and directives that render illegal reintroduction of the arrangements for collection, processing, distribution and sale of liquid fresh milk extract in the United Kingdom in 1972.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 17 October 1994]: The European Court has ruled that national legislation designed to promote and encourage the establishment of a uniform producer price for milk, by agreement or by authority, at the national or regional level is, by its nature, outside the bounds of the powers given to member states and runs contrary to the principle established by Council regulation 804/68, in particular article 3, of attaining a target price for the milk sold by Community producers during the milk year on the Community market and on external markets. EC Council regulations 1421/78 and 1422/78, as an exception to this principle, provided a legal framework for the continued authorisation of the milk marketing schemes in certain defined circumstances and subject to a number of conditions. While in theory the reintroduction of a milk marketing scheme would be
  780
  possible under these regulations, in practice any move in this direction would be likely to be met by a proposal from the Commission to the Council for the revocation of the regulations in question.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest figures for the numbers of cattle infected with tuberculosis shown by MAFF administrative area, and the figures for 1979, 1984, and 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs Browning
  [holding answer 25 October 1994]: The total numbers of confirmed cases in each animal health office administrative area in 1989 and for the first six months of 1994 were as follows:

  1989

  1994(First 6 months)

  South West England

  Cornwall

  57

  86

  Devon

  18

  66

  Dorset

  6

  6

  Gloucester/Avon

  27

  37

  Somerset

  3

  6

  Wiltshire

  9

  16

  Elsewhere in England

  Essex/Hertfordshire

  —

  2

  Durham/Tyne and Wear/Cleveland/Northumberland

  3

  1

  Kent/East Sussex

  4

  —

  Lancashire/Greater Manchester/Greater Merseyside

  —

  1

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  1

  —

  Norfolk

  1

  —

  Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire

  —

  2

  Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire/Berkshire

  4

  1

  Shropshire

  5

  —

  Suffolk

  1

  —

  Surrey/Middlesex/West Sussex

  1

  —

  Warwickshire/West Midlands

  2

  —

  Worcestershire/Herefordshire

  —

  6

  Wales

  Clwyd

  1

  —

  Dyfed

  9

  27

  Glamorgan/Gwent

  2

  8

  Powys

  —

  3

  Scotland

  Aberdeen

  1

  —

  Ayr

  3

  —

  Dumfries

  1

  1

  Elgin

  2

  —

  Galashiels

  1

  —

  Perth

  1

  1

  The total number of confirmed herd cases in England, Scotland and Wales in 1979 was 117 and in 1984 was 114. The numbers for each administrative area for these years are not available.

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many man hours were taken up by adjusting the clocks throughout his Department.

  Mr. Jack
  No individual record is kept of such activities.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Committees
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the functions and objectives of(a) the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Committee, (b) the Advisory Committee for Arbitration Law, (c) the Aviation Committee, (d) the fuel cell advisory panel and (e) the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Properly.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Advanced Manufacturing Technology Committee is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  The current functions and objectives of the departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law are to examine the operation of the Arbitration Acts 1950 to 1979 in the light of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law model law on international commercial arbitration and to recommend to the Secretary of State any legislative or other steps which the committee considers should be taken to improve the system of arbitration in England and Wales.

  The objective of the Aviation Committee is to advise the Department of Trade and Industry on the needs of the United Kingdom aeronautics industry so that these may be taken into account by Government when developing and implementing policies affecting the industry.

  In particular, the Aviation Committee will advise the Department on:

  (a) the factors influencing competitiveness at home and abroad;

  (b) innovation programmes affecting the industry, including Civil Aircraft Research and Demonstration Programme (CARAD); and

  (c) on the identification and pursuit of strategic market opportunities.

  The terms of reference for the fuel cell advisory panel are:

  (i) to advise the Department of Trade and Industry and its agent, the Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU), in developing and formulating, against programme aims and objectives set by the Department of Trade and Industry, programme plans for the Department's Advanced Fuel Cell R and D programme;

  (ii) in the light of the agreed programme, to advise the Department of Trade and Industry and its agent, ETSU, on the merits of Advanced Fuel R and D proposals and to make recommendations on the funding of individual projects which are submitted to the Panel;

  (iii) to monitor progress on the Advanced Fuel Cell R and D programme against agreed plans and to evaluate its effectiveness in achieving the agreed objectives;

  (iv) to provide a forum for reviewing progress with the research and development of advanced fuel cells, for identifying future requirements and co-ordinating United Kingdom activity in this field.

  The Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property advises Government on the whole range of industrial property matters. Membership of the committee is drawn from organisations representing a broad range of industrial. commercial, professional and academic interests.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the number of meetings held, the secretarial and advisory arrangements, the budgeted and actual expenditure and the subjects of any reports and submissions produced by the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Committee in each of the last three years.
  782
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  I have been asked to reply, as responsibility for servicing the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Committee rested with the Science and Engineering Research Council before the committee was disbanded on 31 March 1994.

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Number of meetings held

  8

  6

  1

  Budgeted expenditure

  —

  —

  —

  Actual expenditure

  —

  —

  —

  The AMTC was a joint committee of the Department of Trade and Industry and the SERC. It was jointly serviced by the DTI and SERC, with the DTI in the lead until 31 September 1993, and the SERC thereafter. No report was published by the committee. Its advice was channelled through the internal organisation of the DTI and the SERC.

  Subsidence
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the "Coal Mining Subsidence Damage Guide to Claimant's Rights" leaflets will be revised to take account of the restructuring of the coal industry; and when he intends to appoint a subsidence adviser under the powers of the Coal Industry Act 1994.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I announced this morning the appointment of Mr. Malcolm Webb FRICS. ACIArb. to be the subsidence adviser. Arrangements for contacting the subsidence adviser's office are included in the revised "Guide to Claimants' rights" leaflet which has been issued today; copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the total annual cost to United Kingdom industry of the non-alignment of United Kingdom time with standard European time.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My Department has made no such assessment.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff in his Department alter their hours of work or work overtime when the United Kingdom falls out of line with European time.

  Mr. Taylor
  My Department's rules on working hours are administered locally and provide for alternative working patterns such as flexible working hours. No central records are kept of changes local management might authorise for individuals' working patterns. The cost of collecting such information would be disproportionate.

  Post Office
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will conduct a survey into the extra implications for vehicular traffic of closure of post offices.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are no plans to close post offices. Such a survey would, therefore, be unnecessary.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current salary of the secretary of the Post Office board; what was the salary of Miss Morag Macdonald, former secretary of the Post Office board; and
  783
  in what circumstances, and under what settlement, Miss Morag Macdonald left the Post Office board.

  Mr. Eggar
  Miss Macdonald has chosen to take a career break from the Post Office for further education purposes. As an employee of the Post Office both her salary and that of the new secretary of the board are the responsibility of the Post Office.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the recent report by the Post Office's corporate planning department on exclusive access by the Royal Mail to Post Office Counters.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the implications of European competition law for continued exclusive access by Royal Mail and Parcelforce to Post Office Counters following privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have considered the implications of European competition law for the access arrangements. Such issues have arisen on many occasions in the past and have been satisfactorily resolved. They will be fully dealt with in any proposals for the future of the three Post Office businesses.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding Bridgegate Engineering and the Post Office in the last two months.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 October 1994]: Complaints of a commercial nature by Bridgegate Engineering against the Post Office have been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and are receiving serious attention. These are operational matters for the Post Office and I am assured that they have been considered at the very highest levels. It is my understanding that detailed discussions are in progress between lawyers acting for Bridgegate Engineering and the Post Office, who hope that a satisfactory outcome for all concerned will soon be achieved.

  Investment Grants
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many companies which received Spanish Government grants as inward investments into Spain in the 1980s have since closed the operation for which those grants were received;

  (2) how many companies which received Irish Government grants as inward investments into Eire in the 1980s have since closed the operations for which those grants were received;

  (3) how many companies which received French Government grants as inward investments into France in the 1980s have since closed the operations for which those grants were received;

  (4) how many companies which received Federal Republic grants as inward investments into West Germany in the 1980s have since closed the operations for which those grants were received;

  (5) how many companies which received Italian Government grants as inward investments into Italy in the 1980s have since closed the operations for which those grants were received.
  784
  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is either unavailable or could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the total costs of preparation for market testing in his Department in terms of(a) payments to consultants and (b) other costs.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To date the total cost of consultancy fees for the market-testing programme has been £2·7 million with other departmental support costs estimated at £3·1 million.

  Job Creation Grants
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) the grants which have been available from his Department to assist in investment or job creation in each of the past five years, (b) the number of grants given in each category, (c) the value of the grants, (d) the amount of investment created as a result, (e) the number of jobs created on the project assisted, (f) the criteria used in assessing the correctness of making the grants, (h) the procedures used in this monitoring, (i) the number of grants and their value which had been reclaimed for financial and legal impropriety, (j) the number and value reclaimed for failing to achieve the criteria set and (k) the number and value reclaimed for other reasons.

  Mr. Eggar
  Detailed information is published in the annual reports on the Industrial Development Act 1982, which are available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Post
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by his Department, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department's expenditure on postage in its headquarters buildings in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  664,140

  1991–92

  699,303

  1992–93

  782,995

  1993–94

  934,103

  1994 to date

  921,962

  We do not keep information on the number of items posted by the Department.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 26 October 1994]: In 1992, as part of the Opportunity 2000 initiative, my noble Friend Baroness Denton, then Parliamentry Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms

  785
  in the DTI and co-chairman of the Women's National Commission, hosted two receptions at Lancaster House for experienced professional and business women with the aim of introducing potential women candidates for public appointments to Ministers and officials. A total of 119 people attended the receptions and the cost was included in the annual budget for departmental receptions.

  Replica Firearms
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of replica firearms imported, and from which country, for each year since 1992.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 26 October 1994]: The information requested is not available, as replica firearms are not an identifiable commodity within the standard international trade classification.

  Firearms
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of firearms imported in the past year; and from which country they came.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 26 October 1994]: The information is not available, for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Bus Industry
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the number of buses(a) exported from and (b) imported into Great Britain and their value in real terms for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 25 October 1994]: The annual United Kingdom trade in buses since 1979 is given in the table. The value in real terms is not available.

  United Kingdom Trade in Buses

  year

  Exports Numbers

  Value £ Million (current Prices

  Imports Numbers

  Value £ Million (current Prices)

  1979

  1,122

  9·5

  491

  7·8

  1980

  673

  8·3

  417

  6·0

  1981

  1,433

  19·7

  701

  12·9

  1982

  2,446

  8·2

  1,041

  31·0

  1983

  5,973

  17·4

  1,616

  46·2

  1984

  6,654

  12·5

  1,301

  49·4

  1985

  7,912

  17·4

  1,174

  36·8

  1986

  5,475

  14·0

  1,493

  35·4

  1987

  5,518

  13·4

  1,087

  38·3

  1988

  724

  11·0

  1,045

  58·0

  1989

  698

  11·8

  1,056

  65·7

  1990

  2,142

  21·5

  665

  46·2

  1991

  1,462

  26·1

  544

  30·2

  1992

  786

  19·1

  713

  47·2

  19931

  1,222

  23·7

  905

  57·4

  Note:

  1 Provisional.

  Sources:

  SMMT World Automotive Statistics except for 1981 and 1993.

  Department of Trade Overseas Trade Statistics for 1981.

  CSO Business Monitors MM 20 and MQ20 for 1993.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been(a) the value in real terms and (b) the
  786
  numbers of vehicles produced by the British bus-building industry in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 25 October 1994]: The numbers of buses produced by the British bus-building industry, annually in the United Kingdom since 1979, are given in the table. The value in real terms is not available.

  Production of buses in the United Kingdom

  Year

  Number

  1979

  25,531

  1980

  21,572

  1981

  12,444

  1982

  13,107

  19831

  15,616

  1984

  16,499

  1985

  16,027

  1986

  12,340

  1987

  13,995

  19881

  16,500

  1989

  14,858

  1990

  12,987

  1991

  9,837

  1992

  8,517

  1993

  7,639

  1 53 weeks.

  Source

  SMMT

  Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the persons from whom he received advice before deciding to take no further action regarding the report into alleged insider dealing involving Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare.

  Mr. Heseltine
  It is not my Department's practice to disclose details of individuals from whom legal advice is obtained. Both the advice and its source is regarded as confidential.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the(a) budgeted and (b) total cost of the inquiry into the allegations of insider trading involving Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The total cost—including inspectors' fees, disbursements and VAT—of the investigation into alleged insider dealing in the shares of Anglia Television Group plc was £213,767. Individual inquiries are not subject to separate budgets.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give figures based on current performance for the number of health service staff she expects will see earnings(a) fall and (b) rise as a result of the introduction of relating pay to performance.

  Mr. Moss
  The proposals made to staff sides and the professionals who represent the groups covered by national health service review bodies, and included in pay bodies of non-review body groups, would strengthen the links between rewards and performance of the local organisations. Such schemes would be locally determined
  787
  and depend on the achievement of local objectives for the delivery of high-quality services.

  Bill of Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking towards the introduction of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government have long recognised that the protection of human rights will be considered in the context of talks necessary to create a comprehensive political settlement. It would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of those talks.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend approves the following public appointments, which are identified in "Public Bodies 1993":Executive Bodies–205.
  Advisory Bodies–79.
  Others–63.
  Executive and advisory–1.

  The public appointments not included in "Public Bodies 1993" that the Secretary of State is personally responsible for approving are as follows:
  Executive Bodies–22.
  Advisory Bodies–5.
  Others–0.

  With regard to the Secretary of State's approval for those appointments not listed in "Public Bodies", I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 March, Official Report, column 141. In addition to those bodies, the Northern Ireland Regional Medical Physics Agency came into operation on 1 April 1994. The Secretary of State is responsible for the approval of the membership, comprising the chairman and one non-executive director, who are then appointed by the head of the Department of Health and Social Services.

  De Lorean
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was paid in total in grants to the De Lorean motor car company; how much of that money has to date been returned; what has been the cost of the legal proceedings to obtain that return; how many workers in Northern Ireland are currently employed by the company; and what specific changes in policy and procedure have now been implemented by his Department to ensure there is no repetition of the De Lorean affair.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. received Government assistance amounting to some £77.3 million, including £17.76 million in preference share capital. The company is now in receivership and liquidation and has no employees. The Department of Economic Development has received in excess of £10 million from the receivership and some £5.9 million from other sources. No costs were incurred by the Government on legal proceedings to obtain these sums.
  788
  The operating arrangements and investment criteria of the Industrial Development Board were carefully worked out following a comprehensive assessment of the De Lorean case to ensure that such a project would not be supported in future. Those arrangements were reviewed following the 25th report of the Public Accounts Committee and are fully compatible with the recommendations in paragraphs 91 to 98 of that report.

  As a separate issue, the Government are pursuing an action for damages against Arthur Anderson and Company in relation to its role as auditors of De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.

  Tourist Boards
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish an up-to-date list of all the(a) chairs and (b) non-executive directors of each tourist board, indicating the gender and occupation of each individual.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: The Northern Ireland tourist board has a nine-member board consisting of a chairman and eight members.

  Name

  Gender

  Occupation

  Hon.Hugh O'Neill(Chairman)

  Male

  Businessman

  Brian Adgey

  Male

  Business Consultant

  Roy Bailie

  Male

  Company Chairman

  Gerry Burns

  Male

  Local Government Chief Executive

  Annie Courtney

  Female

  Health Promotion Co-ordinator

  Tony Hopkins

  Male

  Managing Partner

  Alan Lambert

  Male

  Director

  Willian McGinnis

  Male

  Managing Director

  Dr. Mary Peters

  Female

  Company Director

EDUCATION

  Dearing Report
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she has received Sir Ron Dearing's report on his investigation into awarding procedures in this year's mathematics and science GCSEs; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The investigation by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is continuing. I have, however, today welcomed interim proposals from Sir Ron Dearing to strengthen and clarify existing arrangements underpinning consistency of grading across GCSE examining groups. These measures include:Ensuring that the rules for determining grades are clear, consistent and robust.
  Improving communications between examining groups.
  Producing national sets of candidates' work to help define grade standards in key subjects.
  Introducing piloting of any major changes to awarding schemes.

  These will start to come into effect for the winter 1994 GCSE examinations and will all be in place for examinations from summer 1995 onwards.

  I have also agreed that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority should review with the examining groups the scope for a more co-ordinated approach to

  789
  syllabuses, examinations and awarding in the core subjects from 1998 in the interests of securing consistency of grading.

  I am placing in the Library of the House my exchange of correspondence with Sir Ron Dearing.

  Schools (Emergency Cover)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent discussions she has had with teachers' representatives to enlist their support for the provision of adequate emergency cover in schools for children suffering acute allergic reactions and other life-threatening conditions.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not discussed this issue specifically with the teacher unions recently, but I met my right hon. Friend and members of the Anaphylaxis Campaign, whose representatives included a head teacher, on 27 September. "Consideration" is being given to further appropriate measures to deal with those concerns.

  Departmental Post
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much her Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by her Department, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  The following figures include the central spend on postage by my Department and our contracted mailing house:

  Financial Year

  Cost £

  1989–90

  870,558

  1990–91

  575,951

  1991–92

  674,372

  1992–93

  796,161

  1993–94

  490,906

  Information is not collected about the occasional dispatches carried out on the Department's behalf by ad hoc mailing contractors. The figures for 1993–94 reflect the fact that the Office for Standards in Education has assumed financial responsibility for its own post bill. Information about the number of items posted is not held centrally.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what medical training her Department advises is necessary for escorts of children with special educational needs being transported to and from school.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for local education authorities to satisfy themselves that appropriate supervision is provided for the transport of children with special educational needs. The Government endorsed a Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents report in 1991 which recommended that escorts should have a knowledge and understanding of the particular disabilities of the children they escort and that they should have received adequate first aid training.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice her Department has given to local 790
  education authorities on the transport of children with special educational needs to and from school.

  Mr. Forth
  Transport arrangements made by local education authorities must enable pupils to travel in reasonable safety and comfort, without undue stress, strain or difficulty such as would prevent the child benefiting from the education provided at the school. Guidance on the management and safety of school transport was included in a circular letter on a range of school transport issues sent to all chief education officers in England in January 1994.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many public appointments(a) she is responsible for making and (b) require her approval, including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if she will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is given below.

  Number of appointments the Secretary of State is responsible for making

  Number of appointments that require approval from the Secretary of State

  Executive bodies

  255

  1

  Advisory bodies

  19

  —

  Other bodies

  871

  1

  1 These figures include eight appointments to the SLC made jointly by the Secretaries of State for Education and for Scotland. Further appointments can be made at the discretion of the Secretaries of State.

  The Secretary of State is also empowered to establish education associations and may appoint as many members as she considers appropriate to each association.

  "Our Children's Education"
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pensioner households received the publication Our "Children's Education".

  Mr. Robin Squire
  "Our Children's Education", the updated parents charter, was delivered to every household in England. This means that all pensioner households should have received a copy. I would expect many of them to be interested in the contents, but as taxpayers, grandparents or both.

  Stratford School
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the qualifications of Mrs. Gould of Combe Hay Partnership to become a governor of Stratford school; and what fees she will receive.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Mrs. Daphne Gould OBE is the former head teacher of an east London school, with particular experience of Stratford school through her previous services as the Secretary of State's additional governor. Mrs. Gould was a founder member of the National Curriculum Council, and is one of only six honorary fellows of the university of London's institute
  791
  of education. Mrs. Gould will not, of course, receive fees for her duties as a governor. However, the Secretary of State has separately asked her to carry out consultancy work at the school for a period not exceeding 10 days this term, for which she will be remunerated at an appropriate rate.

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many man hours were taken up by adjusting the clocks throughout her Department.

  Mr. Forth
  No record is kept of such estimates.

  Higher and Further Education Fees
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines she has published on the charging of registration fees to home students by higher and further education colleges.

  Mr. Boswell
  There are no Government guidelines on the charging of registration fees to students.

  Budget Allocations
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of her Department's budget in

  Proportion of expenditure on sectors of education as percentage of total local and central Government education expenditure

  1994–951

  1989–90

  1984–85

  1979–80

  Nursery2

  —

  4·2

  2·6

  2·1

  Primary

  22·1

  19·5

  19·2

  20·3

  Secondary3

  23·3

  27

  29·9

  28·2

  Special schools4

  5

  3·5

  3·3

  3

  Schools capital5

  2·2

  4·1

  2·5

  4·3

  Higher and further education6

  35·9

  28·5

  30·1

  28·7

  Other7

  11·5

  13·2

  12·4

  13·4

  1Central Government element of figures based on planned expenditure. Local Authority recurrent expenditure is taken from local authority Revenue Account budget returns. Schools capital expenditure figures do not allow for Local Authorities' self-financed expenditure. The figures in this column are therefore not directly comparable with those in other columns, which report outturn expenditure.

  2For 1989–90 only figures include rising fives in primary schools. Figures for 1994–95 have been included in figures for primary schools, as the figures available do not fully disaggregate funding on nursery provision from primary provision.

  3Figures include expenditure on assisted places, recurrent expenditure on CTCs and music and ballet schools.

  4Figures have been shown separately for special schools which often have pupils of both primary and secondary age.

  5Figures showing the split of capital expenditure between primary and secondary schools are not available.

  6Figures include expenditure on institutional recurrent and capital funding, mandatory student awards (maintenance grants and tuition fees), discretionary awards, postgraduate awards, student loans, access funds and adult education. Mandatory awards programme also covers Wales. In 1979–80, 1984–85 and 1989–90 the Department was responsible through the University Grants Committee and the Universities Funding Council for recurrent funding to universities in Scotland and Wales. The figures have been adjusted to remove this element of expenditure.

  7Includes expenditure on administration, research programme, youth service, school meals, transport, teachers' centres, child guidance and pupil support.

TRANSPORT

  A38
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends announcing his Department's preferred routes for the A38 trunk road improvement schemes Saltash-Trerulefoot and Liskeard-Bodmin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Robert Hicks dated 27 October 1994:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the proposed improvement of the A38 trunk road between Saltash and Trerulefoot and between
  792
  the last year for which figures are available was spent on (a) nursery, (b) primary, (c) secondary and (d) higher and further education; and what were the corresponding figures five, 10 and 15 years ago.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  During this period the Department's responsibilities have changed. It has previously had responsibility for science, arts, libraries and sport. Responsibility for funding some sectors of education has passed from local education authorities to the Department. The table accordingly provides figures for expenditure on the activities in question, as a proportion of expenditure on education by the Department and by English local authorities. The percentage of expenditure on each sector reflects in part demographic trends, and also the recent rapid growth in participation in higher education. The figures are for England only, with the exception of those figures for further and higher education which include spending on mandatory student awards in Wales. Other figures for Wales, and those for Scotland and Northern Ireland, are the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Liskeard and Bodmin. The timing of the preferred route announcements depends upon the progress of the schemes themselves, which is an operational matter for the Highways Agency.
  We expect Ministers to be able to announce the preferred routes for both of these schemes in November.
  The announcement on the Liskeard to Bodmin scheme has had to await detailed consideration of the A38 Action Group's suggestion that the trunk road should be improved along its existing line through the environmentally sensitive Glynn Valley.
  The Saltash to Trerulefoot scheme is also sensitive. Villagers of Landrake have come out in favour of resurrecting the old route, which passes through a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a proposed Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. We have wished to find ways of responding to the concerns that have led them to prefer the old route.
  Other aspects of this scheme have also given concern to residents, developers and planners, not least its potential effects on the

  793
  Broadmoor Farm area which the owners and the District Council wish to develop as a business or industrial park. We have wished to ensure that all the concerns that have been expressed as a result of the Public Consultation have been properly understood and taken into account.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake a survey of the safety of single line railway tracks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  No.

  Non-motorised Transport
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what practical steps he is taking to improve the collection and presentation of data in respect of non-motorised transport modes.

  Mr. Norris
  The national travel survey is the main source of national data on walking and is a major source of national data on cycling. The survey was conducted five times at irregular intervals between 1965 and 1986, but since 1988 the survey has been expanded to collect data on a continuous basis.

  The Department undertakes regular reviews of the need for all types of data but has no plans for further innovations for these modes at present.

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions are in place or are proposed to require porters at railway stations to assist(a) passengers who have disabilities and (b) those passengers who have children in their charge while at the same time carrying luggage.

  Mr. Watts
  The provision of porters at stations is a matter for British Rail. I understand that British Rail tries to ensure that stations are staffed according to the expected demand.

  The Rail Regulator has a statutory duty to have regard to the interests of persons who are disabled. He requires all station operators to produce and comply with a disabled people's protection policy as a condition of being granted a licence to operate.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to prohibit the charge made at mainline stations for the use of toilet facilities by passengers or to include the cost of toilet facilities in the cost of a train ticket; and what assessment he has made of the arrangements made for charging for toilet facilities by food outlets at stations.

  Mr. Watts
  These are matters for station operators.

  Train Failure
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will inquire into the cause of a double engine failure during a rail journey between Birmingham and London on 26 April and into whether this train was in a safe condition to carry passengers.

  Mr. Watts
  Engine failure is an operational matter for the relevant train operating company, which has a statutory responsibility to operate its services safely. The train operating company would be required to report it only if there were personal injury or if other, specific 794
  circumstances were involved. Engine failure is not a reportable occurrence.

  River Thames
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to increase the use of the Thames for commercial, industrial and leisure transport.

  Mr. Norris
  The River Thames working group has been examining the present transport uses of the Thames, the factors which inhibit the growth of traffic on it, and the potential for developing both freight and passenger traffic. The group will report as soon as possible.

  Departmental Post
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by his Department in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has spent the following sums on postage:

  1991–92

  £13·13 million.

  1992–93

  £12·93 million.

  1993–94

  £13·27 million.

  Separate figures for the Departments for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91 are not available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity for Work Appeals
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of appeals concerning incapacity for work during(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 by claimants of (i) incapacity benefit, ii) severe disablement allowance and (iii) income support.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the format requested. Current planning assumptions are that the number of appeals which will be lodged on the question of incapacity will be in the region of 140,000 in 1995–96 and 190,000 in 1996–97.

  21-hour Rule
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for changing the 21-hour rule; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The "21-hour rule" is a special provision which enables income support claimants who are unemployed to spend their time usefully in part-time study while continuing their search for work. The rules governing study on benefit are designed to allow people to undertake study, which will increase their employability, while remaining available for, and actively seeking, work. The "Jobseeker's Allowance" White Paper, which was published on 24 October, makes it clear that the Government intend to continue broadly with the same approach in JSA. Details of the JSA scheme are still under consideration.

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many man hours were taken up by adjusting the clocks throughout his Department.

  Mr. Hague
  No records are kept of such activities.

  Inflation
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect on pensioner spending power on the occasion when Great Britain last had inflation over 10 per cent.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government fully recognise the importance of maintaining low inflation in protecting pensioners' spending power.

  Since October 1990, when inflation was last above 10 per cent., it is estimated1 that pensioners'2 average weekly incomes have risen by more than 12 per cent. in real terms.

  Notes:

  1. Source: Family Expenditure Surveys.

  2. Measurement based on pensioner units which include single pensioners and couples where the husband is over state pension age.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current calculation of the costs of preparation for market testing in his Department in terms of(a) payments to consultants and (b) other costs.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Consultancy costs to date in preparation for market testing are £4,614,579 and other costs are £5,819,468.

  Departmental Post
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by his Department, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Hague
  The departmental expenditure on postage in each of the last five years was:

  £

  1989–90

  38,515,000

  1990–91

  46,969,000

  1991–92

  59,718,000

  1992–93

  70,198,000

  1993–94

  71,320,000

  The number of items posted is not available for the whole period in question. However, for the financial year 1993–94, the number of items posted via the Royal Mail was 311,043,023.

  Lung Conditions
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many PD12D chronic bronchitis and emphysema cases(a) had been received up to 11 September, (b) had been processed and (c) were rejected on grounds of failure to meet (i) the qualification period, (ii) the FEVI test and (iii) the X-ray diagnosis of simple pneumoconiosis.
  796
  Mr. Hague
  Information as at 11 September 1994 is in the table:

  Number

  Claims received

  43,827

  Claims processed

  40,338

  Disallowed on prescription

  1,821

  Failed FEV1 test

  18,658

  Diagnosed as Category O. pneumoconiosis

  13,995

  Based on a 100 per cent. count and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social security how many PD12D chronic bronchitis and emphysema appeals had been heard to 11 September by(a) a special medical board and (b) a medical appeals tribunal; and how many were successful at each stage.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Appeals

  Number

  Processed or Withdrawn

  Appeals Upheld

  Special Medical Boards

  5,913

  4,813

  214

  Medical Appeal Tribunals

  1,543

  237

  32

  NB: Based on a 100 per cent. count and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many PD12D chronic bronchitis and emphysema appeals to special medical boards up to 11 September have been against(a) X-ray evidence, (b) FEVI test and (c) the qualification period; and how many were successful in each category.

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The available information is in the table.

  Criteria

  Number

  Test satisfied

  Test not satisfied

  Appeals to special medical boards and medical appeal tribunals

  FEV1

  2,146

  97

  1,698

  X-ray

  3,333

  158

  2,534

  Appeals to social security appeal tribunals at 11 September

  20 year rule

  135

  15

  32

  Note

  Figures in both tables based on a 100 per cent. count and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the PD12D chronic bronchitis and emphysema appellants to the medical appeal tribunal have been referred for fresh X-rays; and of those how many have been successful at appeal.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many successful PD12D chronic bronchitis and emphysema applicants there were up to 11 September who have been awarded benefit; and what is their average age.

  Mr. Hague
  At 11 September 1994, 43,827 claims had been received and 4,469 awards of benefit made.
  797
  Information on the average age of benefit recipients could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  NB: Based on a 100 per cent. count but subject to amendment.

