Sitting of 7 April 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    JOHN ERNEST ROLFE AND FLORENCE IVEEN ROLFE (MARRIAGE ENABLING) BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered; to he read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES>

    NHS (Costs)
    Mr. Galleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the per capita cost of the National Health Service throughout the United Kingdom in 1986; and what it was in real terms in 1978–79.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of the gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Services in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what the percentage was in 1978.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Between 1978 and 1985 the proportion of the United Kingdom gross domestic product spent on health care rose from 5·2 to 6·0 per cent. Over the same period, health spending increased from £301 to £384 per head at 1986–87 prices.
    Mr. Galley: Is not this 26 per cent. increase per person throughout this country one of the most accurate indicators of health provision, suggesting vastly improved services and better health care for all? How does this increase compare with other Western countries?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The real growth in total health spending per head in the United Kingdom between 1978 and 1983 was about 21 per cent. and according to OECD data—1983 is the latest comparison that we have—that growth rate was higher than in any other Western industrialised country, with the exception of the United States.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these figures provide an interesting reflection on the priorities of Conservative and Labour Governments?
    Mr. Fowler: Indeed. The base figure that I am quoting in the figures is the base figure that we inherited from the Labour Government. If we want to go back to cuts in the NHS, we must go back to the last Labour Government and their cuts in the hospital building programme.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that when similar claims were made in Scotland yesterday the
    146
    genteel members of the Royal College of Nursing howled the Minister down? Nobody in the country, not least the 1986 Select Committee report on expenditure in the social services, believes a word of the boasts that the right hon. Gentleman continually makes about the Health Service. Is he aware that if we take into account the index used by the NHS with regard to pay and prices, and take account of demographic and technological changes we see that there has been a decrease in real expenditure on the Health Service between 1979 and today?
    Mr. Fowler: What the hon. Gentleman said is typically absurd. Quite apart from the figures on finance, which he has entirely wrong, the real figures on health care, showing the number of patients treated, have shown a real—
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Many are having to be treated twice.
    Mr. Fowler: Well, surely the hon. Gentleman is most interested in health care, in treating patients and in providing for better health care. That is what the Government are providing through the Health Service.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that since 1979 nurses' pay has increased by 23 per cent. in real terms, and that contrasts with the fall of 21 per cent. under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State should come clean with the House and confirm that the United Kingdom spends a lower proportion of its gross domestic product on the Health Service than any European Community country, apart from Greece an d Portugal.
    Does he accept that the logic of the argument that he and his colleagues adduced yesterday—that if one increases the total cake everybody gets a bigger share—is that we should increase the total expenditure on the Health Service as a proportion of GDP? That is the answer to the health inequalities from which Britain is devastatingly suffering. In that way, we would remove some of the horrendous inequalities that his Government were embarrassed to admit only a week ago.
    Mr. Fowler: I do not accept for one moment that there are horrendous inequalities, and the report that the hon. Gentleman is holding is no objective indication that there are. The policy of the reallocation of resources and the resource allocation working party has meant a redistribution of resources to those areas which were deprived of them under the last Labour Government, supported by the hon. Gentleman's party.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Would not that excellent record on increased health expenditure mean even more in terms of better health care if steps were taken to control the escalating cost of pharmaceuticals on the NHS? Are not some doctors still wasteful in their prescribing habits, and will my right hon. Friend take steps to encourage them to prescribe generically where possible?
    Mr. Fowler: We adivse doctors on good dispensing and good practice, but I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that the selected list introduced by the Government has meant a saving to the NHS of about £75 million. That policy has been entirely vindicated, despite all the opposition from the Opposition.
    Mr. Dobson: If the nurses are doing so well under the Government, why did 30,000 qualified nurses and 6,000 nurses in training leave the NHS last year?
    Mr. Fowler: That must be put against the total nursing strength of about 380,000. It is relevant to consider the proportion. The hon. Gentleman must explain why the nursing profession had to wait for this Government to introduce an independent pay review body, which it was never given by the last Labour Government, whose record on nurses' pay was a disgrace.
    Mr. Speaker: May we have briefer supplementary questions, which will lead to briefer answers?

    Hospital Beds
    Mr. Wallerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will state his policy relating to the provision of hospital beds for convalescent patients within the National Health Service.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): The level and extent of provision of beds for convalescence is a matter for individual health authorities.
    Mr. Waller: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the limited number of hospitals providing special convalescent facilities for patients supply a demand existing over a much bigger area than a regional or district health authority? The Grove convalescent hospital in my constituency receives patients from all over the north of England. Therefore, is it right that a regional or district health authority should be able to make a decision to end such facilities, regardless of the broader or national dimension, which certainly exists?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the proposals to which he refers are being formulated and there would have to be widespread consultation before any decision was made. Should there be objections from the relevant quarters, they would come to Ministers to determine and, in that event, we would take account of factors such as that which my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: If there is a change in the provision of convalescent beds, will the Minister seriously take into account the importance of applying rehabilitation techniques within those convalescent places? Will he make sure that there is adequate back-up from the paramedical professions?
    Mr. Newton: It must be borne in mind that there has been a substantial drop in the number of convalescent beds in Britain because of changing practices, and the modern approach to rehabilitation may well entail a different way of dealing with patients after they leave hospital, which is not something that I would wish to discourage.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the West Middlesex university hospital some 96 beds are taken up by people who, in the opinion of Hounslow and Spelthorne district health authority, need neither medical nor nursing care? As those beds are needed for other people who need treatment, will my hon. Friend see what can be done?
    Mr. Newton: I shall certainly look at my hon. Friend's point. He will be aware that health authorities can consider a variety of options in such circumstances, including making contractual arrangements with private or voluntary residential or nursing homes.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there are three options when there are insufficient beds in the
    148
    National Health Service? One is that patients stay on too long, with the result that their beds are not available for those in greater need of them. The second is that they should be released into the community, but there are not enough resources and care in the community. Thirdly, that they may be forced into private facilities, as the Minister suggested a moment ago. Are not those three options unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Newton: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views, but that was a wild series of generalisations. The position differs from area to area, but the general thrust has been to build up community care resources in a way that affects the issue of convalescent beds.

    Unemployed Persons (Mortgage Interest Payments)
    Mr. Barronasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people he expects will lose by the changes in the payments of mortgage interest for the unemployed; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. John Major): Our latest estimates suggest that just over 70,000 claimants will be affected at any one time by the recent changes in supplementary benefit payments for mortgage interest for new claimants under 60.
    Mr. Barron: Is it not typical of the Government that they first put people's homes at risk by cutting the mortgage interest rate relief by half in the first 16 weeks, and then tell people to take out insurance policies against that happening to them when they become redundant? The Government then have the gall to send out a circular to say that they will take at least part of that money away from such people if they take out those policies.
    Mr. Major: We are not putting people's homes at risk, and there is no evidence to that effect. If the hon. Gentleman reads the remarks of the Building Societies Association he will see that it made that point clearly. There is no reason to suppose that people will lose their homes because of the change.
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that people who voluntarily take on the responsibility of home ownership, and who stand to gain enormously from the benefits of that ownership are reasonably obliged to accept all that it entails? They should make provision for themselves and not necessarily look to the state as the first resort in times of difficulty.
    Mr. Major: That is a fair and valid point. Even from the first day of unemployment 50 per cent. of mortgage interest remains payable through the social security system, and the full amount is payable after 16 weeks.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is it not extraordinary for the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) to congratulate the Minister, as he was one of those who during our debate sang the praises of mortgage protection policies? Is it not outrageous for the Minister to defend the policy in those terms when he well knows that if people have taken out insurance policies, which in any case are not very good value for money, the Government will take the money from them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said. What sort of way to proceed is that?
    Mr. Major: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) is being entirely consistent in

    149
    his remarks today and in those that he made on an earlier occasion. We still have the most generous system of assistance with mortgage payments of any country in Europe.
    Mr. Frank Field: May I ask a supplementary question to No. 3?
    Mr. Speaker: No.
    Mr. Field: Question No. 4, Sir.

    Epilepsy
    Mr. Frank Fieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about attendance allowance to people suffering from epilepsy.
    Mr. Major: Attendance allowance is available to people suffering from epilepsy who fulfil certain conditions for attention or continual supervision. These matters are adjudicated by the attendance allowance board or a doctor delegated on its behalf. The interpretation of the "continual supervision" criterion has been affected by the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Mrs. Dorothy Moran. The attendance allowance board is preparing revised guidelines on this matter for use by its delegated doctors.
    Mr. Field: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he now answer the question in simple English, so that disabled people can understand? Will the Government now dispute the success of Mrs. Moran by going to the House of Lords, even though the Court of Appeal refused her permission to do so? Will the Minister extend his congratulations to my constituent, Mrs. Moran, for scoring her success? Is it not uncharacteristically ungenerous of the Minister not to extend his congratulations to the two lawyers—Mr. Nicholas Warren and Mr. Richard Drabble—who, on this and many other occasions, have advanced the Government's policy that everyone should remain within the law, including the Government?
    Mr. Major: On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am not quite sure of the current score between Mr. Drabble and the Government.
    Mr. Dobson: Four all
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Major: Perhaps there is cause for congratulations on both sides. As regards the appeal, about which the hon. Gentleman asked his substantive question, we do not propose to appeal against the judgment.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend look into the circumstances whereby epilepsy can be caused by the defecation of dogs in public areas? When he has done so, will he support his hon. Friend in the Home Office in taking action to clean up our parks and other areas, which are disease ridden at the moment?
    Mr. Major: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity. I am not sure whether his supplementary question is related to the attendance allowance, but I shall ensure that Home Office Minister's are aware of his concern.
    Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulties that arise for parents of children below the age of two years who are not entitled to claim attendance allowance, while
    150
    a parent who is fostering a child who is severely handicapped and disabled is entitled to claim the allowance? Does he agree that this is an unfair discrimination?
    Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, which I am examining.

    Southend General Hospital
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters he has now received from the general public on the proposal by the North East Thames regional health authority to close the radiotherapy unit at Southend general hospital; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health ans Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): We have received 15 letters which have been referred by hon. Members, together with about 1,100 letters direct from members of the public. If Ministers are required to make a decision on the proposal, we shall take into account all the representations that have been received.
    Mr. Taylor: Does this flood of letters not show the serious concern that a regional health authority, which claims to be short of money, is planning to spend £4 million on closing a modern and efficient unit and to build an entirely new one 30 miles away, when there is no guarantee that it will attract as many patients as the Southend unit? Will my hon. Friend seek to remove the damaging uncertainty among staff and patients by trying to persuade the authority to abandon this silly empire building?
    Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the proposals involve an increase in expenditure, but not a cut in services. We expect that we shall receive rather more representations in the near future, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed to receive a petition that bears more than 90,000 signatures.
    Dr. McDonald: Is the Minister aware that the regional health authority's plan to close the unit at Southend will mean many of my constituents, including those who are suffering and ill, having to travel much longer and more difficult journeys to receive treatment? On that ground, will the hon. Lady discourage the authority from putting into effect the absurd plan of closing the much appreciated radiotherapy unit at Southend?
    Mrs. Currie: The hon. Lady will be aware that the proposal involves only the radiotherapy unit. Other forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment will continue as at present and I have no doubt that they will continue to command the confidence of local people. The problem is how best to organise high-tech services, which are expensive and which need to be concentrated if we are to provide a good service.
    Mr. McCrindle: Without commenting on the case that is being made by Southend, and before my hon. Friend becomes over-impressed by the public relations campaign and the petition to which she has referred, will she take note that other of her hon. Friends who represent Essex constituencies applaud the regional health authority's decision to construct a pupose-built cancer unit at the Harold Wood hospital? Will she take on board the fact that on this occasion, if on no other, the voice of Southend is not necessarily the voice of Essex?
    Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I am sure speaks very much for his constituents, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). His comments serve to demonstrate the heat that is in this kitchen.
    Mr. Hayes: I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates that she will require the judgment and wisdom of Solomon to resolve this problem. Those of my constituents who are cancer patients presently travel to north Middlesex, to a hospital that is under threat of closure. The choice appears to be between Harold Wood and Southend. My concern, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), is that our constituents who are suffering from cancer will have to travel an inordinate distance—a journey that will be uncomfortable and unpleasant—to attend the Southend unit. We find that intolerable.
    Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend will remember that during the debate on cancer on 13 February I said that we would attempt to get a more up-to-date view on the extent to which stress and travelling problems have an effect on the treatment of patients who are suffering from cancer, and that commitment stands.
    Mr. Dobson: When will Ministers recognise that instead of dealing with each piecemeal proposition from each of the four Thames regions for the reorganisation of cancer treatment it would be better if Ministers got the four regions together, knocked their heads together and got them to produce a comprehensive plan for the treatment of cancer covering the arrangements in an area containing 13,25 million people?
    Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman is keen on telling local health authorities what to do, and we have made careful note of his views on that sort of centralisation. However, it is no good doing all that unless the money is available—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I recall that whereas the North East Thames regional health authority is now receiving a total of over £1 billion in revenue, under the Labour Government, supported by the hon. Gentleman, the total was only £407 million, barely 40 per cent. of what it now receives. The result is that we can now seriously discuss improving the quality of cancer therapy for all the patients concerned in the region, whereas under the hon. Gentleman's Government they did not have a chance.
    Dr. Michael Clark: My hon. Friend will know that my constituency is in the Southend health authority area. She will also know that the North East Thames regional health authority proposes to reduce its number of cancer treatment units from nine to six. Is she aware that the population of south-east Essex is one quarter of the population of the North East Thames regional health authority? Therefore, is it not eminently reasonable that at least one cancer treatment unit should be in south-east Essex?
    Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend adds some sensible comments to the discussion. If the community health councils in the neighbourhood continue to object to the regional health authority's proposals, those proposals will come to Ministers for a decision. We do not expect that to happen before the end of this year and we will take into account all the representations made to us.

