House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Jul 1991

Sir George Young : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me have the details. I shall then see whether there is any way through.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : I support what the Minister is trying to do, but I urge a little caution, having lived through any number of these schemes as a member of Westminster city council's housing committee. I saw the end product. The experience that I gained there leads me to believe that most tenants to not want to become involved actively in these democratic organisations. They want a private landlord, or just a good landlord. One way to achieve that is to bring in the private sector, even to the extent of selling off blocks of properties on certain terms. That would allow the private owner, or landlord, to do the work. I have seen some excellent schemes in docklands, carried out by Barratts. There are also some very good examples in Wandsworth. I am sure that Westminster's housing officials, with their great experience, would be happy to pass on some very good tips.

Column 964

Sir George Young : I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. There is an important principle : whether to allow tenants to decide whether or not their landlord should change, or whether to do that for them or to them. The Government's view is that before one proposes that the landlord should be changed from a local authority to a housing action trust, the tenants should be told about the proposal and have the opportunity to vote upon it. If one is going to ask them to vote, one must explain what is proposed.

Although it may take longer and although one runs the risk of a "no" vote, it is better to try to obtain the support of the tenants than to impose the change on them. Having been to Waltham Forest and to Hull to meet the tenants, I was greatly encouraged by the interest shown in the housing action trust by people living on the estates and by their commitment to it.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Will the Minister confirm that that does not apply to the privately rented sector, although some of the worst cases involve private landlords? However, I should not expect the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to recognise that. Why is tenants' choice only for private tenants, not for public sector tenants?

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke about the need for new council house building. Will the Minister bear it in mind that, during the past 10 to 12 years, there has been a substantial reduction in the publicly rented sector and that the Government have been determined that no new council houses should be built to replace those which have been sold? That is part of the problem.

Sir George Young : The hon. Gentleman should know the answer to the substantive point at the beginning of his question. The Government have a mandate for properties that have been built with taxpayers' money, but not for properties that have been built privately. That is why we have extended the right to buy to public sector tenants, but not to private sector tenants.

As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, we dealt with the issue during the 45 minutes of Environment questions. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is Government policy for housing associations to provide new, socially affordable housing.

Column 965

Points of Order

4.17 pm

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The private notice question dealt with a general subject : unlike most private notice questions, it raised issues related to many constituencies. The Government refused to make a statement, so the Opposition's only option was to put down a private notice question. You restricted it to about 16 minutes, which is a very short time for a private notice question, although I understand what a tremendously difficult job you have. Only four hon. Members were left standing, so it would not have intruded greatly on the business of the day if we had been called--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Let me stop the hon. Gentleman there. I have to make difficult judgments. I nearly suggested to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that I would trade his ten-minute Bill for four further questions. However, the hon. Gentleman is saying that I should call those hon. Members who are here now to the detriment of those who want to speak later. The Ulster Members get very little time in the House and they constantly complain--and rightly so--that their debates are squeezed. I have an absolute obligation to protect their interests.

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about the fact that the private notice question followed the theft of a letter. We heard the Secretary of State make it clear that it was a storm in a teacup--indeed, one must question the motives of the BBC in leading this morning's bulletin with the story. The granting of the private notice question means that people will not be discouraged from stealing Government letters.

Mr. Speaker : It is not for me to make such points, but theft, as the Secretary of State said, is always reprehensible. But in granting the private notice question today that is not the criterion that I used. If such an issue is being widely discussed outside, surely it is right that we hear about it on the Floor of the House from the Secretary of State.

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : I will say to those hon. Members who are rising--I know what they are going to say--that we are taking time out of the Ulster debate. We have business questions tomorrow and next week there will almost certainly be an Opposition day. There will be a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill at some stage, so there will be plenty of other opportunities to raise this issue. It is very unfair on the Ulster Members to take time out of their debate today.

Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This point of order relates to Question Time, and it is not related to the other point of order.