  Means Testing (Limits)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the(a) £1,000 widow's payment, (b) £3,000 and £8,000 capital limits for income support and family credit, (c) £3,000 and £16,000 capital limits for housing benefit, (d) £2 per day earnings limit for unemployment benefit, (e) £12 earnings limit under the normal idle day rule, (f) £5 and £15 earnings disregards for income support, (g) £5, £10 and £25 earnings disregards for housing and council tax benefits, (h) £10 war pension disregard for income-related benefits, (i) £10 disregard of statutory or voluntary payments, (j) £20 disregard of income from a boarder, (k) £200 disregard of a training bonus (l) £15 maintenance disregard for income-related benefits other than income

  Col. 1

  Col. 2 date of introduction

  Col. 3 date from which current rate applicable

  Col. 4 current value if increased in line with prices since date at Col. 3

  Col. 5 current value if increased in line with average earnings since date at Col. 3

  (a) £1,000 window's Payment

  April 1988

  April 1988

  1,387·40

  1,523·60

  (b) £3,000 and £8,000 capital limits for income support and family credit:-

  £3,000

  April 1988

  April 1988

  4,105·90

  4,570·65

  £8,000

  April 1988

  April 1990

  9,940.50

  10,202·60

  (c) £3,000 and £16,000 capital limits, for housing benefits:-

  £3,000

  April 1988

  April 1988

  4,105·90

  4,570·65

  £16,000

  April 1988

  April 1990

  19,881·10

  20,405·15

  (d) £2 per day earnings limit for unemployment benefit

  July 1948

  March 1982

  3·75

  4·80

  (e) £12 earnings limit under the normal idle day rule

  December 1989

  December 1989

  15·75

  16·70

  (f) £5 and £15 earnings disregards for income support:-

  £5·00

  April 1988

  April 1988

  6·85

  7·65

  £15·00

  April 1988

  April 1988

  20·50

  22·90

  (g) £5, £10 and £25 earnings disregards for housing and council tax benefits:-

  £5

  April 1988

  April 1988

  6·85

  7·65

  £10

  April 1988

  April 1988

  13·70

  15·25

  £25

  April 1988

  October 1990

  31·05

  31·90

  (h) £10 war pension disregard for income-related benefits

  April 1998

  April 1990

  12·45

  12·75

  (i) £10 disregard of charitable and voluntary payments

  April 1988

  April 1990

  12·45

  12·75

  (j) £20 disregard of income from a boarder (plus half of charge in excess of £20)

  April 1988

  April 1990

  24·80

  25·45

  (k) £200 disregard of a training bonus

  September 1988

  September 1988

  277·45

  304·80

  (l) £15 maintenance disregard for income-related benefits other than income support

  April 1992

  April 1992

  16·10

  16·20

  (m) £10 disregard of student loans

  September 1990

  September 1990

  12·45

  12·75

  (n) £35 occupational pension limit for unemployment benefit

  April 1981

  April 1981

  72·60

  95·00

  798
  support, (m) £10 disregard of student loans, (n) £35 occupational pension limit for unemployment benefit, (o) £200 savings limit for the lower rate of voluntary unemployment deduction, (p) £27 (£8 if living in a hostel) protected earnings, and the £1 margin over protected earnings, where income support paid after a trade dispute is recoverable, (q) £52·50 rate of statutory sick pay, (r) £100 maternity payment from the social fund, (s) £500 and £1,000 capital limits for maternity and funeral payments from the social fund, (t) £75 limit on additional expenses included in a funeral payment from the social fund, (u) 25 pence age addition to retirement pension, (v) £10 Christmas bonus, (w) £2,500 exempt payments limit for recovery of benefits from compensation payments and (x) £30,000 vaccine damage payment were (i) last uprated and (ii) introduced; and what their present value would be if they had been uprated in each year since then in line with the increases in (A) prices and (B) average earnings.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  799

  Col. 1

  Col. 2 date of introduction

  Col. 3 date from which current rate applicable

  Col. 4 current value if increased in line with prices since date at Col. 3

  Col. 5 current value if increased in line with average earnings since date at Col. 3

  (o) £200 savings limit for the lower rate of voluntary employment deduction

  November 1980

  April 1988

  273·75

  304·80

  (p) £27 (£8 if living in a hostel) protected earnings, and the £1 margin over protected earnings, where income support is paid after a trade dispute is recoverable

  April 1988

  April 1988

  36·90

  41·10

  (q) £52.50 rate of statutory sick pay

  April 1990

  April 1990

  63·95

  67·00

  (r) £100 maternity payment from the Social Fund

  April 1987

  April 1990

  124·25

  127·55

  (s) £500 and £1,000 capital limits for maternity and funeral payments from the Social Fund

  £500

  April 1990

  April 1990

  621·30

  637·65

  £1,000

  April 1990

  April 1990

  1,242·60

  1,275·35

  (t) £75 limit on additional expenses (specifically arising from the religious faith of the deceased) included in a funeral payments from the Social Fund

  April 1987

  April 1987

  105·95

  123·15

  (u) 25 pence age addition to retirement pension

  September 1971

  September 1971

  1·55

  2·60

  (v) £10 Christmas bonus

  December 1972

  December 1972

  65·70

  94·75

  (w) £2,500 exempt payments limit for recover of benefits from compensation payments

  September 1990

  September 1990

  3,043·85

  3,188·30

  (x) £30,000 vaccine damage payment

  March 1979

  April 1991

  32,936·70

  34,908·45

  Note:

  1. The figures have been rounded to two decimal places.

  2. In each step of the calculation the amount has been rounded to the nearest five pence.

  3. The Retail Prices Index (all items) and the Retail Prices Index (all items except housing ROSSI) as published by the Central Statistical Office have been used for the prices up-rating -ROSSI in relation to amounts which apply to income-related benefits.

  4. Average Earnings Index (Whole Economy Unadjusted) as published by the Employment Department has been used to calculate the earnings up-rating.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has completed his review of the cold weather payments scheme network of temperature monitoring points; what proposals he has to announce in respect of Garve, Ross-shire, and the monitoring station on Tiree; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This year's review of the cold weather payments scheme is complete. Amending regulations were laid on 11 October and will come into force on 1 November. No changes are to be made in respect of Garve.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much money has been spent in total on housing benefit in Scotland for private sector tenancies in each year since 1985;

  (2) how much has been spent on housing benefit in Scotland in each financial year since 1985.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.800

  £ thousands

  Year

  Total Private Sector Housing Benefit

  Total Housing Benefit

  1985–86

  53,693

  270,098

  1986–87

  69,260

  317,889

  1987–88

  85,903

  367,005

  1988–891

  81,968

  380,405

  1989–901

  103,567

  434,152

  1990–91

  109,257

  489,784

  1991–92

  123,753

  535,526

  1992–93

  154,617

  607,954

  Note

  1 Amounts estimated as the data was not collected in the required format for these two years.

  All Figures have been rounded to the nearest £,000.

  Source

  Final subsidy claims.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money was spent on housing benefit in each district council in Scotland in the last financial year.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.
  801

  District

  Total Housing Benefit (£,000)

  Berwickshire

  1.422

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  2,144

  Roxburgh

  3,619

  Tweeddale

  1,036

  Clackmannan

  4,823

  Falkirk

  13,492

  Stirling

  7,646

  Annandale and Eskdale

  2,792

  Nithsdale

  4,814

  Stewartry

  1,698

  Wigtown

  4,149

  Dunfermline

  11,761

  Kirkcaldy

  17,800

  North East Fife

  4,462

  Aberdeen

  14,984

  Banff and Buchan

  5,549

  Gordon

  2,935

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,492

  Moray

  5,505

  Badenoch

  998

  Caithness

  2,203

  Inverness

  5,518

  Lochaber

  1,665

  Nairn

  829

  Ross and Cromarty

  4,754

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1,067

  Sutherland

  1,138

  Edinburgh

  67,641

  East Lothian

  7,688

  Midlothian

  4,341

  West Lothian

  9,242

  Argyll-Bute

  7,290

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1,207

  Clydebank

  7,666

  Clydesdale

  4,287

  Cumbernauld

  3,381

  Cumnock and Doon

  5,020

  Cunninghame

  14,410

  Dumbarton

  8,844

  East Kilbride

  1,580

  Eastwood

  1,455

  Glasgow

  178,875

  Hamilton

  11,825

  Inverclyde

  12,739

  Kilmarnock

  8,131

  Kyle and Carrick

  10,926

  Monklands

  14,127

  Motherwell

  16,710

  Renfrew

  23,397

  Strathkelvin

  5,245

  Angus

  5,877

  Dundee

  32,078

  Perth and Kinross

  8,837

  Islands

  Orkney

  1,165

  Shetland

  1,275

  Western Isles

  2,399

  All figures rounded to the nearest £,000.

  Source: Final subsidy claims.

  Information relates to 1992–93 year.

  Housing Benefit Subsidy 1992–93 Source: MPF720B (Certified)

  Districts

  Housing Benefit Subsidy

  Berwickshire

  1,422,031

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  2,144,030

  Roxburgh

  3,618,630

  Tweeddale

  1,035,930

  Clackmannan

  4,822,713

  Falkirk

  13,492,425

  802

  Housing Benefit Subsidy 1992–93 Source: MPF720B (Certified)

  Districts

  Housing Benefit Subsidy

  Stirling

  7,646,014

  Annandale and Eskdale

  2,791,643

  Nithsdale

  4,814,403

  Stewartry

  1,697,878

  Wigtown

  4,148,971

  Dunfermline

  11,761,442

  Kirkcaldy

  17,800,067

  North East Fife

  4,462,196

  Aberdeen

  14,984,313

  Banff and Buchan

  5,548,947

  Gordon

  2,934,543

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,492,313

  Moray

  5,504,803

  Badenoch

  997,785

  Caithness

  2,202,847

  Inverness

  5,518,241

  Lochaber

  1,664,894

  Nairn

  828,642

  Ross and Cromarty

  4,753,973

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1,066,843

  Sutherland

  1,138,487

  Edinburgh

  67,640,909

  East Lothian

  7,688,208

  Midlothian

  4,341,099

  West Lothian

  9,242,218

  Argyll-Bute

  7,289,821

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1,206,648

  Clydebank

  7,666,228

  Clydesdale

  4,287,072

  Cumbernauld

  3,381,167

  Cumnock and Doon

  5,019,841

  Cunninghame

  14,409,820

  Dumbarton

  8,844,003

  East Kilbride

  1,579,816

  Eastwood

  1,455,284

  Glasgow

  178,875,469

  Hamilton

  11,825,268

  Inverclyde

  12,738,576

  Kilmarnock

  8,131,272

  Kyle and Carrick

  10,926,069

  Monklands

  14,127,309

  Motherwell

  16,709,628

  Renfrew

  23,397,271

  Strathkelvin

  5,245,087

  Angus

  5,877,088

  Dundee

  32,077,629

  Perth and Kinross

  8,837,355

  603,115,159

  Islands

  Orkney

  1,164,576

  Shetland

  1,275,119

  Western Isles

  2,398,951

  4,838,646

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the highest values of rent eligible for housing benefit in(a) the private sector and (b) the public sector, in each financial year since 1985.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information for Scotland is set out in the table. It gives the maximum eligible rent and the 99th percentile eligible rent for the years for which the information could be extracted.
  803

  Enquiry date

  Public sector tenancies Maximum eligible rent £

  Private sector tenancies 99th percentile eligible rent £

  Maximum eligible rent £

  99th percentile eligible rent £

  May 1989

  46·42

  27·02

  87·94

  51·50

  May 1990

  107·97

  32·72

  96·92

  80·77

  May 1991

  124·45

  39·81

  105·00

  81·89

  May 1992

  250·37

  42·64

  115·38

  95·00

  May 1993

  170·2

  43·63

  150·00

  98·08

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System annual one per cent. inquiries.

  Note:

  1 As the figures are from a one per cent. sample of recipients of Housing Benefit, the maximum quoted above may not be the actual maximum eligible rent.

  2 The 99th percentile eligible rent (that is, the eligible rent which represents the boundary between the top one per cent of eligible rents and all other eligible rents) has been quoted as a more reliable indicator of the highest values.

  3 The private sector includes Housing Association tenancies.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many housing benefit claims have been awarded for each district council area in Scotland in each year since 1985.

  Average Housing Benefit Caseload for each District in Scotland 1988–1993

  Average Housing Benefit Caseload

  District

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Aberdeen

  16,758

  17,615

  17,806

  16,584

  16,046

  16,163

  Angus

  6,959

  6,860

  6,739

  6,537

  6,562

  6,736

  Annandale and Eskdale

  3,552

  2,759

  2,356

  2,373

  2,412

  2,515

  Argyll-Bute

  5,064

  4,655

  4,698

  5,094

  5,115

  5,414

  Badenoch

  863

  715

  651

  667

  734

  780

  Banff and Buchan

  5,525

  5,568

  5,499

  5,379

  5,318

  5,468

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1,047

  1,018

  942

  901

  900

  917

  Berwickshire

  508

  1,350

  1,310

  1,287

  1,298

  1,346

  Caithness

  2,106

  1,936

  1,929

  1,901

  1,940

  2,010

  Clackmannan

  4,846

  7,320

  7,110

  7,019

  6,872

  6,570

  Clydebank

  7,308

  6,948

  6,871

  6,692

  6,625

  6,709

  Clydesdale

  4,534

  4,336

  4,266

  4,278

  4,420

  4,474

  Cumbernauld

  2,260

  2,313

  2,338

  2,494

  2,591

  2,711

  Cumnock and Doon

  5,142

  4,937

  4,871

  4,895

  5,130

  5,358

  Cunninghame

  15,019

  13,266

  12,317

  12,398

  12,904

  13,358

  Dumbarton

  7,256

  7,116

  6,998

  6,879

  6,697

  7,232

  Dundee

  24,289

  23,372

  23,600

  23,108

  22,741

  23,043

  Dunfermline

  10,579

  10,694

  10,363

  10,488

  10,701

  10,936

  East Kilbride

  880

  861

  922

  963

  1,062

  1,151

  East Lothian

  8,018

  7,667

  7,072

  7,005

  6,978

  6,983

  Eastwood

  1,109

  1,079

  1,033

  1,014

  1,119

  1,198

  Edinburgh

  48,640

  45,318

  42,869

  40,000

  39,934

  41,203

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  607

  2,102

  1,984

  1,786

  2,139

  2,231

  Falkirk

  14,899

  14,951

  14,498

  14,273

  14,150

  14,306

  Glasgow

  122,020

  121,430

  124,966

  122,018

  123,314

  122,577

  Gordon

  1,866

  2,655

  2,501

  2,282

  2,578

  2,644

  Hamilton

  11,969

  11,659

  11,278

  11,168

  11,133

  11,297

  Inverclyde

  15,502

  11,978

  11,899

  11,205

  11,018

  11,312

  Inverness

  5,167

  6,099

  6,235

  6,002

  5,248

  4,353

  Kilmarnock

  9,744

  9,380

  9,052

  9,015

  8,746

  8,709

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,266

  1,405

  1,463

  1,439

  1,490

  1,595

  Kirkcaldy

  13,876

  13,841

  13,833

  13,584

  14,141

  14,500

  Kyle and Carrick

  10,582

  10,146

  9,849

  9,664

  9,443

  9,783

  Lochaber

  2,069

  1,686

  1,442

  1,380

  1,349

  1,572

  Midlothian

  6,176

  5,815

  5,190

  4,928

  5,721

  4,931

  Monklands

  15,804

  14,935

  14,184

  14,240

  12,879

  13,283

  Moray

  5,718

  5,616

  5,413

  5,236

  6,725

  5,401

  Motherwell

  20,336

  18,629

  17,916

  17,782

  15,813

  18,305

  Nairn

  806

  785

  680

  638

  1,058

  748

  Nithsdale

  5,150

  4,269

  3,959

  3,860

  4,120

  4,321

  North East Fife

  4,446

  4,247

  4,091

  3,556

  3,330

  3,747

  Orkney Isles

  1,269

  996

  829

  844

  1,730

  919

  Perth and Kinross

  7,964

  7,850

  7,758

  7,698

  9,346

  7,998

  Renfrew

  21,959

  20,294

  18,553

  19,877

  17,949

  20,945

  804
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.
  805

  Average Housing Benefit Caseload for each District in Scotland 1988–1993

  Average Housing Benefit Caseload

  District

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Ross and Cromarty

  3,648

  3,540

  3,396

  3,455

  3,598

  4,039

  Roxburgh

  827

  2,863

  2,742

  2,705

  2,697

  3,113

  Shetland Isles

  1,501

  1,020

  967

  963

  962

  1,043

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1,063

  1,165

  1,388

  678

  822

  753

  Stewartry

  2,174

  1,504

  1,317

  1,343

  1,892

  1,410

  Stirling

  8,240

  7,487

  6,442

  6,334

  5,795

  6,666

  Strathkelvin

  5,383

  4,887

  4,617

  4,363

  4,290

  4,341

  Sutherland

  973

  942

  947

  947

  926

  981

  Tweeddale

  156

  737

  919

  892

  933

  953

  West Lothian

  10,317

  9,802

  9,344

  9,560

  9,368

  9,440

  Western Isles

  4,405

  1,786

  1,143

  1,198

  1,551

  1,568

  Wigtown

  3,930

  3,182

  3,042

  2,899

  3,084

  3,170

  Source

  Housing Benefit Management Information System Notes

  (1) The above figures are benefit units. A benefit unit may be a single person or a couple.

  (2) The average caseload is based on 100 per cent. enquiries taken at the end of February, May, August and November of each year.

  (3) When the Local Authorities have failed to send in a return, figures have been estimated.

  (4) Prior to April 1989 the average caseload includes rate rebate cases.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total cost and number of recipients of housing benefit in the current year; and what were the equivalent figures for 1982.

  Great Britain

  Housing Benefit only

  Housing Benefit plus an estimate for the number of people on Supplementary Benefit who get help with housing costs

  Spending £ (millions)

  Caseload (thousands)

  Spending £ (millions)

  Caseload (thousands)

  1982–831

  Rent rebate

  929

  3,050

  1,777

  3,580

  Rent allowance

  74

  260

  351

  851

  1994–952

  Rent rebate

  5,659

  3,186

  —

  —

  Rent allowance

  4,320

  1,432

  —

  —

  Note

  1982–83 caseload and expenditure figures include estimates for people whose Supplementary Benefit payments included help with their housing costs.

  1 Information taken from Public Expenditure papers.

  2 "Government's Expenditure Plans 1994–95 to 1996–97". Caseload information extrapolated from figures in same report.

  Personal Injury Claims
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total value of all benefits recovered from claimants awarded damages for personal injury claims in each year since 1979 expressed in constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The compensation recovery scheme came into force on 3 September 1990. No records are held of the amounts of benefit recovered by compensators before that date because the Department was not involved in the process. The amounts recovered since 3 September 1990 in 1994–95 prices are as follows:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  4·35

  27·96

  54·55

  84·36

  47·50

  Notes

  1. All figures are in £ millions.

  2. Figures exclude recoveries from awards that do not exceed £2,500. Compensators may exercise the right to offset such awards by half the value of benefits payable, but the Department is not involved in the process. Accordingly, no records are held of these recoveries.

  806
  Mr. Roger Evans
  pursuant to his reply, 24 October, Official Report, column 425]: The figures for rent allowance and rent rebate caseload had been transposed.

  The correct information is set out in the table.

  3. Figures for 1994–95 are to 30 September 1994 only.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who were the members of the group of experts who were asked to advise on the procedures for assessing the effects of mental health problems in relation to incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  Panel members who agreed to have their names published are listed in the report "The Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit", copies of which are in the Library. Ten members of the panel, including some members of the sub-group which advised on the mental health assessment, did not want their names published. We do not have the consent of any panel member to disclose his involvement in a particular part of the work, such as the mental health assessment. The sub-group which advised on the mental health assessment included panel members with experience in psychological medicine, occupational health and general practice.

WALES

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to launch a rough sleepers initiative in Wales to alleviate the problems caused by homeless people sleeping overnight in open-air locations in the Principality.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office continues to devote considerable resources to the prevention and alleviation of homelessness. In 1994–95 some £5,000,000 was available to local authorities for capital schemes addressing homelessness or under-occupation; £500,000 revenue funding is also being directed to voluntary bodies.

  Local authority

  Public right of way

  Duration

  Reason for extension given by local authority

  Powys county council

  Bridleways Nos. 6 and 7 in Craig DDU Forest, Penybontfawr

  12 weeks

  Completion of road construction by the forestry Commission

  Footpath No. 1 at Sychpwll, Llandrinio

  1 month

  Rebuilding of a flood bank

  Footpath No. 33 near Carreghofa Hall, Carreghofa Llanymynech

  38 weeks

  To repair an unsafe bridge abutment

  Footpath No. 17 at Nant-Y-Wiber footbridge, Penygarnedd

  42 weeks

  Unsafe footbridge—likely to be replaced

  Footpath No. 53 and bridleway No. 54 at old lead mine, Van, Llanidloes

  33 weeks

  Completion of reclamation works

  Bridleway No. 22 at bridge No. CB 4137 Near Blaen Glyn, Glyn Tarell

  11 weeks

  Public safety owing to weaknesses in the bridge structure

  Bridleway No. 22 at bridge No. CB 4137 near Blaen Glyn, Glyn Tarell

  39 weeks

  Reconstruction of bridge

  Public footpath No. 1 at Festival footbridge near Aberhafesp

  8 weeks

  Essential maintenance works to footbridge

  Public footpath No. 65 at Trederwen outfall near Arddleen

  35 weeks

  Reconstruction of outfall

  Gwent county council

  Public footpath No. 55 at Rogerstone power station

  26 weeks

  Infrastructure works on sides of Ebbw river

  Public footpath No. 10 at Garn-Y-Rerw, Blaenavon

  130 weeks

  Mineral workings

  Public footpath No. 14 at Langstone/Cats Ash

  26 weeks

  Residential development of adjacent land

  Public footpaths Nos. 36, 38, 39, and 40 at Cats Ash—Celtic Manor golf course

  26 weeks

  Public safety during construction of golf course

  Public Footpath No. 247 at Pennar farm Newbridge-Maesycwmmer

  26 weeks

  Construction of bypass route A472

  South Glamorgan county council

  Footpath linking Ewenny close and Dynallt road, Barry

  22weeks

  Public safety during construction work nearby

  Footpath under Eastern avenue at The Nant Pontprennau subway, Cardiff

  78 weeks

  Public safety during construction of nearby link road

  Footpath No. 14 at Barry

  13 weeks

  Public safety during residential development of adjacent land

  Clwyd county council

  Public footpaths Nos. 102 and 108 at Cerrigydrudion

  14 weeks

  To facilitate repairs to dam bridge

  Selective Financial Assistance
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list the companies which received selective financial assistance in 1992, 1993 and 1994 to 808
  To tackle a specific identified problem of single vulnerable young homeless people, £800,000 is being provided for a three-year pilot project in Cardiff.

  Traffic Regulation Orders
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the temporary traffic regulation orders for which he has authorised an extension under section 15(5) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1994 as amended by the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991, stating in each case(a) the name of the authority making the order, (b) the public rights of way stopped up by the order, (c) the duration of the extension and (d) why he granted the extension.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the table:

  the latest date; and what were the total sums paid in selective assistance for each year.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of companies receiving regional selective assistance offers of £75,000 or more are published quarterly in the Employment Gazette, while

  809
  summarised information relating to regional assistance is published each year in the Industrial Development Act 1982 annual reports. Copies of both publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of people employed in his Department; and under what subject headings they work.

  Mr. Redwood
  The total full-time equivalent number of permanent staff employed by the Welsh Office at the beginning of October 1994 was 2,334. They work in the following broad subject areas:

  Number

  Ministers' offices

  29

  Permanent secretary's office

  2·5

  Deputy secretaries' offices

  5

  Economic development

  82·5

  Industry and training

  176·5

  Agriculture

  445

  Health

  210

  Local government finance, housing and social services

  113

  Transport, planning and environment

  595·5

  Local government reorganisation

  23

  Education

  85·5

  Legal

  66·5

  Accommodation and management services

  199

  Personnel and central services

  91

  Statistics, information and library

  96·5

  Finance

  94

  Total

  2,224·5

  Note

  In addition, there are 109·5 staff on maternity leave, unpaid career breaks, and so on.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total and proportion of his staff of his Department employed on agricultural duties in each of the past 14 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  The total number and proportion of permanent staff in my Department employed on agricultural duties in each of the last 14 years is as follows:

  Year

  Number of staff employed on agricultural duties (full-time equivalents)

  Proportion of Welsh Office staff (per cent.)

  1980 (December)

  623

  26·4

  1981 (December)

  598

  26·2

  1982 (December)

  585

  26·6

  1983 (December)

  564

  25·9

  1984 (December)

  553

  25·0

  19851

  543

  23·8

  1986 (December)

  509

  22·6

  1987 (December)

  480

  21·7

  1988 (November)

  480

  22·0

  1989 (October)

  463

  20·8

  1990 (October)

  477

  20·3

  1991 (July)

  455

  19·0

  1992 (July)

  389

  16·0

  1993 (December)

  416

  15·6

  1994 (October)

  445

  19·0

  1Figure relates to January 1986. Information for 1985 is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to reduce the effects of acid rain on Welsh rivers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In June the Government signed a significant new international agreement within United Nations Economic Commission for Europe aimed at achieving substantial reductions in emissions of sulphur dioxide, one of the main contributors to acid rain. This represents the latest step in the Government's wide-ranging programme of measures to reduce the effects of acid rain in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, including tighter controls on emissions from industry and vehicles. As part of this, the Welsh Office is sponsoring studies with the National Rivers Authority on the effectiveness of liming of river catchments in Wales.

  Quangos
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve the accountability of Welsh quangos.

  Mr. Redwood
  My ministerial colleagues and I hold regular review meetings with each Welsh executive non-departmental public body to consider targets and performance; and NDPBs are to be provided with clear statements of their responsibilities and the roles of the board and its staff and of the Department. I also expect each NDPB to adopt, with such adaptations as are appropriate to its circumstances, the recently published "Code of Best Practice for Board Members of Public Bodies", which requires public bodies and their boards:To observe the highest standards of impartiality, integrity and objectivity in relation to their stewardship of public funds.
  To comply with Government policy on openness and to respond to all reasonable requests for information.
  To be accountable to Parliament, users of services, individual citizens and staff for the activities of the bodies concerned, their stewardship of public funds and the extent to which key performance targets have been met.
  To maximise value for money by ensuring that services are delivered in the most efficient and economical way.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of appointments made to quango boards by himself and each of his predecessors since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, I have appointed 46 people to executive non-departmental public bodies since 1 September 1993.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the quangos set up by himself and each of each predecessors since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following executive non-departmental public bodies have been set up since 1979:

  Year

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  1983

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  1987

  Housing for Wales

  1989

  Countryside Council for Wales1

  1991

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  1992

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  1992

  Wales Youth Agency

  1992

  811

  Year

  Welsh Language Board2

  1993

  Arts Council for Wales

  1994

  Curriculum and Assessment Authority

  1994

  1 Assumed the function of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservation Council in Wales.

  2 Replaced an advisory body.

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new regional aid proposals he has to safeguard the jobs at the Central Statistical Office in Newport.

  Mr. Redwood
  Policy in relation to the Central Statistical Office is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Departmental Post
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by his Department, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  Expenditure from my Department's postage budget in each of the last five years was;

  Financial year

  £

  1989–90

  394,750

  1990–91

  440,779

  1991–92

  556,659

  1992–93

  541,539

  1993–94

  486,614

  Figures for the number of items are not available.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what medical training his Department advises is necessary for escorts of children with special educational needs being transported to and from school.

  Mr, Richards
  It is for local education authorities to satisfy themselves that appropriate supervision is made for the conveyance of children with special educational needs. The Government endorsed a Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents report in 1991 which recommended that escorts should receive adequate first aid training.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice his Department has given to local education authorities on the transport of children with special educational needs to and from school.

  Mr. Richards
  Local education authorities are obliged to transport pupils in reasonable safety and comfort. Transport should be non-stressful, such as to enable a child to travel to and from school without undue stress, strain or difficulty such as would prevent the child benefiting from the education provided at the school. The advice was included in a draft circular issued for consultation earlier in the year, the final version of which should issue shortly.

  Redundant Churches and Chapels
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress in establishing redundant churches and chapels funds for Wales; and what comparisons he has drawn with arrangements elsewhere.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Responsibility for issues relating to redundant churches and chapels has been delegated to Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E.A.J. Carr to Mrs. Ann Clwyd, dated 26 October 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about progress towards establishing redundant churches and redundant chapels funds in Wales.
  In its response to the Welsh Affairs Committee report, "The Preservation of Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments", the Government indicated that it was prepared to fund 70 per cent. of the costs of mechanisms to care for the best redundant religious buildings for which no other arrangement could be made.
  Cadw is making good progress with the Representative Body of the Church in Wales and the Friends of Friendless Churches in identifying arrangements to care for redundant churches of the Church in Wales. The Friends has a proven track record in caring sympathetically for redundant churches in Wales and already has four in its hands. Most recently, a wider package of financial support has been offered to the Friends, whose founder died last year meaning the organisation has had to regroup, opening the way for its care to be further extended. Our detailed discussions are continuing on how it is to be done.
  The position with redundant chapels is rather different. There is no obvious mechanism which might be grant-aided to care for these and our aim is to stimulate the establishment of a body, in the voluntary sector, on the lines of the Historic Chapels Trust in England. To encourage a wider interest in the issue, Cadw has asked the Wales Council for Voluntary Action to organise a conference which will be held at the Norwegian Church, Cardiff on 29 November. The aim is to discuss the problems that such a mechanism might address and to promote the involvement of interested people.

  "Our Children's Education"
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pensioner households received the publication "Our Children's Education".

  Mr. Richards
  This publication was distributed in England only and is therefore a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the capital receipts from the sale of school playing fields for each of the last six years by education authority.

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 26 October 1994]: The information requested is not held centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for the latest year for which figures are available total annual rent roll and the
  813
  total annual staff salaries bill for the top 100 housing associations.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest available information is for the financial year 1992–93 and is set out below.