    AIDS
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on Government measures to combat AIDS.
    Mr. Fowler: Action to combat the threat of AIDS continues to be one of our highest priorities. The latest research on our public education campaign shows an exceptionally high level of public awareness of how the AIDS virus is transmitted and how to avoid infection. We are continuing to develop the campaign. In addition, we have provided increased resources for research, counselling and care, and last month I convened two conferences : on predictions of the spread of HIV infection and on community care for people with AIDS.
    Mr. MacKay: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of his public education campaign. If the number of AIDS victims being suggested as likely to arise in the next few years is reached, is he satisfied that there will be enough hospices?
    Mr. Fowler: That is one of the areas in which we are planning increased provision. We will need not only more hospices but more hostel accommodation and more community care. All told, we need more community care involving not just the Health Service but the voluntary services and the social services as well.
    Mr. Corbett: Why are there no proper AIDS counselling facilities available in Birmingham, to haemophiliacs identified as carrying the virus?
    Mr. Fowler: We are providing resources in Birmingham but if there is a specific area of need I shall certainly look at that and seek to remedy it.
    Dame Jill Knight: Bearing in mind the extremely serious implications of AIDS, what steps does my right hon. Friend have in mind to deal with the hard Left Militant Labour councils which actively promote homosexuality among children? Is it not ridiculous—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Ban public schools.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Dame Jill Knight: I did not go to a public school.
    Is it not ridiculous that large sums of public money should be spent on proselytising and encouraging homosexuality in schools while other sums of Government money should be spent in trying to stop the spread of AIDS?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not believe that anyone would support or encourage homosexuality among young children, and I believe that that view is shared on both sides of the House.
    Mr. David Young: What budget has the Secretary of State allocated to research on AIDS? What proportion will this be of the entire health budget? What research projects are being carried out internationally into this disease?
    Mr. Fowler: We have just announced a £14·5 million directed research compaign, organised by the Medical Research Council, which I believe is one of the most exciting and potentially most succesful campaigns. In addition, research campaigns are being organised in other parts of the world, notably in the United States and in European countries.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is not the only way to contain this killer disease, for which there is no known cure, and for which there is unlikely to be a cure for at least 10 years, to have widespread public screening of those at risk, so that those groups among which the disease is spreading can be ascertained and identified, and also so that the people who are carrying this deadly virus can be identified and treated?
    Mr. Fowler: The argument on compulsory public screening, which is what I think that my hon. Friend is suggesting, means that one has to ask the next question, which is what one does with that information. Does one then advocate a policy of isolation? It is all very well talking about treatment, but, as my hon. Friend has said, treatment is not possible at the moment. We are looking at aspects of testing, although not at compulsory screening. There is now a consensus that public education is the No. 1 priority for a disease for which there is neither a vaccine nor a cure. I hope that my hon. Friend will support that also.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that while the Government have given a commitment on publicity and research, they have given no commitment on future clinical care, which is far and away the most costly item in the AIDS budget? Will he confirm the projection of the DHSS on the spread of AIDS, which suggests clinical care costs of about £90 million within the next two years? How will this be met? Will the Secretary of State confirm that health authorities' existing expenditure on AIDS is now funded centrally only to the extent of about one quarter, so that, already, large funds are having to be diverted from other essential health care? Is this not yet another sign of the gross underfunding of the NHS?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must grow up a little in some of the points that he is putting. As even he knows, we do not fund centrally individual programmes throughout the NHS. That is not the way that we have done it, nor the way that he, when he was in government, did it. I do not know where he gets the forecast of £90 million. We recognise the duty that is on us to provide resources so that people can be treated with decency and compassion. I hope that he will support us on that.
    Mr. Stern: What advice will my right hon. Friend be giving to dentists in the NHS on the treatment of patients who are antibody positive? Will he be going along with the recommendation made in some parts of the country that such patients should be treated within specialised facilities, or will he continue to recommend treatment as part of the normal service?
    Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend knows, precautions are already being taken. I hope that we shall be issuing fresh guidance shortly.

    Income Support
    Mr. Rogersasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to include in the rates of income support to be proposed a sum to compensate for any rate contribution demanded from those on income support; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Major: The illustrative figures published in the technical annex to our White Paper "Reform of Social Security" (Cmnd. 9691) make no assumption about
    154
    increasing the income support rates to compensate specifically for an average minimum contribution. Final decisions about the level of income support rates have not yet been taken, but the hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that the illustrative figures showed that the majority of people on income support would not experience any reduction in disposable income overall.
    Mr. Rogers: Has the Minister noticed that the recent report of the Social Security Advisory Committee suggested that the proposal, which will make the poorest pay 20 per cent. of their rates, will cause real hardship, and that any switch to a community charge would make the scheme unworkable? Will he therefore scrap the proposition?
    Mr. Major: I am afraid that I cannot take the action that the hon. Gentleman proposes. As he will know, when spouses and non-householders are taken into account, in many authorities more than half the adult population do not pay for half the services that they enjoy. That cannot be right.
    Mr. Dorrell: Will not the income support scheme, which has been the result of intensive and widespread negotiation, be designed to ensure that adequate resources are available to everyone to maintain a decent and reasonable living standard? Against that background, is it not unthinkable that a rise in costs should not be matched by a rise in means?
    Mr. Major: The first part of my hon. Friend's point is entirely accurate. However, the essence is that the illustrative figures set out in the White Paper alone show that the majority of people on income support would not experience a reduction in disposable income overall.
    Mr. Hugh Brown: Surely that is quite wrong. During the proceedings of the Abolition of Domestic Rates (elc.) (Scotland) Bill it was admitted that those in receipt of supplementary benefit—presumably going on to income support—would still have to pay 20 per cent. of a rate bill for which they are not now liable. When will the Government make a decision on that? It is under social security legislation.
    Mr. Major: The illustrative figures set out in the technical annex take account of the 20 per cent. rate contribution.
    Mr. Ralph Powell: Does my hon. Friend think that, when the new system comes into operation, more or fewer people will receive state support?
    Mr. Major: A whole series of different intangibles must be fed into the equation. I should be unwise if I were drawn into giving a specific answer.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister clarify the point at which the interface is reached between rate contribution and income support? Is he saying that his Department and the Scottish Office are at one?
    Mr. Major: We are one Government. Therefore, we are clearly at one.
    Mrs. Beckett: How can the Minister justify the statement that he has just made, that the illustrative figures in the White Paper show that no one will lose? Clearly, an increased rate charge of 20 per cent. is intended, and the illustrative figures for the unemployed show no increase m income. The facts do not bear out the Minister's answer.
    Mr. Major: I fear that the hon. Lady, uncharacteristically, is wrong. The facts do bear it out. The illustrative figures published with the White Paper clearly show that the majority of people on income support will not suffer any loss in disposable income.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Michieasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received about draft guidelines on the social fund; and if he will make a statement.
    Ms. Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he expects the majority of payments from the social fund to be made as grants or as loans; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the guidelines on the social fund will include an indication of cash limits to be imposed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Major: Draft directions and guidance for staff on the operation of the social fund from April 1988 were issued to interested organisations, for comment or for information, on 25 March. Comments were requested by 26 May, and to date no representations have yet been received. Decisions on the size of the social fund, its division between grants and loans and its allocation to local offices will be announced nearer the introduction of the second phase of the social fund in April 1988.
    Mr. Michie: The draft guidelines published last week explicitly suggest that no help will be available for those paying fuel bills. Does that mean that the Government, despite all their boasting throughout last winter, intend to abolish the severe weather payments scheme in April 1988 without replacing it with another scheme?
    Mr. Major: We have repeatedly said that we will keep under review the exceptionally severe weather payments. We shall reach our decisions at the conclusion of this winter.
    Ms. Richardson: The draft guidelines suggest that grants will be made only to those coming out of community care. Will the Minister confirm that that means that any pensioner who applies to the social fund for help will receive only a loan? If that is so, pensioners will be very aggrieved and will feel discriminated against.
    Mr. Major: That is not necessarily the case. There will be circumstances in which community care payments will be desirable. We have sought to set those out in the draft guidelines. The purpose of issuing the guidelines in draft form is to take account of representations, including those that may be made by the hon. Lady or by any other hon. Member.
    Mr. Cohen: Do not the draft guidelines and the new social fund rule out not only grants but budgeting loans for such items as expenses to cover starting up in a new job or the returnable deposit that is needed to obtain accommodation? Is that not a false economy? Have not the restrictions been included only to make sure that the social fund is strictly cash limited?
    Mr. Major: The social fund is replacing a whole series of regulatory entitlements that have not worked
    156
    adequately. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should carefully re-read the draft guidelines, because he may then find that he has just misrepresented them.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will the Minister confirm that, because of the obvious elasticity of demand, any payments from the social fund relating to maternity or death grants will not be cash limited?
    Mr. Major: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that in order to win a narrow vote in another place the departmental Minister there stated explicitly that there would he no formal cash limits on the social fund when it is introduced, yet the draft guidelines that were issued a week ago state that there will be a budget? Will the Minister describe the difference between a budget and cash limits? Will he also confirm the ministerial hints that this budget will involve a cut of about £75 million for some of the most vulnerable families in society, and that forcing them to repay loans out of future supplementary benefit payments will drive them deeper into poverty and debt?
    Mr. Major: The cash limit applies to the fund generally. The individual budgets apply to local offices. The hon. Gentleman was, frankly, inaccurate about much of what he had to say on the other matters.

    X-ray Service
    Mrs. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to meet the Society of Radiographers to discuss the future needs of the X-ray service within the National Health Service.
    Mr. Newton: We have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mrs. Golding: I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the concern of the Society of Radiographers that it was not consulted before the Forrest report on screening for breast cancer was published. Is he aware that the society thinks that 600 additional radiographers are needed to cope with the additional work load? Is he also aware that last October the Society of Radiographers said that its school was 34 per cent. below the numbers needed to meet the demand? What do the Government intend to do to ensure that the Society of Radiographers is able to train sufficient radiographers to enable the breast screening programme to go ahead?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady has asked quite a number of questions. The advice that has been given to me, based on the Forrest report, is that only about 200 additional radiographers will be needed for the programme in the next three years. To answer the main thrust of the hon. Lady's question, the Department of Health and Social Security, the regional scientific officers of the National Health Service and the College of Radiographers have made a joint submission to the manpower planning advisory group for a study of radiography manpower to be completed in time for the 1988 student intake.

    Supplementary Benefit
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of supplementary benefit claimants in the Leeds, West constituency for the current year and for 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): In February this year, some 27,000 claimants were receiving supplementary benefit from the two local offices which serve the Leeds, West constituency. The equivalent number for February 1979 was 20,000, but the figures are not strictly comparable because the boundaries have changed.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that the figures are also not strictly comparable because of the basis on which supplementary benefit is awarded? Is the Minister not concerned that there should be such a level of deprivation in our inner cities, which has such a debilitating effect on a small section of the population, which is forced to live at subsistence level and which appears to have been given no hope by this Government?
    Mr. Lyell: The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that the real value of supplementary benefit has risen by 6 per cent. since 1979.