Mr. Speaker : Well, I will take the point of order.

Mr. Cryer : During questions, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said that there was no truth in my claim that the Department of the Environment had sent to local

Column 966

authorities lists of institutions authorised by the Bank of England. I have checked with the Library, and I have discovered that the Department of the Environment sent out quarterly returns which included the lists--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Even if the Department has, it is not a matter of order for me.

Mr. Cryer rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I cannot be held responsible for answers given to questions. I have no knowledge of that matter. Goodness me, I should be on my feet all the time if I were called on to adjudicate on whether what was said here was right or wrong.

Mr. Cryer : But, Mr. Speaker--

Mr. Speaker : Well, I would.

Mr. Cryer : It is naturally a matter of order that Ministers should tell the truth.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman must find another way of raising the matter.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Has it been communicated to you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Government intend to make a full statement about the position of the 24 local authorities, including my own authority of Allerdale, which have lent the Bank of Credit and Commerce International at least £30 million, and about the position of the further 20 local authorities that are about to surface to reveal that they too have lent substantial sums? The list to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred has on it two banks, Chancery plc and Edington plc, which have been the subject of administration orders within the past six months. They remain on the list, and the list is misleading local authorities. I wonder whether we can have a statement--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I have had no request for a statement about the matter, but we had a statement on Monday. I should have thought that it would be a good subject to raise on the Consolidated Fund Bill or on a Supply day.

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will be aware, the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991" was issued yesterday. Page 73, says that there will be no continuing need for quality assurance within the Ministry of Defence. You know from the many questions that I have asked in the House that I have been trying to move the quality assurance unit from Woolwich in south London to my constituency. Yet today and yesterday, I have been unable to obtain from the Ministry of Defence any definitive statement on the future of the unit. May we have a statement on the matter?

Mr. Speaker : I am concerned with quality control in the Chamber. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Mr. Speaker. I do not want to challenge the Chair. However, it is significant when the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) cynically exploit the position of BCCI. That was compounded by the Parliamentary

Column 967

Under-Secretary of State for the Environment giving a falsehood to the House. I know that it was a falsehood, because I have the documents here--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask hon. Members not to pursue the matter. They should reflect that, but for the Chair, they would not have had even the private notice question. The hon. Gentleman should sit down, please. Let us get on.

Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker--

Mr. Speaker : No further points of order.

Mr. Sumberg : Well, I was mentioned.

Mr. Speaker : My God, yes, you were.

Mr. Sumberg : It would be in order and keep up the quality of the Chamber, which I know that you are anxious to do, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) were not allowed to refer to cynicism on my part in mentioning the point in Question Time. I made the point wholly on behalf of my constituents who have lost £6.5 million because of the Labour council in Bury.

Mr. Speaker : I am sure that we shall return to the subject.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.). That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 4) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1533) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Scottish Grand Committee

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland).

That the Matter of the Scottish economy, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland).

That the Matter of housing in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Column 968

Ancient Forests

4.23 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to designate areas of ancient forest within the United Kingdom in connection with the arrangements of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation for declaring World Heritage Sites ; to make provision for the conservation and regeneration of such areas of ancient forest ; and for connected purposes.

The Bill asusumes an added urgency with the statement this morning in Edinburgh by an old friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has done me the courtesy of being present, and myself, Professor Sir Frederick Holliday. He stated : "Last Thursday, I saw Mr. Trippier and asked him to seek a new Chairman for the JNCC. I outlined to him my reasons for believing that I could best serve the interests of nature conservation in Britain by vacating the post of independent Chairman. I urged that my going be used as an opportunity for the three Departments of State concerned to review :

(a) the role of the JNCC following EPA and SNH legislation ; (

(b) the way in which Governments expected to see the role discharged ;

I said that I would make this short statement today. After discussion I agreed to add a further sentence to say that the Minister intended to let my proposal lie upon the table until he consulted further. Whilst I remained of the same mind, I agreed to Mr. Trippier's suggestion. I also agreed not to elaborate further at this stage."