  The annual rent roll has been provided for the top 100 associations and includes rents collected from both self-contained accommodation and from shared housing developments such as hostels.

  Information on staff salaries is available only for the top 50 associations, based on a special exercise mounted by the Housing Corporation earlier this year.

  Name of Housing Association

  HA Type

  Rents (£'000s)

  Anchor

  GENF

  79,651

  North British

  GENF

  43,281

  North

  GENF

  37,009

  London & Quadrant HT

  MIXD

  31,877

  Sanctuary

  GENF

  25,392

  Hyde

  MIXD

  24,010

  Peabody Donation Fund

  GENF

  23,257

  Guinness Trust

  MIXD

  23,082

  Sutton HT

  MIXD

  22,250

  Northern Counties

  GENF

  21,100

  English Churches

  MIXD

  20,143

  Notting Hill

  GENF

  19,923

  Merseyside Improved

  GENF

  18,419

  Paddington Churches

  MIXD

  17,837

  Bradford & Northern

  MIXD

  17,535

  Hanover

  GENF

  17,284

  Circle 33

  GENF

  16,316

  Focus

  MIXD

  16,162

  Servite

  MIXD

  14,223

  Network

  GENF

  13,802

  Tonbridge & Malling

  LSVT

  13,413

  Orbit

  GENF

  13,224

  South London Family

  GENF

  12,712

  Ealing Family

  GENF

  12,532

  Stonham

  MIXD

  12,364

  Shaftesbury

  GENF

  12,163

  Bedfordshire Pilgrim

  LSVT

  11,656

  Swale

  LSVT

  11,620

  Metropolitan HT

  GENF

  11,355

  High Weald

  LSVT

  11,193

  West Kent

  LSVT

  10,953

  East London

  MIXD

  10,791

  Sovereign

  LSVT

  10,635

  Family

  MIXD

  10,564

  Knightstone

  GENF

  10,055

  Samuel Lewis Found

  MIXD

  10,012

  Jephson Homes

  GENF

  9,789

  New Islington & Hackney

  MIXD

  9,414

  United Kingdom HT

  MIXD

  9,331

  Liverpool HT

  MIXD

  9,116

  Springboard

  MIXD

  8,848

  Raglan

  GENF

  8,533

  Chiltern Hundreds

  LSVT

  8,085

  Touchstone 2

  MIXD

  7,666

  Richmond Churches

  GENF

  7,527

  Manchester and District

  GENF

  7,379

  Mid Sussex

  LSVT

  7,356

  Devon & Cornwall

  GENF

  6,905

  Warden

  GENF

  6,388

  Salvation Army

  MIXD

  6,386

  Beacon

  LSVT

  6,316

  Liver

  GENF

  6,026

  Downland

  MIXD

  6,017

  Grosvenor

  GENF

  5,951

  Johnnie Johnson HT

  GENF

  5,877

  Wherry

  LSVT

  5,696

  James Butcher

  MIXD

  5,644

  Midland Area

  GENF

  5,548

  814

  Name of Housing Association

  HA Type

  Rents (£'000s)

  Portico

  GENF

  5,533

  Bromford

  GENF

  5,490

  Yorkshire MET

  GENF

  5,470

  Leicester

  GENF

  5,420

  Threshold

  GENF

  5,222

  Medina

  LSVT

  5,210

  Ryedale

  LSVT

  5,176

  Family HA Manchester

  MIXD

  4,867

  YWCA of GB

  MIXD

  4,829

  Shepherds Bush

  MIXD

  4,776

  Irwell Valley

  GENF

  4,669

  Bourneville Village

  GENF

  4,651

  Leeds Federated

  MIXD

  4,580

  Kensington HT

  GENF

  4,422

  Brunel & Family

  GENF

  4,372

  Thames Valley

  GENF

  4,317

  Kelsey

  GENF

  4,289

  East Dorset

  LSVT

  4,287

  St. Pancras

  GENF

  4,278

  Portsmouth

  GENF

  4,257

  Touchstone

  GENF

  4,203

  Collingwood

  GENF

  4,180

  City and Counties

  MIXD

  4,176

  Airways

  GENF

  4,168

  Guardian

  GENF

  4,164

  Milton Keynes

  LSVT

  4,102

  Accord HSG Management

  MIXD

  4,091

  Moat HS

  GENF

  4,061

  Aldwyck

  MIXD

  3,952

  Habinteg

  MIXD

  3,934

  West Country

  MIXD

  3,929

  Swaythling

  GENF

  3,911

  South Yorkshire

  GENF

  3,769

  Muir Group

  GENF

  3,642

  Newlon

  GENF

  3,641

  Western Challenge

  GENF

  3,558

  Community

  MIXD

  3,543

  South Wight

  LSVT

  3,509

  Cheviot

  GENF

  3,496

  Walbrook

  MIXD

  3,476

  West Hampstead

  GENF

  3,457

  Nene HS

  MIXD

  3,432

  Name of Housing Association

  Type HA

  Staff Costs(£'000s)

  Anchor

  GENF

  30,869

  North British

  GENF

  13,813

  English Churches

  MIXD

  9,728

  Peabody Donation Fund

  GENF

  9,217

  Sanctuary

  GENF

  8,411

  North

  GENF

  8,060

  Sutton HT

  MIXD

  7,513

  Guinness Trust

  MIXD

  7,273

  London & Quadrant HT

  MIXD

  7,203

  South London Family

  GENF

  7,064

  Paddington Churches

  MIXD

  6,751

  Bradford & Northern

  MIXD

  6,666

  Northern Counties

  MIXD

  6,666

  Merseyside Improved

  GENF

  6,522

  Notting Hill

  GENF

  6,363

  Focus

  MIXD

  5,794

  Circle 33

  GENF

  4,952

  Orbit

  GENF

  4,693

  Shaftesbury

  GENF

  4,690

  Metropolitan HT

  GENF

  4,661

  Hyde

  MIXD

  4,494

  Network

  GENF

  4,283

  East London

  MIXD

  3,700

  Hexagon

  GENF

  3,431

  Family HA

  MIXD

  3,357

  Knightstone

  GENF

  3,327

  815

  Name of Housing Association

  Type HA

  Staff Costs(£'000s)

  West Berkshire

  LSVT

  3,267

  New Islington & Hackney

  MIXD

  3,231

  Samuel Lewis HT

  MIXD

  3,137

  Ealing Family

  GENF

  3,098

  Leicester

  GENF

  2,784

  Manchester & Dist.

  GENF

  2,713

  Jephson Homes

  GENF

  2,503

  Raglan

  GENF

  2,500

  Threshold

  GENF

  1,857

  East Midlands

  MIXD

  1,824

  Devon & Cornwall

  GENF

  1,636

  Aldwyck

  MIXD

  1,585

  Bromford

  GENF

  1,566

  Moat HS

  GENF

  1,365

  Ujima

  MIXD

  1,272

  Thames Valley

  GENF

  1,254

  Wandle

  GENF

  1,079

  Swaythling

  GENF

  965

  West Country

  MIXD

  687

  Asra Greater London

  GENF

  582

  Metropolitan HO

  SALE

  446

  Islington & Shoreditch

  GENF

  439

  Tower

  SALE

  425

  Notting Hill HO

  SALE

  421

  Rivers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to the Office of Water Services and the water companies to ensure that river sites of special scientific interest are protected from deterioration due to sewage effluent during the period 1995–2000.

  Mr. Atkins
  In an answer to my hon. Friend on 6 July,Official Report, columns 241-42, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £522·3 million of spending in the period 1995 to 2000, specifically to improve river quality where such improvements would not otherwise be required. This was taken into account by the Director General of Water Services when he determined the water companies' new price limits, announced on 28 July. The National Rivers Authority will decide in consultation with the water companies how this spending should be prioritised.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for 1992–93 and 1993–94, the amount spent in each London borough, with totals for each training and enterprise council area, under each of the programmes now incorporated into the single regeneration budget, regardless of whether the sums were paid to the borough council, and the amount allocated to be spent in 1994–95 on the same basis.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. The figures cover the support given to projects under the programmes, or parts of programmes, which now form the single regeneration budget. The total expenditure on several of the programmes will be higher, reflecting contributions from local authorities, the private sector and so on.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of 816
  the number of public rights of way that have been blocked or otherwise obstructed by landowners since 1984.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Countryside Commission carried out a major sample survey of the condition of the network in 1988 and estimated that more than 39,000 km of rights of way were blocked and unusable, about half of which were thought to be the responsibility of landowners. The commission, which gave up responsibility for Wales in 1991, has a further sample survey in hand.

  Opencast Mines
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that fresh planning applications by the new mining companies for opencast coal mines on sites which the local planning authority has previously rejected will not be entertained and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No. Each case must be considered on its merits. Where a development plan is material to the proposal, application must be determined in accordance with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. However, section 70A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as inserted by section 17 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, provides that a local planning authority may decline to determine an application if within the period of two years ending with the date on which the application is received the Secretary of State has refused a similar application referred to him under section 77 of the 1990 Act or has dismissed an appeal against the refusal of a similar application; and there has been no significant change since the decision in the development plan, so far as it is relevant, or in any other material considerations.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of appeals under paragraph 4 of schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 determined in 1992 and 1993 for which the time taken from receipt of appeal by his Department to its determination was(a) not more than six months, (b) more than six months but not more than 12 months, (c) more than 12 months but not more than 18 months, (d) more than 18 months but not more than 24 months or (e) more than 24 months.

  Mr. Atkins
  Statistics on appeals under paragraph 4 of schedule 14 are not collected in the form requested. However, the table shows on a regional basis the average time taken for the cases determined in each year.

  Appeals under paragraph 4, schedule 14 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  1992

  1993

  Regional offices

  Number of cases

  Average time (months)

  Number of cases

  Average time (months)

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Western

  3

  16

  11

  20

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  —

  5

  13

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  6

  8

  1

  9

  Eastern

  11

  12

  9

  6

  South Eastern

  14

  26

  19

  11

  South Western

  7

  21

  24

  15

  London

  1

  13

  1

  22

  817
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long he allows surveying authorities to comment on appeals under paragraph 4 of schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Atkins
  Surveying authorities are given eight weeks to comment on the appellant's grounds of appeal and to submit a statement of case. If no response is received, a reminder is sent and a further two weeks allowed before the appeal can proceed: extensions of time are granted where appropriate. The authority is then given three weeks to comment on each occasion the appellant or third party makes further representations.

  Renewal Programmes
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on his policy towards urban renewal programmes based upon area schemes;

  (2) how many renewal areas have been designated each year under the provisions of Local Government and Housing Act 1989

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We encourage local authorities to declare renewal areas where the appropriate circumstances exist. The number that have been notified to the Department each year since introduction of the 1989 Act is:

  Number

  1990

  9

  1991

  27

  1992

  18

  1993

  21

  1994

  15

  Total

  80

  1 To date.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects to announce the result of his consultation on private housing renewal programmes;

  (2) What study he has made of the adverse effect on area renewal programmes in urban areas by a shift towards pepper potting of individual properties.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We are considering the responses to the consultation paper, many of which addressed the effect of the demand-led arrangements that we have at the moment on the ability of local authorities to develop renewal strategies for their areas. An announcement on the outcome of this review will be made in due course.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will respond to the letter of 26 September from the hon. Member for Leicester, East.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter yesterday.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of private rented accommodation has(a) two rooms or fewer or (b) three
  818
  rooms or more; and what plans he has to produce guidelines concerning suitable accommodation for households in the private rented sector.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Some 15 per cent. of households renting privately in England have two rooms or fewer, and 85 per cent. have three rooms or more. These proportions are from the 1993–94 survey of English housing and are subject to sampling error.

  The Department has issued guidance to local authorities in support of their powers to enforce adequate standards of safety and amenity in houses in multiple occupation. Certain general standards relating to fitness and overcrowding are set out in primary legislation. But otherwise it is for landlords and tenants to agree the suitability of accommodation. We have no plans to issue further guidelines.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what payments have been made by his Department during the last five years to individuals or companies in Yorkshire and Humberside in support of projects which it was assumed would create employment; and how many jobs have been created in each case.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [pursuant to his reply, Wednesday 26 October 1994, column 76]: Until last November my Department awarded city grant to private developers in support of projects designed to create employment. On 10 November 1993, responsibility for city grant was assumed by English Partnerships.

  In the five years to April 1994, £43·75 million of city grant was awarded in Yorkshire and Humberside in support of 41 schemes, which were expected to create 6,318 new jobs.

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many man hours were taken up by adjusting the clocks throughout his Department.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Adjusting clocks forms part of the normal day-to-day maintenance of my Department's buildings. No separate records are kept of the time spent on this.

  Butterfly Conservation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to improve butterfly conservation.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Conservation (Natural Habitats Etc.) Regulations 1994, implementing the EC habitats directive, take effect on 30 October. Of native species, the marsh fritillary—euphydryas aurinia—is included on annexe II of the directive, which lists those species whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation; the large blue butterfly—maculinea anion—is included in annexe IV, for species requiring strict protection.

  English Nature's species recovery programme is enjoying some success with the large blue butterfly. Adult butterflies have emerged on five sites and a sixth site is being prepared for next year.

  The development of targets for species conservation for publication in 1995 was announced in "Biodiversity: The United Kingdom Action Plan". We expect these to include butterflies.

  A34
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has received from the European Commission regarding the application of directive 85/337 to the proposed A34 Newbury bypass.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has received no advice from the European Commission regarding the application of directive 85/37 to the proposed A34 Newbury bypass. The European Commission did, however, send informal letters of inquiry about this project, to which we replied, in 1991 and 1993. No further communication has been received.

  Dormice
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made as to whether the provisions of the Conservation (Natural Habitats Etc) Regulations are adequate to comply fully with the United Kingdom Government's obligation to protect the habitats of dormice, under the European habitats directive.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The regulations were drafted to afford the requisite level of protection for all animal species listed on annexe IVa of the EC habitats directive, including the dormouse—muscardinus avellanarius. Regulation 39(1)(d) makes it an offence to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal, reflecting article 12(1)(d) of the directive. Derogations under licence from these provisions for specified purposes are allowed where the authorities are satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative and that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to improve knowledge on the effects on the air quality of pollution by(a) PMIOs (b) Aramatis, (c) oletins, (d) formaldehydes and (e) oxides of nitrogen and photochemical smog.

  Mr. Atkins
  As announced on 3 October, £5 million is to be made available to the Institute of Environment and Health to investigate links between air pollution and respiratory disease. This is in addition to annual expenditure of over £9 million by my Department on air quality research and monitoring.

  The expert panel on air quality standards has published recommendations on benzene and ozone, and will be publishing recommendations on carbon monoxide and 1,3-butadiene in the near future. It is at present considering particulates and NO2 and expects to make recommendations in due course. The quality of urban air review group and the photochemical oxidants review group continue to provide advice on wider air quality issues.

  I hope to make an announcement later this year on the Government's response to the consultation paper "Improving Air Quality".

  Bats and Rodents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to improve the conservation of native British bats and rodents.
  820
  Sir Paul Beresford
  In addition to the protection afforded by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to all native bat species and two species of rodent, the Conservation (Natural Habitats Etc) Regulations 1994, which take effect on 30 October, will further strengthen the conservation of many bat species and one species of rodent.

  English Nature's species recovery programme, which has already enjoyed some success with the common dormouse and the red squirrel, includes a new three-year project to assist the greater horseshoe bat.

  Canals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to increase the use of canals for commercial, industrial and leisure transport.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce new proposals regarding increasing the use of canals. However the new chairman of British Waterways, Bernard Henderson CBE, has been asked to consider ways in which the use of canals for which he is responsible may be increased in the national interest, especially for leisure and tourism.

  Departmental Post
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by his Department, in each of the last five years.

  Sir Paul Bereford
  My Department has spent the following sums on postage:

  1989–90 — £ 0·440 million

  1990–91 — £ 0·687 million

  1991–92 — £ 0·755 million

  1992–93 — £ 0·883 million

  1993–94 — £ 1·121 million

  1994–95 — £ 0·529 million (Year to September)

  Figures on the number of items posted are kept only for mail from the Department's main London headquarters buildings. Figures are available only from 1991–92 and are as follows:

  1991–92 — 937,096 items

  1992–93 — 947,536 items

  1993–94 — 962,940 items

  1994–95 — 457,267 items (Year to September)

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval, including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State is responsible for the following public appointments1

  Numbers

  to executive bodies

  438

  to advisory bodies

  166

  to other bodies

  418

  1 includes appointments made by Her Majesty The Queen on the advice of the Secretary of State.

  821
  There are no appointments which require his approval but for which he is not responsible.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the outcome of the triennial review of Ordnance Survey.

  Mr. Atkins
  Ordnance Survey was established as an executive agency on 1 May 1990. In 1993, an evaluation report concluded that agency status had been a spur to significant improvements in performance. In particular, the acceleration of the conversion of the basic scales mapping archive to a computerised database, the good trading results in a difficult trading period and the attainment of challenging quality-of-service and output targets were important achievements in a highly creditable performance. These improvements and other innovations were recognised in 1993 by a chartermark award.

  In order to supplement a review undertaken by officials, consultants were appointed to look at options for the future status of Ordnance Survey. They assessed that Ordnance Survey would continue to progress well in its current status as an executive agency. They also believed that privatisation of Ordnance Survey offers potential benefits. The consultants found that various obstacles preclude this change of status in the immediate future and were also unable, at present, to quantify the full costs and benefits of privatisation.

  The consultants further concluded that contractorisation was the worst of the options examined. The Government accept these conclusions and recognise that a final decision to privatise is not yet possible. Ordnance Survey will therefore continue as an executive agency for a further four years. A new framework document will be drawn up to cover the period. During this time the obstacles to privatisation will be investigated thoroughly with a view to clarifying and overcoming them so that the costs and benefits can be established. A further announcement and, if necessary, public consultation, will take place following this major review. The consultants also recommended that a move to trading fund status would be beneficial for Ordnance Survey, whether or not privatisation was pursued eventually. This recommendation is accepted and we will be seeking to move Ordnance Survey to a trading fund basis from April 1996. Over the next four years, Ordnance Survey will continue to develop its revenue-generating activities. Ordnance Survey will also continue to improve its efficiency in order to reduce further its costs to the taxpayer through contracting out wherever there is economic benefit, through collaborations with the private sector wherever appropriate and through innovative management. In addition, Ordnance Survey will seek to achieve all this without any diminution of the quality of its products and services which underpin many key activities of Government and commerce in Britain.

  A summary of the consultants' report has been placed in the Library.

  Petrol
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he plans to give to the public on the use of leaded and unleaded petrol; and if he will make a statement.
  822
  Mr. Atkins
  Government advice to motorist remains firm:Those whose cars can run on unleaded petrol and who are not using it should start doing so.
  Those already using unleaded petrol should not switch back to using leaded petrol.

  The Government do not accept criticism of Government policy on unleaded petrol contained in the Transport Select Committee report on transport-related air pollution in London.

  These is no credible evidence of any significant differences in emissions of benzene between non-catalyst cars running on leaded and premium unleaded petrol.

  There is no evidence that use of super-unleaded petrol contributes significantly to total ambient concentrations of benzene. Super-unleaded petrol comprises only 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. of the market, and that share is declining. We are, however, keeping its use under review.

  Benzene levels in the United Kingdom are below the five part per billion level recommended to Government by the expert panel for air quality standards, and are likely to fall as more catalyst-equipped cars enter the national fleet.

  Health advice is that there are much stronger grounds for concern regarding small increases in blood-lead concentrations than regarding small changes in ambient concentrations of benzene. It is hoped that publicity given to the Transport Committee report will not lead to increased emissions of lead from road transport.

HEALTH

  Health Statistics
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will update the information published in appendix G on pages 31-32 of the minutes of evidence taken before the Health Select Committee on "The Responsibilities of the Director of Statistics and the Director of Research and Development", HC 1992–93, 624, by giving the
  corresponding tabulations from the hospital episode system for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested from 1991–92 will be placed in the Library. The analysis for 1992–93 is not yet available.

  Water
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made on the effect on public health of restricted use of water for general household purposes;

  (2) what discussions she has had with the Medical Officer of Health about the benefits or disbenefits to public health of restricting the use of water for general household purposes.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Renal Replacement Therapy
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the rate of acceptance of new patients for renal
  823
  replacement therapy by district health authorities and regional health authorities in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  Breast Screening
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of women between the ages of 50 years and 64 years have been invited for breast screening in each year since 1990, by(a) district health authority, (b) family health services authority and (c) region; and how many women were actually screened in each case.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on breast cancer screening has been collected centrally since financial year 1988–89, but 1991–92 was the first year for which the data were of sufficient quality to allow any analysis. Regionally based information on estimated percentage uptake of screening invitations for 1991–92 and 1992–93 is shown in the table. Information is not available centrally at district or family health services authority level.

  Region

  1991–92 Per cent.

  1992–93 per cent.

  England (Total)

  72

  72

  Northern

  75

  75

  Yorkshire

  74

  72

  Trent

  78

  78

  East Anglia

  81

  79

  North West Thames

  58

  61

  North East Thames

  61

  61

  South East Thames

  71

  70

  South West Thames

  66

  68

  Wessex

  79

  76

  Oxford

  77

  76

  South Western

  75

  77

  West Midlands

  72

  70

  Mersey

  69

  72

  North Western

  73

  76

  Information on the number of women screened by regional health authority is published in breast cancer screening summary information from Form KC62 England. The 1992–3 data are to be distributed shortly and an advance copy will be placed in the Library.

  Learning Disability Hospitals
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with learning disabilities are resident in long-stay hospitals; and if she will list the long-stay learning disability hospitals still operating.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on residents by type of hospital is not available centrally. The figure for people with a length of stay of one or more years in national health service hospitals under the mental handicap, learning disability specialty, in England, as at 31 March 1993 is 13,500.

  A list will be placed in the Library of NHS trusts and directly managed units that have beds designated as being for long-term learning disability patients.

  Calman Report
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the proposals in the Calman report.
  824
  Mr. Malone
  Substantial progress has been made and a programme to implement the report's recommendations is outlined in EL(94)71, "Implementation of the Report of the Working Group on Specialist Medical Training—Hospital Doctors: Training for the Future". Copies of the national health service executive letter, which was issued on 22 September 1994, are available in the Library.

  Mental Health Budget
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current mental health budget(a) per head of population and (b) in total (i) in each region and (ii) for the London implementation zone.

  Mr. Bowis
  Decisions about spending on hospital and community health services for mentally ill people are taken locally by district health authorities and general practitioner fundholders based on their assessment of the needs of mentally ill people living in the district or on the practice's list. Information on this expenditure is not available centrally. It is not possible to identify separately the element of family health services expenditure which relates to mentally ill people.

  General Practitioner Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conditions are attached to general practitioner fundholder savings used to improve or build surgeries owned by the general practitioners.

  Mr. Malone
  Fundholding general practitioners' savings are to be used for the benefit of patients of the practice. In approving proposals for the use of savings, family health services authorities are expected to consider carefully any plans to extend surgery premises for the benefit of patients.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether general practitioner fundholders can use their savings to employ a general practitioner assistant.

  Mr. Malone
  A medical practitioner may be employed from fundholder savings only to provide approved fundholding procedures and may not be employed to provide general medical services.

  Asthma
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children(a) had asthma and (b) were admitted to hospital with asthma in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is estimated that between 4 and 6 per cent. of children suffer from asthma sufficiently seriously to require medical supervision. Numbers of hospital in-patient cases of children suffering from asthma are available from hospital episode statistics for the years shown in the table. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Finished Consultant Episodes—England

  Thousands

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  0-14 age group

  61·7

  51·5

  49·1

  50·7

  Source:

  Hospital episode statistics

  Refugee Children
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those local authorities that provide care and support for 50 or more unaccompanied refugee children under the provisions of the Children Act 1989; and what financial assistance has been given by central Government to those local authorities since 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information about whether children looked after by local authorities have refugee status is not available centrally. Financial assistance totalling £4,197,698 has been given through a Department of the Environment special grant to local authorities caring for unaccompanied refugee children in respect of 1993–94.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unaccompanied refugee children were being supported by the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea(a) on 1 April 1991 and (b) at the latest available date; and by how much the children's services block in the standard spending assessment has increased in the same period.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information about whether children looked after by local authorities have refugee status is not available centrally.

  In 1990–91, the children's services sub-block of the personal social services standard spending assessment for Kensington and Chelsea was £11·945 million. In 1994–95, following a comprehensive review of the standard spending assessment formulae, and the first full use of data from the 1991 census, the equivalent figure is £11£926 million.

  Private Patients
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total income generated from private patients in 1993–94, and for each trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information will not be available until December 1994.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital trusts have dedicated private bed units.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 26 May,Official Report, column 303.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the NHS activity figure for private patients by region in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for 1992–93 will be published shortly in "Hospital Episodes Statistics, Volume 1, England 1992–93", copies of which will be placed in the Library. The 1993–94 figures are not yet available.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what limits there are on the number of private beds as percent private work that NHS trusts can do.

  Mr. Sackville
  None, providing there is no significant interference with the performance of the trust of its obligations under national health service contracts. That statutory requirement prevents NHS patients from being disadvantaged by private practice within the health service.

  Alcohol (Women)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of women drank more than 14 units of alcohol per week in each year since 1986.
  826
  Mr. Bowis
  The available information, derived from the general household survey, is shown in the table.

  Percentage of women aged 18+ drinking over 14 units of alcohol weekly (England)

  Year

  Percentage

  1986

  10

  1988

  11

  1990

  11

  1992

  12

  Notes:

  1. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole figure.

  2. The General Household Survey collects data on alcohol consumption in alternate years only.

  Community Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has that the objectives of the community care policies are being met.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have an extensive monitoring programme in place. This has shown that local authorities have made a good start with the implementation of community care in the first year. This view has also been confirmed by reports from the Audit Commission and the Association of Directors of Social Services.

  Pain
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of medical schools offer tuition in pain control.

  Mr. Malone
  A total of 100 per cent.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the number of people suffering from chronic pain.

  Mr. Sackville
  The prevalence of chronic pain is not known.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has commissioned on the chief causes of chronic pain; and with what results.

  Mr. Sackville
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The MRC is an independent body deciding what research to support on its own expert judgment.

  In 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available, the MRC spent £237,000 on research into pain.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent pain relief is included in undergraduate medical training.

  Mr. Malone
  Knowledge and understanding of the relief of pain is taught in all university medical schools. They determine the extent of this teaching in the light of recommendations from the education committee of the General Medical Council, which has the statutory authority to determine the extent of the knowledge and skill required for the granting of primary medical qualifications in the United Kingdom.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of district health authorities have pain relief clinics.
  827
  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally. It is for individual health authorities to commission hospital services that meet local needs including services for people with acute or chronic pain.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if pain relief is recognised as a specialty by her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. This is primarily a matter for the medical profession in discussion with the Department.

  Blood Transfusion
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to develop autologous blood transfusion.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are aware of the value of autologous transfusion for those patients where the procedures are applicable. In appropriate cases it can provide a useful supplement to the supply of blood from voluntary donors which the National Blood Service supplies to our hospitals. The medical profession is aware of autologous transfusion and advice is available from medical staff of the National Blood Service and hospital consultant haematologists. Selection of patients for this procedure has to be undertaken with extreme care to avoid any possible clinical risk to that patient.

  Help us to Help You Campaign
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on the help us to help you campaign; and how effective the campaign has been.

  Mr. Malone
  The total cost of the help us to help you initiative has been £91,870. Monitoring to assess the effectiveness of local campaigns is a local responsibility. The national health service executive has found that help us help you messages are now widely featured in national health service information literature.

  Adoption
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to set up an international adoption agency in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Bowis: Our role is to receive applications from voluntary organisations for approval under section 3 of the Adoption Act 1976. We have not yet received any such application.

  Performance-related Pay
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the annual administrative cost of performance-related pay for consultants;

  (2) what savings on the total consultant staff budget will come from performance-related pay.

  Mr. Malone
  Our proposals are for the introduction of local pay arrangements in the national health service, not performance-related pay. The size of the consultants' pay bill depends on a number of factors including consultant expansion. It is for trusts to determine the cost of local schemes.

  Mental Illness
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) in the London implementation zone and (b) in each region suffer from mental illness.
  828
  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not currently available centrally. A national survey assessing the extent of psychiatric morbidity in Great Britain is being carried out for the Department of Health by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The results of the first part of the survey, covering the private household population, are due to be published later this year and will provide information both nationally and regionally on the nature and extent of mental illness among adults.

  Hospitality Budgets
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the hospitality budget for her Department, the national health service executive and regional health authorities, district health authorities, family health services authorities and trusts in(a) 1993–94 (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1979–1980.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on hospitality expenditure for regional health authorities, district health authorities, family health services authorities and trusts is not available centrally. Figures for the Department of Health are shown in the table.

  1993–94 £

  1991–92 £

  Department of Health

  218,995

  168,151

  National Health Service Management Executive

  88,846

  35,803

  Notes:

  1 Figures are not available prior to 1990–91.

  2 Figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

  3 Departmental figures include the Management Executive figures.

  4 Management Executive figures are not directly comparable from year to year because of organisational changes.

  Cleveden Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contracts her Department, the national health service executive, regional health authorities, district health authorities, family health services authorities or trusts had with Cleveden Services.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no records of any contracts between the Department of Health or the national health service executive and Cleveden Services.

  Information on contracts held with individual contractors by regional health authorities, district health authorities, family health services authorities or trusts is not available centrally.

  Sandwell General Practitioner Consortium
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to investigate Sandwell family health services authority, the general practitioner consortium and the limited company that ran it.

  Mr. Malone
  West Midlands regional health authority published the results of an investigation into the setting up of the Sandwell general practitioner consortium in May this year. Sandwell family health services authority is currently investigating the decision by general practitioners to leave the consortium.

  Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for ethnic monitoring of the merit award system for consultants.

  Mr. Malone
  Ethnic monitoring is one of the issues to be addressed in the review of distinction awards.

  Patient Records
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the guidance on confidentiality on patient records is to be published; and when guidance was initially drafted.