    Appeals Tribunals
    Mr. Loydenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Social Security Commission to discuss the future of appeals tribunals.
    Mr. Lyell: Officials maintain continuing discussions with the office of the president of social security appeal tribunals and medical appeal tribunals. I have no immediate plans to meet His Honour Judge Byrt, the president.
    Mr. Loyden: Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government intend to maintain the appeals system in the benefits system? Will he take account of the fact that there appears to be some pettifogging bureaucracy that is discouraging people from attending appeals tribunals on the side of the appellants? Will he give a further assurance that he will investigate matters of this sort and see that those friends and other people who attend on behalf of appellants are encouraged, not discouraged?
    Mr. Lyell: I can certainly give the assurance that we shall continue the appeals system. It works well. Those claimants who seek to appeal are encouraged to bring people with them. I should make it clear that it is our policy to pay expenses for a friend or witness who comes to a tribunal except where he or she is a paid member of an organisation and is attending in that capacity.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mrs. Ann Wintertonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 April 1987.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I am attending a dinner to mark the 30th anniversary of the Institute of Economic Affairs.
    Mrs. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the light of the many achievements of the present Government, not least low inflation, rising productivity
    158
    and growing world respect, morale on the Conservative Benches is extremely high at present? Will my right hon. Friend assert today that the decision on the date of the next general election is hers and hers alone and does not depend on media hype, pressure or speculation?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend's assessment that the economic position and economic prospects are good. I am glad to give her the assurance that the date of the next general election will be decided not in Fleet street but in Downing street.
    Mr. Kinnock: When the president of the Royal College of Nursing warns that if pay and conditions are not improved the service will crack, will the Prime Minister give the nurses their well-earned due, or will she give them the same patronising, self-satisfied response as was given by her Minister at the RCN congress yesterday?)
    The Prime Minister: It was this Government who set up a nurses' pay review body. IC was this Government who last year accepted the increase of 7·8 per cent. recommended by the pay review body. It was staged. Nurses' pay as a result of that award was one third higher in real terms than in 1979, even before the last July increase. Under the present pay scales a ward sister on the maximum of the scale is £2,700 a year better off than if pay had simply been indexed since 1979. Our record on nurses' pay is very good indeed, and the right hon. Gentleman's Government could not hold a candle to it.
    Mr. Kinnock: If conditions are as wonderful as the Prime Minister describes, why, does she think, did that most dignified of professions barrack her ministerial mouthpiece yesterday? If the nurses do not believe the Prime Minister, why should anyone else? As far as the pay review is concerned, since the Prime Minister failed to honour the recommendations last year and the year before, will she now give me, the nurses and the whole country an undertaking that she will honour the recommendations of this year's review in full, pay the increase in full, date it from 1 April and not evade, dodge or give short change as she has done in the last two years?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not recall that under Labour nurses received pay increases of less than the rate of inflation for three years in succession. Our record on nurses' pay and on the reduction in working hours—because the number of nurses has increased by 60,000 and their working week cut by two and a half hours with no drop in pay—is excellent. We have not yet received the pay review body awards. They will be considered carefully when we get them.
    Mr. Waller: Recalling my right hon. Friend's recent visit to the Soviet Union, may I ask whether she agrees that the Soviets, perhaps better than any other nation, can-understand the terrible carnage that conventional warfare can wreak? Thus, is it not misguided for people in this country to concentrate on nuclear disarmament, especially one-sided nuclear disarmament? Would it not be a better and nobler ideal to seek mutual confidence, leading to real security in Europe and elsewhere?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. When we are discussing disarmament matters, we have to consider nuclear, conventional and chemical weapons. If we are to get the reduction of weapons that we seek consistent with the defence of this country and its

    159
    continued security, we must look for increasing trust and confidence. For that, we shall have to see how the Soviet Union honours its treaty on the Helsinki accord and what it does over Afghanistan.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister instruct the Secretary of State for Education and Science to bring forward immediately positive proposals for the restoration of teachers' negotiating rights and a timetable to go with them? Will she recognise that if she fails to do that the teachers' dispute, which we deplore, will get more acrimonious?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of our position. We have granted a considerable increase in teachers' pay. Recruitment of teachers, particularly in physics and mathematics, is going up. The arrangements that we have made in the meantime for teachers' pay negotiations are temporary until we reach a permanent settlement.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend take time during the course of her busy day to comment on the fact that total National Health Service spending is 300 per cent. of what it was in 1979? How does she reconcile that with what some people call "cuts"?
    The Prime Minister: The National Health Service has many more resources under this Government than it had under the Labour Government. Those resources are found not by Governments but by the people who pay taxes—income tax and value added tax. Taxpayers pay well over twice what they did when we came to power. Any increase has to be met from their pockets. There is no other way.
    Dr. McDonaldasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. McDonald: What does the Prime Minister propose to do about the fact that one in four jobs for trained nursing staff in London is now vacant?
    The Prime Minister: The National Health Service Management Board has commissioned a report to look at particular problems over the recruitment of nurses in London. The study team expects to report by late spring and the board will then consider what action may be required. So that is already being considered.
    Mr. Alexanderasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read recent reports of brutality towards young soldiers in training? Will she confirm that those reports represent a deviation from the high standards expected and usually achieved in the British Army? Will she confirm that brutal NCOs and the officers who turn a blind eye to their acitivities will be rooted out and transferred to areas away from recruit training?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that bullying will not and must not be tolerated in the Army or elsewhere in the armed forces. Reports that junior soldiers have been bullied are being thoroughly investigated, and if the allegations are substantiated firm disciplinary action will be taken against offenders.
    Mr. Flannery: Will the Prime Minister accept that, though the teachers are involved in a struggle with the Government, I want to ask her a question about nurses? Does she realise that 30,000 are leaving the nursing profession each year. Although all of us need nurses—and very often urgently—they are being treated to howling abuse from her party. They are struggling as best they can for all of us, and they are being treated obscenely. Does the Prime Minister not realise that the nurses are struggling to stay in their profession and to help the rest of us?
    The Prime Minister: This Government's record on pay to the nursing profession, on reduction of hours in the working week for nurses, and on the increased number of nurses in the National Health Service is better than that of any other Government in the whole history of the NHS. As I indicated earlier, on present-day scales, before any proposals are put before us for new scales, a ward sister on the maximum of the scale would be £2,700 a year better off then if pay had simply been indexed by the RPI since 1979. That is a good record. It is no wonder that there are now 60,000 more nurses in the Health Service than there were eight years ago.
    Mr. John Browneasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that in March this year new car sales were up by 8 per cent. over last year and new car imports were down 5 per cent.? Is this not a clear indication that, under Conservative leadership, our economy is increasingly product-competitive and far more prosperous?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very good news that car manufacturers here—whether Austin Rover or Jaguar or the multinational car manufacturers—are increasing their sales to the home market. It is part of the recovery of manufacturing industry, which is now doing very well under the policies that are being pursued by this Government.
    Mr. Nicholas Brownasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Prime Minister not even slightly embarrassed by the greed and avarice that the sell-off of state-owned industries at well below their market value seems to have incited in some people? Will she explain to the House why it is that these matters were discovered by the Labour research department and not by the Government's own watchdog?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to say about any particular case, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman expects a reply on a particular case. Privatisation has led to millions of employees having shares that they would never have been able to have. There are now up to 8 million shareholders. That, of course, means nothing to the Labour party except bad news, because it leads to independence and personal prosperity, both of which are death to its policy.
    Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to carry out a review of the unfair Japanese domination

    161
    of the once again postponed financing arrangements for the Channel tunnel? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Eurotunnel's prospectus, for every one British bank involved in the financing, seven Japanese banks have signed up? In order to avoid these unfair 7: 1 ratios and the creation of a Franco-Japanese Channel tunnel, will my right hon. Friend intervene to insist on proper national investment quotas and limits?
    The Prime Minister: I am not certain whether my hon. Friend wants a Eurotunnel to be built. I want a Eurotunnel to be built and I think, therefore, that I will interpret his question as inviting more British banks and British institutions to apply to finance a very exciting project.
    Mr. Rookerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to he reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what action the Government are taking to check the statistical validity of their recent claim that one in five people in this country own shares?
    The Prime Minister: The Treasury's record on professional statistics is extremely good. I am not quite sure whose statistics the hon. Gentleman is questioning. If he writes to me and lets me know, we will see what we can do.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the Standing Order No. 20 application.

Eric Bemrose Plant, Liverpool
3.31 pm
Mr. George Howarth: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed loss of 700 jobs at the Eric Bemrose plant in Liverpool announced yesterday."
The plant is actually in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), and he has taken an active interest—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly and not walk in front of the hon. Member who is speaking?
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Walton is taking an active interest in support of the workers at the plant and has kindly agreed that I should raise this matter from my constituency viewpoint.
The matter is extremely important because the losses will add to the already unacceptably high unemployment that we are experiencing on Merseyside. Therefore, every effort must be made to prevent the job losses. It is also specific to my constituency as my local authority, Knowsley borough council, together with the Department of Trade and Industry, was at a very advanced stage in negotiating a financial package that would have involved moving part of the operations from a site in Knowsley to a new plant with up-to-date technology.
The company concerned is part of News International, a group which, as the House is well aware, has a less than happy recent history in these matters. The people of Merseyside, not least those in the trade unions, are anxious that the position should not develop along lines similar to the recent Wapping dispute. We hope that the whole issue can be discussed and debated to see whether the devastating decision can be reversed. To that end, I hope that the proposed move to the Knowsley site can be examined and discussed more fully before any irrevocable steps are taken.
The matter is specific and important. It would be thoroughly irresponsible not to discuss fully all the alternatives to closure. I hope that the House will have an opportunity to do that.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed loss of some 700 jobs at the Bemrose plant in Liverpool."
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Privatisation (Multiple Share Applications)
3.34 pm
Mrs. Ann Clywd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have twice in the past few days asked for a Government statement on the matter of multiple share applications. Outrage is felt among the ordinary public in this country about Conservative Members lining their pockets at the expense of ordinary people. I believe that, in view of that, we have a right to an explanation about the Government's attitude on privatisation and multiple share applications, particularly when they are made by greedy Conservative Members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. There are well known provisions for dealing with matters of this kind, and the hon. Lady should operate them.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last week during business questions I asked the Leader of the House a question on this matter. You intervened halfway through my question to prevent me——
Mr. Speaker: Order. One thing hon. Members cannot do is to raise points of order with the Chair about something that happened last week and that should have been raised at the time. Points of order must be relevant to today.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am hearing a point of order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that my point of order must draw on previous statements made in this House, including a statement made yesterday by the deputy leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)? I must be allowed the right to make a perfectly reasonable point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to relate it to what happened today or, if he must, to what happened yesterday, but certainly not to what happened last week.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook intervened during the debate and you, Mr. Speaker, intervened to prevent him from raising the matter. You said :
"The tradition is that we do not criticise hon. Members, except by motion."—[Official Report, 6 April 1987; Vol. 114, c. 23.]
You also intervened, Mr. Speaker, during the debate last Thursday evening in exactly the same way when I raised this matter, and you told me that I was not to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House. The answer that you gave to my right hon. Friend was very clear, and I ask you to give me the right to spell out my point of order.
The answer that you gave to my right hon. Friend yesterday was that these matters should be dealt with by motion. I have endeavoured to table two motions and you yourself, Mr. Speaker, had to amend one of them. They both had to be substantially amended and, in my view, the sense was lost. Therefore, it is not possible for hon. Members to table motions on this matter, despite the fact

165
that you assured my right hon. Friend yesterday that he had the right to do so. What is clear from all these rulings, Mr. Speaker, is that you feel that you are not in a position to allow debate to take place in this Chamber on an important matter.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Hackney. South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) also endeavoured to table a motion last week. It took one and a half hours of negotiation with the Table Office to clear that motion. It is not possible to table motions in the way that hon. Members want to table them. Therefore, if we clear aside the prospect of motions and the possibilities of intervention either from the Back Benches or from the Dispatch Box, clearly it is not possible for hon. Members to raise this matter in the House.
There are two matters, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not take part in a debate with me on this matter; he is raising a point of order. Come to the point, please.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Parliament is, therefore, not in a position to speak about these matters.
Two matters of order need to be raised. First, there is the interaction between the courts and Parliament on the issue of contempt of the House on which you, Mr. Speaker, are being asked to rule. Will you confirm that in considering issues of privilege and contempt you do so wholly independent of decisions taken in the courts, that you are not required to await a decision on prosecution, and that the House of Commons is completely free to take its own decisions? These are matters of order, Mr. Speaker.
Secondly, this matter relates to the rights of Parliament to ensure that it is not brought into disrepute by the actions of its Members. When a Member acts dishonourably, it is not Parliament that prosecutes but the courts, and the protection of the integrity of Parliament, unless Parliament exercises the right to expel, passes from the hands of Parliament to the Executive. In this case the Attorney-General has a duty to prosecute immediately. That is my case. The Attorney-General, by failing to prosecute——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot be held responsible for what the Attorney-General may or may not do. May I confirm to the hon. Member—this is an important matter of considerable interest to the House—that the reason why I stopped him last week was, as he well knows, that he had raised the matter with me as a matter of privilege in an entirely correct way and until I had had an opportunity of considering the matter it would not have been in order for him to raise it on the Floor of the House.
With regard to yesterday, the practice of the House that governs reflections by one hon. Member on another is clearly set out in "Erskine May" on page 430:
"Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms"—
that is to say, a motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House—
"reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of …Members of either House of Parliament."
That passage sets out the proper way in which the conduct of an hon. Member may be debated, if that is what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) wants to do. "Erskine May" makes it clear that to use any other method of proceeding for that purpose is out of
166
order, and if that course were to be taken the Chair would be obliged to intervene. That is a long-standing rule of the House that I am bound to uphold, as did my predecessors.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have not finished my point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have not made my point of order.
Mr. Speaker rose——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have not made my point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have not made my point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat at once.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Speaker, may I finish my point of order?
Mr. Speaker: I must say to the hon. Member that, unless he resumes his seat, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take Mr. Sedgemore.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you will help the House. I accept your ruling that if one intends to criticise an hon. Member one must do it on a substantive motion that can be debated. Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) put down early-day motion 841. I was the second signatory of that motion. I stumbled across my hon. Friend when she was having some difficulty with the Table Office. We were told that the motion was perfectly in order but that there were people in the House who did not want it put down. I accept that——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know nothing about that matter. I rule entirely as laid down by precedent whether early-day motions are in order. I do not take into account whether people in the House or anywhere else wish them to he put down.
Mr. Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to say this, but we were told., rightly or wrongly—and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley can verify this—that you were the person who did not want the motion put down. We were told by the Clerk of the House. My point is this. I accept—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order is to me.
Mr. Sedgemore: I accept that we do not want a licence for Back-Bench Members to abuse other hon. Members. Equally, I respectfully submit that this is a debating chamber which, as has often been said by past Speakers, is a tinderbox which is liable to explode at any time. We