When the independent chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, a distinguished marine biologist, lately vice-chancellor of the university of Durham, and much else resigns, on a matter of principle, Ministers should take notice that something is wrong. My Bill is really the "For Pity's Sake, Please Do Something About Mar Lodge Before It Is Too Late Bill" or the "We Hope That The Environment Secretary Will Put Into Practice What He So Eloquently Expressed on 5 March 1980 Bill". Mar Lodge gives him a litmus test opportunity to do so. In an Adjournment debate, quoting the right hon. Gentleman in extenso--the general case has never been more eloquently put-- the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said :

"we give special protection to particularly important sites of ... nature conservation or special scientific interest we need to consider decisions too from an international as well as a national standpoint."--[ Official Report, 19 June 1991 ; Vol. 193, c. 437.] Exactly. If we in Britain cannot ourselves protect Mar Lodge and the remnants of the Caledonian forest on the southern Cairngorms, we had better belt up about telling Governments in Brasilia, Kinshasa or Kuala Lumpur how they should go about protecting their rain forests. I address myself to the Department of the Environment because, frankly, I despair of the Scottish Office. This, incidentally, is the explanation for any English hon. Member vexed at being kept out of his bed on Monday night until the Government Chief Whip had to move the closure--incidentally, that action is almost unprecedented in respect of a Lords amendment--and why there is a need for an Ancient Forests Bill.

In the debate on 19 June, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland agreed with the international importance of the Mar Lodge estate, but expressed Her Majesty's Government's view that private ownership, with a

Column 969

management agreement, is, in general, the best approach to the management of Scotland's natural heritage. The Minister expected that, by management agreements, the objectives of conservation could be combined with the interests of the taxpayer. The recent Glenlochay case does not support that conclusion.

In the Glenlochay case, Mr. John Cameron bought the estate in 1986 for about £570,000, knowing full well of the existing sites of special scientific interest and aware that a recent proposal for afforestation affecting the SSSIs had been refused by the Forestry Commission on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council. Shortly after purchase, Mr. Cameron submitted a claim for about £1 million for "profit forgone", which my colleagues know is the cost of a management agreement under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will know exactly what we are getting at, because the hon.

Gentleman--faithful Sir Hector--could not, at 2.30 in the morning, bring himself to vote for his own Government, because he knew and cared something about it. That is the extent to which the Government are wrong.

The NCC opposed Mr. Cameron's forestry and agricultural proposals that affected the SSSIs. Finally, after a land tribunal decision, Mr. Cameron was awarded a cool £555,000, which, with added interest and costs, will set the taxpayer back by close to £1 million. In the light of the Glenlochay experience, it would clearly have been far cheaper to acquire the estate for the nation outright. Albeit that there have been changes purporting to plug the loopholes in forestry taxation and compensation, the fact remains that many other practices can command huge sums in compensation. Mr. Cameron was within the law--just--but it is an abuse of the system. Mar Lodge provides a valid parallel. Regrettably, management agreements with a variety of private owners, geared to the supposed interests of the taxpayer, have failed to conserve the Caledonian forest's natural character and simply will not meet either the conservation requirements or the demands of the taxpayer, which cannot be open-ended.

Like many of my colleagues, I believe that the compulsory purchase of Mar Lodge on behalf of the nation is now called for and that the world property market, with its vagaries, is no way to protect Mar Lodge or our living treasures.

That is not a maverick view. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will well recollect that Dr. Martin Holdgate, who was the late Tony Crosland's favourite adviser and is now the director general of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, has written to the Secretary of State suggesting the purchase of Mar Lodge for conservation purposes, and that it be run by SNH. As my hon. Friend the member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) knows, when Dr. Holdgate suggests that, it is not a maverick view.