  Mr. Sackville
  Draft guidance on the confidentiality, use and disclosure of personal health information was issued for consultation on 10 August 1994, and copies of it are available in the Library. The consultation period ends on 9 December, and a final version will be published when we have considered the comments received. Work on drafting guidance on confidentiality first began in 1989.

  Footwear
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the number of hospital referrals each year directly related to use of poor footwear.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no information available on which to base such an estimate.

  EU Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors from other EU countries have practised in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Comparable information is not available for general practitioners.

  Hospital and community health service medical staff from European Union countries (by countries of birth) other than UK who were practising in England as at 30 September 1989–1993 (whole time equivalents)

  Number

  1989

  1,830

  1990

  1,740

  1991

  1,870

  1992

  1,900

  1993

  2,010

  Figures are rounded to nearest 10.

  Opportunity 2000
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to have the monitoring data for the Opportunity 2000 targets to be achieved by the end of the current year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Monitoring arrangements are in hand. The main findings will be published in 1995.

  Ethnic Minority Health Unit
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the planned closure of the regional ethnic minority health unit.
  830
  Mr. Sackville
  The closure of any regional unit would be the responsibility of the relevant regional health authority. The national health service ethnic health unit was established this year for a three-year period; it is located in Leeds and will cover ethnic health issues across the whole of the NHS in England.

  Passive Smoking
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to limit the dangers of passive smoking.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government will continue to publicise the dangers of passive smoking and to encourage the introduction of smoking policies in public places, public transport and the workplace. Good progress is being made in all those areas.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths were caused by passive smoking in each of the last five years; and what research findings she has on the illnesses caused by passive smoking.

  Mr. Sackville
  On the available data it is not possible to estimate a figure for all deaths attributable to passive smoking.

  The available evidence on the health effects of passive smoking is summarised in paragraph 2·13 of "Smoke Free for Health" which was published in February 1994, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health is reviewing the available research findings on this issue.

  Hospital Patient Statistics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to collect data on the patient readmission rates of each hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Ambulance Service, London
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to improve the London ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Mr right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in December 1993 an additional £14·8 million investment in the London ambulance service for 1994–95, which the LAS is using to purchase new accident and emergency vehicles, to increase ambulance staff, provide additional paramedic training and make other improvements to services. This additional funding was linked to firm targets for improved response times–80 per cent. of emergency calls to be responded to within 14 minutes by September 1994 and 85 per cent. by April 1995 as interim stages to meeting the national standard of responding to 95 per cent. of calls within 14 minutes.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Mr William Wells, the chairman of South Thames regional health authority, to produce a report into the LAS. The report will look into what changes need to be made in terms of:
  working practices, including staff deployment and rostering systems
  the use of resources
  management/staff relation
  management and staff training
  831
  The report will be made to Ministers before Christmas and will be made public.

  Home Visits
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the opportunities for patients to speak to a doctor prior to a home visit by that doctor.

  Mr. Malone
  In general, there should be no difficulty in speaking to a doctor before a home visit. However, it is for individual general practitioners to decide how to organise their patient contacts.

  Caesarean Sections
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the rate of caesarean sections in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer to the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on 18 May,Official Report, column 519.

  Figures for 1992–93 are not yet available.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to discipline consultants who continue to allow their junior doctors to work longer hours than those targets in her new deal for junior doctors.

  Mr. Malone
  None. I expect consultants to work with managers and junior doctors to help achieve the new deal targets.

  Toxoplasmosis
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the incidence of(a) toxoplasmosis and (b) congenital toxoplasmosis in each of the last 10 years.

  Ordinary and day case admissions for England, 1988–89 to 1992–93 Mental illness, rates per head of population

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  London implementation zone

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  0·006

  Northern

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  Yorkshire

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  0·004

  0·005

  Trent

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  0·005

  East Anglian

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  North West Thames

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  North East Thames

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  0·005

  0·005

  South East Thames

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  South West Thames

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  Wessex

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  0·006

  0·005

  Oxford

  0·003

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  South Western

  0·006

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  West Midlands

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  0·004

  Mersey

  0·005

  0·006

  0·006

  0·006

  0·006

  North Western

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  0·005

  0·006

  Notes:

  The following DHAs are all part of the London implementation zone: Barnet, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Spelthorne, Ealing, Riverside, Parkside, Barking Havering and Brentwood, Hampstead, City and Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Enfield, Haringey, Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Bloomsbury and Islington, Bexley, Greenwich, Bromley, West Lambeth, Camberwell, Lewisham and North Southwark, Croydon, Kingston and Esher, Richmond Twickenham and Roehampton, Wandsworth, Merton and Sutton and all SHAs.

  Sources:

  Ordinary and day case admissions for England, Financial Year 1992–93.

  OPCS Monitor PP1 93/3 Mid 1991 and mid-1992 population PP1 94/1 Revised population estimates for 1988 to 1990.
  832
  Mr. Sackville
  The number of laboratory reports of toxoplasmosis in England and Wales during the past 10 years is shown in the table. It should be noted that those reports are not necessarily of new infections; some may be of chronic infection or represent results from repeat test on the same patient.

  Information on the incidence of congenital toxoplasmosis each year is not routinely available.

  Laboratory reports to the Public Health Laboratory Service, England and Wales, 1984–1993

  Year

  Laboratory reports

  1984

  759

  1985

  842

  1986

  762

  1987

  849

  1988

  825

  1989

  852

  1990

  704

  1991

  636

  1992

  580

  19931

  454

  19931 data provisional

  Mental Health
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the mental health activity figures for each of the last five years for(a) the London implementation zone and (b) by region, per head of population.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on in-patient activity is given in the "Ordinary and day case admissions for England, Financial Year 1992–93" copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information available on rates per head of population is shown in the tables. The numbers are based on ordinary admissions and day cases. It should be noted that the figures relate to finished consultant episodes and not individual patients, as an individual may be admitted and discharged more than once.

  Family Planning
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health is she will list the family planning initiatives taken by her Department in the last 10 years which are aimed at men.

  Mr. Sackville
  The "Health of the Nation" strategy includes the clear objective for the national health service to ensure the provision of well-publicised and effective family planning services for those people who want them. That applies equally to men as to women.

  The Department of Health funds a number of voluntary organisations which are working to ensure that the needs of men are addressed along with those of women.

  Resources (Allocation)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what financial year she intends to start allocating resources for NHS hospital and community health services direct to district health authorities; and whether it is her policy for such allocations to reflect district data on(a) housing tenure, (b) the age structure of the population, (c) ethnic origin, (d) standardised mortality ratios, (e) socio-economic status, (f) unemployment or (g) self-reported sickness;

  (2) on what date she received the report commissioned by her Department from York university on "A formula for Distributing NHS Revenues Based on Small Area Use of Hospital Beds"; whether she intends to base the formula for distributing NHS resources to district health authorities on its findings; and when she intends to announce her proposals for the funding formula for district health authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  We received the results of a study we commissioned from York university in March 1994 and its report in July 1994. A modified formula based on the York analysis is to be used to inform allocations to regional health authorities in 1995–96. It will be for RHAs to decide which formula to use for their district health authorities.

  In 1996–97, subject to legislation, there will be new health authorities embracing the functions of DHAs and family health services authorities. Work is in hand to look at an approach appropriate to those new circumstances.

  The modified formula takes account of district data on age distribution and a wide range of health and socio-economic factors. Those include the categories to which the hon. Member refers with the exception of housing tenure which was included in the York analysis but not found to be statistically significant.

  Variations in Health
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the terms of reference and list the membership, of the sub-group on variations in health established in her Department; when it was established; how often it has met; and when it will complete its work.

  Mr. Sackville
  The terms of reference of the sub-group on variations in health are:-"For the current Health of the Nation Key Areas
  By Spring 1995 to prepare a report for the Chief Medical Officer as to how the Department of Health, and the National Health Service can make best use of existing information in tackling ethnic, geographical, socio-economic and gender variations in health status, with particular reference to the
  834
  strength of observed relationships and evidence about the effectiveness of interventions.
  By the end of 1994 prepare a report for the Departmental Research Directorate on areas in which new epidemiological and research information is needed to inform the targeting of interventions for high risk groups of the population and further understanding of underlying processes relevant to policy on longer term intervention to support the public health information strategy with health variations aspects of its work".

  The members of the sub-group are:-

  Chairman:
  Dr. Jeremy Metters—Deputy Chief Medical Officer

  Members:
  Dr. S. Adam
  Director of Public Health, North Thames Region
  Dr. J. Chambers
  Director of Public Health, North Birmingham Health Authority
  Prof. M. Marmot
  Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College, London
  Prof. M. Pringle
  Department of General Practice, The Medical School, Nottingham
  Dr. J. Fox
  Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys
  Prof. S. Mcintyre
  Medical Research Council Medical Sociology Unit, Glasgow
  Prof. P. Fonagy
  Psychoanalysis Unit, University College London
  Dr. K. Kelleher
  Director of Public Health, Wolverhampton Health Executive
  Mr. D. Benton
  Director of Quality and Human Relations, East London and City Health Authority

  Observers from the Medical Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council and the Department of Health and Social Security, Northern Ireland, together with Department of Health officials also attend.

  The sub-group was established in October 1993 and met for the first time on 17 May 1994. Since then it has met on two occasions. It expects to report to the timetable established in the terms of reference.

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many man hours were taken up by adjusting the clocks throughout her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not keep records of the time taken to adjust clocks.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grant she has given to organisations of and for disabled people for their international work in each of the last five years; for what purposes this money has been expended; if the payments made five years ago have retained their value; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department makes grants available to a range of organisations for their work in representing the interests of disabled people within Europe and worldwide.
  835
  Grant aid is given as follows to the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People to cover affiliation fees to international bodies and to help with the expenses of other international work. Other organisations in receipt of funds from the Department of Health may, of course, spend part of these on international work.

  Grant Year

  Grants Paid £

  At 1990–91 prices £

  1990–91

  25,000

  25,000

  1991–92

  29,000

  26,248

  1992–93

  30,000

  26,301

  1993–94

  31,000

  26,384

  1994–95

  32,000

  26,316

  Financial support is also given to the United Kingdom Helios Forum and to the national co-ordinating centres for work in connection with Helios, the European Union's disability programme as follows:

  Grant year

  Grants paid £

  At 1990–91 prices £

  1990–91

  —

  —

  1991–92

  235,000

  212,699

  1992–93

  298,000

  271,777

  1993–94

  290,000

  246,819

  1994–95

  194,000

  159,546

  Departmental Post
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much her Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by her Department, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure on postage for 1990–91 to 1993–94 is shown in the table. Figures for 1989–90 are not available. Details of how many items have been posted in each of the last five years are not available.

  £

  1990–91

  1,361,389

  1991–92

  1,266,438

  1992–93

  1,347,109

  1993–94

  1,353,998

  Figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

  Figures for the Department include the national health service executive but do not include the Department's agencies.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure speedy access to medical records for people making medico-legal claims against health authorities.

  Mr. Malone
  Long-standing guidance advises national health service bodies to deal helpfully with requests for access to health records by patients engaged in legal 836
  proceedings. In addition, patients, or their representatives, have a legal right of access to their records under the Access to Health Records Act 1990. Discussions are currently taking place with the Law Society to see whether the arrangements for handling medico-legal claims in the national health service can be improved.

  Richard Miles
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when she or any of her predecessors were informed of the case of Richard Miles and New Cross hospital, Wolverhampton; and what advice was offered by her Department to the local health authority;

  (2) what costs have been incurred by the Wolverhampton health authority since 1980 in the case of Richard Miles, excluding the value of the compensation awarded to him.

  Mr. Malone
  A local health authority would not be expected to contact the Department of Health in respect of a medical negligence claim of this type until after the claim had been settled. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. R. M. Carver, chairman of Wolverhampton health authority, for details of any costs incurred by the authority.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will now consider bringing forward plans for a no-fault compensation scheme for victims of medical negligence.

  Mr. Malone
  We have no plans to introduce such a scheme in the national health service.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public appointments(a) she is responsible for making and (b) require her approval, including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if she will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1993", which details those public appointments that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or Ministers acting on her behalf are responsible for making. I refer him to the reply I gave him on 7 March,Official Report, columns 80–81 for details of other appointments that are not identified in "Public Bodies".

  Ampleforth School
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what contact she has had with the headmaster of Ampleforth school on the issue of prevention of measles and other diseases.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government's Chief Medical Officer wrote to the headmaster of Ampleforth college on 26 October reminding him of the serious consequences to public health of rubella infection and issued a press release containing the text of his letter.

EMPLOYMENT

  Investors in People Award
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers in each TEC area in England have been given the investors in people award; how many have made a commitment to meeting the standard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  The latest figures, at 11 September 1994, for employers in each training and enterprise council area in England who are either formally committed to or have been recognised as achieving the investors in people standard, are shown in the tables.

  I am pleased that an increasing number of companies are recognising the benefits to their business performance of working towards the investors in people standard. Investors in people is a key initiative to encourage employers of all sizes, and in all sectors, to invest effectively in the skills that their businesses need. It plays a major role in improving Britain's competitiveness.

  Region

  TEC Name

  Commitments

  Recognitions

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  172

  8

  Leicestershire TEC

  115

  12

  Lincolnshire TEC

  216

  6

  North Derbyshire TEC

  82

  12

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  124

  15

  Northamptonshire TEC

  257

  14

  Southern Derbyshire TEC

  129

  24

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire TEC

  108

  11

  CAMBSTEC

  44

  11

  Essex TEC

  181

  9

  Gtr Peterborough TEC

  25

  1

  Hertfordshire TEC

  124

  8

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  91

  17

  Suffolk TEC

  96

  6

  London

  AZTEC

  111

  7

  CENTEC

  300

  14

  CILNTEC

  83

  4

  London East TEC

  127

  5

  North London TEC

  149

  5

  North West London TEC

  67

  8

  SOLOTEC

  101

  6

  South Thames TEC

  157

  4

  West London TEC

  151

  6

  Merseyside

  CEWTEC

  45

  16

  Mersyside TEC

  192

  30

  QUALITEC (St Helens) Ltd

  53

  4

  North West

  Bolton Bury TEC

  95

  10

  Cumbria TEC

  93

  6

  ELTEC LTD

  171

  23

  LAWTEC

  142

  8

  Manchester TEC

  263

  15

  METROTEC (Wigan) Ltd

  71

  7

  NORMIDTEC (North and Mid Cheshire)

  94

  22

  Oldham TEC

  37

  5

  Rochdale TEC

  26

  3

  S and E Cheshire TEC

  144

  16

  Stockport/High Peak TEC

  95

  7

  Northern

  County Durham TEC

  77

  18

  Northumberland TEC

  59

  8

  Teesside TEC

  107

  16

  838

  Region

  TEC Name

  Commitment

  Recognitions

  Tyneside TEC

  127

  25

  Wearside TEC

  30

  7

  South East

  Hampshire TEC

  240

  29

  Heart of England TEC

  87

  15

  Kent TEC

  338

  10

  Milton Keynes & North Bucks

  48

  4

  Surrey TEC

  94

  15

  Sussex TEC

  361

  14

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  125

  37

  Wight Training and Enterprise

  34

  1

  South West

  Avon TEC

  228

  27

  Devon and Cornwall TEC

  130

  37

  Dorset TEC

  102

  33

  Gloucestershire TEC

  386

  85

  Somerset

  128

  10

  Wiltshire TEC

  114

  16

  West Midlands

  Birmingham TEC

  97

  14

  Central England TEC

  92

  14

  Coventry and Warwickshire TEC

  118

  15

  Dudley TEC

  61

  6

  HAWTEC

  102

  9

  Sandwell TEC

  72

  1

  Shropshire TEC

  116

  7

  Staffordshire TEC

  127

  8

  Walsall TEC

  75

  4

  Wolverhampton TEC

  48

  6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley/Doncaster TEC

  92

  16

  Bradford and District TEC

  84

  5

  Calderdale/Kirklees TEC

  79

  4

  Humberside TEC

  239

  26

  Leeds TEC

  119

  12

  North Yorkshire TEC

  102

  16

  Rotherham TEC

  60

  10

  Sheffield TEC

  101

  7

  Wakefield TEC

  47

  3

  Training
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of(a) fatal, (b) major and (c) minor accidents on youth training and on training for work, shown by region, for the periods July to September 1993, January to March 1994, April to June 1994 and July to September 1994.

  Mr. Paice
  Table A gives the latest accident figures for youth training.

  Table B gives the equivalent figures for training for work.

  Notes:

  (a) Employment Department figures for accidents to trainees have been compiled on a similar basis to those for employees prepared by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). However, these figures include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments, and road traffic accidents which would not have been reportable to HSE for employees.

  (b) Major and minor injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  (c) North West Region and North West (Greater Manchester) Region were restructured in the quarter ending 30 June 1994 to form part of the Government Offices for the North West and for Merseyside. At the same time, Northern Region became part of the Government Offices for North East.

  (d) Accidents figures requested for the period July to September 1994 are not yet available.

  839

  Table A: Youth Training

  Region

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Accidents for the quarter July to September 1993

  East Midlands

  —

  3

  26

  North East

  —

  6

  36

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1

  12

  71

  North West

  —

  10

  49

  West Midlands

  —

  6

  28

  South West

  —

  4

  39

  South East

  —

  3

  23

  London

  —

  4

  8

  Eastern

  —

  5

  24

  North West (Greater Manchester)

  —

  3

  21

  Regional Totals

  1

  56

  325

  Accidents for the quarter January to March 1994

  East Midlands

  —

  3

  34

  North East

  —

  9

  49

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  9

  85

  North West

  —

  12

  39

  West Midlands

  —

  8

  33

  South West

  —

  4

  23

  South East

  —

  4

  29

  London

  —

  1

  17

  Eastern

  —

  4

  21

  North West (Greater Manchester)

  —

  6

  22

  Regional Totals

  —

  60

  352

  Accidents for the quarter April to June 1994

  East Midlands

  —

  4

  21

  North East

  —

  8

  56

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  5

  50

  North West

  —

  12

  39

  West Midlands

  —

  3

  31

  South West

  —

  5

  20

  South East

  —

  1

  16

  London

  —

  1

  8

  Eastern

  —

  3

  28

  Merseyside

  —

  1

  11

  Regional Totals

  —

  43

  280

  Table B: Training for work

  Region

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Accidents for the quarter July to September 1993

  East Midlands

  —

  3

  15

  North East

  —

  3

  15

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1

  6

  35

  North West

  —

  —

  13

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  11

  South West

  —

  1

  8

  South East

  —

  5

  2

  YT/YTS

  TfW/ET/HTNT

  EAS/BSU

  Jobplan interviews

  Restart

  ESF Support £ million

  per cent.

  ESF support £ million

  per cent.

  ESF support £ million

  per cent.

  ESF support £ million

  per cent.

  ESF support £ million

  per cent.

  1991

  115·81

  2·06

  1156·62

  18·72

  120·85

  18·59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  114·78

  2·28

  1141·17

  18·47

  112·98

  15·80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  233·04

  4·80

  2163·58

  21·02

  214·55

  18·93

  210·23

  33·80

  22·98

  39·60

  1991: amounts claimed for programmes in Great Britain

  1992: amounts claimed for programmes in England and Wales

  1993: amounts applies for for programmes in England

  Responsibility for claiming ESF support for programmes in Scotland and Wales was transferred to the Scottish and Welsh Offices with effect from 1992 and 1993 respectively.

  1Amounts provided are final ESF claim totals.

  2 Amounts provided are ESF applications totals and may be subject to change at final claims stage
  840

  Table B: Training for work

  Region

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  London

  —

  —

  2

  Eastern

  —

  4

  4

  North West (Greater Manchester)

  —

  —

  5

  Regional Totals

  1

  22

  110

  Accidents for the quarter January to March 1994

  East Midlands

  —

  2

  10

  North East

  —

  2

  13

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  5

  20

  North West

  —

  5

  12

  West Midlands

  —

  2

  4

  South West

  —

  3

  10

  South East

  —

  3

  6

  London

  —

  —

  2

  Eastern

  —

  —

  9

  North West (Greater Manchester)

  —

  —

  7

  Regional Totals

  —

  22

  93

  Accidents for the quarter April to June 1994

  East Midlands

  —

  1

  4

  North East

  —

  3

  22

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  3

  24

  North West

  —

  4

  2

  West Midlands

  —

  5

  13

  South West

  —

  —

  6

  South East

  —

  —

  10

  London

  —

  1

  1

  Eastern

  —

  4

  8

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  2

  Regional Totals

  —

  21

  92

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the contribution from the European social fund towards(a) youth training/YTS, (b) training for work/employment training/employment action, and the previous programmes they replaced, (c) the business start-up allowance/enterprise allowance scheme, (d) non-advanced further education, (e) high technology national training, (f) employment rehabilitation centres and (g) jobstart allowances and other employment subsidy schemes, and the proportion of programme expenditure that represented in each year since 1991; what amount of support ESF will be providing to each programme in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  The information available about European social fund support for eligible Government training programmes between 1991 and 1993 is provided in the table. Plans for ESF support for Government programmes in 1994 have yet to be finalised.

  Minimum Wages
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what analysis he has made of the studies produced since 18 February 1993 which show a positive link between the existence of statutory minimum pay rates and the loss of or failure to create jobs; and of studies which show the reverse effect or no effect at all.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Recent reports by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund support the Government's position that minimum wages cost jobs. This view was also acknowledged in the European Commission's White Paper on competitiveness. Studies by Machin and Manning which suggest otherwise have been criticised on the grounds of their approach.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were in employment(a) at the latest available date, (b) 10 years ago and (c) 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is given in the table:

  Workforce in Employment: United Kingdom

  Thousands

  June 1974

  25,280

  June 1984

  24,399

  June 1994

  25,232

  Job Creation Grants
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) the grants which have been available from his Department to assist in investment or job creation in each of the last five years, (b) the number of grants given in each category, (c) the value of the grants, (d) the amount of investment created as a result, (e) the number of jobs created on the project assisted, (f) the criteria used in assessing the correctness of making the grants, (g) the criteria used in monitoring the sources of the grants, (h) the procedures used in this monitoring, (i) the number of grants and their value which had been reclaimed for financial or legal impropriety, (j) the number and value reclaimed for failing to achieve the criteria set and (k) the number and value reclaimed for other reasons.

  Mr. Paice
  No such grant assistance has been available from the Employment Department.

  Departmental Post
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by his Department, in each of the last five years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the Department's expenditure on postage in the last three financial years is shown in the table:

  1991–92 £10.7 million

  1992–93 £11.9 million

  1993–94 £13.0 million

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for 2,940 appointments listed in "Public Bodies 1993", including some which require his approval; 110 of these are to executive bodies, 782 to advisory bodies and 2,048 to other appointments.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also responsible for making 19 appointments not listed in "Public Bodies", of which 12 are to advisory bodies and the rest to other bodies.

  Heathrow Tunnel
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what steps he has taken to satisfy himself about the health and safety aspects of the tunnelling techniques being used for the Jubilee line extension near Heathrow airport; if these have previously been used in clay substrata; and if he will make a statement on these matters in relation to risk to lives and adjacent buildings;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the collapse of the Heathrow express tunnels adjacent to Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what tests were carried out on the suitability of the new Austrian tunnelling method for London ground conditions before approval was given to use this technique on both the Heathrow express and Jubilee line extension projects;

  (2) what steps are being taken to reinforce those sections of the Jubilee line extension and the Heathrow express projects being built using the new Austrian tunnelling method;

  (3) if he will list the transport projects in which the new Austrian tunnelling method is being used in the United Kingdom, identifying the specific areas affected;

  (4) what steps are being taken to prevent the risk of further subsidence at Heathrow central terminal area;

  (5) What evidence he has of ground movement at any of the other sites on Heathrow express and Jubilee line extension projects being built using the new Austrian tunnelling method;

  (6) what checks have been carried out on the Jubilee line extension tunnels being constructed using the new Austrian tunnelling method following the collapse of the Heathrow express tunnel;

  (7) what trial bores using the new Austrian tunnelling method in London clay were undertaken before its adoption for sections of the Heathrow express and Jubilee line extension projects;

  (8) what has been the effect on the Piccadilly line of the collapse of the Heathrow express tunnel;

  (9) what evidence his Department has received on the cause of the collapse in September 1994 of the tunnel in Munich being constructed with the new Austrian tunnelling method;
  843
  (10) when he expects to receive a report on the causes of the tunnel collapse at Heathrow on 21 October; and if he intends to make this report available to the public;

  (11) when he expects the Piccadilly line between Heathrow terminal 1, 2 and 3 and Heathrow terminal 4 to resume normal service;

  (12) what evidence he has on (a) the use of the new Austrian tunnelling method in ground conditions similar to those which exist in London and (b) the number of failures which have occurred;

  (13) if tunnelling work involving the new Austrian tunnelling method has been halted on the sites in the United Kingdom where this method is being employed; and what conditions have been set with regard to the resumption of such tunnelling work.

  (14) what investigations and checks were made by his Department into the safety of the new Austrian tunnelling method following the collapse of the Munich tunnel in September 1994 and prior to the collapse of the central terminal area tunnel at Heathrow.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the impact on the construction times and costs to the Heathrow express link and the Jubilee line extension arising from the Heathrow tunnel collapse.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport following the partial collapse of tunnels under construction at Heathrow airport.

  In the early hours of Friday 21 October a ground slip led to a partial collapse into tunnels under construction on a section of the Heathrow express rail link at the central area of Heathrow airport. This section of the work involved the use of the new Austrian tunnelling method—NATM—in a complex of tunnels for a new station.

  There were no injuries as a result of the collapse. Site safety procedures included sensors to detect ground movement. These gave early warning of abnormal movement. Emergency procedures were put into effect and workers were safely evacuated. There were two further ground slips over the weekend. They were almost certainly as a consequence of the initial event.

  The contractors and their specialist advisers have set up an engineering task force to deal with the situation. Tunnelling has of course been stopped. The key task now is to stabilise the ground to prevent further subsidence and secure the safety of the remaining tunnels. The British Airports Authority and the contractors are working together to secure the continued safe operation of the airport and minimise inconvenience.

  At the place where the Piccadilly line crosses the Heathrow express rail link tunnels, there has been no ground movement outside of the tolerances predicted before tunnelling began. The monitoring continues. London Underground has, however, suspended the use of the terminal 4 loop as a precaution. The central station serving terminals 1, 2 and 3 continues in service. A temporary bus link is connecting Hatton Cross station and terminal 4.

  NATM has also been adopted for use on the Jubilee line extension project. Contractors on the project suspended the use of the NATM technique as a precautionary measure on the day of the collapse at Heathrow.
  844
  The Health and Safety Executive has asked for tunnelling not to restart at Heathrow, nor on the Jubilee line extension project, until it is clear that this can be done safely. The Health and Safety Executive has also asked London Underground to maintain its voluntary suspension of the railway loop until sufficient information is available to justify its safe restoration. The decision will be made in conjunction with HSE's railway inspectorate. HSE's inspectors are on site and keeping in touch with developments in the major remedial works undertaken by the contractors. The HSE is initiating checks of other significant construction projects currently using NATM.

  NATM is a tunnelling method that has been used worldwide for over 40 years. The two largest projects under construction in the United Kingdom using NATM are Heathrow and the Jubilee line extension. A trial tunnel was driven at Heathrow in 1992 and the information and experience gained was used in developing the project. Further trials were carried out at London Bridge and Jubilee Gardens at the start of the Jubilee line extension project.

  NATM is normally the first stage of a two-stage process involving the construction of a initial lining to provide short-term support followed by the construction of a further lining. There is no evidence that, once the work is finished, there is any significant difference between the safety and integrity of tunnels constructed in this way and those using more conventional techniques.

  There was a failure, also during the construction phase, in Munich earlier this year. However, because the ground conditions were considered sufficiently dissimilar, there were no reasons to justify halting work in London. There have been no recorded instances of ground collapse once the construction phase of the tunnelling using NATM is complete.

  The Health and Safety Commission has asked the Health and Safety Executive to undertake an investigation. The HSE has asked Mr. Stuart Nattrass, HM chief inspector of construction, to lead it. He will be seeking support from independent consultants of international standing. The investigation will initially concentrate on whether the failure at Heathrow is site specific. Once the initial findings are known, the investigation will go on to consider whether there are broader implications for the use of NATM as a construction technique. The evidence will be reviewed with a view to confirming that the safety of tunnels constructed in this way matches the safety of tunnels constructed using more conventional techniques and will take into account any lessons to be learned from the Munich incident.

  Initial lines of inquiry will include whether:

  (a) the design was defective;

  (b) the execution of any construction work was defective;

  (c) adverse ground conditions contributed to the failure.

  The investigation has begun. Its findings will be made public. The HSE will consider whether there may have been breaches of health and safety legislation and, if so, what action to take.

  It is too early to predict time and cost penalties which may result for the Heathrow express and Jubilee line extension as a result of the collapse on the Heathrow project.

SCOTLAND

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who collates the information supplied by managers of Government training schemes on the specific skills acquired by trainees; and where this information is published.

  Mr. Stewart
  Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies are all involved in the collation of information supplied by managers of Government training schemes. I have asked the chairmen of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he uses to assess the value of Government training schemes; and if that information is publicly available.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information used by my right hon. Friend to assess the value of Government training schemes is the same as that which I set out in the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 25 February,Official Report, columns 435–37, save that cost figures are now available for 1993–94 as follows:

  Cost

  Youth training £ million

  Adult training training for work £ million

  1993–94

  93·451

  93·733

  Information on Government training schemes is published as follows:
  in "Serving Scotland's Needs", the Government's expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1996–97. Data are shown separately for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, for training for work—number of starts, percentage of leavers going into jobs, further education or training, percentage of leavers gaining recognised qualifications—and for youth training, with number of starts, percentage of participants with employed status, percentage of leavers gaining recognised qualifications;
  in the monthly "Employment Gazette" on training for work, youth training and business start-up—number of people participating number of starts;
  in the monthly news release by the Scottish Office on training statistics for training for work, youth training and business start-up—number of programme participants number of starts on programme; and
  in the annual reports of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the outturn expenditure given to each local enterprise company in Scotland in 1992–93 at 1993–94 prices; and what is the budget for each training and enterprise council in 1993–94 in total and broken down in the same way as given in the written answer of 18 February 1993,Official Report, column 335.