167
cannot be governed by club rules that may be interpreted only by certain individuals. I respectfully suggest that we need rules that are precise and easily capable of understanding by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley and myself. That is my only point.
Am I not right in saying that if a motion is in order it should go on the Order Paper and that it should not need a debate lasting one and a half hours to get it put down?
Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of conversations in which I did not take part. I say again to the hon. Gentleman that, if motions are in order, they may appear on the Order Paper. However, I am also aware that there was, as I understand it, some kind of concordat between the usual channels. That may well be to what the hon. Gentleman is referring, but I have no knowledge of it.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to discuss yesterday's exchanges, which have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and which are recorded in column 23 of the Official Report. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that you intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and said :
"we do not criticise hon. Members, except by motion"—[Official Report, 6 April 1987; Vol. 114, c. 23.]
I read—I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, have re-read it—the paragraph preceding your ruling. My right hon. Friend was referring to the Tory party cynically surviving on double standards. "Erskine May" makes it plain that that is quite in order, that is, to refer to a collective party rather than to individuals in those terms.
My right hon. Friend then went on to refer to two hon. Members in terms that were not critical of the hon. Members; he was merely asking innocent questions. He was asking a very innocent question about—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not know what hon. Members are getting so sensitive about. My right hon. Friend asked an innocent question about what the hon. Member who represents Anglesey—I prefer to call his constituency Anglesey because I do not know how to pronounce his constituency—would say to an unemployed man who applied six times for supplementary benefit? That was a perfectly innocent question. My right hon. Friend also referred to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram), and it was at that point that you, Mr. Speaker, intervened.
You must have known, Mr. Speaker, the context in which my right hon. Friend was asking those questions, because it has all been in the press. Both hon. Gentlemen have admitted that they applied for more than one allocation of shares in the relevant companies.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have charges made against each other across the Chamber other than in the way I have already suggested to the hon. Gentleman. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?
Mr. Hamilton: I am suggesting that your intervention was misplaced because my right hon. Friend was not making, and never did make, specific charges. The charges have been admitted to in the press by the two hon. Gentlemen involved. The point at issue for you, Mr. Speaker, is how the good name and integrity of the House is protected in view of the reprehensible behaviour of those two hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker: I intervened, as I was bound to do—for reasons that I explained at the time and repeated today—to warn the right hon. Gentleman that he was getting into an area where he should be extremely careful. I must say to the House again, as I said yesterday, that, like every other Member of the House, I am bound by our long-established rules and practices. I intend to uphold them.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: I entirely accept the passage from "Erskine May" that you, Mr. Speaker, have just read. [Interruption.] Some of us have some respect for parliamentary procedures. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This could be helpful to me.
Mr. Faulds: Indeed, Sir.
I intend no reference whatever to any present Member of the House, except to the Leader of the House. A few moments ago, you, Mr. Speaker, said that we could not go back—that was your phrase. I hesitate to correct you, Sir, but the whole of precedent is a matter of going hack. You then proceeded, Mr. Speaker, to say that we could not go back to yesterday, but if we are referring to precedent, we must go back to the day before yesterday. You will know, Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, that, on the initiative of the then Leader of the House in 1947, one Garry Allighan was expelled from the House—a little before my time—and in 1954 one Peter Baker was expelled from the House. In those instances the initiative to move expulsion was taken by the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House has quite specific responsibilities in these matters. It is open to him—indeed, it is a duty of his—to move for expulsion when any hon. Member is guilty of activities unbecoming to Members of the House. It would appear that that is the present situation and that it requires the Leader of the House to take some immediate action in the Chamber.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important foreign affairs debate—a rare occasion—and a great many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part. If the House wishes to deal with this matter at great length, it can do so, but what the hon. Gentleman has said is not a matter for me. Of course it would be in order for the Leader of the House to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I listened with great care to what the Leader said about this matter at business questions on Thursday. Procedures are clearly laid down for matters of this kind and the hon. Gentleman may take advice upon them and operate them if he so wishes.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are only asking honourably for your guidance, and the guidance that we have had so far seems to place us in deeper confusion than we were at the beginning. It happens that certain Members of Parliament from over the way—[Interruption.] It is no good Conservative Members howling abuse and rudeness at us; we honourably want to know. I am sure that if any Opposition Member had made such admissions, the howls from Conservative Members would have everybody wondering what was happening.
Can you, Mr. Speaker, guide us about what we can do about two Conservative Members who have confessed that they have done things that are illegal, putting us in some confusion about what to do about hon. Members

169
who admit to such things? That is the only matter on which we are asking for guidance, and it is not unreasonable to ask.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me clear up this matter once and for all. I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions is involved with this matter. The House has clearly established procedures for dealing with such matters, procedures that have been used in the past and that could he used on this occasion. They would be perfectly within the terms of order, and if hon. Members wish to operate them they can do so.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have nothing more to say about that.
Mr. David Alton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has not the Chair been placed in an invidious position and been caught in the crossfire in this debate purely because of the failure of the Government Front Bench to make a statement? Is not the frustration and anger that clearly exist on the Opposition Benches less to do with the action of individuals on the Conservative Benches than with the Government's failure to make a statement on what is clearly a matter of concern to the country? Should not we expect to hear from the Leader of the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is patently not a matter of order for me.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. You have probably seen that I was one of the six signatories to early-day motion 841. I am a little confused by what you say.
Mr. Julian Amery: Sanctimonious buggers.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about early-day motion 841.
Mr. Caborn: I did not quite hear that, Mr. Speaker. Did you ask the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) to withdraw his remark?
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot have a point of order in the middle of a point of order.
Mr. Caborn: The right hon. Gentleman called me a sanctimonious bugger. I am not sanctimonious.
Mr. Speaker: Order. All this takes up a great deal of time. There will be great distress later in the day, when a number of right hon. and hon. Members who are now on their feet will find it difficult to be called because there is not enough time.
Mr. Caborn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I shall not be interrupted again. As you will appreciate, I was one of the signatories to early-day motion 841 and I have been asked about that. I should like to know exactly how we can get that motion debated.
At the weekend, it was put to me in my constituency—I hope that you will hear me out, Mr. Speaker—that the state and a company have been swindled by an elected Member. Yet an old-age pensioner who was caught taking
170
a tin of salmon from a shop in my constituency was committed and charged with the offence there and then. What sort of standards operate in our society'? You have a duty, Mr. Speaker, to guide me, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central, about how I can protect the good name of the House. Many allegations are being bandied about and bringing many hon. Members into disrepute. Unless the matter is brought out into the open by your guidance, Mr. Speaker, that will bring the House into disrepute
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. SpeakerIt will save time if I take all the points of order at once; I think that they may be allied.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the words used by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) to describe my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). He made his remarks clearly, and in the hearing of hon. Members on both sides of the House. He called my hon. Friend a sanctimonious bugger. That might be funny to Conservative Members, but it is symptomatic of the way in which the House has been dragged into the pits by the behaviour of Conservative Members. Is it not disgraceful of the Conservative Front Bench to do nothing when they have self-confessed criminals in their ranks? You must do something about that, Mr. Speaker, and ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Amery: I am happy to withdraw the second word that I used.
Mr. Terry Lewis: You will have gathered from the temperature on the Opposition side of the House this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that there is great frustration about the whole matter. That frustration is shared by those we represent, as many of my hon. Friends have said. We still need clear guidance from you about how to raise the issue. We certainly need a statement from the Leader of the House, who has been dodging the issue and trying to push it under the carpet. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to do what is best for the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said several times that there are procedures for dealing with such matters. It is not for me to spell them out to hon. Members, because they are long standing and can easily be operated if hon. Members wish to operate them.
All that is required is a motion that is debatable. There are opportunities to debate these matters if the House wants to take them.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Skinner: It is a slight variation on the theme.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
Mr Skinner: When early-day motion 841 was tabled last week in the names of my hon. Friend for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and others, it struck me that it needed to be amended. Accordingly, I went to the Table Office last week with an amendment. It seemed a pretty simple task to amend a motion, and early-day motions can normally

171
be amended without a great deal of trouble, but because the motion concerned the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best) it seemed that special care had to be taken in deciding whether it could be amended. Hundreds of amendments are tabled, but when I went to the Table Office last week I was told immediately that if there were to be any amendment to early-day motion 841 it would have to be a matter for the Clerks at the Table. I thought that that was fair enough and I did not see why there should be any argument about it. Normally there is no argument about tabling an amendment.
It seems, however, that there are different rules for swindling Tory Members and for those who do not come into that category. When I was in my constituency during the weekend I was asked why I could not get the amendment down. I replied, "It seems"——
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Skinner: As you will know, Mr. Speaker, I told the Table Office yesterday that I was not satisfied with the decision of the Clerks. I believe that the administration in the House of Commons has double standards and that that has been demonstrated by the stopping of my amendment. I told the Clerks to send it to you, Mr. Speaker, because you are the final arbiter on whether a motion may be amended.
Along with my constituents, I find it incredible that Members can be thrown out of the Chamber for saying during the miners' strike that the judges are Tories—and they were—when fiddling Tory Members become the subject of motions and we find that such motions cannot be amended. I think that my amendment, which drew attention to the activities of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, was appropriate. I stated in the amendment that the Tory party, instead of disowning the hon. Gentleman, should take him to the——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Skinner: This is a political issue.
Mr. Speaker: It may be a political issue, but, if it is, it is reprehensible to draw the Chair into the argument. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to page 382 of "Erskine May", where it states that a notice of motion is
"not a proper subject for debate"
if it is
"tendered in a spirit of mockery."
I am bound by the rules, as everyone is in this place.
Mr. Harry Cohen rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we should move on.
Mr. Cohen rose——
Mr. Speaker: I shall take one more point of order, and it will be that of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)
Mr. Cohen: I wish to raise a different point of order, Mr. Speaker, but it relates to the same issue. I agree with the points which have been raised by several of my hon. Friends, but I recognise that you have ruled on them, Mr. Speaker.
Many of my constituents will be concerned about the greed that the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) and for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) have exhibited. They are concerned also about the cover-up that they think has been
172
going on and the Government's protection of admitted wrongdoers. I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to what happened in the House the other day during the conversation between——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. CohenThis is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SpeakerIt is not if the event took place the other day. If the hon. Gentleman's point of order related to something that happened today, it may be in order.
r. CohenI wish to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to column 117 of Hansard and an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and yourself. My hon. Friend said that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn had just made a statement that he made multiple applications for British Telecom shares——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman talking about something that happened yesterday?
Mr. Cohen: I am referring you to column 117 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Column 117 is a Division list.
Mr. Cohen: My point of order is still relevant, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to do something of which the entire House would disapprove. He is attempting to raise on a point of order something which happened last week, presumably, and not yesterday. I have been tolerant in taking points of order——
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cohen: I am not challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to deal with a matter which did not arise yesterday, or to perpetuate what is clearly becoming a debate between Back Benchers and the Chair on a day when there is enormous pressure on Back Benchers on both sides of the House to take part in an important debate.
Mr. Cohen: Members' interests have been raised in points of order today, Mr. Speaker : Members' interests are involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has suggested that the greedy share application in which at least £36,000 has been raked off should feature in the Register of Members' Interests. You have not taken up this issue, Mr. Speaker, and it has not been covered.
Mr. Speaker: Very well, I shall deal with it now. The hon. Gentleman knows that shareholdings below a certain proportion do not have to be disclosed in the Register of Members' Interests. Furthermore, he is aware, as is the whole House, that the issue is already under investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Ordered,
That the Territorial Sea Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Portillo.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Sheep and Goats (Removal to Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Local Government (Supply of Goods and Services)
4.8 pm
Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent local councils discriminating against private companies who supply goods and contracting services, and for related matters.
I shall detain the House for only a short time. My Bill is designed to require local councils to allow private contractors the unfettered right to tender for the supply of goods and services, to stop them creating companies of convenience as a way round the Government's economic policy, and to amend an anomaly in the General Rate Act 1967.
The Bill will prevent a serious and growing abuse of purchasing power by some local councils. It is the practice of those councils to try to impose political conditions on private businesses that have nothing to do with their ability to provide goods and services. These councils seek to influence policy and gain publicity in areas such as defence, foreign affairs and employment, subjects that should properly be decided by the House and not by the lethal Left in control of councils such as Brent, Haringey, Lambeth and Newham, whose primary duty it is to provide their ratepayers with the highest standard of services at the lowest possible cost. It is not for them to impose their own interpretation of the law, but simply to administer it.
Over recent years the number of local authorities imposing onerous or irrelevant conditions on private businesses has been growing at an alarming rate. Such impositions range from the requirement to fill in long and detailed questionnaires which are wholly irrelevant to the firms' commercial and technical abilities to outright bans on firms for purely party political dogmatic reasons.
There are now over 40 councils which introduce overtly political considerations at some stage of their contractual process. Labour-controlled Tameside asks potential suppliers whether they make donations to political parties, the tacit threat being that if they subscribe to any party other than its own they will not be included on, or will be removed from, the tender lists. The London borough of Newham asks for information as to whether any of the firms or directors of the firms are freemasons. That is wholly irrelevant to the goods and services the firm is asked to provide. Links with South Africa, work at defence establishments such as Molesworth and Greenham common and the use of self-employed labour are other common areas of lethal Left local interference.
Self-employment is a dynamic sector of our economy. It has been responsible for a major part of the growth of the labour force in recent years and is the specific reason for the welcome and continuing reduction of unemployment. Those local councils which seek to ban this practice attack the freedom of the individual to sell his or her labour wherever they choose within the law. They would hamper economic flexibility and force more people into the black economy or, more sadly, out of work altogether.
My Bill in no way affects a local council's right not to use a contractor on the grounds of incompetence nor would it impair its statutory duties under existing legislation such as health and safety legislation arid the Race Relations Act 1968. I recognise that in some areas of high unemployment a percentage of workers living