Column 970

I cannot discuss motives, although I personally would give the Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) the benefit of the doubt that the original motive was not deceit, but what has happened since is deceit, because the position has been made far worse as a result of that infamous clause 11 being inserted at the last minute in the House of Lords. I shall tell the Minister the story in potted form. There was a row over the flow country and a bad press conference. The present Secretary of State for Transport then thought that he could kill two birds with one stone--that he could appease the Scots at little cost and extend the domain of the Scottish Office. Therefore, there was an agreement with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Then, after the House had given something totally different a Second Reading--and after we had spent many hours in Committee on a totally different proposition--at the 11th hour and the 59th minute, clause 11 was inserted.

That clause might have been bombed out by the House of Commons Public Bill Office. It is extremely doubtful whether the Lords should have accepted it, because it fundamentally altered the nature of the Bill. It was sneaked into the Lords, and even Lord Patrick Gibson, who is only the ex-chairman of the National Trust, knew nothing about it. A cosy little circle in the Lords got together and, against the advice of Lord Cranbrook, who is the Government's own head of the English Nature Conservancy Council--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please bring his speech to a close?

Mr. Dalyell : Finally, the Government should reflect on this matter and, in the light of what happened this morning, with the resignation of Sir Frederick Holliday, should put the whole thing on ice and go back to the drawing board.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. George Foulkes, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. John McFall, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Gavin Strang and Mr. Brian Wilson.

Ancient Forests

Mr. Tam Dalyell accordingly presented a Bill to designate areas of ancient forest within the United Kingdom in connection with the arrangements of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation for declaring World Heritage Sites ; to make provision for the conservation and regeneration of such areas of ancient forest ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on 19 July and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

Mr. Speaker : We come now to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations.

Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) : Not moved.

Column 971

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Speaker : Before we start on the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, it might be helpful if I repeat to the House what I have said before from the Chair in these debates. The debate on this order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.

4.35 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney) : I beg to move

That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved. The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, authorises expenditure of £2,735 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the amount already voted on account, this brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments to £4,676 million, an increase of 9 per cent. on 1990-91 provisional outturn. The order also authorises the use of additional receipts to meet an excess vote in 1989-90. The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet, which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office.

The provision contained in these estimates needs to be set in the context of Northern Ireland's recent economic performance. Northern Ireland has, to a large extent, escaped the worst effects of the recession. However, the local economy is beginning to be affected by the downturn in economic activity at national level, with unemployment having increased by 3,100 over the past six months. This increase is regrettable, but it is much less pronounced than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Despite the recent fall in the total numbers of people in work, the trend in employment remains upward. Moreover, output in Northern Ireland's industries in the first quarter of 1991 was up by 2 per cent. compared with the same period a year earlier. The local economy is therefore displaying remarkable resilience. Government will continue to do all that they can to assist Northern Ireland industry to improve its efficiency and competitiveness, so that it is well placed to take advantage of the economic upturn.

I now turn to the estimates themselves. As is customary on these occasions I shall concentrate on the main items, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision sought in the two agricultural votes amounts to some £148 million, an increase of £4.5 million over 1990-91. Vote I covers expenditure of £31 million on various market support schemes which operate on a national basis. This includes £15 million for farm improvements and grants to stimulate investment on farms and £16 million is to provide support for farming in the less-favoured areas, by means of payments on hill cattle and sheep.

Vote II seeks provision of £116 million for local agricultural, fisheries and forestry services and support measures. Of this, £48 million is for agricultural, scientific and veterinary services, reflecting the importance of maintaining the highest possible quality of Northern Ireland agricultural produce ; £27 million is for arterial drainage, fisheries and forestry.

Column 972

A sum of £1 million is sought for a new initiative on rural development. This will provide for payments to community bodies to promote regeneration projects in the most deprived rural areas of Northern Ireland. A rural development council, which will promote local community initiatives and advise the Department on rural development policies is being set up. I know that Northern Ireland Members will welcome that development.