  Mr. Stewart
  The budgets of local enterprise companies are a matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked their chairmen to write to the hon. Member. There are no training and enterprise councils in Scotland.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the most recent figures for waiting lists for operations in trust hospitals.

  Mr Lang
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 October 1994, Official Report, column 876]: More people are being treated in NHS hospitals than ever before. In the year to June 1994, the number of out-patients treated rose by 2·6 per cent., the number of in-patients treated rose by 1·6 per cent. and the number of day cases treated rose by no less than 18·4 per cent. I am arranging for all the most recent figures for waiting lists to be sent to the hon. Member and published in the Official Report.

  Table 1—NHSIS—true waiting lists of NHS trusts at 30 June 1994

  Waiting list

  NHS trust hospital

  Total waiting list

  Inpatient

  Day case

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  5,447

  3,216

  2,231

  Roxburghe House

  1

  1

  —

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  982

  667

  315

  Trust Summary

  6,430

  3,884

  2,546

  Angus NHS Trust

  Stracathro Hospital

  546

  208

  338

  Trust Summary

  546

  208

  338

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Arrol Park

  2

  2

  —

  Strathlea

  3

  3

  —

  Trust Summary

  5

  5

  —

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  Caithness General Hospital

  225

  147

  108

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  75

  15

  60

  Trust Summary

  330

  162

  168

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  2,139

  1,724

  415

  Garrick Hospital

  118

  59

  59

  Trust Summary

  2,257

  1,783

  474

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  Ninewells Hospital

  6

  6

  —

  Royal Victoria Hospital

  6

  6

  —

  Trust Summary

  12

  12

  —

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  2,588

  1,021

  1,567

  Kings Cross Hospital

  43

  35

  8

  Ninewells Hospital

  2,255

  1,983

  574

  Trust Summary

  5,188

  3,039

  2,149

  847

  Table 1—NHSIS—true waiting lists of NHS trusts at 30 June 1994

  Waiting list

  NHS trust hospital

  Total waiting list

  Inpatient

  Day case

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  Eastern General Hospital

  615

  354

  261

  Roodlands General Hospital

  302

  62

  240

  Rosslynlee Hospital

  2

  2

  —

  Trust Summary

  919

  418

  501

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  Gogarburn Hospital Edinburgh

  3

  3

  —

  Royal Edinburgh Hospital

  6

  6

  —

  Trust Summary

  9

  9

  —

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  842

  508

  334

  Trust Summary

  842

  508

  334

  Falk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Falkirk and district Royal Infirmary

  1,792

  1,135

  657

  Trust Summary

  1,792

  1,135

  657

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  Adamson Hospital

  128

  39

  89

  Glenrothes Hospital

  2

  2

  —

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  5

  5

  —

  Randolph Wemyss Memorial Hospital

  33

  30

  3

  St. Andrews Memorial Hospital

  79

  18

  61

  Stratheden Hospital

  3

  3

  —

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  6

  6

  —

  Trust Summary

  256

  103

  153

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  Canniesburn Hospital

  4,287

  2,125

  2,162

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  4,037

  3,377

  660

  Trust Summary

  8,324

  5,502

  2,822

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  Aberdeen City Hospital

  2

  2

  —

  Arduthie Hospital

  9

  9

  —

  Campbell Hospital

  1

  1

  —

  Chalmers Hospital

  20

  3

  17

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  1

  1

  —

  Glen O'Dee Hospital

  2

  2

  —

  Huntly Jubliee Hospital

  21

  5

  16

  Inverurie Hospital

  3

  3

  —

  Maidencraig House

  4

  4

  —

  Maud Hospital

  2

  2

  —

  Turriff Cottage Hospital

  1

  1

  —

  Ugie Hospital

  1

  1

  —

  848

  Table 1—NHSIS—true waiting lists of NHS trusts at 30 June 1994

  Waiting list

  NHS trust hospital

  Total waiting list

  Inpatient

  Day case

  Woodend General Hospital

  732

  585

  147

  Trust Summary

  799

  619

  180

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Service NHS Trust

  Parkhead Hospital

  23

  23

  —

  Woodilee Hospital

  3

  3

  —

  Trust Summary

  26

  26

  —

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  Hairmyres Hospital

  991

  455

  536

  Stonehouse Hospital

  986

  774

  212

  Trust Summary

  1,977

  1,229

  748

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  Belford Hospital

  105

  44

  61

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital

  37

  17

  20

  Nairn Town and Country Hospital

  1

  1

  —

  Portree Hospital

  1

  1

  —

  Ross Memorial Hospital

  40

  40

  —

  Trust Summary

  184

  103

  81

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  1,530

  1,095

  435

  Trust Summary

  1,530

  1,095

  435

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  2,728

  1,604

  1,124

  Trust Summary

  2,728

  1,604

  1,124

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  Law Hospital

  2,000

  1,228

  772

  Trust Summary

  2,000

  1,228

  772

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospital NHS Trust

  Monklands District General Hospital

  2,458

  1,616

  842

  Trust Summary

  2,458

  1,616

  842

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  Dr. Gray's Hospital

  550

  162

  388

  Seafield Hospital

  7

  7

  —

  Turner Memorial Hospital

  2

  2

  —

  Trust Summary

  559

  171

  388

  849

  Table 1—NHSIS—true waiting lists of NHS trusts at 30 June 1994

  Waiting list

  NHS trust hospital

  Total waiting list

  Inpatient

  Day case

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  Ayrshire Central and Maternity Hospital

  5

  5

  —

  Crosshouse Hospital

  2,375

  1,636

  739

  Trust Summary

  2,380

  1,641

  739

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  Aberfeldy Cottage

  Hospital

  1

  1

  Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital

  2

  2

  —

  Hillside Hospital

  8

  8

  —

  Irvine Memorial Hospital

  7

  7

  —

  Meigle Cottage Hospital

  7

  —

  7

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  1,532

  687

  845

  Trust Summary

  1,557

  705

  852

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  2,184

  1,341

  843

  Trust Summary

  2,184

  1,341

  843

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  Raigmore Hospital

  2,671

  1,812

  859

  Trust Summary

  2,671

  1,812

  859

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Bridge of Weir Hospital

  6

  6

  —

  Dykebar Hospital

  13

  13

  —

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  2

  2

  —

  Trust Summary

  21

  21

  —

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  3,499

  2,161

  1,338

  Trust Summary

  3,499

  2,161

  1,338

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  Edinburgh City Hospital

  1,757

  1,551

  206

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  3,429

  2,262

  1,167

  Princess Margaret Rose Hospital

  1,165

  1,072

  93

  Trust Summary

  6,351

  4,885

  1,466

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  720

  242

  478

  The Ayr Hospital

  1,721

  1,356

  365

  Trust Summary

  2,441

  1,598

  843

  850

  Table 1—NHSIS—true waiting lists of NHS trusts at 30 June 1994

  Waiting list

  NHS trust hospital

  Total waiting list

  Inpatient

  Day case

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  Southern General Hospital

  2,454

  1,764

  690

  Trust Summary

  2,454

  1,764

  690

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  2,349

  1,336

  1,013

  Trust Summary

  2,349

  1,336

  1,013

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  Stobhill Hospital

  2,464

  1,635

  829

  Trust Summary

  2,464

  1,635

  829

  The Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  2,303

  2,218

  85

  Trust Summary

  2,303

  2,218

  85

  The Yorkhill NHS Trust RHSC, Glasgow

  1,176

  804

  372

  Trust Summary

  1,176

  804

  372

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  Beatson Oncology Centre

  162

  162

  —

  Homeopathic Hospital, Glasgow

  46

  46

  —

  Western Infirmary, Glasgow

  3,111

  2,738

  373

  Trust Summary

  3,319

  2,946

  373

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  St. John's Hospital at Howden

  2,668

  1,392

  1,276

  Trust Summary

  2,668

  1,392

  1,276

  Western General Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Edinburgh

  12

  12

  —

  Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  2,536

  1,323

  1,213

  Trust Summary

  2,548

  1,335

  1,213

  Source:

  SMR3.

  Ref:Unit2/94348.

  Date: 11 October 1994.

  Table 2—NHSIS—True waiting lists for nationally guaranteed operations at NHS trusts at 30 June 1994

  Replacements

  NHS Trust Hospital

  Cataracts

  Hip

  Knee

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  116

  —

  —

  Trust summary

  116

  —

  —

  851

  Table 2—NHSIS—true waiting lists for nationally guaranteed operations at NHS trusts at 30 June 1994

  Replacements

  NHS Trust Hospital

  Cataracts

  Hip

  Knee

  Angus NHS Trust

  Stracathro Hospital

  —

  20

  14

  Trust Summary

  —

  20

  14

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  140

  90

  32

  Trust Summary

  140

  90

  32

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  —

  30

  20

  Ninewells Hospital

  210

  —

  —

  Trust Summary

  210

  30

  20

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  —

  29

  15

  Trust Summary

  —

  29

  15

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  64

  42

  42

  Trust Summary

  64

  42

  42

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  Woodend General Hospital

  —

  108

  42

  Trust Summary

  —

  108

  42

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospital NHS Trust

  Hairmyres Hospital

  —

  7

  1

  Stonehouse Hospital

  403

  14

  8

  Trust Summary

  403

  21

  9

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  150

  31

  38

  Trust Summary

  150

  31

  38

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  —

  111

  86

  Trust Summary

  —

  111

  86

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  Law Hospital

  —

  52

  29

  Trust Summary

  —

  52

  29

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospital NHS Trust

  Monklands District General Hospital

  —

  20

  15

  Trust Summary

  —

  20

  15

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  Crosshouse Hospital

  —

  21

  29

  Trust Summary

  —

  21

  29

  852

  Table 2—NHSIS—true waiting lists for nationally guaranteed operations at NHS trusts at 30 June 1994

  Replacements

  NHS Trust Hospital

  Cataracts

  Hip

  Knee

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  —

  70

  37

  Trust summary

  —

  70

  37

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  168

  —

  —

  Trust Summary

  168

  —

  —

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  Raigmore Hospital

  217

  123

  52

  Trust Summary

  217

  123

  52

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  221

  24

  13

  Trust Summary

  221

  24

  13

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  775

  —

  —

  Princess Margaret Rose Hospital

  —

  205

  144

  Trust Summary

  775

  205

  144

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  The Ayr Hospital

  334

  36

  33

  Trust Summary

  334

  36

  33

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  Southern General Hospital

  610

  23

  21

  Trust Summary

  610

  23

  21

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  230

  46

  31

  Trust Summary

  230

  46

  31

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  Stobhill Hospital

  363

  21

  28

  Trust Summary

  363

  21

  28

  The Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  —

  83

  83

  Trust Summary

  —

  83

  83

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  Western Infirmary, Glasgow

  132

  88

  50

  Trust Summary

  132

  88

  50

  Source:

  SMR3.

  Ref: Unit2/94348.

  Date: 11 October 1994.

  Departmental Post
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on postage, and how many items have been posted by his Department, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table. The numbers of items posted for years prior to 1992–93 are not available.

  Financial year

  Expenditure £million

  Items posted

  1989–90

  953,800

  N/A

  1990–91

  986,064

  N/A

  1991–92

  1,266,195

  N/A

  1992–93

  1,140,700

  3·5 million (approx.)

  1993–94

  1,316,231

  3·5 million (approx.)

  Subject

  Period conducted

  Contractor commissioned

  Objectives

  Environment

  Survey of Homeless Applications

  June—july 1993

  Public Attitude Surveys Ltd.

  To examine the operation of the Code of Guidance on homelessness.

  Edinburgh Castle Visitors Survey (Historic Scotland)

  May—december 1993

  System Three Scotland

  To provide information on visitors to the Castle, their attitudes to services and facilities and to identify priorities for improving these facilities.

  Awareness of Right to Buy and Rents to Mortgages

  March—april 1994

  System Three Scotland

  To identify tenants' awareness of Right to Buy schemes.

  Public Knowledge and Perception of Local Government

  September 1994

  The MVA Consultancy

  To ascertain current public knowledge and awareness of local government, public perceptions of remoteness/accessibility and their identification with local government units as a base-line for monitoring change.

  Rural Community Development study

  February 1994

  System Three Scotland

  To provide a baseline picture of life four representative rural areas in order to monitor change and the impact of rural policy initiatives.

  Water and Sewerage

  March—august 1994

  Market Research Scotland

  To test the comprehensibility of the design and contents of the information leaflet; to evaluate recall of the contents and purpose of leaflet.

  Sustainable Development

  September 1994

  The MVA Consultancy

  To investigate public awareness and understanding of the concept of sustainable development.

  Home and Health Department

  Car Crime

  November 1992

  Research Resources

  To determine amongst car users the steps taken to prevent car crime; their perception of car crime compared with other crimes; awareness of the "Hyena" campaign.

  Scottish Crime Survey

  December 1992—december 1993

  The MVA Consultancy

  Provide alternative indicator of the level and extent of household and personal victimisation in Scotland; provide information about public perceptions and experiences of crime and the criminal justice system more generally.

  Fire Prevention

  February—march 1993—february 1994

  Research Resources

  To measure awareness and understanding of the television commercial and assess the impact of the commercial in motivating householders to maintain their smoke alarms.

  Information Needs of Victims

  January —august 1994

  The MVA Consultancy

  Collect information on current provision of information to victims; provide overview of experience and needs of victims with reference to information provided by criminal justice agencies and identify gaps between needs and actual provision; identify what information could

  854
  Accurate counts are made of items issuing from main buildings, but estimates have had to be made for other offices throughout Scotland which do not feed into the central mail processing system.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each, the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is shown in the table. The fee paid to individual contractors is commercially confidential and therefore cannot be detailed. The total cost of the 27 surveys listed was £1·061 million.
  855

  Subject

  Period conducted

  Contractor commissioned

  Objectives

  specifically be provided by the fiscal service and in what form.

  Domestic Violence Media Campaign

  July—december 1994

  System Three Scotland

  Assess the extent of public awareness and comprehension of Scottish Office domestic violence media campaign.

  Survey of NHS staff in Scotland

  July—august 1993

  System Three Scotland

  To measure progress in meeting the goals set out in the Patient's Charter and Framework for Action for NHS staff.

  Survey of users' experiences of the NHS in Scotland

  May—june 1994

  MORI Ltd.

  To measure progress being made in delivering the commitments made in the Patient's Charter about the standards of service people should expect from the NHS in Scotland.

  Maternity Services

  October 1992—october 1993

  Mrs. Yvonne Bostock (Independent Consultant)

  To explore women's view on topics concerned with the provision of maternity care in Scotland; to confirm that CRAG-SCOTMEG Consumer Group's interpretation of the existing research corresponded with women's views and expectations of the services; to provide a sound basis for the Group to form recommendations on women's expectations of services.

  Industry Department

  Evaluation of "Cars Kill" TV Campaign

  June—november 1993

  System Three Scotland

  To evaluate the "Cars Kill" TV campaign through testing children's awareness and attitudes to this campaign, and to other related national road safety campaigns and general road safety issues.

  Hotel Signposting Evaluation

  July—november 1993

  The MVA Consultancy

  To investigate inter alia whether the provision of new accommodation signs improve ease of access for visitors and guests and to monitor whether these signs are associated with an increase in occupancy rates.

  Scottish Drivers' Attitudes to Speeding Survey

  December 1993—june 1994

  Market Research Scotland Ltd

  To detect any changes in the attitudes of Scottish drivers towards speeding since November 1991 and to explore reasons for these changes.

  Setting Forth: Economic Development Study

  March—april 1994

  Oscar Faber TPA

  To understand how transport affects transport-sensitive businesses and how changes in transport provision contribute to maintaining or enhancing economic growth in the Lothian and Fife regions; understand how transport is taken into account by inward investment companies in making investment and location decisions.

  Setting Forth: Stated Preference Survey

  June 1993

  Oscar Faber TPA

  To provide the data necessary to model the impact of toll increases on driver behaviour across the Firth of Forth.

  An Evaluation of Scotland's National Tourist Routes

  June—november 1994

  Colin Buchanan and Partners

  To evaluate the effectiveness of the National Tourist Routes (NTR's) in encouraging a wider spread of tourist traffic, and to measure the availability of STB and ATB promotional material relating to the NTRs.

  Urban Partnership Household Surveys (Wester Hailes, Whitfield, Ferguslie Park)

  March 1993—may 1994

  Social and Community Planning Research

  Repeat of household surveys carried out in 1989–90 in order to evaluate the impact of the Urban Partnership now that initiatives are 5 years old.

  Urban Partnership Household Surveys (Castlemilk)

  March-May 1994

  Public Attitude Surveys

  Education Department

  Further and Higher Education Charter for Scotland

  October-November 1992

  British Market Research Bureau

  To identify issues of importance to current and potential students, their parents, and the general public to help shape the priorities of the Charter.

  School Education

  April—october 1993

  Social Community and Planning Research

  To provide information on the public's attitudes towards, and expectations of, school education at senior stages for an international study under the auspices of

  856 857

  Subject

  Period conducted

  Contractor commissioned

  Objectives

  the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Agriculture and Fisheries Department

  Crofting

  January—april 1993

  Independent Norther Consultants

  To obtain information on the aspirations of crofters for the future, and ways in which the Crofters Commission may help to meet these aspirations.

  Central Services

  The Scottish Office Central Enquiry Unit

  July-December 1993

  Research Resources

  To assess the impact of the press advertisement on awareness and on motivating the public to use the Enquiry Unit; determining the public's understanding of the role of The Scottish Office.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) residential homes and (b) residents of residential homes there are in each regional council in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1994]: Information on the numbers of local authority and registered private and voluntary residential homes and the number of residents in these homes in each regional or islands council in Scotland are contained in the table. The figures are as at 31 March 1992—the latest complete figures available.

  Region

  Number of residential homes

  Number of residents

  Borders

  41

  546

  Central

  40

  892

  Dumfries and Galloway

  42

  702

  Fife

  47

  983

  Grampian

  100

  2,078

  Highland

  68

  1,113

  Lothian

  187

  3,152

  Strathclyde

  312

  7,434

  Tayside

  133

  2,706

  Orkney

  7

  102

  Shetland

  5

  85

  Western Isles

  20

  217

  Scotland

  1,002

  20,010

  Health Care International
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on ensuring that any plans relating to Health Care International will not involve hospital closures or cuts in beds in Greater Glasgow health board or other neighbouring health boards.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: HCI's business plan is largely based on treating overseas patients and private patients from Britain.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when plans were made for a medical school within Health Care International; and at what stage the plans were abandoned.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: Before the hospital was established, the management of HCI discussed proposals for academic links with Scottish universities, including Glasgow
  858
  university. They also intended to work with the royal colleges.

  I am not aware however of there being any plans for an independent medical school within Health Care International.

  Bankruptcy
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend Scottish housing regulations to make it an offence for an English property seller not to disclose bankruptcy to a Scottish buyer.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: No. A solicitor acting on behalf of a purchaser should undertake all the necessary searches to protect the client's interest, including, where appropriate, a search of the Land Charges Department with which all bankruptcy orders in England and Wales are registered.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been established to avoid future entanglement of overseas aid grants with military export agreements.

  Mr. Baldry
  British aid grants are not linked to military export agreements. All bilateral project proposals are subject to economic, financial, technical and environmental appraisal before they are approved, to ensure that they meet the needs and priorities of recipient countries.

  UN Conference on Population and Development
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the United Nations conference on population and development which took place in Cairo in September.

  Mr. Baldry
  This conference was a success. I have placed a copy of the Government's report on the conference in the House Library, with a copy of the programme of action agreed in Cairo.

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

IMF and World Bank: UK Contributions
The Lord Bishop of Oxford The Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure proper accountability to Parliament for the United Kingdom's contribution to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank; and to what extent these funds are used to meet the objective laid out by the Overseas Development Administration for its aid programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government are accountable to Parliament for payments made to the World Bank and IMF as part of the overseas aid programme. Both institutions have key roles to play in supporting economic reform efforts in developing countries. The World Bank's other main objectives are poverty reduction and environmentally sustainable development. All those aims are fully compatible with the objectives of our aid programme.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I was glad to learn that the IMF and the World Bank are accountable to Parliament, as indeed they ought to be. However, will the Minister agree that it will be important to have an annual report from the World Bank and the IMF to Parliament and an annual debate on the subject in Parliament? The Minister will know that there is great anguish in the poorer countries of the world about the effect of the structural adjustment programmes. Because every household in Britain gives £10 per annum of taxpayers' money to support the World Bank and the IMF, is it not particularly important that Parliament should have a proper chance to scrutinise the way in which the money is being spent?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as regards the first point made by the right reverend Prelate, I am sure that it has been taken on board by the usual channels. I am certain that he and others will find means by which they can ensure that those matters are debated.
As regards the general query about a need for greater openness by the World Bank, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that last year the World Bank's board decided that substantially more information should be made publicly available about the Bank's operations. The main features are regularly updated information about all projects in the pipeline, the release of project
634
appraisal reports after board approval, and routine release of country economic reports, policy papers, environmental assessments and evaluation summaries.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, following the right reverend Prelate's Question, can my noble friend inform the House of the success of the efforts of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in relation to the Trinidad terms and relieving the debt position of the poorer countries of the world, as well as the efforts of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the recent G7 meeting in regard to the same matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government have done a great deal as far as debt relief goes. We have led the way. We launched the Trinidad terms in 1990. Twenty-two countries, of which 17 are in Africa, have benefited so far. We have also relieved developing countries of over £1 billion aid debt burden.
As my noble friend correctly pointed out, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently, at Madrid, launched an initiative on multilateral debt relief. I refer the House to the Written Answer on 19th October in another place from my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he reported on the Madrid conclusions.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, to what extent does the European Union's aid programme meet the overall objectives of the ODA?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the overall objectives of EC development co-operation are set out in Articles 130u to 130y of the Maastricht Treaty. They are very similar to the ODA's seven specific objectives which are set out in the ODA's annual report. I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat them today. They include specifically: sustainable economic and social development, the campaign against poverty and contributing to democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I warmly support the proposal made by the right reverend Prelate that more opportunities should be found for debating the accountability of the World Bank and the IMF. Will the Minister agree that sometimes money that has been made available by the World Bank has not been effectively used? Can he say a word about the protest which his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made very satisfactorily in Brazil that moneys that had been made available by the World Bank are lying unused, to the detriment of the indigenous people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can confirm that the World Bank itself reported and I think that the noble Lord will be aware of the report by the World Bank in 1992 in which it examined the success and failure of a number of its projects. It acknowledged that some had not done as well as they might and some had failed. I can also confirm—and Her Majesty's Government support this—that last year the Bank's board endorsed an action plan to address the weaknesses identified in the report. The Bank is reporting regularly on progress in implementing the action plan, most recently in

635
August. The report has been published and I can give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will continue to monitor progress carefully.
As regards the first point which the noble Lord made when he endorsed the right reverend Prelate's request for more regular debates on such matters, I can only say that I am sure that the usual channels and those who decide matters will have noted what the noble Lord said.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House the assurance that the Question asked by the right reverend Prelate could be raised in any debate that takes place on the Government's expenditure plans? We sincerely hope that the debates will take place. Will the Minister confirm that on such an occasion the Government's spokesmen will be adequately briefed to deal with any specific question raised by the right reverend Prelate?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's ingenuity will allow him to find means of raising the subjects as and when he wishes. No doubt he will raise them on the occasion which he mentions. I can also assure noble Lords that, as on all occasions, those who speak for Her Majesty's Government from the Dispatch Box will be appropriately briefed.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, do the Government believe that there is any virtue in the possible division of the executive directors' responsibilities for the World Bank and the IMF? That will allow the ODA to exert rather more influence on the British director of the World Bank.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the United Kingdom director, as I understand it, is a senior official in the Treasury. I think we can exert whatever appropriate influence we wish on those who are senior officials in Her Majesty's Treasury.
As regards whether there should be some greater division of responsibilities, as the noble Lord suggests, I shall pass that on to my noble friend.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that decisions of the World Bank have the most far-reaching implications for development in the third world? It is important that Parliament should be able to know how our executive directors are voting and what they are saying about the propositions before the board of the bank. Can the Minister look again at the issue of whether there is adequate scrutiny in Parliament? In particular, will he look at the issue of structural adjustment and how far we are ensuring that there is a social audit before any programme is agreed, to ensure that the poor are not suffering as a result of structural adjustment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can certainly give an assurance that these matters will be looked at. As regards the first point that the noble Lord made—which was substantially on whether we can have further debates on this matter—I can only refer the noble Lord back to my earlier answers that this is a matter for the usual channels, and I am sure that they noted what the noble Lord had to say.

UK Airports: Immigration Services
3.10 p.m.
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy regarding withdrawal of immigration officers from some United Kingdom airports.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government's policy is to maintain the continued presence of immigration officers at ports of entry where this is justified.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Before asking my supplementary perhaps I may declare an interest as a director of the company which owns Biggin Hill airport. Is my noble friend aware that there are 34 airports designated for customs and excise purposes as places for landing and departure whereas only 22 of those 34 are designated as ports of entry? Can my noble friend advise the House as to why there is that discrepancy? Is she aware that at the 12 intermediate airports which are one thing but not the other, customs and excise have for many years and under licence been doing the job of immigration officers for them, but that now, with the advent of the single market, those customs facilities are being withdrawn, thereby leaving the 12 airports with very little, possibly no, immigration cover? Is that not in contradiction of the Government's policy of promoting business at, and for, regional airports?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is unfortunate that the word "Customs" has been removed from the question. Otherwise, I think it might have been appropriate to discuss the criteria for customs officials and those for immigration officials. It is true that the customs officials at Biggin Hill did carry out the duties of immigration officials and that the temporary difficulty that has been caused is the removal of the customs official and thereby the services provided for immigration. Since then, temporary arrangements have been made, and indeed extended until 30th November, so that two immigration officials will continue to perform that duty. In the meantime, there is to be an assessment of the need for immigration services at Biggin Hill. When that assessment is complete, a judgment will be made as to whether there should be any or no immigration officials permanently present at Biggin Hill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it comes as something of a surprise to learn that customs officials have been doing immigration work? At how many airports—ports of entry—is it the case that customs officers, who are trained to perform one kind of job, are doing immigration work?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will agree that it makes very good sense and is a very good use of an official's time if he can fulfil two duties which are very similar in nature in terms of the kinds of questions people are asked as they enter the country. That is not to say that both those functions are not distinct and separate. It has been a convention that has

637
lasted for a very long time in this country. Views are taken about the volume of traffic in and out of our ports, but we have retained the right to control both the entry of goods and services and of EC nationals travelling between member states.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is it still the policy of the Department of Transport that business aviation should be encouraged to use the smaller airports around London and so relieve the large airports? If that is the case, will my noble friend discuss with the Minister responsible for aviation any possible removal of immigration officers at those small airports which, so far as I can see, could drive a coach and horses through the policy I have described?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Officials of my department are discussing with officials of the Department of Transport this very sensitive issue and will continue to do so. I hope that nothing we do will inhibit the growth and development of regional airports. My noble friend is right to remind me of that. Where there are no immigration officials present at an airport, arrangements are in place that can be worked by fax. Some of those arrangements work very well. If an immigration official is required he can come from a nearby airport. In most cases that arrangement works very well.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, when will the final decision be taken as to whether to have permanent immigration officials at Biggin Hill? Will the noble Baroness bear in mind that even if there is not sufficient traffic at present to justify staff being located at the airfield on a permanent basis, any growth in business traffic in the future may make it worth while? Meanwhile, would it not be possible quite easily to make staff available from Gatwick?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is precisely what has happened. Staff from Gatwick are present now at that airport fulfilling those duties. It is a temporary arrangement. Meanwhile an assessment is taking place as to the future needs of the airport. Clearly, if the volume of activity at the airport grows, it may well become a candidate to become a designated airport.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are reports on good authority of no fewer than 2 million illegal immigrants now in the London area? What are we doing to catch up on that problem?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question, but it is important in relation to it. We are doing a great deal to fulfil all the powers we have under the law to control illegal immigration.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her announcement—I suppose it is an announcement—that customs officers will be carrying out the work of immigration officers is bound to cause a great deal of concern to many people? Will she agree that the two jobs are quite different? One is about goods and perhaps finding smugglers; the other is about interviewing people who probably have a
638
legitimate right to enter this country. Can she say whether customs officers are given additional training before they are allocated to interviewing immigrants?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not make an announcement. I was describing what has been going on in this country for years. All I am saying is that since amendment of Article 7a of the European treaty, it has been deemed not so necessary to have so many customs officers. Therefore, where they have been removed — as, indeed, at Biggin Hill—that part of their job which involved checking the same people coming through the airports for immigration purposes as well as for customs purposes has caused us to re-think how we fulfil immigration duties at those airports.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Baroness answer the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question? Are customs officers who also perform the duty of immigration officers properly trained in the immigration rules of this country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sure that they are. If one is concerned as much with outputs as with inputs, I can only say that they have performed those: duties extraordinarily well for a very long time.
Noble Lords: Next Question! Order.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I have a feeling that it may be the sense of the House that the time has come to fit in two more Questions.