175
locally should be employed locally and my Bill will make provision for that. However, it will also prevent the abuse of power by local councils which seek to interfere on issues that are, quite simply, none of their business. It will eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape, it will enhance freedom, encourage business enterprise and stimulate employment.
The second purpose of my Bill is to stop councils from creating companies of convenience, controlled by the same council buying its assets and leasing them back to it simply to evade the Government's financial guidelines. By way of illustration, I shall explain what is happening in Manchester city council. A total of 32 buildings owned by the council are to be sold to an investment company, also owned by the council. That company will lease the buildings back to the council. The money to buy the properties will be borrowed from a number of banks by a company controlled by the council called the Manchester Mortgage Corporation. Among the buildings affected are the central library, the central art gallery and a shopping centre in a suburb of the constituency of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
The buildings are valued altogether at £200 million. The Manchester Mortgage Corporation will hand the £200 million to the council in exchange for a 75-year lease on the 32 properties. The council will put the money into its bank account to earn £15 million a year interest. As soon as the Manchester Mortgage Corporation gains the leases for the properties it will lease them back to the council for 20 years, less one day. Interest will not be paid for the first two years. The poor ratepayers will have to pick up the tab.
Manchester city council is seeking to borrow against its capital assets to finance its day-to-day expenditure. That is illegal. However, that cunning piece of creative accounting is an attempt to achieve a way round the law be redefining the word "capital". My Bill would put an end to that.
The third purpose of the Bill is to amend section 34 of the General Rate Act 1967, which denies local town councils the right to receive direct rateable benefit from energy installations such as power stations. I have a power station in Rugeley in my constituency of Mid-Staffordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who sits on the Government Front Bench, has Sizewell A within his constituency and will soon have Sizewell B. Perhaps I can illustrate the point by referring the House to the Suffolk context. The recently published Layfield report said that one of the matters raised by local interests was the question of the financial benefit the locality could expect to derive from the CEGB in the event of Sizewell B being constructed. Suggestions had been made that the board should finance directly the provision of local amenities such as a swimming pool, sports centre and so on. Concern had been expressed that, although the rates that would be paid to Suffolk coastal district by the board would hugely increase in the event of Sizewell B being built, none or virtually none of this increased revenue would accrue to the benefit of local council finances because there would be a commensurate reduction in the rate support grant to the district council.
My Bill would seek to amend that anomaly. That anomaly does not apply to other public sector buildings
176
such as those owned by British Telecom but simply to energy installations. The CEGB has already drawn that point to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Energy and I sincerely hope that, if the House approves my Bill, my right hon. Friends in those Departments will seek to amend the Act.
The most important aspect of the Bill is to assist the ratepayers in Manchester and in those 40 and growing other local authorities where lethal Left-wing councillors are seeking to discriminate against their day-to-day interests in pursuit of party political dogmatic objectives that have absolutely nothing to do with their functions and their duties to the ratepayer.
Mr. Tony Banks rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Banks: Yes, Sir.
Trying to secure a rational debate on a subject such as contract compliance is rather like going downstairs to advocate temperance in the Strangers' Bar. We have just heard a speech from the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) which is typical of the graceless and mean-spirited approach that one is now getting from the Conservative party. In fact, it is typical of the hon. Gentleman himself.
This Bill is about contract compliance. The hon. Gentleman would like to ban all forms of contract compliance and in that he will find several supporters on his own Front Bench, including the present Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
Mr. Banks: I know because the right hon. Gentleman said so and I must assume that on that occasion he was telling the truth.
Contract compliance is not some alien doctrine. Indeed, the House of Commons passed a fair wages resolution, which is contract compliance, as did the London county council, the forerunner of the Greater London council, in 1891. Even the Government, who are attempting to reduce Britain to a state of economic anarchy, are still prepared to retain certain residual elements of contract compliance in the contracts they issue.
The GLC's work on contract compliance was based on the American model. It was not something imported from Moscow, as the newspapers were suggesting, but was based on the experiences that started in the United States under President Roosevelt when he signed Executive Order 8802 in June 1941. It took the race riots in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s for teeth to be put into that policy and it was President Kennedy who did that with Executive Order 10925 when the phrase "affirmative action" first appeared in the United States. It is now used to describe the generality of all programmes, policies or activities aimed at eliminating discrimination and promoting equal opportunities. It is working in the United States and it could work here.
President Reagan, rather like the Prime Minister, was trying to deregulate across the board. He did not like, and no doubt still does not like, affirmative action and contract compliance, so an onslaught was launched on the concept. However, in the end Reagan was defeated, not just by the

177
civil rights groups but by the American equivalent of the CBI, the National Association of Manufacturers, which said that it did not want to see affirmative action removed. The White House has now admitted defeated, and affirmative action remains. However, at a time when President Reagan has admitted defeat, the Government are prepared to fight the battle again. I can only hope that they meet with the same fate.
In this country, there is a need for contract compliance. The rate of unemployment among young blacks is twice as high as that among young whites, and the Policy Studies Institute estimates that at least one third of all employers discriminate against black applicants at the point of recruitment. Women's earnings as a proportion of men's earnings remain at about 73 to 74 per cent., slightly lower than their high in 1975 at 75·5 per cent. Sexual segregation remains a dominant characteristic of the United Kingdom labour force.
In respect of disabled people, a recent study estimated that an able-bodied applicant was 1·6 per cent. more likely to receive a positive response from an employer than a disabled applicant with equal qualifications. Bringing a court case for failing to meet the 3 per cent. quota established under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 is unheard of. This quota is honoured more in the breach than in the observance by the Government, but when a borough such as Lambeth decides to try to meet the provisions of the 1944 Act it is attacked by the vermin in Fleet street and derided. A number of local authorities are attempting to ensure good employment practices with the employers and contractors with whom they have business. Whatever else one says, given the fact that about 80 per cent. of employment is now in the private sector, it is only by attempting to influence policies within the private sector that one can see these good employment practices pursued. Contract compliance offers just such a way.
We do not need a Bill like this. I know, whatever the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire might have said, what his real intentions are, because he has stated them here on more than one occasion during local government debates. We want a Government-backed scheme of contract compliance along the United States model. Without it, all the protestations by Ministers about deploring discrimination in employment will remain a massive exercise in calculated hypocrisy. Many local authorities are trying to do something positive and deserve to be defended in their actions by the House and not subjected to this cheapjack little Bill at the fag-end of this Government. I ask the House to reject it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Heddle, Mr. Ian Gow, Sir John Page, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. John Watts, Mr. Malcolm Thornton, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Eric Cockeram and Mr. John Powley.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SUPPLY OF GOODS AND SERVICES)
Mr. John Heddle accordingly presented a Bill to prevent local councils discriminating against private companies who supply goods and contracting services, and for related matters : And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 June and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