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : In the sum that is allocated for rural development will funds be made available to those who require a decent road from where they live to a main road?

Dr. Mawhinney : I shall discuss the Department of the Environment and the amount of money set aside for roads in a moment.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Will the Government respond tonight to the MacSharry proposals and how they will affect expenditure on agriculture? I am sure that the Minister is aware that the farming community is greatly alarmed about the proposals from Europe. If those proposals are carried out many farmers could be put out of full-time farming.

Dr. Mawhinney : The hon. Gentleman made his point well, but the key to the answer lies in his words : "if those proposals are carried out". As I understand it, they are simply proposals at the moment and therefore it is unlikely that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), will want to address them in the abstract tonight. However, the Government have noted the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) : Surely the Minister does not expect to get away with that. The Government are bound to make some response to the MacSharry proposals, so when can we expect it?

Dr. Mawhinney : I shall make clear to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the hon. Gentleman's concern. No doubt as soon as he is able to do so, he will respond to the substantive part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

The Department of Economic Development's vote 1 seeks provision for £212 million. That will enable the Industrial Development Board to carry out its role of encouraging industrial development in Northern Ireland, which includes assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. Last December, the board published its forward strategy for the period to 1993. That sets out how the IDB will respond to the challenges of the early 1990s and outlines the assistance that it can offer to companies. The IDB is encouraging the location and development of internationally competitive companies in the manufacturing and tradeable service sectors in Northern Ireland, to create the conditions for growth in durable employment.

In the Department of Economic Development's vote 2, some £40 million is sought for the local enterprise development unit, LEDU, Northern Ireland's small business agency. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that, in the past financial year, LEDU promoted almost 7,000 jobs. That was 16 per cent. above target and some 1,000 more than the previous year's record result. That is

Column 973

a very heartening performance and brings the total number of jobs promoted by LEDU since its establishment in 1971 to more than 50,000.

Also in vote 2, £5.5 million is sought for the Northern Ireland tourist board, to promote the further development of the tourist industry in Northern Ireland and to enable the board to market Northern Ireland more effectively.

The Department of Economic Development's vote 3 covers expenditure of £172 million by the Training and Employment Agency, an increase of £6 million over 1990-91. The sum of £31 million is sought for the youth training programme to provide 8,000 places and to meet the guarantee given by the Government of a training place for every unemployed young person under 18. A sum of £53 million is for the action for community employment programme, to provide almost 10,000 places for long-term unemployed adults. They will be offered the opportunity to re-enter the employment market by undertaking work of community benefit. Some £17 million is for the job training programme, an increase of £6 million over 1990-91. That will allow the programme to increase from 2,500 training places last year to around 5,000 by March 1992.

About 35,000 people are currently engaged on the various programmes provided by the Training and Employment Agency and more than 40,000 have been placed in employment since April 1990. It is encouraging also that 95 per cent. of apprentices on training centre courses, entered permanent employment on completion of their training. The agency has also undertaken a major review of mangement education and training, and introduced new arrangements into both the youth training programme and the action for community employment scheme to improve the availability and quality of training.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I am grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy in giving way. On shipbuilding, the Minister will know better than me that Harland and Wolff is one of a small number of major merchant shipbuilding yards left in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm that that merchant shipbuilding yard receives financial assistance through the European Community's seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund? If that money is received and where it is spent on engines, has that shipyard got the power to purchase those engines from anywhere in the world?

Dr. Mawhinney : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he has asked a specific question arising from his deep knowledge of the subject. I believe that it will be much better if I obtain a definitive reply which I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will be able to give the hon. Gentleman when he replies to the debate.

In the Department of the Environment's vote 1, £169 million is sought for roads, transport and ports. That is nearly £8 million more than last year. The sum of £139 million is for the road services programme to finance the operation and maintenance of the Province's road system and new construction and improvement works. A contract for the first phase of the Belfast cross-harbour road and rail links has just been awarded, and work is due to begin

Next Section

Home Page