Millennium Commission: Dismissal of Chief Executive
3.18 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the circumstances which led to the summary dismissal of the chief executive of the Millennium Commission on 10th October 1994.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the decision to terminate the contract of Mr. Hinton, nominated chief executive of the Millennium Commission, was taken by the commission, which is independent of government. The decision reflects a breakdown in relations between Mr. Hinton and the commissioners which I understand to have been irreparable.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. But I am bound to say that I find it inadequate. Will he agree that for any normal institution or company to recruit in July a chief executive of the calibre and reputation of Mr. Hinton and then in October to dismiss him summarily a day before he took up his post would at the very least raise questions about the clarity and competence of those who originally recruited him? In this instance it is bound to

639
raise considerable fresh concerns about the whole modus operandi of the Millennium Commission which already worries many people.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it would be entirely wrong for me to comment in any detail on something which is entirely a matter for the commissioners themselves. The commission took that decision as a whole.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, could the noble Viscount tell the House the date on which the commission became aware that the gentleman concerned was a member of the Labour Party?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I said before, and I repeat, that it would be entirely wrong for me to make any comment in any detail. I believe that it would be wrong for any of your Lordships to make comments on something which is an entirely private and confidential matter between Mr. Hinton and the Millennium Commission.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, surely the Government have a responsibility and an interest in how that operation was carried out. It was carried out on a decision of this House together with another place. Does the Minister accept that for a man of Mr. Nicholas Hinton's standing, who would be very widely known by Members on all sides of this House, it is an appalling situation? Does he agree that it is irresponsible for the Government simply to say that it has nothing to do with them?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord makes some rather irresponsible allegations about the Government. What is important and what the Government are responsible for is the conduct of the Millennium Commission in general. The commission is making excellent progress. The commissioners were appointed only in February. They have set out a draft strategy which was published in June and that was followed by extensive consultation. Five hundred people and 80 organisations have been consulted. The commissioners are now considering the results of that consultation and will announce their strategy next month.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the question of summary dismissal is a matter for the courts and cannot be investigated fairly in your Lordships' House?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Whether or not it is a matter for the courts is a rather separate issue. But it is not a matter for a debate in your Lordships' House. It is a matter for the Millennium Commission and the person concerned.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that this was an extraordinary episode? I believe that it is of concern to this House. It was an episode that is very damaging to the career of an experienced administrator and very worrying for those of us who are concerned that this huge area of patronage may not be conducted properly on clear, rational, independent and non-political principles. With regard to the specific
640
episode, can he say why no attempt at all was made to mediate or reconcile the issues that had been raised by Mr. Hinton, which might have allowed him to stay in place? Why was it necessary for the Secretary of State so brutally to sack him at that curious meeting, not at the commission and not in the department but at a West End hotel?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in an earlier answer I made perfectly clear that the commission as a whole took the decision. I point out to the noble Lord that the government appointees on the Millennium Commission are in a minority. Indeed, there is a member of the Millennium Commission appointed by the Opposition from another place.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I may be the only person in this House who has employed Mr. Hinton as a chief executive? Twenty years ago when I did so he was first class. He has got better ever since and done a wonderful job with the Save The Children Fund. Does that not make anybody in the Government wonder whether their appointments to the main committee were wise?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that that is the case. The decision taken by the Millennium Commission was one which, as I said, was for it to take. I agree with the noble Lord that Mr. Hinton has had a distinguished career in his field. However, I do not believe that any of your Lordships necessarily should comment on what is a confidential matter between Mr. Hinton and the commission.

Catalpa Trees in Black Rod's Garden
3.25 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked the Chairman of Committees:
What plans there are to preserve the Indian Bean Trees (Catalpa bignonioides) in Black Rod's garden.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, as a result of a decision of both Houses that Black Rod's garden should become the main entrance to the Palace of Westminster for vehicles and the public, sadly it will be necessary during the construction work to cut down four of the five Catalpa trees. Three of them will be replaced and there will be five new Prunus and three Magnolia trees, as particular regard is being paid to landscaping and aesthetic factors in planning the new entrance.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for that moderately satisfactory reply. Can he tell the House whether the central tree—the one which is so beautifully framed by the arch from the Lord Chancellor's courtyard and which can be seen the whole length of the Palace of Westminster—can be left where it is?
The Chairman of Committees: Alas, no, my Lords. The one that is being retained is the one nearest the river. The four which have to go will be replaced but set slightly further back. I will ensure that the point

641
made by the noble Lord is taken into account. We are receiving most excellent advice on how the new garden should be laid out. The current president of the Landscape Institute has been advising us throughout. Westminster City Council has the most admirable expert on trees who is also giving us his help. I am quite certain that the final result in Black Rod's garden, when it is completed next summer, will be infinitely preferable to that which prevails today.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, in these days it is possible to move trees of a great size. Indeed, it has been done in the past. Will the people who have contemplated the cutting down consider whether it would be possible to move one or two of the Catalpa trees to another place and so continue their existence, recognising that it may not succeed but would be worth while?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl is a far greater expert on Catalpa trees than I am. But it is my understanding that in London their life is very rarely beyond 50 years. To the best of our knowledge, these trees were planted at the time that the dreadful contraption was built in Black Rod's garden to conceal the boiler house beneath it which serves the whole of the Palace of Westminster. The trees were planted to obscure it. If it is true that the trees have a life of only 50 years, they will not be with us for a great deal longer because that construction was put up about 40 years ago.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, the Catalpa trees in New Palace Yard must be considerably more than 50 years old. Is the noble Lord aware that they are in considerable need of attention and loving care? Will he see that that is provided?
The Chairman of Committees: Alas, my Lords, I have no responsibility for what takes place in New Palace Yard. I shall certainly convey the noble Lord's views to the other end of the Palace of Westminster. But I have a nasty feeling that the trees may be coming to the end of their useful life. Alas, they do not live for so long as, fortunately, do so many of your Lordships.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the whole House will grieve that those four Catalpa trees must be cut down. I am concerned about their replacement. Does the noble Lord agree that in such a historic setting we would be far better advised to consider British trees rather than exotics such as Magnolia and Prunus which the noble Lord mentioned?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I do not think that I disclose a secret when I say that the noble Lord has a vast knowledge of market gardening. I dare say he may have something in mind to suggest. Without wishing to imply that he has an interest, I shall certainly take note of what he said.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what will now hide from the public gaze what he described as a dreadful construction?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, we are seizing this opportunity to reduce that rather
642
birdcage-like construction. It will be altered as a result of all the other works that we are doing and will be less offensive. It has to be there because in four or five years' time the boilers below Black Rod's garden will have to be replaced. The only way to extricate those boilers is by lifting them through Black Rod's garden. Therefore I am afraid that for eternity there will have to be some form of construction over that particular area. However, I believe that it will be possible to make it a great deal less offensive than it presently is.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, can the Chairman of Committees advise us as to whether some of the windows can be cleaned so that we can see some of the trees?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the cleaning of the windows of the Palace of Westminster is an enormously expensive operation. They are extraordinarily difficult to reach. However, we do it as frequently as we feel we can afford.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's concern and the concern of the House for those trees. Is he equally concerned that the Forestry Commission's planting programme for new trees in this country declined from 30,000 hectares to 1,000 hectares last year?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for promoting me to ministerial status. He has also taken advantage of the fact that I shall not have to answer questions for more than another few seconds. Unfortunately, I cannot answer his question.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the tree should perhaps be renamed the "has-been" tree?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is impossible to cap that "joke".

Prorogation
3.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that it is expected that the House will be prorogued by Royal Commission at 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 3rd November until Wednesday, 16th November.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Questions are tabled for the morning of 3rd November? The Questions were accepted. Is it not contrary to the normal practice of the House, when there is business—and Questions are business —for the House then to prorogue and wipe them out?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand the anxiety of my noble friend and he is correct that there are currently Questions tabled for Thursday, 3rd November. However, I also understand that Starred Questions are not regarded as business and it is normal practice that when there is no business, then Starred Questions are dropped.

643
It is not just a prorogation; it is also when the House goes into Recess. Furthermore, this is a Royal Commission; it is a prerogative act and Parliament is expected to comply.

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill

  Sheffield Assay Office Bill
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Messages of 25th October 1994.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [H.L.] Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.] City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons Messages of 25th October 1994 be now considered; and that the promoters of each Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this session in order to proceed with the Bill in the next session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Wednesday 2nd November next;
That such Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on the second sitting day in the next session with declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present session;
That the proceedings on such Bill in the next session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present session. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I have it in command
644
from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Interim committee
.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall establish an interim committee with the power to consider, and as it deems appropriate to approve, applications for grant aid from voluntary organisations in good standing funded by existing councils in 1995 whose funding applications to existing councils for the year 1996–97 and/or to new councils for the year 1997–98 have been refused or delayed.
(2) The committee shall number not less than five and not more than seven members chosen from among people with knowledge and experience of the voluntary sector, at least two of whom shall be chosen from a list drawn up by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and at least one of whom shall be chosen from a list drawn up by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, with a convener appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The committee shall operate from an appropriate date in 1995 to an appropriate date in 1997 as determined by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last session we shall have on this Bill. I am sure that we have all enjoyed it in different ways. I feel that had we not been so close to the finishing tape of this Session the Minister and his noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate would have been much more forthcoming in our debates. I have a sneaking feeling that they are as enthusiastic about the Bill as the rest of the House.
Amendment No. 1 is a matter that we have already raised. It concerns the voluntary organisations in Scotland which will be in somewhat of a hiatus during the period before the existing bodies are totally absorbed into the new set-up. I hope therefore that the Minister can say a little more than he said to us at Committee stage.
At that time—before the Summer Recess—the noble and learned Lord may remember that, along with Opposition colleagues, he met a number of people to discuss the transitional funding for voluntary authorities. In replying to the debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, said that he was aware of the anxieties of the voluntary sector and that he and his colleagues were examining the SCVO proposal to ring-fence local authority funding for voluntary organisations during the transitional period. I emphasise that point because I do not believe that the ring-fencing of funding is necessarily a good thing. There should always be the opportunity to review.
The Scottish Office was considering the proposal. Is the Minister any closer to giving us a decision on his thinking? He kindly sent me a copy of a letter he sent to Mr. Kent of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations on 7th August. He said that he was grateful to Mr. Kent for his comments on the figure of £100 million quoted by myself. He said also that during the debate he was mindful of SCVO's concern for the

645
voluntary organisations. In the letter he gave a half promise that once the level of discretionary funding was known and when the existing authorities informed their shadow successors of the actual discretionary grants paid by them to voluntary organisations, which he expected to be round July or August next year, he would be able to give a response. Is there any hope that he can give us a decision a little earlier than that? Some of the voluntary organisations are doing wonderful work on a shoestring and to lose the possibility of their funding from the Government or from the local authorities as it is at present, would be extremely serious to them, their employees and to the many people they help. I hope therefore that the Minister can give us a little more encouragement than he was able to give us last time. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I must make it clear at the outset that we are not discussing any contribution that government make to voluntary organisations in Scotland under various statutory provisions. I want to make it clear also that the Government greatly value the important role played by the voluntary sector and volunteers within our society. We have already acknowledged that the reorganisation of local government has important implications for voluntary organisations. We are anxious that any disruption should be minimised. We want the voluntary sector to be well placed to capitalise upon the increased opportunities for partnership with local authorities by playing a greater role in the delivery of services to the new unitary authorities.
The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations met Allan Stewart on 4th March 1994 and made a very constructive presentation about the effects on voluntary organisations of local government reorganisations and suggested a series of actions which he might consider.
At that meeting he agreed that there was a need for successor authorities to be made aware clearly of the levels of funding devoted by the existing local authorities to voluntary organisations. He therefore undertook that a direction would be made under Clause 56(5) requiring the existing authorities to inform shadow authorities of all funding which is given to voluntary organisations by means of a grant, service agreement or contract. That direction will ensure that the shadow and subsequent successor authorities are aware of the full extent of the existing authorities' funding of voluntary organisations and the level and purpose, in particular, of annual discretionary grants. Additionally, guidance will be given to the new authorities in their shadow phase on the key role of the voluntary sector and the importance of avoiding disruption and delay in decision making. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations will be consulted in the drawing up of this direction and guidance.
Given the view that we have of local government it would seem to us right to leave a measure of discretion to authorities. They are to be presumed to act responsibly. The noble Lord is right that in Committee other suggestions were made about how the voluntary sector might be protected. It was suggested that there might be some ring-fencing arrangement. It was proposed that the total amount paid by local authorities
646
to voluntary bodies by means of annual discretionary grants should be so protected. We looked closely at that proposal during the summer but I have had to conclude that such a proposal is really too difficult to operate and would again conflict with the role of the new authorities. For example, it would be very difficult to define the voluntary organisations to be within the ring fencing.
The noble Lord had little to say about the proposal within the amendment. We would be reluctant to see anything along the lines of that proposal introduced. It would effectively mean a central committee appointed by the Secretary of State, a rather startling proposition at a time when every effort is made to suggest that fewer people should be engaged in quangos appointed by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the committee would be second guessing local authorities on grant applications and it would have an opportunity to override the views of local councillors as to how some part of the council tax which was collected might be spent. If it is analysed in that way I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate why we have fundamental objections to such an approach.
However, I hope that the reassurance I have given him will also reassure the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the individual voluntary organisations that we very much support their participation with local authorities in the good government of Scotland in all the areas and services which local authorities are required to deliver. The direction and guidance will be clearly given before any local government reform is implemented.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what is basically a helpful reply. When I spoke about the committee, I was not talking about a quango. I made clear that it should be an interim committee for the period in which the arrangements are in limbo. I thoroughly agree with the Minister that local authorities should at least have a fair say about what should be done with local voluntary organisations in their area. Whatever the Scottish Office may do. there should always be some control from local authorities. They know the people and the organisations. They know the work that is being done. I can at least thank the Minister for his efforts and good will. The voluntary organisations may take some comfort from what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 2
Before Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
("New water and sewerage authorities
.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the functions of the existing local authorities immediately before 1st April 1996 as water and sewerage authorities shall be carried out on and after that date by the councils established in terms of Part 1 of this Act.
(2) For the purposes of the functions referred to in subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State shall, before the commencement of this Act, by order make amalgamation schemes amalgamating the local authority areas mentioned in the second column of the table below into the combined areas mentioned in the first column of that table.

647

Table

Combined Areas

Local Authority Areas

Eastern

The Borders, Clackmannan, City of Edinburgh, Falkirk, Fife, East Lothian, Midlothian, West Lothian and Stirling.

Western

Argyll and Bute, East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, Dumbarton and Clydebank, Dumfries and Galloway, East Dunbartonshire, City of Glasgow, Inverclyde, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire.

Northern

City of Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Angus, City of Dundee, Highland, Moray, Orkney Islands, Perthshire and Kinross, Shetland Islands and Western Isles.

(3) The provisions of sections 62A and 62C of the 1973 Act shall apply to a Joint Board established by an Order made under this Schedule as they apply to a Joint Board established by an order made under the said section 62A.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding subsection, the membership of the joint boards established under this section shall consist wholly of councillors elected to the authorities established under Part 1 of this Act within the areas of the joint boards.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 to 14. I make no apology for returning to what for us and for the vast majority of the people of Scotland has been a central issue in this Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill; namely, the future of the water and sewerage industry in Scotland. Amendment No. 2 and Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 deal with a variety of issues. Amendment No. 2 defines the local authorities that would make up the three water boards which the Government are determined to establish under the legislation. The other amendments deal with the increase from 11 to 13 of the number of members on the boards. They deal also with the provision in the legislation that the Secretary of State will appoint the chairman and vice-chairman of the water authorities and propose instead that the board itself should appoint the chairman and vice-chairman. They further propose that the water authority meetings should be open to the public. Finally, and absolutely of crucial importance to the people of Scotland, they propose that those who are on the water authorities should be democratically elected councillors.
When we discussed the matter in Committee our amendment proposed to create not three but six water authorities. When we realised that that was not acceptable to the Government we gave notice that we would return to the issue at Third Reading. The Minister can deny it if he will, but I suspect that he will not, that more than 90 per cent. of the people of Scotland are opposed to the Government's proposals for the future of the water and sewerage industry throughout Scotland. If evidence were required I need only refer to the referendum carried out by Strathclyde Regional Council. In an absolutely astonishing response, there was an equally astonishing and overwhelming majority of respondents against the Government's proposals.
The water and sewerage industry in Scotland has been in the hands of local authorities for more than 150 years. No one can argue that it has not been well managed. It has been brilliantly managed, to put it mildly. Before any of your Lordships compare the situation in England and Wales with the situation in Scotland, I should like to point out that the situation in England and Wales is by no means comparable. Water in England and Wales was never under local authority control. Water in England and Wales was always under joint boards. That is not true in Scotland. What we see here is the beginning—here, again, the Minister can deny it if he will, but the people of Scotland do not believe otherwise—of privatisation.
There are many inside the Minister's party in Scotland who are opposed to the Bill. The membership of his party is a diminishing band because of the Bill. There are many among those still in the Conservative Party in Scotland who are opposed to the Bill. They see it as the beginning of privatisation. The allegation has been laid at our door that we have been disseminating false information to the people of Scotland either through the Strathclyde referendum or through our public arguments. Perhaps I may leave this thought with your Lordships. There are now 33 information officers and people working in the Scottish Information Office on behalf of the Government—three information officers for every Conservative MP in Scotland! When I was a Minister, albeit some time ago, we had eight or nine people working in the Scottish Information Office. But the Government have the nerve to say that they cannot get their message across to the people of Scotland because we are giving false information. Three information officers for every Conservative MP in Scotland is not bad going. If the Government have failed on that basis it is because the people of Scotland have seen through what they are trying to do.
At Question Time yesterday in another place the Minister, Allan Stewart, was asked about water bills. He refused to give an assurance that the charges for water and sewerage in Scotland would not rise to the English levels. Those noble Lords who live in England and Wales know perfectly well what a massive increase has taken place in charges to the consumer because of the privatisation of water in England and Wales. There can be no shadow of doubt that that story will be repeated in Scotland under the proposals presented by the Government in the Bill. I shall merely be repeating the argument if I continue with it. It is all right for the noble Baroness to say, "Hear, hear", and dismiss it as if it were not important. But that is running the risk of ignoring the views of 90 per cent. of the people of Scotland. I say with great respect to the noble Baroness that that is a very dangerous risk to run.
I come now to democratic accountability. I played some part in the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill through your Lordships' House which was intended to cover England and Wales. We had this argument in relation to the democratic accountability of the police authorities in England and Wales. The Minister was forced to concede the point that the police authorities would be made up not of people appointed by the Home Secretary but of people elected by the local

649
electors. I say to those Members of your Lordships' House now present who voted against their Government on that occasion to ensure that democratically elected councillors made up the police authorities that this is the same argument. What we want is that when the water authorities are established they should be made up entirely of local, democratically elected councillors.
There has been much talk of quangos. I say to your Lordships that this is the first example that we have had in Scotland of democratically elected councillors being replaced by a quango. All the other quangos relating to the health service, health boards and enterprise trusts have never been elected. But water has always been under the control of democratically elected councillors. This is the first and most dangerous example we have yet seen of where democracy is being withdrawn and dictatorship introduced. It is simply not acceptable. The Minister must know that if the Government persist with this intention they will be made to pay dearly for it by the people of Scotland.
Before I close perhaps I may make the position of the Labour Party in Scotland perfectly clear. We shall not nominate people to serve on the water authorities, nor shall we encourage any of our people to accept a position with those authorities for the very good and simple reason that we shall not encourage people to replace democratically elected councillors. Just in case the noble and learned Lord is tempted to quote the fact that his friend Ian Lang asked CoSLA to give him nominations and it has not yet responded, the truth of the matter is that, when CoSLA asked the Secretary of State for an assurance that if it made nominations those persons would be nominated to the boards, he point blank refused to give any such assurance. One can draw only one conclusion from that; namely, that the nominations would be a waste of time and that at the end of the day the person making these appointments will be none other than the Secretary of State.
I close with this comment because it is a very serious matter. All this Bill does is to turn Scotland into quango-land. As a result of this Bill there are now something like six additional quangos to be established, and that is simply not acceptable. After this Act is introduced it will be the astonishing fact that the 2.5 million electors in Scotland will have the right to elect only 1,000 councillors but that one person, Mr. Ian Lang, will have the right to appoint 10,000 people. Surely no one in your Lordships' House is going to argue that that is an acceptable position. Even at this late stage—I am not ashamed to plead—I plead with the Minister to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. The Minister may say that this is a Second Reading speech, but the whole of the Bill is permeated with the fact that it is unacceptable to the majority of people in Scotland. My name is down to some of these amendments and I support them in order to try to limit the damage. I am supported in this by the Minister's rejection of my amendments to the effect that it would be sensible in Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles, which are
650
widely separated by wild seas, to leave the existing water and sewerage authorities alone or set them up under a new name, because it does not matter which.
They have been working well. They have improved on the previous system and it appears to me to be utterly bonkers —if I may borrow that phrase—to place them under the control of a central authority. We now suggest in this amendment three authorities, but the situation will remain the same. The people at the headquarters in Perth or Aberdeen—wherever it is—will decide exactly what is needed. Up to now people in the island communities have controlled their own affairs with competence and certainly more cheaply than a central authority will.
The Minister has cited the amount of money that it would cost in individual cases, particularly in the Western Isles, but that money has to be spent anyhow. I can guarantee that money would be saved by local people as against any central authority. I support these amendments very much as a second best in that at least the people manning the authorities would have some chance, if they were locally elected councillors, of understanding the conditions under which they were supposed to operate and the people they were supposed to serve. As a second best, I support the amendments. I suppose that normally in his private life the Minister is an amiable man, as indeed he is, but in this case I believe that the Government have gone sadly wrong and that they are going to make a complete mess of it which will need to be cleared up by somebody else.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I must show something of the other side of this argument. First and foremost, it is regrettable that, with all the work which has gone into the amendments standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael, Lord Ewing and Lord Mackie, they have not taken into consideration the very important wording of Schedule 8. I refer in particular to the little words, "the first, second and third added areas". That is particularly the case as regards the county of Kinross which has always drained its water and sewerage to the south and not to the north as Amendment No. 2 would suggest. These are technical but very important matters.
Furthermore, as has already been said in your Lordships' House, in the provisions of Schedule 7 which concern the other amendments which are being discussed, it is the Government's intention, quite rightly, that the persons appointed to the new water or sewerage authorities shall be persons with the very greatest experience and knowledge of both water and sewerage. That is vitally important.
As already stated in your Lordships' House, in order for Scotland to come up to the full European standards £5 billion will need to be spent, particularly on sewerage. The population of Scotland is only 5 million. It is to meet those standards and for the services to be able to borrow money—not necessarily through local

651
authority funds—that the new water and sewerage authorities need to be properly established and properly financed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell me from where the persons to be appointed will gain their knowledge of water and sewerage?
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I understand that they are to be appointed by the Secretary of State and that he can choose whom he likes. He will obviously choose people who have experience in that area. That is as I understand it.
4 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I accept that substantial investment will be called for in future years to provide an adequate water and sewerage system in Scotland. I visited Thames Water plc the other day. It has embarked on an immense capital expenditure programme on the new ring sewerage system around London. The expenditure is massive.
I have never understood why accepting social responsibility for a good water and sewerage system and the massive capital investment that is involved necessarily means that you must inevitably transfer it to some private enterprise quango. There does not seem to be any logical justification for taking those services out of the public sector and out of local authority control.
I regard this discussion at this very late stage of the Bill's progress as of historic importance. I was a member of Glasgow City Council when I was a boy—I was the youngest city councillor in the history of that great city. Once a year, members of Glasgow Corporation went off on the "water trip". It was a social but important occasion. We travelled down to Loch Katrine—a most beautiful sight. We sailed up Loch Katrine to ensure that the city's water supply was still available and that the pipeline which led from Loch Katrine back to Glasgow was in good shape. In my study at home I have a picture of one of those water trips. My father is in the middle of the photograph.
The water supply of Glasgow was provided by the great merchants. They were people of considerable foresight but with little political commitment to a particular dogma. That is not the case with the present Government. Those people foresaw the future development of the great city of Glasgow. They decided that it was necessary to provide an adequate water supply for the citizens so that the area might prosper and the citizens be provided with a pure water supply. It was never discussed whether the merchants in Glasgow would meet together and invest privately in that great enterprise. They simply said, "Water is an essential and basic need for the people. Therefore, the people should own and run their water supply". That does not mean that every city councillor was an expert on water and sewerage but that decision made it possible for the city to employ people to run the system. Basically, however, control of the service was in the hands of the local authority. Like health care, the water supply is a basic necessity and a community interest.
652
However, the situation is changing dramatically. People in Glasgow were proud of their water supply. I remember a chap who used to bottle it and sell it to America as part of a "pure water" enterprise. I believe that Jimmy Logan had an interest in one of the companies at one time. The water was so good and its supply so efficiently managed that it was possible to put it in a bottle and export it. We were proud of Glasgow's water. The service was well run and efficient. The oversight of the city council was sensible.
Why should we depart from the important obligation of running a community service such as the water supply? That is what we are talking about today. I do not think that we should take this step. However, I am not doctrinaire about the question of private enterprise versus state capitalism. That argument is dead. Although I think that we should run things as well and as efficiently as possible and in the interests of the country as a whole, I believe that the water supply should remain in the public sector.
People may ask, "How can you get investment for such a great new enterprise given all the obligations that will be imposed on our water systems by the European Community?" But there is no reason why the Treasury cannot make the appropriate adjustments to enable a public body to receive the investment that is necessary for such an enterprise. Treasury rules could provide the opportunity for higher investment levels to be achieved. There is no reason to assume that we have to run to the market to get people to invest so that they may realise a profit at the end of the day by supplying water to the people of Scotland.
As has been said, the Minister is an amiable man. I suggest to him that this is a very important and historic step. Before we take it, I must advise him that the people of Scotland have delivered their judgment. They do not want it. In the face of that opposition it is quite incredible to me that we should impose this step on them.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. There is a clear desire in Scotland for local democratic control of the provision of water and sewerage services. This most fundamental of services should be owned and controlled by the consumer. The investment which is undoubtedly needed to repair and extend the existing provision will in any case have to be paid for by the consumers. The possibility of secrecy in the three future water boards and the consequent lack of local accountability is unacceptable.
However, it is on the subject of the possibility of domestic water disconnections, which are prevalent in England, that I should like to focus. I believe that the people of Scotland have a basic right to water and sewerage provision. I am therefore seeking an assurance from the Minister that there will be no possibility of domestic disconnections by the new water boards.
During a 20-year career in social work, I have visited too many homes where the gas or electricity has been cut off, bringing the home to a virtual standstill as a place in which to bring up children. While the inability to pay for water may be seen as adult mismanagement

653
of income, the consequences upon the children are appalling and unnecessary. I do not want to see hosepipes running from neighbouring homes in the same way as electric cables are sometimes used to carry a neighbour's power supply.
What better source of alienation and disaffection could a government provide to children, especially teenagers from the poorest of homes? What sort of message would it be about a supposedly caring society when the supply is cut off by agents of official society? Disaffection contributes to vandalism and criminality.
Related to disconnection is the provision of meters and pre-payment meters. While the latter may appear to be attractive for poorer homes, they often amount to weekly partial disconnections and also generate the miserable possibilities of housebreaking and theft. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the Scottish people that there will be no possibility of disconnection from the water supply.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was not going to say anything. We have rehearsed all the old arguments on this matter. On Report the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was reporting to the House on the referendum on the so-called privatisation of water that the Strathclyde region had carried out, and I asked him how much the people of Strathclyde knew about the present system and how much about the planned system, and how they knew to choose between them. He told me that the people of the West of Scotland knew in their bones that they did not want their water taken away from them. That is about it. That has been the theme of the discussion going on across Scotland. We have heard that reiterated this afternoon.
Times have changed. It is not as it was when Glasgow councillors used to go to see the loch and the supply and plan for the future. It is not as it was in Angus when we went to Lyntrathen Loch and did the same thing. It is not like that now. We have an enormous industry. Enormously high standards are required for water and sewerage in Scotland. There is a need for huge investment. How can noble Lords think that 13 different councils can be represented on a board and agree to run a huge industry in the part of Scotland that includes Argyll and Bute, Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway, and the rest? They suggest 10 councils on the Eastern Board and 11 councils on the Northern Board. I cannot imagine how they think that those councillors— politicians—will be able to do the job that has to be done under the Bill.
This is not a privatisation measure. I agree that the privatisation argument is now dead. It is a dead horse which even the Labour Party will stop flogging, as I understand Mr. Blair. This is not about privatisation. The people of Scotland will have three public sector boards made up of people equipped to do this enormous job. The people have been enormously misled by the argument. Some of them understand, but I am sure that they do not all understand. The boards are public sector boards which will achieve the very best for the people of Scotland out of the wonderful water that they have.
654
I do not have the smallest doubt that Strathmore Springs, which operates from Forfar and whose beautiful water we all drink in the House, all over London, and all over the country, will find that it obtains a better and not a worse service in this way. I mind about that very much. The whole thing is pure party politics. It has nothing to do with what is best for Scotland and what is best for water. I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment once again.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her clear explanation of the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, laughs, but if he would like to reflect upon what his noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe had to say, when he reads it in Hansard, he will find that the noble Lord said that there will be people in the private sector profiting from the delivery of water services. With all respect to the noble Lord, that is not what is proposed in the Bill. There will be three public authorities delivering to Scotland not just water but also sewerage.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that he was proud of Glasgow's water and of the beauties of Loch Katrine. I share his view on both matters. I believe that he would have been slightly more hesitant before saying that he was proud of the state of the beaches on the Clyde, because what is required there to bring us up to our national and now to international standards are levels of investment that are truly massive. We do not propose that that should be achieved by the privatisation of water in Scotland, although I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that an ample number of pamphlets went out from the Labour Party all over Strathclyde saying, "Say no to privatisation". That was not what we had proposed.
We are concerned to see the efficient delivery of water and sewerage services. They employ about 6,000 people in Scotland. They deliver water to some 2 million households and ensure the supply of over 2 million cubic metres of water every day. It is our duty to ensure that we get the structure which can manage an industry of that scale with the greatest of efficiency possible. It will also need to maximise the contribution which private sector funding can make to its financing, as the necessary investment over the next 10 years or so will be in the order of some £5 billion. I share the desire that the bills the water consumers in Scotland will pay be kept to the minimum. It accordingly seems to me to be only right that the Government should have examined the issue to see what was the best way in which that investment could be secured at the cheapest possible price. This has been our conclusion. I am bound to say that both in this House and in another I have not heard any argument advanced to suggest that that funding could be achieved more cheaply.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, returned to his theme of the islands. I must repeat—again it is important in the context of whether those people in Scotland have received the correct information—in Scotland the average Band D household pays £132 for water. In the Western Isles of Scotland the average household pays something like £306. If the Western Isles are to be held

655
in the northern authority, as we believe they should be, far from it being a disadvantage to them, it will be a substantial advantage. Because if they were, as it were, to go it alone, the water bills individual households in the Western Isles would have to pay would be double those of elsewhere in the northern authority. If one went up to the Orkney Isles it would be 50 per cent. more, so we believe, that the three public water authorities approach is the right one.
I regret having heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that despite the offer made by the Secretary of State to CoSLA, that it might put forward its nominations, CoSLA has decided that it will not offer him any names. If the noble Lord reflects upon the matter he will appreciate that he would not, while a Scottish Office Minister under any Secretary of State for Scotland, have handed over, as it were, the absolute right of appointment to CoSLA, but if it would like to reconsider that matter and put forward names of councillors the Secretary of State would be delighted to receive them because, as he has repeatedly said, it is our intention to see a substantial number of councils represented on the boards.
I have made the point before, and I shall make it briefly again. That seems to have been the nature of the debate. I understand why in local government in Scotland the convenership of the social work department has been important, and also the convenerships of police, housing and the like, but I am bound to say that I have never been aware of there being any particularly acute conflict or competition for the convenership of the water and sewerage committees. There have been conflicts and battles to secure other appointments.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy that there has been a hyping up of the argument beyond the real concerns of the people of Scotland. What they want is to get pure water to their homes. Under these arrangements they will get it. They want also to ensure that their beaches and rivers are, if not the cleanest in Europe, certainly up there among the best. That will take massive investment. That is what these proposals are intended to achieve. I believe that if they had had the position coldly and lucidly explained to them they would have appreciated, both in terms of price and of the services to be delivered to them, that what the Government propose is a substantial improvement.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, before the Minister sits down will he say what proportion of the 11 members of the board will be considered a substantial majority of councillors?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, a substantial number is a substantial number. The Secretary of State has been lured on that issue previously and the noble Lord will appreciate that we offer no formula. Unfortunately, in a fit of pique, if nothing else, CoSLA and the councillors whom we would wish to see participating appear to be declining to participate.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down again, will he address the point that we have been trying to make? Reluctantly,
656
we have accepted that there will be these boards, but where are the people experienced to man them? There may be people from the industry who have a personal financial interest in it, but otherwise the only people who have experience are the councillors and the descendants of those who produced the huge capital expenditure required for Loch Katrine, Lintrathen and so forth. We are saying that if we accept the boards, it is far better to choose for them the people who represent the councils.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have no doubt that as regards the three boards we shall be able to obtain a sufficient number of people with expertise to run the authorities. I have little doubt about that I am far more worried about an issue that was raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. If the amendment were carried and there was a joint board, in some water authorities no fewer than 13 authorities would contribute. I seriously doubt whether that is a recipe for securing expertise in the delivery of these services—and I have sat down!
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I never cease to be amazed by the noble and learned Lord's replies to the debates. Perhaps I may respond, not asking the Minister to rise again. I accept, and I am relieved, that he has sat down.
I listened to the noble Baroness and to the noble and learned Lord complaining that one of the boards listed in our amendment would have 13 elected councillors. I ask the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord to change their bedtime reading tonight and take a quiet look at the joint police board and the joint fire board in what is at present Strathclyde Regional Council. I hate to deflate them but they will see that there happen to be 13 elected councillors on the joint police board that will need to be established to administer the existing Strathclyde Region and there will need to be 13 elected councillors on the joint fire board. If we can have 13 elected councillors on each of those boards, why can we not have the same number as regards water authorities? What is so special about water that we cannot have 13 elected councillors to run the water and sewerage industry when, my goodness me, 13 elected councillors are totally suitable to run the police and fire services in one half of Scotland?
I can see that the noble Baroness has been thinking. Let us hear what she has to say.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord is getting rather carried away. Comparing what police and fire authorities have to do with running a water industry is a bit much. I think that he should just quieten down a bit.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, at times I expect far too much of the noble Baroness and I expect a much better intervention than that. The fire brigade will certainly need water to put out the fires, so that is one example that can be compared. But we will leave the matter. I believe that the noble Baroness strayed into the issue without thinking and I am generous enough to recognise that.