Foreign Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo.]
Mr. Speaker: Before we start the debate, I point out that we were late in starting, for reasons that the House understands. As no fewer than 28 Back Benchers wish to take part in the debate, I appeal for brief contributions.
4.25 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): It is five months since we last had a full foreign affairs debate, and it is clear that the main event for United Kingdom foreign policy during that period was the visit last week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself to Moscow. It was the high point—to be precise, the high point so far—of this Government's sustained determination to achieve practical improvements in East-West relations. That has long been a central foreign policy objective of the Government. The House may recall that, in the corresponding debate in March 1984, I emphasised that we should try to break down years of mutual mistrust by talking to the Russians from a position of strength and confidence, but I warned them that we should be ready for the long haul. This is in no sense a short-term policy, and, as last week 's visit showed, it produces results.
The House has already heard from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a full account of her talks. I am not today proposing to go over the same ground. Nor can I anticipate all the issues that hon. Members may raise later in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), the Minister of State, will try to deal with some of them when winding up. However, few aspects of international affairs are not affected in one way or another by the East-West relationship, and I propose for the most part to consider matters in that context.
I begin by recording my view that Mr. Gorbachev's arrival at the top of the Soviet leadership has been a major event of real and lasting significance, nationally and internationally. Already, his presence in the Kremlin is having a manifest impact on life and government in the Soviet Union. The new Soviet leadership has brought to its system a long-overdue dose of energy and imagination, fuelled by an increasingly clear realisation that its system has been stagnating.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I made plain both during and after our stay in the Soviet Union that we warmly welcome the attempt by Mr. Gorbachev to reform the Soviet system. Mr. Gorbachev sees the need for that, but inevitably he sees the causes of his country's problems differently. It hardly needs saying that he is no Social Democrat. Probably the authority whom he cites most often is Lenin. He certainly does not intend to abandon the Communist system. On the contrary, he believes that it can and must be made to work better.
Characteristically, Mr. Gorbachev opened his speech at the Kremlin banquet with a rosy account of the superiority of the Socialist system, so we should not make any mistake on that account. That is what he sincerely believes. However, the need for reform is obvious. Some 70 years after the revolution, Muscovites are still obliged to stand queueing not for luxuries but for basic foodstuffs, household goods and other things, the availability of which we have long taken for granted.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to the success of the visit. Is there not a danger, in trying to persuade the Soviet Union to move in certain important directions on human rights and other similar matters by too close a linkage with disarmament, that that linkage will be the death of international diplomacy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises an important point to which I shall refer at a number of stages in my speech. I emphasise that only one linkage is inescapable and that is the extent to which a Government such as that of the Soviet Union fulfil their obligations—to their own people or internationally—in respect of such matters as human rights. That is bound to fortify—or not, as the case may be—confidence in their reliability in other respects. One cannot escape that, and what is true of an individual is true of a Government also.
The features of the Soviet Union to which I referred—chronic inefficiency and bad management—are not confined to that country. Other countries in the COMECON group are in a similar plight. The people of Poland and Romania, for example, are suffering real hardship. Hungary has managed its affairs a good deal more efficiently. I was able to see that for myself on a recent visit. But even they now face a serious foreign debt problem. They are understandably keen to expand their trade with Western Europe, and I hope that the European Community will shortly be able to finalise its mandate for negotiating a trade and co-operation agreement with Hungary.
After a series of journeys to the countries of the Socialist bloc—it is not for me to deny them that description—one must be struck by their utter failure to bring prosperity to their people. The contrast with Western Europe could hardly be greater. The Communist countries face the difficulties of managing failure, while we face, essentially, the difficulties of managing success. If Opposition Members wish to challenge that general proposition, they are welcome to change places with Soviet citizens whenever they wish.
The framework provided by the European Community has brought to Western Europe a period of unprecedented peace and unprecedented prosperity. We ended our period of presidency of the Community in December with the Community making good progress towards the vital objective of a single market in which goods, services and people move about freely. We are continuing to give priority to the liberalisation of the key transport sector—the removal of restrictions on movement by air, sea and land. Our presidency also saw the largest step so far towards curbing the excesses of the common agricultural policy.
Beyond the Community, the world's trading system as a whole certainly faces real problems. As the House knows, protectionist pressures have been gaining ground in response to persistent imbalances between the economies of the major countries. One of the most serious imbalances is with Japan. It must be said again that the Japanese cannot continue to enjoy a free run in Europe without themselves allowing in return free access to their own markets. The Community has set in hand an action programme for particular sectors : the House knows what they are. When I met my European colleagues last weekend, I informed them of the powers that we are taking under the new Financial Services Act, and they readily
180
agreed to my proposal that we should ask Community trade experts to consider, as a matter of urgency, further specific measures.
In regard to Cable and Wireless, the Japanese Government have been left in no doubt of the strength of British views. The company is still in negotiation with the Japanese authorities, and no decisions have yet been made.
Our objective is not to mount a trade war, still less to close markets. It is to secure the opening of those markets. The Japanese share with the rest of the world a responsibility for promoting those objectives.
The issues of free trade and technology have taken us some way from Mr. Gorbachev. Yet, curiously, the improvements that he wants to introduce in the Soviet Union echo—consciously or unconsciously—the basic themes of economic life in the West : personal incentives and responsibility, new scope for small-scale entrepreneurial activity, more freedom for individual farmers, increased reliance on market forces, and so forth. Those are the messages that are coming through from the Soviet system, based on the example of the West.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Is not the real point that Socialism is an idea whose time has come and gone?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend puts his point with characteristic lucidity and compactness.
It can be seen that Mr. Gorbachev's attempts to glean the practical benefits of restructuring and openness within the Soviet Union have political as well as economic implications, and those implications are international as well. We must ask, in that broader context, whether glasnost—openness—is welcome to the West, and I believe that the answer must be yes. I believe that a Soviet Union that is internally more open and flexible should be an easier and more trustworthy international partner. Certainly, we are ready to put the sincerity of the Soviet leadership to the test in different contexts. There is room for modest encouragement in the fact that the Soviet Union appears to be re-examining its approach to many international issues. Of course, the defence and advancement of Soviet interests remains the overriding priority, but there are some signs that the Russians may now be becoming more objective in their approach to at least some major issues.
Mr. David Winnick: I welcome the changes in Russia. I also appreciate the great personal freedoms and liberties that we have in this country, which do not exist in the Soviet Union. But when the Prime Minister was talking to the Soviet leader and lecturing him about human rights, did not Mr. Gorbachev take the opportunity to ask a question that I should have thought was very appropriate—whether the Prime Minister had lectured the King of Saudi Arabia, when he was here a week earlier, about human rights in his country? Should not human rights apply everywhere? We should not simply lecture the Soviets about them.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the whole House would strive to see the achievement of human rights as widely as possible. However, none of that can allow us to escape from the central proposition that this is a question of fundamental importance in our relations with the Soviet Union, and to the relations of many people who wish for freedom to leave that country.
Mr. Winnick: But not in South Africa or Chile
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The world is full of a wide range of standards in the matter, but it is the Soviet Union that I am discussing now. The Soviet Union is one country that has fallen far behind the standards that it has set for itself.
If the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) can stand it, I shall move on to a less tendentious point on a different topic. Mr. Shevardnadze and I found a great deal in common when we analysed the implications of the disastrous war between Iran and Iraq. We agreed that it was in everyone's interests for the senseless carnage involved in that conflict to be brought to an end. Sadly, however, neither of us saw any great prospect of that happening soon. As permanent members of the Security Council, we both undertook to encourage and sustain the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to end the conflict, and we agreed to exchange information on the situation in the Gulf of Hormuz.
British policy is clear. We shall continue to stand for freedom of navigation in the gulf. The House knows that there has been an increase in the time that the ships of the Armilla patrol spend there. That is welcome to our friends in the area, including King Fand, who we were glad to welcome on a highly successful state visit here two weeks ago.
In my talks in Moscow, there was also a measure of agreement on the central Arab-Israel question. We agreed that progress towards negotiations was urgently needed, and that an international conference could be helpful. But more preparatory work is needed, and we shall look forward to discussing that, among other matters, with King Hussein this week. I was encouraged by Mr. Shevardnadze's acknowledgement that contacts between the Soviet Union and Israel could have a role to play : the easing of restrictions on the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union—a central question of human rights—would help. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I pressed them to speed up that process.
The tragic consequences of 40 years of hostility between Israel and the Arab states are all too visible. There is widespread concern in the House about the appalling conditions now experienced by those still trapped in the Palestinian camps in Beirut. We have just made available over £500,000 to the International Red Cross and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for relief work in Lebanon. I explained to Mr. Shevardnadze our strong support for UNIFIL as a force for stability in southern Lebanon. I welcome the fact that the Russians now support it, and pressed them to demonstrate that support by paying their arrears of contributions.
Mr. Ernie RossMay I ask the Foreign Secretary two questions? First, is he aware that a personal threat has been made against the life of Dr. Pauline Cutting by the Amal forces in Beirut? What efforts are the British Government making to ensure that Dr. Cutting will be able to leave Bourj-al-Barajneh when she wishes to? Secondly, given that the EEC Foreign Ministers, back in May 1980, identified the West Bank as a central problem, and also identified the need for the Palestinians and the Israelis to accept each other's rights to exist, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what form he envisages the Palestinian delegation in any international conference taking? Will it be a PLO delegation, a delegation of Palestinian personalities approved by the PLO, or an Arab delegation containing representatives of the PLO?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman raises two points. I am not aware of the specific threat to which he referred in his first point. However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will look into the matter further before he winds up the debate. The hon. Gentleman's second point is at the heart of how to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute, and the question is under discussion yet again in a number of places. It formed the background to our talks in Belgium at the weekend, and it is sustaining our support for progress towards the holding of a conference and our support for the extremely careful work that will be necessary to try to identify the right composition of the delegation. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to give a compact answer to the most difficult question of all in this most difficult area.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom I have great regard for his many successes in a Government who have not always understood some of the problems, must be aware that there is a strategic alliance between Israel and America that puts America out of court to dictate the terms of the composition of any delegation, or about which proposals may be made. Is it not entirely unreasonable that Israel, very much a party to this dispute, and America, with that highly effective political lobby, should be able to lay down regulations as to whom the Palestinian delegation should consist of? There is general acceptance throughout the world that the PLO is the representative of the Palestinians. Why do the British Government not have the guts and the gumption to say so?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman concluded his benign question with a rather sharper shaft of criticism.
Mr. Faulds: That does not lessen my affection.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am most grateful for that. The fact is that no participant or principally interested party can claim to dictate the composition of the final deputation. There are many different moves and decisions to be taken, and many factions could shift their position which would lead to a conclusion that rendered further progress impossible. For example, the Palestine National Council is meeting later this month. If it were to take a decision that was exclusive in a certain direction, that would make it extremely difficult to put together the deputation that in the end would be necessary.
The position that we adopt when we talk to the Soviet Union, the Palestinians, Israel or the United States is that we must endeavour to move towards common ground in the composition of that deputation rather than the reverse. The hon. Member for Warley" East (Mr. Faulds) could detain the House for many hours on this fascinating subject, but I want to say just one thing more about the Lebanon.
I cannot leave that question without saying a word about the British citizens who are held there. We are continuing to do all that we can to help to secure the release of Mr. Terry Waite and the others. I am afraid that I have no fresh news to give to the House about these matters. We are in close contact with all their families, as well as with the Archbishop of Canterbury and his staff.
Our policy remains firm. We shall certainly not make substantive concessions to terrorists and hostage-takers. It remains true that to do so would simply fuel their

183
malevolent ambitions. The middle east will remain on our agenda for talks with the Russians. It has featured in all my four meetings with Mr. Shevardnadze in the last nine months. I have accepted another invitation to meet him in Moscow again later this year.
There are many issues on which we do not agree. One is Afghanistan. The Prime Minister and I stressed last week that positive Soviet moves to end the occupation would change the way that the world assesses Soviet intentions in other areas. The Russians should respect world opinion, withdraw their troops and allow the Afghan people to determine their own future in freedom. As part of any settlement, more than 4 million refugees must be allowed to return to their own country.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week in the House, the Russians would clearly like to withdraw from Afghanistan but do not know how best to go about it. Be that as it may, so long as Soviet troops remain on Afghan soil we must all draw our own conclusions about Soviet claims to be uniquely motivated by the search for peace
The Prime Minister and I have been glad of the chance to discuss this and other issues with our friends from Pakistan on their visit to Britain this week. The whole House has welcomed the progress that has been made in restoring democratic government to Pakistan. We welcome Prime Minister Junejo as well as my distinguished colleague, Yaqub Khan. We applaud their determination to shoulder the burden that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan has placed on their country, and we extend our sympathy to those who have suffered death and injury in recent air attacks on Pakistan.
The House also knows that we have been discussing with the Government of India the improvement of extradition arrangements, with special provision for crimes of terrorism. I understand the concerns of some constituents of hon. Members, including those in the Sikh community in this country. I assure them that the proposed new arrangements will, of course, retain the usual humanitarian safeguards, but they will also reflect the joint determination of Britain and India to stand firm against terrorism. The Indian Government have themselves suffered grievously from this scourge. They need be in no doubt about the firmness of Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the unity and territorial integrity of India.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it my hon. and learned Friend's impression that the Government of India remain the only obstacle to the return, which we would welcome, of Pakistan to the Commonwealth?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That raises a much wider question. I should certainly not form the view that my hon. Friend has offered. The question of Pakistan's return to the Commonwealth would he a matter for the members of the Commonwealth as a whole, and it would have to be discussed on that basis. My hon. Friend should certainly not keep to the conclusion that he has offered on that question.
To return to my central theme of East-West relations, Mr. Gorbachev has made very clear his belief that it is in the interests of the Soviet Union that the military arsenals of both East and West should be significantly reduced.
184
Certainly he appears to realise the enormous strain that ever-increasing Soviet military expenditure places on the Soviet economy, and he is worried about the potential military applications of the West's technological ability. He offers plain views on the best way to bring about cuts in nuclear and other weapons. Nobody should be surprised that our views are not identical, but that did not stop us last week from tackling head-on the key questions : can we negotiate arms reductions on terms that both sides accept, and how should we set about achieving those reductions? Once both sides see that their vital interests can be furthered by agreement in these areas, I believe that patient negotiation can and will bring results. That analysis has been the basis of this Government's long term policy for East-West relations.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, in just a second.
We saw solid results last September in Stockholm—the first major East-West agreement on security issues for years.
Mr. Dalyell: If the Zircon satellite were of such vital technological interest, why was it that, when it was told, the Foreign Office did not act on the information of Professor Sir Ronald Mason and Sir Frank Cooper? Will the Foreign Secretary clear up why the Foreign Office did not do that straight away? Was it not a dereliction of duty not to do so?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is always fascinating to have an insight into the way in which the hon. Gentleman's mind works and to notice that a reference to a vital technological interest in this much broader context immediately presses the button marked "Zircon". The hon. Gentleman can no doubt seek an answer to that question if he catches your eye during the debate, Mr. Speaker. I do not propose to be distracted and to go down that path at the moment.
I was saying that the Stockholm agreement was and should be noted as the first major East-West agreement on security issues for years. In other words, the policy that I have outlined is a policy that has been shown to work—a policy that involves proceedings step by step, cautiously but hopefully. I believe that we can now hope for progress. In particular, we wish to see the total elimination of longer-range intermediate nuclear forces in Europe.
The zero-zero option was a NATO proposal. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in Moscow, we are fully committed to allowing an INF agreement on that basis. Mr. Gorbachev has finally accepted it but, as NATO has always recognised, it would be senseless to remove one whole category of devastating weapons while handing to the Russians a blank cheque for others. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Gorbachev agreed in Moscow on three things : strict verification, constraints on shorter-range missiles and immediate follow-on negotiations to deal with such systems more fully.
One area in which there remains a potentially serious disagreement is that of the right to match Soviet shorter-range intermediate nuclear force deployments. We see no reason why the West should accept a Soviet monopoly. But we are moving forward and if we are able to reach a satisfactory INF agreement that should enhance the