657
I turn now to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. My view is that the people of Kinross will not lose a minute's sleep worrying about whether the water and sewerage runs north or south but they will worry desperately about whether they can pay for it. That is what the amendment is all about. I and every member of the Labour Party accept that substantial sums of money must be spent. There are no "if's or "but"s about that. The argument is not about the amount of money that will be spent; it is about who invests and who at the end of the day will receive the benefit. The Government's position is that private individuals will receive the benefit. We believe that the local consumers, the people of Scotland, should receive the benefit.
I am always grateful to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe for his lessons on municipalisation. The water and sewerage industry was at the birth of municipalisation. It was run in such a way because individuals could not install sewage disposal systems for themselves; it had to be done on a municipal basis. It is worth noting that even to this day when a big building contractor—for instance, Wimpey or Leech Homes— builds a housing estate in Scotland it will install a sewage disposal system, connect it to the main system and be paid for doing so by the local authority. The contractor does not pay because it is municipalisation. What will happen under these proposals?
The Government know that they have got this wrong. The people of Scotland have told them so until they are tired. But there are none so deaf as those who will not listen, and I wish to divide the House.
4.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 126.

Divison No.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Annan, L.

[Teller.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Birk, B.

Haskel, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bottomley, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hooson, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Howell, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hughes, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L.

Judd,L

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kagan, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kennet, L

Dahrendorf, L.

Kilbracken, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dormand of Easington,L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller]

Ennals, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nathan, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

658

Richard, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Seear, B.

Tope, L.

Serota, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shannon, E.

White, B.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stallard, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Inglewood, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kenyon, L.

Annaly, L.

Killearn, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Leigh, L.

Astor, V.

Lindsay, E.

Balfour, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Birdwood, L.

Lucas, L.

Blaker, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Claslrfern, L. [Lord

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Chancellor]

Buckinghamshire, E.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mersey, v.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller pf Hendon, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Carnock, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chartens of Amisfield, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston,L.

Munster E

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Courtown, E.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Northesk, E.

Crathome,L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Orkney, E.

Cross, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.

Pender, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Perth, E.

Downshire,M.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dundonald, E.

Pym, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elibank, L.

Rawlings, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elles, B.

Rees. L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton. L.

Elphinstone, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Finsberg, L.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Geddes, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Terrington, L.

Goschen, V.

Teviot, L.

Gray of Conlin, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gray, L.

Trumpington, B.

Grimthorpe, L

Ullswater, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Westbury, L.

Hood, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Howe, E.

Wigram, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 144, insert the following new clause:
("Chief Education Officer. 1980 c. 44
. For section 78 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (Appointment of director of education) there shall be substituted the following section—
"Chief Education Officer.
78.—(1) For the purposes of its functions under this Act, a local authority shall appoint an officer to be known as chief education officer.
(2) The qualifications of the chief education officer shall be such as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
(3) Subject to any amendment by this Act of any enactment, any reference in any enactment to the director of education shall be construed as a reference to the chief education officer appointed by a local authority for that purpose.
(4) In this section "enactment" means any enactment or instrument made under an enactment, whether passed or made before or after the coming into force of this section".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the question of whether there should be a director of education, or chief education officer if one does not like the nomenclature "director of education".
The Minister must be conscious of the fact that one of the strengths of the Scottish education system has been that there has always been professional input at every level. At national level it is provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate; at local authority level the professional input is provided by directors of education; and at school level establishments are headed by qualified teachers rather than by managers with a background outwith education.
The management of the education service involves decisions relating to finance, property, personnel and other matters but that is all within the ambit of education. Obviously, accountants and other professional people who have a knowledge of administration will need to be appointed but traditionally the service has always comprised people with professional training in education.
Unlike many areas of public administration, there are few evident tensions in education between practitioners and administrators because the various professionals involved—directors, teachers, psychologists, advisers, pre-five staff, careers officers, community education staff, nursery nurses and so on—all share a common background and training in education.
The post of chief education officer is required to provide an informed perspective and professional advice to elected members and the general public on any educational issue. It is essential for the public to know that the person who speaks on those issues is a fully qualified teacher who has long experience in the field of education. The statutory nature of the chief education officer's employment will ensure a measure of independence from non-educational political pressure. In local government, there is always a certain amount
660
of political pressure. In fact, conflict may often lead to progress being made. But together with statutory education committees, chief education officers constitute part of the system of checks and balances essential to democracy.
The professional nature of chief education officers will provide independent advice, coherence, continuity and strategic vision for elected members, parents and teachers from officers who are professionally informed and personally experienced in the field of education.
The Minister did go some way towards meeting our anxieties with regard to the office of director of social services. I hope that he will be able to do so again with this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I felt that one of the faults in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 was that we had directors of planning, welfare, education and so on. I do not believe that that is necessary today.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. Since Second Reading this is, I believe, the third occasion on which we have gone over the arguments and I do not wish to rehearse those that I have used on previous occasions.
I merely wish to say to the Minister that the arguments that he used in declining the amendment on Report, to which I listened extremely carefully, were sufficiently weighty to justify the abolition of that historic post. It has a symbolism in Scottish education which is of very great importance. I believe that to bring about its abolition or at least to make it cease to be statutory undermines the general cause of education in Scotland.
The Minister said that there had been wide consultation on this matter and one of the justifications that he used to reject the amendment on Report was that five out of the 12 local authorities consulted had not indicated that they wished to retain the statutory post. I beg the Minister to reconsider this matter and perhaps consider adopting the view of the majority of the 12. He uses a narrow argument. The Minister showed willing with regard to the director of social services and I do not believe that the distinctions which he drew between the responsibilities of the person at the head of a local authority social services department and the person at the head of the educational work of the department were very strong. I join other speakers in asking the noble and learned Lord to consider whether he might not be as accommodating on the matter of the director of education as he was regarding the director of social work.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I believe that we are discussing a most important matter and I do not take issue at all with the fact that we are considering it again. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, indicated that he thought there was a need for a definition of the professional qualifications of the director of education. I think that I am right in saying that that does not exist at present. No doubt my noble and learned friend will put me right if I am wrong in that respect.

661
To my mind, the question at issue is the relationship between the decision that my noble and learned friend has taken about social work and the question of whether there should be a chief education officer. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, felt that that distinction was not that great. In view of the fact that schools will be largely making their own decisions and colleges are no longer the responsibility of the local authority, I believe that the actual role will change a good deal. The hands-on role of the chief education officer will be very different as time goes on to that of the present director of education. The role will be different but the statutory requirement is most important.
If my noble and learned friend is resisting the amendment, I hope that he will be able—as I believe he said that he would—to make the difference between the two jobs a little clearer to us. We must not get it wrong. The fact that the convention of local authorities is split on the matter is interesting. The argument is not about whether you have a director of education but whether you are forced to have one; in other words, whether you have the freedom to choose. Unless new evidence is produced to change my mind, I am inclined to think that such freedom is desirable. However, that is not to say that I think there will be many local authorities that do not have a chief education officer. Indeed, it seems to me that they are very likely to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she tell the House whether she appreciates the fact that the statutory post of the chief education officer is being retained in England and Wales? It is not being done as a matter of choice; it is being retained in England and Wales because it is recognised that a suitably fit and experienced chief officer is required to take charge of the responsibilities of planning and the allocation of resources in education. It would be rather a throw-back if we in Scotland, who have led in education for so long, should break from the system which the English and the Welsh have decided, I believe for the first time, to retain.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments; but I am not sure that they are necessarily right.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, I happen to be convener of one of the regions in Scotland which does not consider that it is necessary to have a statutory director of education or a chief education officer. I made my reasons for that known in Committee. I really have nothing to add to the comments that I made at that time. However, I believe that it would be improper if I did not say that we have not changed our view on the matter during the progress of the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the weighty question is not whether there should be directors of education; it is whether this House, Parliament and the Government should compel the new councils to be established in Scotland to make such appointments. The new councils will be democratically elected and locally accountable. We believe that it should be left to them to
662
determine what is best for their areas. If those who are in favour of having directors of education wish to have them after reorganisation—or for that matter education committees—it will be entirely a matter for them. It seems to me to be correct that that should be the position.
However, quite apart from the sanctions that might be applied at the ballot box, there are other control mechanisms which will operate as they do at present. For example, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools and the Accounts Commission will fulfil the same roles in the future as at present.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to require a local authority to appoint a chief education officer with such qualifications as the Secretary of State may prescribe. In effect, it seeks to mirror for education what the Government's amendments on social work—by introducing a new requirement for a professionally qualified chief social work officer in every authority— intend to achieve in that field.
On Report, although I clearly did not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, I explained that we believe there is a distinction to be drawn between education and social work. We have already heard that a number of the authorities in Scotland which have been consulted— and Borders is one of them-—did not want to have a director of education. I do not believe that it is necessary to repeat the details of the situation.
However, I think that it is worth noting that, while this has been described as an historic position in Scotland, the directors of education in Scotland are not required at present to have any professional qualifications. It is simply that the local authority,
"shall employ a director of education who shall … hold office on such reasonable terms and conditions as the authority think fit".
If one looks to the responsibilities that a chief social work officer has to discharge, it is clearly a distinctive position, not least because a number of the responsibilities and duties imposed upon him are in relation to such matters as young people appearing before the courts or, in that most difficult circumstance of all, when a young person may be put into secure accommodation. It seems to me to be quite right that a separate set of duties should be imposed upon an individual.
Apart from the one provision that I have already mentioned, the only other one of which I am aware where statutory duties are presently assigned to a director of education is to be found under Section 5 of Schedule 2 to the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. But even in those circumstances it is not a duty or an enabling power which is imposed simply on the director of education; indeed, it could be one enabling any officer of the education authority to attend the school board meetings.
Against that background, it would not seem right to us to impose such limitations upon the new authorities. I can only conclude by repeating our view. If, on the other hand, the new authority in the Borders wishes to change its mind and have a director of education, it will be entirely free to do so. However, if there are other

663
authorities which wish to take a different route, that is a matter which should be left to be settled by their democratic wish.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. The noble and learned Lord said that there was no statutory requirement for a director of education in the Scottish educational atmosphere. Can the Minister tell us how many local authorities over the years have had a director of education with no qualifications who was thoroughly recognised and respected by his colleagues in the field?
The Minister made it very clear that it was open to local authorities whether they wished or required to appoint a director of education. All I can say is that we shall certainly encourage such appointments so that, if nothing else, it will keep the committees fully informed of the latest educational practice. It will also be a good channel of communication between the teaching staff and the committees. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 145 [Provision of school transport and other facilities]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 100, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) After Section 28A(3) (e) there shall be inserted—
"(f) If, notwithstanding subsection (3) (a) to (e) above, the education authority, having regard to historical patterns of migration or existing planning permissions for residential development in their area, considers it necessary in exceptional circumstances to restrict admission to a stage of education at the specified school in order to secure the availability of places for pupils ordinarily resident within the delineated area of the specified school at any time during the school year, it may do so, provided that the education authority shall not so restrict admission beyond the minimum number of places reasonably anticipated by them as necessary for that purpose at any stage and that a statement of reasons is provided to any person whose placing has been refused on these grounds".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with the retention of places in schools in anticipation of housing development. Where an education authority is convinced, as a result of planning applications and various other measures, that there will be development in a particular school's catchment area within, say, the next six months or a year, that education authority should have the power to restrict admission at certain levels of education for a limited period only to take account of the fact that a number of children will be moving into its area. I should make clear that the amendment does not in any way interfere with the placement legislation which the Government introduced some years ago.
There was a recent case in the Stirling area, at Balfron High School, where this kind of problem arose. As always, of course, the local Member of Parliament, Michael Forsyth, wanted the best of all worlds. He attacked Central Region for not spending money to extend Balfron High School while at the same time the Scottish Office was telling Central Region that it was not getting any money to extend the school. Michael Forsyth could have been saved that trouble if the
664
amendment had been on the statute book. It seems to me a sensible proposition; I hope that the Minister agrees that education authorities should have this power. It applies to a very restricted and small number of bodies; we do not anticipate that hundreds of children will be moving area. We are talking about a very small number, but we think it important that children should be able to attend their local school. That is achieved by holding on to the places in anticipation of the children moving in. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wonder whether the provisions being sought in the amendment could not perhaps be considered again when we come to Amendment No. 16 standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Minto. It raises a point that we should consider. Obviously I much admire his intimate knowledge of the problems involved.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I explained when we debated this issue in Committee, since we introduced placing requests in 1981 over a quarter of a million children have benefited. Parents can now have real choice in deciding which schools they wish their children to attend. The policy is both a popular and a successful one—so much so that placing requests are now an intrinsic part of the school education system in Scotland.
Again, as I said in Committee, I can see why education authorities might favour an amendment of this nature. The intention behind the amendment is to permit authorities to reserve places at a specified school against the possibility of pupils moving into the area served by that school during the school year, either into existing housing stock or to housing not yet built but for which planning permission has been granted. There is clearly an element of speculation here. Migration of pupils into existing housing stock may not be as anticipated and houses for which planning permission has been granted may not be built in the year concerned. Indeed, fewer children may move into them than has been anticipated. Uncertainty over the impact of such movements will be particularly great in large towns and cities.
What we would then be concerned about is not only the element of speculation but also the fact that, given the time that children are at school, there might be the prospect of some places at popular schools simply lying unused for quite a period. When schools reach capacity, there are inevitably going to be some who, for one reason or another, are unable to gain entry. That is not a new phenomenon. There have always been some schools at capacity. When there is surplus demand for places, some parents—and some pupils—are going to be disappointed no matter what entry arrangements apply.
The crux of the issue, as we see it, is that many overlapping interests are affected by the placing request system. To move the goalposts to affect intake arrangements for schools which are full is simply to produce a set of losers to counter-balance any winners there might be.
Where schools are at capacity, we consider there is an opportunity—I accept it may be modest in certain circumstances—for that capacity to be increased either through a permanent expansion or, if the bulge is

665
anticipated to be a short one, through the provision of additional temporary accommodation. For these reasons, although I am aware of the particular example the noble Lord has cited in Stirlingshire, we are not persuaded that the amendment should be accepted. As I say, there will always be some who win or lose. We hope that the existing arrangement allows a considerable number of children to be placed in the schools their parents choose. The very figures that I have given would, I suggest, indicate that over the past decade or so the policy has been remarkably successful and should be left intact.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I listened with great care to what the Minister said. I am beginning to worry about my powers of persuasion. On the last three days that we have debated the Bill the only thing I have been able to persuade him about has been a provision in relation to burial grounds. I doubt whether I shall succeed in relation to school placements. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 171 [Functions to include promotion of economic development]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 115, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert:
("impose conditions requiring consultation by the local authority of such persons as may be prescribed and requiring the local authority to provide such information to the Secretary of State as may be.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to limit the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations restricting the powers of a local authority to do certain things, for example requiring new councils to consult local enterprise companies before carrying out economic development activities and requiring new councils to provide information in accordance with obligations of European Union law.
In 1993 the Government published their White Paper on local government reorganisation in which they set out their conclusions on industrial development powers. Those conclusions were quite lengthy, and I shall deal with them briefly. The Government maintained that they valued,
"the significant contribution of local authorities in this area and have decided to take the opportunity to confirm in statute for the first time a local authority's right to become involved in industrial development activities. As with the English and Welsh equivalent, the Scottish provision will include a power enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing conditions or restrictions on the way in which local authorities carry out this function. The intention is that this power will be used for two purposes: to require local authorities to provide the Secretary of State with information about financial assistance to companies—this information is required by EC law—and to require local authorities to consult annually relevant local interests; such as local enterprise companies and chambers of commerce, on the broad outline of their industrial development for their area. While there would be no obligation on any of the parties involved to come to an agreement on the plans, the Government hope that this provision will improve co-ordination between the various bodies involved in industrial development".
Local authorities in Scotland presently have considerable scope to incur expenditure on economic development under Section 83 of the Local Government
666
(Scotland) Act 1973. This power has been exercised successfully without the need for regulation by the Secretary of State. It is also noteworthy that this whole matter was one of the issues considered in detail by the Widdicombe Committee report on the conduct of local authority business, published in 1986, which recommended the continuation of the discretionary power. That was accepted by the government of the day. I am sure the Minister will see that the purpose of the amendment is to allow local authorities to make major decisions about development in their own areas. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am happy to acknowledge the important role performed by local authorities in promoting economic development within their own areas. That is why we decided that in this Bill we should include a provision expressly granting local authorities the power to engage in a wide range of economic development activities. It is worth noting that Section 171A will for the first time confirm in statute that local authorities have that right to become involved in the broad field of economic development. I am sure that that is a welcome provision in the Bill.
We have little doubt that the new local authorities will exercise their economic development power in both a responsible and effective manner. However, economic development is a field of activity in which the Government inevitably have to take an interest. Government departments are themselves engaged in providing advice and assistance on economic development, as are other bodies in the enterprise networks, local authorities and other publicly-funded bodies. The Government have a right to expect that those many bodies will operate in a harmonious relationship with each other and that local action will not frustrate national policy.
That is the justification for Section 171B, which allows the Secretary of State to place restrictions or conditions on local authorities' use of their economic development power. However, I wish to emphasise that the Secretary of State does not intend to use Section 171B to impose any radical restrictions or conditions. He does, however, intend to require local authorities to consult other bodies on their economic development plans. I should have thought that that would be considered a desirable requirement. He also intends to require local authorities to supply details of their economic development activities, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, clearly anticipated, because that is required in terms of our obligations under European law.
However, I confirm that we have no plans to use any part of Section 171B to introduce any other restrictions or conditions on local authorities' activities. But it seems not only desirable but necessary, given our European Union obligations, that such a reserve power should be held by the Secretary of State. I have already given the undertaking that his present plans are to use it only in the most restricted fashion.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. His explanation has cleared up one or two points. There will be no opportunity to read

667
his reply and come back to the matter, but it appears that there is not as much between us as I originally thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Schedule 1 [New local government areas]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 131, line 19, at end insert:

("Bearsden and Milngavie

Bearsden and Milngavie District Council.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 deal with the boundary situation as it relates to Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and Milngavie and Bearsden. The Minister will recall that during the Committee stage proceedings we discussed the matter at length although we did not divide the House.
Of all the boundary issues on which I have had correspondence, even taking into account the Highland Region, this has consistently been one of the issues on which I have received a substantial volume of correspondence. The Minister will know that there is deep discontent, particularly in Kilsyth and Cumbernauld, that those areas are to be joined in an authority called North Lanarkshire which takes in parts of Strathkelvin, Motherwell and Monklands, whereas Kilsyth and Cumbernauld have expressed the view that they would prefer to be joined with Strathkelvin in a unitary authority. Such an authority would be economically viable and would form a good authority.
The Bearsden and Milngavie District Council has been in correspondence with me. Its position has always been that it would have preferred to form a unitary authority on its own. However, the main issue for debate tonight is the position of Kilsyth and Cumbernauld in relation to the North Lanarkshire authority in which they have been linked. That authority has a population of 340,000 while the neighbouring authority of East Dunbarton has a much smaller population. Although I do not say that that would not be viable, it would present difficulties.
I hope that even at this late hour the Minister will agree to accept the proposal that Cumbernauld and Kilsyth should be linked with Strathkelvin to form a unitary authority. That is loosely known as the Lennox option. That is an option which I suggest the Minister should consider seriously with a view to accepting it. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 6 relating to Bearsden and Milngavie. I have a feeling of déjà vu. During the last reorganisation of local government I had more than a little hand in Bearsden and Milngavie becoming a separate authority instead of being part of the city of Glasgow.
When I look at the information which the authority has supplied recently concerning its activities I am certain that the influence which I brought to bear at that time was justified. It has proved to be an efficient council. I am sure that it is in an even better position to
668
carry out the functions of a unitary authority than perhaps some of the other small authorities which are to be independent.
I hope that even now the Minister may be persuaded that the Bearsden and Milngavie district could continue to stand on its own. I hope that he is, but I would not bet a large amount of money on it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I support the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I have received a letter from the Provost which is a heartfelt plea for the retention of independent status.
As the noble Lord said, the Provost lists many achievements which I should have thought were native to a lively local democracy. We need to take note of that. The noble and learned Lord paid tribute to democracy and said that the council could appoint an education chief if it wished. I think that a little more is required.
In the case of Bearsden and Milngavie, people genuinely feel that they are a community. The Provost of Bearsden and Milngavie District Council says that it is a cohesive community, which is important, and that services could be delivered more cheaply with an ongoing saving of £650,000 per annum. He has set himself that target. It is worth a try. The Provost continues:
"We have no cultural links with Strathkelvin … We do not use the schools in Strathkelvin … We do not use the commercial facilities in Strathkelvin to any extent … We have no direct bus links with Strathkelvin. Rail links do not exist and to the best of our knowledge, never will … We have no affinity with the residents of Strathkelvin".
That list reflects strong local feeling. I feel that in this Bill the Government have ignored those local feelings. They have certainly done so in the case of the Highlands. Here is an entirely different district where the situation is the same.
I am sorry to return to a Second Reading point, although it is not a Second Reading point. Today in the Daily Telegraph —a newspaper which I read every morning when I am in London because I get it free in the Farmers Club and which, furthermore, is a very good newspaper because it attacks the Government with greater efficiency than any other newspaper —there is an item on the Local Government Commission in England. It reads:
"The largely two-tier local authority structure across England's shire counties looks likely to remain after the Local Government Commission recommended no change in a further six counties".
That means that the commission has taken into account local feeling, which I fear Scottish Ministers have totally failed to do.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I totally support the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Ewing. I have received a considered document from Bearsden and Milngavie District Council. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hughes,. I took part in the campaign to secure the independence of that particular area when it was originally proposed that it should be part of the city of Glasgow.
In the light of experience, the authority has justified its existence. It is efficient, it has done a good job in

669
a rather special separate community. Surely this local government Bill should be about that—encouraging cohesive local communities to have a feeling of pride in their existence. In this case, Bearsden and Milngavie are certainly justified. I note that the authority employed consultants to give an independent judgment on the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and they suggested that there would be an ongoing saving of £650,000 per annum.
Interestingly enough, the consultants employed by the authority were the same as those used by the Scottish Office in the preparation of the Bill to justify the economics of the Bill, calculating what it would do in savings on local government. The consultants were Messrs. Touche Ross and Company, a perfectly independent, reasonable and accepted accountancy practice.
So here we have a community which provides facilities. A comparison is made with another district on the periphery of Glasgow, the Eastwood District Council which is the only other authority on the periphery of Glasgow. The Bearsden and Milngavie district council states that,
"it is firmly established that Bearsden and Milngavie District Council provide more facilities and a much higher standard of services to our 42,000 residents than those available for the 60,000 residents of the Eastwood District Council".
Are we going to suppress, for some unknown reason, this local interest and local enthusiasm as well as the obvious efficiency in the provision of services? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to why he is proceeding in this way.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, on the previous occasion when we considered the proposal for this part of Scotland I indicated that there was a range of possible options which were canvassed both during the consultation exercise and during the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
It would appear, however, that its "problem" status in terms of local government boundaries goes back much further than simply that consultation period or the passage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, indicated that it is not easy to see natural boundaries on that side of Glasgow. After all, we are dealing with the area which he and other noble Lords may recall was covered by the renowned and possibly infamous "detached Dunbartonshire". Interestingly, it is also a part of the country where there would be difficulties if any of the amendments went through. There would be a divergence between health board areas and local authority boundaries.
I am happy to acknowledge that this was not an easy decision and for that reason I am not surprised that noble Lords have received considerable correspondence from various interested local groups and individuals. But I am sure that noble Lords on the Labour Benches will appreciate that even among Labour MPs who know their own areas intimately, someone like Mr. Norman Hogg would put forward a different proposal from the one that would be put forward by Mr. Sam Galbraith on Bearsden and Milngavie.
670
So what it comes to is that there is no simple, obvious answer which we have pig-headedly refused. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that to suggest that we have done nothing to accommodate local feelings when his noble friend the Earl of Mar and Kellie is sitting behind him, who fought so vigorously for Clackmannan, seems a little churlish.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to point out that in England a commission was appointed to look into the matter, but it was the Scottish Office that did it in Scotland.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I observed on a previous occasion, if you went to Derbyshire I do not think you would find particularly warm approval for the set of proposals there.
The inclusion of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth within North Lanarkshire will provide a sizeable authority of considerable potential. It mixes the old and the new in terms of its industrial base and it will be able to act as a powerful counterweight to the new City of Glasgow council.
The proposed East Dunbartonshire area also has the potential, I believe, to develop into a highly effective new council. With a population of 110,000, it will, of course, be larger than the smallest regional council at present and it, too, should be able to benefit from its proximity not only to Glasgow but to North Lanarkshire.
I freely acknowledge that we were never going to be able to devise a boundary solution in the area which would be acceptable to everyone, no matter how many commissions we invited to tackle this boundary. There is a suspicion, which I have heard, that those in North Lanarkshire quite like the proposed solution because they wish to steer clear of Monklands—but I am sure that that is an entirely unworthy thought on my part and indeed of those who live in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth.
It has not been an easy decision and on balance, with the consideration that has been given to the matter, I invite the House to agree that the existing solution is correct.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he mentioned differences of opinion on the Liberal and Labour Benches. I noticed from the letter I received from the local authority that it pointedly indicated that the Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden strongly supported the point of view expressed from these Benches. I should have thought that that would have carried some weight with the Minister.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it certainly does, but it serves only to underline the point that I am making. If one went to other parts of the two areas which are now proposed one would find different individuals, regardless of their political affiliation, coming forward with a wide variety of possible solutions.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I should have been disappointed if the Minister had not mentioned Monklands—in fact, he would have spoiled my day if he had not. I fully accept that an investigation is going on into the activities at Monklands. That is only one of

671
the investigations going on at present into politicians; some have been set up just this week. We shall see who emerges unscathed as the investigations develop.
I should tell your Lordships that, contrary to what the Minister said, Mr. Norman Hogg supports the amendments. I have had that passed to me hot from the press. It fell from I do not know where into my lap that Mr. Norman Hogg is strongly in favour of the amendments. I would not want Mr. Hogg's views misrepresented and therefore I hope that I have put the matter straight.
I was interested in the quotation by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, from the article in the Daily Telegraph. It is interesting because the article explains that the authorities in Kent, Somerset and various other shire counties in England are not to be touched. However, there is a wonderful footnote which says that the Conservative Party does not want to have in-fighting between sitting councillors for a smaller number of seats. I assure the Minister that with three Tory councillors of the 103 members of the council in Strathclyde they will certainly not have that problem in Scotland.
I listened with great interest to what the Minister said. Here we have three authorities and all the people who live in them are of the unanimous view that the terms of the amendments should be implemented. The Minister rejects that. I regard this as the greatest piece of gerrymandering among a lot of gerrymandering contained in the Bill, so I shall divide the House on it. To save time I shall not divide the House on Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 but the vote on Amendment No. 6 should be an indication of our support for the point of view of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, Bearsden and Milngavie and those authorities that are included in the amendment. I therefore seek the view of the House.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Birk, B.