185
prospects of progress in three other important areas: a 50 per cent. cut in strategic weapons, total worldwide elimination of chemical weapons, and negotiations to reduce conventional forces.
Our visit to Moscow has shown the truth of what everybody sensible has known all along, that straight talking does produce dividends. Never before has any Soviet leader heard such a detailed account of Western positions on arms control issues and of where we see scope for progress. Never before have a Western and a Soviet leader had such a long and frank exchange on the rights and wrongs of their respective political systems.
This offers an astonishing contrast to the performance of the Labour party. The Prime Minister and I went to Moscow seeking to establish with the Soviet Union an effective, honest working relationship. The Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) went to Washington in search of a cover-up for their defence policy. Before he left for Washington the right hon. Member for Leeds, East proclaimed :
"Our policies are much the same as President Reagan's."
It would be extremely interesting to know whether that came as more of a surprise to members of the Opposition than it must have to President Reagan. Yet after the meeting in Washington the Leader of the Opposition was at pains to deny that he had even mentioned to President Reagan two of the central planks of Labour defence policy : unilateral nuclear disarmament and the removal of United States nuclear forces from Britain. It must be said in his favour that perhaps he did not have the time to do so.
Far from going to the White House to explain Labour policies, the right hon. Gentlemen hoped that their visit would serve to conceal them. Theirs was an enterprise which did not succeed and which did not deserve to succeed. I noticed that on his return the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said rather plaintively on television that
"Mr. Gorbachev was more critical of Mrs. Thatcher than Mr. Reagan had been of Labour."
I see that the right hon. Gentleman endorses those words. I am not sure whether he was complaining or boasting, but the fact that he was able to make an observation of such manifest confusion demonstrates more clearly than anything else the total confusion in the minds of leaders of the Opposition as to whose side they are really meant to be on. This climax of confusion coincided with the drafting in, as I understand it, of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East to organise a foreign policy success for the Leader of the Opposition. It must be said that that is not a very easy task.
There is a serious side to all this. Only a couple of weeks ago the Labour party issued a glossy policy pamphlet called "Europe: the new detente". It is a document riddled with anti-Americanism which proposes breaking up the common Western approach to the Helsinki agreement. It advocates greater tolerance of totalitarian systems and amounts to a charter for the break-up of NATO and a blueprint for a neutral Europe.
By contrast with that, we have not compromised vital national interests. We have not swallowed alluring proposals that would have weakened our security and the security of the West as a whole. We have shown the world that confident and determined diplomacy gets results. We and the Western Alliance can take satisfaction in having stuck to policies to which Mr. Gorbachev now finds it possible to respond.
186
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last week, our stay in Moscow gave a welcome boost to Anglo-Soviet trade. It enabled us to bring to a conclusion bilateral work which has been going on for many months on three intergovernmental agreements and a memorandum of understanding. The documents that I signed dealt with such matters as co-operation on space research, upgrading the hotline between London and Moscow, the siting of new embassies here and in Moscow, school exchanges, an end to jamming of broadcasts and more exchanges of journalists and television programmes.
We made it clear in Moscow that the Soviet Union's readiness to live up to its Helsinki commitments, particularly those on human rights—and this is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend)—inevitably affected Western readiness to trust the Soviet Union in other areas.
We raised well over 100 individual human rights cases with the Soviet leadership. It undertook to look into those cases. There has been some progress in this area, which we should acknowledge, but it is still far from enough. The changes that are taking place are exemplified by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I were able to meet at the British embassy such people as Dr. Sakharov and his wife, and Mr. and Mrs. Begun. I found those occasions very poignant. Here I was meeting people in Moscow whose names I had myself raised time and time again with the Soviet leadership. Now they were free at last, after years of persecution, persecution simply because they believe in the rights and freedoms which we enjoy and take for granted. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is not able to join the whole House in concluding that it is changes of this kind that publicly remind Governments that East-West relations are about much more than the acronyms of arms control and that the human dimension—people and their lives and liberty—remains absolutely central.
So, too, is the continuing wider mistrust, which we are only just commencing to break down. So, too, is the huge armoury of weapons, chemical and conventional as well as nuclear, which the Soviet Union and its allies continue to deploy in offensive formation against the peoples of western Europe. We do not say that those weapons prove an intention to attack, but they represent a clear threat; they demonstrate continuing suspicion and hostility towards the outside world.
If Mr. Gorbachev, with his insight and his leadership, can at long last help us to start breaking down these barriers he will indeed have made a mark on history. It must be said that the visit of my right hon. Friend to Moscow was in itself a significant step forward. It is greater understanding between the super-powers that will bring greater security to the world, and my right hon. Friend has made a historic contribution to this.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: I notice that my right hon. and learned Friend is coming to the end of his statement and I want to deflect him for one moment from his central theme to NATO and relations between Greece and Turkey. He was in Moscow during the dispute in the Aegean. Did he raise with Mr. Shevardnadze whether the Soviet Union accepts the Aegean as international waters? On a broader point, how does he see present relations between Greece and Turkey

187
affecting NATO and what initiatives can and should Her Majesty's Government consider for bringing those two countries closer together?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is the kind of point that I expect from my hon. Friend. I know that it is a matter in which he takes a serious interest. It may be a trailer of the speech that I hope he will be making, but if not my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of dealing with it later on.
Throughout all these contacts we have kept out allies closely informed. Over the weekend, as the House knows, I had the opportunity of a full discussion with Community colleagues in Belgium. On Thursday of this week I shall go to Washington for another of my regular meetings with Secretary of State George Shultz, whom I last met in January. I shall take the opportunity to brief him fully on our talks in Moscow prior to his own visit there next week.
We shall also, of course, discuss the full range of disarmament and regional questions. I shall make it clear that we should like to see his talks in Moscow make progress and that he goes with our good wishes, but that we, like the United States and the rest of our allies, are clear that it must be on a basis which does not compromise the security of the West.
International events as they unfold underline more and more the relevance and effectiveness of this Government's policies on arms control and East-West affairs. Nothing has highlighted the irrelevance and ineffectiveness of the polices of the Opposition quite so starkly as the events of the last week. The unilateralist party finds itself like a dinosaur, stranded in a changed world, stranded without a future, but still, I fear, with a considerable capacity for wreaking havoc. For years now the Opposition have attempted to portray Her Majesty's Government as aggressive, inflexible and a threat to peace. But in this, as in so many other respects, they have been proved totally and absolutely wrong.
We welcome the changes that Mr. Gorbachev is trying to introduce, but it is idle to expect the iron curtain to melt away overnight. The Soviet Union represents a powerful challenge to the West, determined to uphold the Communist system at home and to advance its influence abroad. We can do business with the Soviet Union, but only if the West stays united and only if we have serious policies, pursued in a serious way by serious leaders. That is what the Government have offered for the last eight years, and intend to continue to offer for a number of years to come.
5 pm
Mr. Denis Healey: First, let me say that we on this 'side of the House welcome greatly this debate, delayed as it has been, and delayed even further this afternoon. I regret that I shall have to leave for a visit to the far east before it is concluded—[Interruption.] I shall be working for Britain.
Let me start by offering the Foreign Secretary sympathy. He was ignored in Russia and he was snubbed in Europe, but I think that he was right to give a jaunty welcome to the miracle of Moscow, by which I mean the conversion of the Prime Minister to a rational view of the Soviet Union which the Foreign Secretary has been urging on her, his briefers tell us, at least since 1983. For that achievement I forgive him for allowing his electoral
188
preoccupations to entangle him in a web of metaphor at the end of his speech, which left us perplexed about what he was trying to get at.
The Foreign Secretary was right, as was the Prime Minister last week, in telling us that East-West relations are the key to the stability and peace of the world. He was right to endorse the Prime Minister's view that we now stand at a historic turning point in East-West affairs and that, provided we are patient and deal with the problems step by step, we may make quite rapid progress towards improving the position.
I am bound to remind the House that the biggest obstacle to progress over the last eight years has been the Prime Minister's personal hatred of the Soviet Union. The Foreign Secretary will recall the outburst of megaphone diplomacy, as his predecessor described it, by the Prime Minister in October 1983 when she described the Soviet system as
"a modern version of the early tyrannies of history—its creed barren of conscience, immune to promptings of good and evil."
Only a few weeks ago her parliamentary private secretary told a doubting electorate somewhere in Yorkshire that if Britain cancelled the Trident programme it would be transformed into a nightmare society, an East European style people's democracy with Soviet bases targeting missiles at the United States of America.
Mr. David Watt, whose recent tragic death all of us on both sides of the House deplore, reported recently in The Times that the Prime Minister had held a seminar at Chequers on change in the Soviet Union. After she had been told by experts from the United States and Britain of the nature of the changes under way, she permitted herself an astonishing outburst in which she shrieked :
"Socialism is an unmitigated evil. They never change."
The Prime Minister produced a trailer for her visit to Moscow in that hair-raising speech at Torquay which was fiercely criticised by her Soviet hosts. Even as her aircraft was landing at Moscow airport she told the journalists aboard that Russia could not be trusted to keep any disarmament agreement if it put people in prison for their religious or political views. She said that as long as it did so it would be a danger to other countries. That remark came from the main protector in the world of the apartheid regime in South Africa who had just spent a week in London paying obsequious court to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia.
The Prime Minister stuck to the same line in her speech at the Kremlin banquet and was rapped over the knuckles by Mr. Gorbachev for her pains. We remember the headlines—"Icy Gorbachev flays Thatcher". No, I am sorry; such a headline is applied only to what the Leader of the Opposition does not do in Washington and not to what the Prime Minister does in Moscow. Yet 24 hours after making that speech, for which she was immediately castigated by the Soviet leader, everything had changed. I watched the interview she had with Mr. Wheeler. She was melting and dewy-eyed. She praised Gorbachev to the skies as a man of "fantastic courage", "utterly outstanding and reasonable", who could be trusted implicitly to carry out any promise he made.
I have been wondering ever since what produced this miraculous conversion. Was it those 12 hours of philosophical debate? The discussion lasted for 12 hours because every now and then Mr. Gorbachev actually succeeded in getting a word in, and there are signs that at

189
some stages she actually listened to what he said. Later, the Soviet spokesman, Mr. Gerasimov, talked of a chemistry between them. If the press reports are right, I suspect that the chemistry was a love potion.
A Daily Mail reporter wrote while she was there:
"It is possible that only a woman, and perhaps only this woman, would have the effrontery or audacity to use her sex as a weapon quite ruthlessly. But she turned it on like an old time Hollywood film star—and they loved it."
Let me quote from another great national newspaper :.
"The Spring-like pictures also show why Mrs. Thatcher refused to let her husband Denis accompany her on this historic visit. For photographer Ken George and I witnessed the Prime Minister strolling arm-in-arm with Mr. Gorbachev, pausing to kiss and cuddle him—and even tickle him under the chin like some flirty schoolgirl. Romance, April-style, was clearly in the air."
One touch of Venus transformed the iron lady into Lola Montez.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): The right hon. Gentleman is like a small boy at a fair with a bran tub, putting his hand into the bran to see what little parcelled insult he can bring out. He knows very well that the words he has just quoted about tickling under the chin and all that come from a Daily Mirror April fools day joke. He knows that is true and he should have the decency to tell the House that.
Mr. Healey: I am surprised that the Minister has the brass to show his face; after all, he told us only yesterday that the Prime Minister should go for a general election today. His disgraceful comments after a recent visit to Moscow led the Soviet official spokesman to describe him as guilty of self-advertisement for election purposes. The House is familiar with his record.
The question we have to ask ourselves is, in this love tryst, as it was described by The Sunday Times, who seduced whom? The fact is that Mr. Gorbachev won hands down. He converted her lock, stock and barrel. As Julius Caesar nearly wrote—she came, she saw, he conquered. The Prime Minister got nothing concrete whatever out of her visit—a verdict that was given by The Sunday Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, The Independent and even The Times itself. She got nothing for Britain but she got something for her party, because her royal progress—in which she found it impossible to use the singular person pronoun and scattered the word "We" like confetti when referring to her own royal personage—was carefully orchestrated by her Potemkin, Mr. Bernard Ingham, as useful pre-election propaganda. This is how the outside world—United States, Germany, France and Italy—saw the visit.
The psychological transformation that the Prime Minister seems to have undergone has some relevance and will be useful if it lasts. Let me list some of the changes in her position by the end of her visit compared with her position before she left. Only a month ago she said that we could not accept the zero option for medium range missiles without simultaneous cuts in shorter range intermediate missiles. Now she says—and the Foreign Secretary repeated it—that all she is asking for is a freeze pending immediate negotitations.
She distanced herself from President Reagan on three issues. She rejected the idea in her Kremlin speech that the strategic defence initiative could ever provide a complete defence against nuclear weapons. She put forward her own independent proposal for how to deal with the ABM treaty
190
and the strategic defence initiative so as to clear the way for 50 per cent. cuts in strategic nuclear weapons. The American Administration immediately rejected the proposals that she had made. She also put forward proposals for verifying a ban on chemical weapons, which Mr. Gorbachev accepted and the United States so far has rejected. All these are useful and important contributions to East-West relations on which I congratulate the Government and the Foreign Secretary, who has worked so hard for what Mr. Gorbachev achieved so fast.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Educating Rita.
Mr. Healey: Educating Rita, indeed, as my hon. Friend suggests.
The Prime Minister made one point that the Russians must think about much more carefully. So far they have refused to agree on any cuts in strategic nuclear forces unless the United States abandons the strategic defence programme. But, as she pointed out in Moscow, there is no chance of that programme achieving the objectives that President Reagan originally set for it and still believes it can achieve. There is no chance of the American Congress funding it at the level that the President wants, and still less of funding it if it is an obstacle to a strategic nuclear weapons agreement. It is almost certain that the next American President will revise or abandon it as soon as he takes office.
For those reasons, the Soviet Union would be wise to get on now with drafting an agreement for a 50 per cent. cut in strategic nuclear weapons and leave aside the question of SDI for the moment. I know that Mr. Sakharov—and I am delighted that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were able to see him—has argued a similar case both in the Moscow forum and in a recent interview in Newsweek.
The only thing I wish the Prime Minister would do—if she is serious about this shift in her policy—is to join the German Chancellor Herr Kohl in clearly rejecting President Reagan's current attempts to broaden the ABM treaty and to begin a programme of tests in space which would certainly violate it. I hope that she will be emboldened to do so because only last week the joint chiefs in the United States and the head of the Livermore laboratory, which is responsible for conducting the star wars research, both said that such a broadening and such tests in space were unnecessary.
Having given a fair tribute to the Prime Minister's important changes in position, one thing still sticks out like a sore thumb—what the Russians call her nuclearphilia, her obsessive belief that nuclear weapons are both necessary and good. Here, as Mr. Arbatov, the Soviet foreign affairs spokesman, said, she was a good deal less forward looking than President Reagan, who believes that nuclear weapons are immoral and uncivilised and only yesterday described them as "agents of annihilation", and who wants to eliminate them and simultaneously to reduce the gap between the two sides in conventional weapons.
There is one point upon which I hope the Minister will, in reply, comment. The Prime Minister on Thursday, in her statement to the House, said that she thought that President Reagan had dropped his objective of abolishing all strategic nuclear missiles in the next 10 years. Two days after the Prime Minister met President Reagan, Mr. Shultz made a long and impressive speech on American defence and disarmament policy in which he strongly argued in