Howell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hughes, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kagan, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kintore, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller]

Dubs, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ennals, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Nathan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Seear, B.

[Teller]

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

672

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williams of Ervel, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Tope, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Leigh, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lindsay, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Arran, E [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ashboume, L.

Lucas, L.

Astor of Hever.L

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Balfour, E

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Blaker, L.

Chancellor]

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mashara of Ilton, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Mirverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Carr of Hadky, L

Monteagle of Brandon, L

Chesham, L.

Morris, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mountevans, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Munster, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Newall, L.

Cross, V.

Northesk, E.

Cullen of Ashboume, L.

Orkney, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pender, L.

Dudley, E

Pym, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rees, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Finsberg, L.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Geddes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gray, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harrowby, E.

Teviot, L.

Harrington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgame, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Inchyra, L.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Westbury, L.

Kenyon, L.

Wharton, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Wigram, L.

Layton, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Establishment of new local authorities]:
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 132, line 42, after ("wards") insert (",the boundaries of which, where possible, correspond to the boundaries of the wards for district council elections as at 7th May 1992 and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter that we have discussed to some extent in earlier proceedings. It deals with what is rather fundamental. We are talking now about the number of councillors who will be involved in the reorganisation.
One point worries me a little as I look at the future shape of local government in Scotland under these provisions. If, as has been suggested, the number of councillors is reduced, there are two dangers. First, there is the danger of creating a new class of professional councillors who will be almost full-time. That is not a particularly good thing. It might even, as it were, duplicate local MPs. Secondly, I have always thought that the strength of local government lay in the closeness of councillors to the people whom they represent. If you reduce the number of councillors, in widely spread rural areas such as the one in which I live, north-east Fife, the councillors in a small centralised authority cannot possibly respond to the variety of interests and concerns of constituents in that rural community.
With this amendment I seek some kind of reassurance from the Minister with regard to this matter. I know that it will be argued that the boundary commission will review the number of electoral wards before the elections in 1999.I believe that it would be wise, in the transition period at least, if the existing local wards were the basis for electing councillors.
So far as concerns Fife, it has the support of a large number of authorities in Scotland which share its fears. Even within Fife, Kirkcaldy District Council, Dunfermline District Council and North-East Fife District Council have supported my amendment. So have Caithness, Sutherland and Inverness; so have Lochaber and Tweeddale and Wigtown District Councils. All of them feel that if you have the centralised local authority and reduce the number of councillors that there are at the moment, there will be a remoteness which is not consistent with the democratic exercise of opinion such as we try to have in local government. Therefore, I should welcome some kind of assurance from the Minister that he has that in mind, that the full exercise will not be too centralised and that the opportunity to have existing local councillors who have sensitivity to local needs will not be overlooked.
One part of the Bill which worries me is that many of the people in local councils are experienced people. They will lose their existing functions as the new centralised bodies take over. That will be a great loss to the community. They are local people who give their time not for reward but because they are interested in a form of community service and the exercise of democratic practice. I hope that those people will not be entirely lost. At least for the transition period of the new authorities, I hope that the Government will be able to assure us that the number of councillors will not be reduced, as has been suggested in some quarters. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, this is an important amendment. I appreciate that, when the Minister replies, he will tell the House that there will be an opportunity to debate this matter at a later stage when
674
the orders are laid defining the number of councillors that each of the unitary authorities will have. But it highlights the whole question of the timetable. I wonder whether the Minister realises that 23 weeks from today the electors of Scotland will be at the polls electing the councillors to the new unitary authorities. We still do not know how many councillors each of the unitary authorities will have. In my view the orders simply cannot be laid before the middle of December. They have to lie for 40 days before they are debated, not including Recess times, Saturdays and Sundays. So it will be the middle of January before Parliament can approve or disapprove of the orders. I leave that question of the timetable with the noble and learned Lord the Minister.
My other point is that Allan Stewart, the Minister's colleague in another place, has given an absolute undertaking that the existing district council boundaries will be used as the boundaries for the new authorities at the initial elections and the local government boundary commission would renew those boundaries in time for the elections of 1999. It seems to me that in a region such as Fife, for example, the 45 councillors proposed in the consultation document published by the Secretary of State are far too few. Fife's evidence is that it would like to have 70 councillors. But one cannot draw boundaries in a short time to create 70 wards. Therefore, it would be sensible to move to the number of 92 councillors which would be produced by the district council boundaries. Then the boundary commission can deal with that between 1995 and 1999.
I appreciate that we shall return to this point. However, I hope that the Minister will at least give an assurance that on this of all issues—they have been very inflexible in the Bill—there will be some flexibility.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have two main difficulties with regard to the particular terms of the amendment. First, it will require the use of what I might describe as the old district wards. However, they have recently been the subject of review by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. Because of new developments and population movements, electoral areas inevitably become out of date. It would be our view that it makes good sense to make full use of the recent work carried out by the commission and to use the updated wards that emerge from their recommendations.
Secondly, the blanket approach of the amendment runs counter to the flexible approach set out in the Bill, which enables local solutions to be found where the particular circumstances of an area dictate an alternative approach. The region (as it is at the moment—or the Kingdom of Fife), from which come the noble Lords who have spoken, is an interesting example. I am well aware of the argument that the regional division would produce too few councillors. But at an earlier stage, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, acknowledged that 92 councillors might be too many and that somewhere between 46 and 92 might be a sensible figure. There is certainly an argument for approaching this matter with the flexibility that is allowed for in the Bill.

675
The Government have recently gone out to public consultation on precisely what shape the new electoral wards should take. We have proposed solutions based on new district wards for the vast majority of areas. Where it seemed to us in setting out the consultation paper that areas might produce councils which would be too large, we have come forward with an alternative solution.
I stress again that these are consultation proposals. We have not approached the exercise from any fixed position. No decisions have yet been made and I can assure noble Lords that all the views expressed will be fully taken into account before any such decisions are reached. What we need to do is ensure that the councils are of a size that is appropriate to their area. We believe that this consultation exercise will help us to achieve that.
I want to emphasise the transitional nature of the provisions set out in Schedule 2. The new electoral wards will be used for the first elections to the new councils on 6th April 1995. As the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, clearly understands, the statute provides for them subsequently to be reviewed prior to the next set of elections by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. It may not be a perfect solution but it should be understood that, even if the outcome of the consultation exercise and the arrangements that we are putting forward are not regarded as desirable, it should not be considered that they will be set in concrete for all time so long as those councils exist.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I very much welcome the statement that has been made by the Minister. I realise that that is as far as he can go tonight. We will have the opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, said, to look again at the boundaries when this matter comes back in the form of an order. Under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Constitution and proceedings etc. of a new water and sewerage authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]
Schedule 13 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 192, leave out lines 12 to 16.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 18, and 19. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that they are minor technical amendments under Schedules 13 and 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Minto The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 199, line 18, at end insert:
("( ) After section 146 there shall be inserted the following section—
"146A. Every local authority shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that adequate plans and procedures are in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies which may affect their area".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 was tabled in Committee and also at Report. However, probably for as much reason as that it came at the end of each day it was neither moved nor debated. The object is to impose on local authorities a duty to plan for all foreseeable emergencies that could affect a local authority area.
With the bringing into effect of the Civil Defence General Local Authority Functions (Scotland) Regulations 1993, the Government formalised a fundamental shift in their thinking on the role of local authority emergency planning. Until then the whole thrust of civil defence planning, from the enactment of the Civil Defence (Scotland) Act 1948 to date, had been to require local authorities, as a statutory duty, to plan and prepare under ministerial direction for the eventualities of a hostile attack, including the use by an aggressor of nuclear weapons. That we came to know as "civil defence emergency planning". No equivalent statutory duty existed to plan and prepare for peacetime emergencies. Sadly they do and will occur.
With the introduction of the 1993 regulations regional and island councils in Scotland are now required to have plans which enable them to respond to any incident, irrespective of its cause, and simultaneously to maintain their normal services. They are required to train members of their own staff and, in the case of regional councils, the staff of the districts within their region. There is also an obligation to train any other persons necessary to the operation of the plans. In the view of local authorities, that brings nearer the point of having a duty to provide peacetime emergency planning. But it does not have the proper statutory base, a position which the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, representing the local authorities in Scotland, supports. The local authorities, in common with other local authority associations, pressed on several occasions for the Government to introduce a statutory basis for peacetime emergency planning. That view was supported by many other bodies and organisations. It is understood that in the Government's review of civil defence arrangements in 1991 the then civil emergencies adviser, David Brook, recommended the introduction of a statutory duty for local authorities to undertake peacetime emergency planning.
The Government did not act upon the recommendations in the Brook report, which would have required primary legislation. Amendment No. 16 therefore is an opportunity to provide the necessary primary legislation which is so far missing. Accordingly, the support of the local authorities in Scotland is strong. The convention, speaking on their behalf, believes that such civil defence legislation as exists is concerned more with reaction to incidents and their immediate aftermath rather than the vital contribution which can be made to preserving public safety by longer term pre-planning, training and exercising.
In support of the view that peacetime emergency planning should be on a statutory basis the local authorities have submitted a number of observations. They believe that the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards (CIMAH) Regulations 1984 require

677
appropriate local authorities to undertake pre-planning on a statutory basis. Otherwise, authorities undertake peacetime emergency planning on a discretionary basis. Inevitably, there is a disparity between the plans prepared by emergency planning authorities. Decisions as to undertaking such planning can be affected by other priorities of concern to individual authorities. That uneven approach will inevitably lead to a disuniform response to an emergency where it affects more than one emergency planning authority's area. A statutory basis would provide uniformity across the whole country in peacetime emergency planning by local authorities.
There is a clear public expectation that local authorities should play a major role in emergency incidents. I shall return to the question of Lockerbie, which is very near to the region which I represent. As most local authority functions are statutory, it is illogical to omit such an important task as peacetime emergency planning from the statutory duties of local authorities. Furthermore, they have a right to be supported by a statutory function and their role in peacetime emergency planning should be put beyond doubt by Her Majesty's Government.
Emergency planning is a costly exercise, particularly if validating exercises and training are taken into account. The creation of a statutory peacetime emergency function will require allocation of adequate resources to enable emergency planning authorities to discharge the function properly. Such planning will have to have regard to resources, after-care aspects including finance, legal matters, compensation, counselling of casualty victims and so forth. The introduction of a peacetime emergency planning function should not alter the well understood roles of the chief constables and the fire masters and their respective services. The role of chief executives in peacetime emergency planning would also benefit from clearer specification.
Emergency planning authorities have all developed some form of peacetime emergency plan, partly through the obligatory measures under the CIMAH regulations and partly through the aegis of the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986 which permits planning and resources provided for wartime emergency to be used in relation to peacetime disasters. However, the guidance issued by the Scottish Office is selective and piecemeal.
New legislation for peacetime emergency planning would require to encompass other public bodies and organisations as well as local authorities, but this proposed legislation would provide an opportunity for a more comprehensive approach to dealing with peacetime emergencies and clearly identify the distinct roles of regular emergency services and those other services, including the important voluntary sector, which may be called in aid when an incident occurs. It is important to ensure that the well-established operational roles of the emergency services, particularly police and fire, should be understood in the context of peacetime emergency planning. Confusion must be avoided between their roles at the time of an incident, immediately thereafter and any proposed roles for them in the aftermath of an incident.
At the present moment all the work that the: regional authorities in Scotland do they do as a moral obligation. They are not obliged to carry out the duties that they presently do. In my own council in the Borders during this past year in 1994 we have held two large co-ordination and control exercises at regional level, three similar exercises at individual districts and a number of training events. All of those have been funded from the existing Scottish Office civil defence grant and moneys of our own. Yet in three weeks' time a large Level 3 nuclear exercise will be held at Torness nuclear power station. The participants will include two regional councils, two district authorities, all the emergency services and many statutory organisations. In respect of the local authority involvement in this exercise, each will be bearing its own costs from within its existing grants or through local authority contributions to the emergency planning function.
Those of us who live in the south of Scotland were shocked, as I am sure was the nation, at the time of Lockerbie. I should make it clear that that catastrophe did not affect directly the region of which I am convenor. It affected the neighbouring region of Dumfries and Galloway. But had there not been some moral obligation, the tragedy on the ground would have been much worse than in fact it was. The march of an area between the division I represent in local government within my region and Lockerbie is a shared march. Parts of the aircraft fell into my electoral division, although only in a small quantity compared with my neighbour. It was a deeply impressive thing to see the services that were provided at that time. But it would be quite wrong to say that we did not learn lessons from that accident. We learnt great lessons.
Perhaps, above all else, we learnt that it was no good to turn around and say, "Such an accident could not happen in my area". These accidents can happen in any area. They may come from the air or they may come from the land. I strongly believe that this is a matter which should be faced with strength and that the Government should make it a statutory obligation and fund sufficiently the authorities which are responsible, whether they be local authorities, police authorities or fire authorities, to the maximum of their needs. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Minto, on what is an important point. Cross-border co-operation in an emergency is something which we should all encourage and I hope that it has government backing. This is a lovely example where I feel that something of this nature could be put into primary legislation. This gives us the opportunity to do it. If the amendment is not accepted I hope that the Government will bring forward a statutory instrument which would cover the very points which the noble Earl has raised. I am sure that all of us appreciate having a convenor of an authority talking on this line. I very much appreciate every word the noble Earl said.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as noble Lords will remember from the Committee stage on 13th July, I wholly agreed with the proposition that local authorities should have in place suitable arrangements

679
to mitigate the effects of any disaster in their community. For this reason local authorities have in recent years been encouraged to make use of their civil defence grant in a flexible way to provide for an effective response to any eventuality and not simply civil defence work.
Local authorities and the emergency services have established arrangements which are well tried and tested, both in exercises and in real emergencies. Noble Lords will remember a number of tragic incidents and possibly most obviously the one mentioned by the noble Earl, the murderous attack at Lockerbie—for that indeed is what it was. What needs to be remembered about that is that not only did the adjacent local authorities respond magnificently to the effort but also the Armed Forces and local authorities from south of the Border. There is in place in terms of the police Act a power which the Secretary of State could have brought to bear requiring the co-operation of Strathclyde police, the Lothian and Borders police and all the police authorities of Scotland. It is a matter to be recorded with some pride that the Secretary of State never had to think for a moment of exercising that power because every policy authority in Scotland responded in the most wholehearted of fashions.
However, there are also lesser but nevertheless important incidents such as the recent Tayside flooding. Most recently there was the helicopter crash at the Mull of Kintyre. All these events underlined not only the importance of the joint emergency co-ordinating arrangements in force in Scotland but the fashion in which they are already in place. I am sure that the noble Earl is correct that there are always lessons to be learnt from any incident and indeed sometimes from the exercises. However, I believe that the existing legislation and the grant arrangements are working well. What is essentially a civil defence duty is most effectively fulfilled by the present all-hazards approach to emergency preparedness. In addition, an awareness of the need to be ready for emergencies is increasingly an integral part of the thinking of all local authority service departments. We recognise that the precise way in which emergency planning is tackled may differ from one authority to another. We see that as a natural consequence of different local circumstances and different internal arrangements within authorities.
While we stress the importance of emergency planning we do not believe that any new statutory duty is necessary. However, we are always ready to provide any specific guidance or advice which authorities might find helpful. A recent survey of authorities' experiences of operation under the new 1993 regulations did not reveal any particular demand for further guidance.
I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate, but I hope that noble Lords will be appreciative of our view that effective arrangements are already in
680
place. Indeed, many of the participating bodies are to be warmly commended for the way in which they have co-operated in a fashion well beyond their own areas.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the comments he has made and of course I accept what he says. But I am sorry to say—and I do not say this in the least bit offensively toward the noble and learned Lord himself—that there is an attitude of complacency in this. It is true that there is the cross-border provision, and the armed forces. We have all the other services at our disposal. But the whole thing is done, virtually speaking, on a voluntary and moral obligation basis when one comes down to the real nitty gritty. It is that which concerns me very deeply. I believe that the matter needs to be looked at again by the Government in the very near future.
While I accept the points made by the noble and learned Lord, the matter is not something about which one can be complacent. While these powers are available to the Secretary of State to impose, as the noble and learned Lord said he could call on them if he wanted to at a particular point. It is quite true that he could, but it is awful to think that he might have to do so. The provision should be there as of right if necessary and not something to be taken as a decision after the event.
Having heard what the noble and learned Lord said, I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division. I hope that the importance which is attached to this matter by the local authorities of Scotland will not have missed the mark in this short interjection on my part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 238, line 39, leave out second ("local authority") and insert ("council").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Repeals]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
Page 259, line 6, column 3, at end insert:
("and the words from "And provided" to "such dwelling house".").
Page 267, line 25, at end insert:
("1978 c. 29. The National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. In section 16A(1), in paragraph (b), the words "of a regional or islands council's", in paragraph (c), the words "of a district or islands council's" and, in paragraph (d), the words "of a regional or islands council's".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
This has been an extremely challenging and wide-ranging piece of legislation. It has also been one of the most important Bills affecting Scotland to come before this House in recent years. We have considered

681
subjects as diverse as nursery education; burial grounds, which are much beloved of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing; the future of the water and sewerage services; and economic development. I believe that we are also well aware from the representations which we have all received—indeed, I have been told that they have been received in greater volume than at any other time on any other legislation—from Scotland. That demonstrates that the Bill has been the subject of considerable interest in Scotland. We should welcome that, attaching as it does to such an important Bill.
Many of the detailed points which have been put to the Government in this House have been accepted. We have agreed, among others, amendments dealing with advertisements of joint board schemes. We have recognised the keen interest of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in the title of Lord Provost and the disapplication of roadworks registers to island councils. We have also introduced a requirement that new single-tier councils should each have a chief social work officer. While it was a government amendment that introduced that change, I should like to acknowledge that this latter amendment is due in no small measure to the considered and pertinent arguments put forward by all sides of the House during the debate.
There have of course been parts of the Bill on which we have been unable to agree. Nevertheless, I should like to record my thanks to all those who have participated for putting forward their respective views in such a courteous and considered manner. It is perhaps inevitable that opinions will sometimes diverge markedly on issues of such importance. I should like to pay a particular tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Ewing, for their contributions from the Opposition Front Bench and also to the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Thomson, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
By my calculation, over 50 Members of your Lordships' House have participated in this Bill at its various stages. I have been concerned that those who do not come from Scotland should have felt that they had no right to participate. Indeed, their participation was more than welcome. I particularly welcomed the intervention from the Welsh Nationalist from the Cross Benches. I should like to express my particular thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, whose wide experience of local authority matters has been helpful not only to the Government but, I believe, to all noble Lords who wished to participate in this debate. I am most grateful to him for all that he has contributed.
Given that there were something in excess of 50 of your Lordships participating, I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not express individual thanks to them all. However, I should like particularly to thank my noble friend Lord Northesk, who offered one of his first contributions in your Lordships' House in the course of the debate on nursery education. Yet again, through slightly gritted teeth, I compliment my noble friend Lord Balfour, who once again has scored a goal in front of the parliamentary draftsman and has managed to ensure
682
that no fewer than 13 amendments are directly attributable to his careful scrutiny of the Bill. I cannot wish him the same success in future Bills.
I should like to offer my particular thanks to my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, who has assisted me in shouldering much of the burden of this Bill. Not only had he to take the Welsh local government Bill through your Lordships' House, but he had also to undergo a series of lessons on pronunciation to enable him to do so. I had rather anticipated that by the time the Scottish local government Bill came before your Lordships he would have had enough. I am grateful for his willingness to participate in the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House.
We now have a Bill which has grown by three clauses and four pages from that which was brought from another place. I believe that when this Bill returns there it will be considered to have been significantly improved in a number of ways. That would not have been possible without your Lordships' participation. I conclude by expressing general thanks to all those who have offered their contributions, even though it may mean that when noble Lords such as my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, go home to some localities in Scotland they may find that in the Highlands they have not got quite the same friends as they thought they had before consideration of the Bill began. However, I hope that, by participating in the way my noble friend has, he will find that he has new friends as well. I am grateful to all those who have contributed. I commend the Bill to this House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, when a Bill as long as this one has reached this stage, we all feel a certain relief. We think over what has been said and what was missed out. However, despite the charm of both noble and learned Lords and the civility with which they treated the mass of amendments which were put forward—we do not want to be unpleasant—it would be wrong to think that this was a good Bill. We shall need to continue to take that point of view until the noble and learned Lord is proved to be correct in believing that it is legislation which Scotland has been waiting for. We have given a fairly strong impression of the fact that we do not believe that Scotland has been waiting for the Bill. In fact, we feel that Scotland would probably prosper rather better without it.
I thank all those who have spoken. One becomes quite chummy after so much time on a Bill—even with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, although she has not been enthusiastic in our cause.
I should like to draw attention again to the timetable, which has been emphasised by many. We think that it will be extremely tight. I do not know whether even at this late stage the Government could find a way of extending it. Having said that, however, I think that we have all learnt a little more about local government than we knew previously. I accept that the Bill has now passed through all its stages in this House, except for our consideration of what may come back from another

683
place. Once again, I thank all those who have taken part, and particularly those on the front Bench who have been so courteous throughout our debates.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too welcome the end of our proceedings which have been conducted in a very amiable manner, although at times they became a little difficult. This is not much of a Bill. We are grateful for the decision on Clackmannan which will be an experiment as a very small unitary authority, but we completely reject the decision on Bearsden and Milngavie. The whole of the Highlands is to fall into one single authority, now depending on the generosity of a central authority to spread democracy over the region. I have never heard of a central authority giving away any decision-making power willingly or unwillingly without being forced to do so.
Although one may disagree with the detail of our first amendment on a Scottish Assembly, one of the things that the Bill has done is to highlight the necessity for such an assembly because the concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of Sate is enormous. Our need for such an assembly was also indicated in the Division on the question of whether there should be one or two unitary authorities in the Highlands. As near as I could count, 12 Tory Peers from Scotland voted for the amendment and many fewer Scottish Peers voted against it. That seems to indicate, as we have said all along, that the Bill has no backing in Scotland—not even among the Government's own supporters. However, I am glad that it is over. We shall now regret the Bill, along with the rest of the people of Scotland.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I do not think that any of us on this side of the House have disguised the fact that we do not like much of the Bill. I have sometimes thought that the Minister must have been more impressed by some of the arguments from this side than he was prepared to admit. I must also accept the fact that, although the noble and learned Lord gave away very little, he managed to refuse to give way to us in the most amiable way. He never gave us any cause for offence in the way in which he did that. The only thing that we can say is that we did not like what he did as opposed to the way in which he said it.
Obviously, the noble and learned Lord is not without a sense of humour because when we were talking about Bearsden and Milngavie, he threw in Alloa as an example of the way in which the Government had responded to local authority feeling. I thought that that was a bit rich considering that the Government started by attaching Alloa to Stirling, but Stirling would have none of it—or rather, Mr. Forsyth would have none of it—so the Government then offered Alloa to Falkirk, and Alloa did not want to have anything to do with Falkirk, so the Government's two proposals were each rejected and they fell back on setting Alloa on its own. Therefore, I do not think that the Minister was right in suggesting that that was a gesture to local democracy. It was making the best of a bad job.
684
However, I accept that the Minister has carried out his task here on this very difficult and, from the Scottish point of view, very unpopular Bill in the best traditions of this House.
6.15 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, while I was naturally sorry that the noble and learned Lord was unable to accept any of my amendments, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for the trouble that he took in replying and in some cases in writing to me with additional assurances and information. I can only hope that his faith that social services will not suffer during the period of changeover will prove to be well-founded.
We have heard a great deal from various noble Lords about how no one in Scotland wants the Bill. With respect, I do not believe that to be altogether true. I do not think that anyone in the '70s wanted to change to a two-tier system and, from many points of view, it is very unsatisfactory, leading to buck-passing and duplication. It took quite a long time for people to adjust to that system, but, although most people tend to prefer the devil they are used to, I think that it will be very much easier to adjust to a single-tier authority than it was to do the opposite and that we shall have far more efficient and accountable local government as a result.
Finally, I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who mentioned how unhappy he was about the timetable being so tight. I have a sort of feeling that exactly the same applies to the timetable for a changeover of local government as applies to the timetable when you are building a house for getting the builders out and getting the furniture in. Whatever date you set, however far ahead, you will find when that day comes that the builders are still there. The only thing to do is to set a date and stick to it.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the Minister for the way in which he has taken the Bill through the House. There is no doubt in my mind that the good nature that he showed at all times—sometimes under considerable pressure —made a very great difference to the behaviour of noble Lords. As one who participated in one of the most controversial debates—that on the question of having one or two authorities for the Highlands—I am very glad that the Minister took my advice and resisted the amendment. I congratulate him on the way in which he did that.
Far be it from me to end this discussion on a controversial note, but in the interests of accuracy I should like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. If he examines Hansard, he will find in the record of the Division on the amendment on the question of having two Highlands authorities that of the 30 Peers who voted for the amendment only eight were Conservative, not 12. I record that purely for accuracy. Of course, there was a substantial increase on the number who voted for what the Government wanted, which was one authority. Whatever controversy may have been raised at that time, I am happy to be able to tell the House that the Highlands authorities are already getting together collectively in an effort to make this a

685
success. On that note and with my thanks to my noble and learned friend, I wish the legislation which we are now passing every success.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, it would be improper to suggest that this Bill is entirely welcomed in Scotland. However, having said that, I hope that within a very short period of time all the local authorities in Scotland will know what they have to face once the Bill has received Royal Assent. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will by then have taken note of one or two butterflies which are still floating around and be able to facilitate us in some small but important degree.
Those of us who are elected local government members and those who are employed in local government have a common purpose; that is, to serve the people. When we know what we have to face we shall come together and face it for the betterment of those whom we represent. I regret that to a certain extent we have not had that unanimity with the Government that I should have liked to see and that my local authority has shown. I am sure that that will come. While we may not feel too comfortable about many aspects of the Bill, I am certain that we shall put our duty first. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister of State and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the great courtesy they have shown during the Bill's progress.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with others in paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, and, in particular, the noble and learned Lord the Minister of State for the patient good humour shown in piloting the Bill through the House. It is a bad Bill, and therefore their achievement is all the greater. The Minister of State, as one would expect of him, was master of his brief. Within the framework of a bad Bill, from time to time he produced some persuasive arguments, and occasionally some startling information. When I was at my most rhetorical about the glories of directors of education, he nearly put me off my stroke completely by saying that directors of education had never needed professional qualifications. I refused to concede that at the time; I now concede it safely.
I was rash enough to say on Second Reading, when I had my first experience of a piece of major Scottish legislation in your Lordships' House, that, with all the representations we were receiving, Scotland was in no doubt at all about the usefulness of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber. I hope that we have done a little useful revising. I was even surprised to have an amendment accepted. It was so long ago that I cannot for the life of me now remember what it was. The Bill has not been a notable example of revising success in your lordships' Chamber. It remains a Bill about which we have many reservations. But we thank the noble and learned Lords for the way in which they have carried through the business.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall be brief, because I have played only a small part in the Bill. I do not believe that the part I did play pleased the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, as much as I hoped it would. In all the briefing that we have received, we have heard little from the countless thousands of people, many of
686
whom live around where I live and where the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, lives, and the lands from where the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, comes, who are delighted that we are returning to a single-tier system of government in Scotland. Everyone knows who does what, and it is much easier for councillors and officials to be accountable.
There are many such people. There are many others, I am sure, who, once the Bill becomes an Act, will get together and do their best to ensure, as the people of Highland Region are clearly doing, that the Bill is a great success. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, has said that he believes local government will do that. I am sure that it will. Once the doubts have gone, I am sure any difficulties will be overcome to the best of everyone's ability. I am sure that we all look forward to the Bill being a success.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I record my grateful thanks to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser for the many letters he wrote to me on the many points on the Bill I have raised. I am much obliged to him for the trouble he took.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Sale and Supply of Goods Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
  Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [H.L.]
  A Message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the Resolution of this House of 25th October.

  British Waterways Bill [H.L.]
  A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders— That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall

  687
  be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after six o'clock.

  THE JUDICIARY: SALARY PROPOSALS
  THE JUDICIARY: SALARY PROPOSALS
  MEDICAL RESEARCH VOLUNTEERS: INFORMED CONSENT
  MEDICAL RESEARCH VOLUNTEERS: INFORMED CONSENT
  ORDNANCE SURVEY
  ORDNANCE SURVEY
  TRADING STANDARDS SERVICE, SCOTLAND
  TRADING STANDARDS SERVICE, SCOTLAND
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL: POWER TO VARY ORDERS
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL: POWER TO VARY ORDERS