191
favour of the President's proposal to abolish all strategic nuclear missiles and explained precisely why he was in favour of that.
I see from the frantic colloquy between the great men on the Government Front Bench that they are quite disturbed that she should have said that, but they missed it during the helter-skelter rambling to which we were treated at Question Time on Thursday.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: The right hon. Gentleman is contemplating a world where certain nuclear weapons have been removed and he is contemplating the size of conventional forces. Does he believe that any money that is saved from the abolition of the Trident system should be spent on improving our conventional forces, or is he also contemplating a reduction in expenditure on conventional forces?
Mr. Healey: I am grateful for that intervention. My right hon. Friend and I have made clear for many months that we plan to spend all the money saved on Trident and Polaris—which we estimate, after cancellation costs, at about £8,000 million—on strengthening our conventional forces, whom the present Prime Minister is robbing of 30 per cent. of the equipment promised to them over the next few years in order to pay for the Trident programme. I hope that when we come to vote on these matters, perhaps in the Defence Estimates, we can guarantee that we shall have the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) in the Lobby with us.
We must move on the question of the Prime Minister's attachment to nuclear weapons if we are to have any success in the negotiations on the shorter range nuclear missiles, to which the Foreign Secretary referred in his speech. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister claim that the Soviets have a superiority of 9:1 in these missiles—a characteristic inflation of the NATO estimate, which is only 6:1 and which has been repeated several times in the past week.
The question I put to the Foreign Secretary is: if it makes sense to eliminate a 3:1 superiority in Soviet medium range nuclear weapons, and if it makes sense—and I agree with the Foreign Secretary that it does—to aim at a global zero option because it is much easier to verify the elimination of all weapons of this category than to verify that only 100 are left on each side, surely the right way to deal with the shorter range nuclear weapons is to aim at a zero option there as well.
I find it difficult to understand why the Prime Minister is aiming to freeze a 9: 1 Soviet superiority rather than getting rid of the lot. It is true, as the Foreign Secretary said, that he would like the right for America to match the number of Soviet shorter range missiles. However, the United States has already made it clear that if it matches the Soviets, it is not prepared to pay. The Europeans would have to pay. The German Government have made it clear that they are not prepared to receive an increased number of those missiles at the very moment when medium range missiles are being withdrawn. It is difficult to explain any reasoning behind the Government's attachment to keeping shorter range missiles in Europe where they admit the Russians have an enormous superiority. The only explanation is nuclearphilia. That is
192
a psychological disorder that has been described at some length by Soviet spokesmen since they were exposed to its consequences during the Prime Minister's visit.
In so far as the Government ever attempt a reason for not agreeing to the zero option on shorter range forces, it is the inferiority of the West in conventional weapons. However, the Prime Minister regularly and grossly exaggerates the Soviet superiority. There was an example of that only the other day when the American ambassador told us that the Soviet tank superiority in Europe was 2: 1. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister keep telling us that it is 3: 1. The truth is that on this matter—as in the laughable attempts of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to cost Labour's spending programmes—the Government first think of a number and then double it.
According to the Americans' estimate in terms of armoured division equivalents, the Soviet Warsaw pact superiority to NATO is only 1·2:1. According to NATO, between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of Soviet forces in Eastern Europe are intended to garrison the East European countries rather than to take part in any operations against Western Europe.
The most astonishing feature of the Government's position is that they claim that there is a Soviet superiority in conventional weapons and that that is why we need nuclear weapons, but they plan a 30 per cent. cut in the new conventional weapons for the British Army, Navy and Air Force. A tank commander has already resigned his commission because his tanks do not have enough spares even to conduct an exercise, never mind to fight a battle. Similar remarks were made by the recently retired Chief of the Defence Staff, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, in another place the other day.
The best way to match Soviet superiority is not for us to build up—although I told the hon. Member for Bexleyheath that the Labour party plans to build up with the money that we would save on nuclear weapons—but for both sides to build down. In its communique following the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Warsaw pact in Moscow a fortnight ago, the Warsaw pact offered a cut of 25 per cent. in the forces on both sides over the next three years and, most importantly, suggested that there should be additional cuts in areas where one side or the other currently has a superiority. We heard nothing from the Foreign Secretary this afternoon about the Government's approach to the negotiations of reductions and achieving equivalents by negotiation in conventional forces in Europe. Indeed, as I understand it, NATO has been wrestling with how to deal with that problem for nearly a year and so far has completely failed to reach agreement within the Alliance.
I predict with a little more confidence than the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the leader of the Social Democratic party—where is he, by the way?—that it is very likely that Mr. Gorbachev during his visit to Czechoslovakia at the end of this week will announce new Soviet proposals in those areas.
It is common ground between the Foreign Secretary and myself that the advent of Mr. Gorbachev, Glasnost Perestroika and the other new developments in the Soviet Union, present the world with a golden opportunity to make progress on the issues which, for so long, have divided East and West. Indeed, the Prime Minister in an uncharacteristic burst of poetry said in Moscow :
"There is a tide in the affairs of men".

193
It is amazing what that little touch of Mikhail in the night did for her. The German Foreign Minister rightly said that it would be a crime against history if the West was to reject this opportunity. It would be a tragedy for Britain if our Prime Minister was to reject the opportunity for the sake of buying a new nuclear missile system that Britain cannot afford, which the United States may not provide and which certainly no British Government would ever use.
The Foreign Secretary referred in his opening remarks to the important disagreement between Britain and Japan. He would agree with me that the threat of an incredible act is not a credible deterrent. We had a small example of that when we threatened to shoot our left foot off if we did not get what we wanted from the Japanese by forcing those Japanese firms that we enticed into London at great expense to set up shop in Paris or Frankfurt. The threat to start a nuclear war is a much less credible threat. The threat of suicide is not credible. However, the Prime Minister is not threatening suicide; she is threatening the destruction of civilisation and maybe of mankind. I hope that the wonderful things that we have seen happening to the Prime Minister in Moscow can be carried that little bit further and that she will reflect again on the obstacles that she is placing in the way of the kind of agreement that is now possible with the Soviet Union. I hope that she will join the great majority of mankind who want to get rid of nuclear weapons and establish a new system of security for the whole world.
5.27 pm
Mr. Francis Pym: What an unworthy speech we have just heard. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) fancies himself as an expert on foreign affairs, but through much of his speech he trivialised matters of the utmost concern to millions of people. He showed, if I may say so, that the time has come for him to make way for a more serious figure.
One of the misfortunes of contemporary British politics is the absence of a broad all-party approach to foreign affairs and defence. The absence of that weakens the British position and the West as a whole. Of course, both sides of the House have different versions of that misfortune. However, happily the people will be asked very soon to make their choice. I do not believe that they will find that choice too difficult. In the meantime, I have nothing but contempt for the partisan deviations from common sense in which the Opposition indulge in their contortions. That damages our security and does them no good.
The visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Moscow was of exceptional importance for two reasons. First, if I may put it this way, it was the laying of the foundation stone of the structure to create a broad dialogue with the Soviet Union. Such a dialogue has always been a prerequisite for reaching negotiated agreements. Of course, there are others such as adequate strengths, resolution and so forth. Whatever our differences, there must be some framework for a practical coexistence and that need has been given a fresh impetus by my right hon. Friend's visit. How that will develop remains to be seen, but at any rate it has provided a powerful boost.
The second reason for the importance of the visit is its bearing on the reforms now being undertaken in the Soviet Union—whatever they may turn out to be. The visit has
194
dramatically demonstrated the enormous importance that we in the West attach to these reforms, and no one could have conveyed that message as well as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
My approach to the whole question of East-West relations starts from an assessment of the balance of strength. That balance is heavily in favour of the West in terms of human and physical resources, philosophy and ideals, technological skills and economic attainments. In only two areas has the Soviet Union an advantage. Its first advantage is in the military field, where it has superiority in conventional, chemical and nuclear capabilities. It is this superiority that is the reason for the Soviet Union's superpower status.
The Soviet Union's second advantage is its propaganda capability. I have never doubted that the people of the Soviet Union want peace just as much as we do, but there is no way of reaching them. They hear only what the Kremlin decides to tell them, except on this occasion when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was enabled to break through. The Soviet Union's total control of the media is in stark contrast to the position in the West, where at times there seems to be equal time for Soviet views as for our own.
The balance overall is strongly in our favour and that is one reason why the outlook from Moscow is so chilling. In that case, the best way to deal with the situation is, first, to ensure that our deterrent is at all times effective and in good shape. That is our shield which will deter attack and maintain peace. We must make whatever progress we can in negotiations and then get on with our business calmly and patiently while waiting for the inexorable movement of events and the rise of new generations in the Soviet Union which will cause changes in their system to occur.
I have always thought it a mistake to hurl abusive and futile rhetoric across the world. What had to be achieved was some co-existence with the Soviet Union, not accepting any of its ideals that are abhorrent to us but establishing a relationship which, in so far as it might have any effect in the Soviet Union, would encourage change. In essence, that was what the policy of containment was intended to achieve but it has had virtually no success so far. Now there are signs of change, but it is much too soon to assess them.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East talked about a historic turning point. That may or may not turn out to be the case. There is no change in the basic aims of the Soviet Union. It will not suddenly become a democracy or abandon its objectives. There is as yet no shred of evidence for that. It has released some detainees, but there is no suggestion from the Soviet Union that detention was wrong in the first place. The gap in defence capability continues to widen in favour of the Soviet Union, contrary to what many people wish to think. However, there is a change in style, which the Prime Minister's visit proved, and in due course that change can be judged.
Another change is also possible, and it is an improvement in the Soviet economy. Clearly, Mr. Gorbachev understands what has to be changed and is making a major effort to change it. There must still be some doubt about how successful he will be. He faces considerable internal opposition, and there is no change so far in the existing highly bureaucratic system, and no inducement for individual enterprise. Some commentators give him only a 50:50 chance. We shall see. If he could bring about a significant improvement in the economy he

195
would achieve a notable change in the balance of strength between East and West. Perhaps it would not turn the tables, but nothing else would bring about so great a change in the Soviet Union.
I suspect that Mr. Gorbachev has another policy objective and it is to withdraw from Afghanistan. I think that has been confirmed by what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his speech. That objective is not for ideological reasons but because Mr. Gorbachev is not winning the war. It was, of course, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan that turned world opinion so strongly against Russia. Whether there will be a withdrawal is an open question, but until there is a very large blot stains the Soviet record, as does the Berlin wall and many other things.
If the Soviet Union succeeds in sustaining openness, improving the economy and withdrawing from Afghanistan, there will be a big impact on the international scene and on people's attitude to the Soviet Union. In that event we would be entering a new phase in world affairs. That would be even more the case if the Soviet Union took a new and more relaxed attitude to eastern Europe. I have always believed that one of our major strategic objectives is to keep hope alive in the countries of eastern Europe, the hope that one day they will regain their right to decide their future for themselves. The division in Europe is a violence to our cultural and historical tradition which in the long run cannot endure. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on his attention to eastern Europe. I had planned to make those trips myself and I am delighted that he has taken such a great deal of trouble about it.
Already we are facing a time when the Soviet Union is projecting itself quite differently and is likely to be perceived quite differently. We must be prepared for that and understand the implications, because such a change has important policy implications and I should like to mention a few. The first of those, which I have already mentioned, is that until we see the actual strength and significance of the change we must remain hopeful but sceptical. Proof or lack of it will come soon enough and we must be realistic about it. Secondly, there must be consistency of policy throughout the West as a whole. That comes from a sustained purpose backed by the necessary means to carry it out. Of course, the Soviet Union can do this quite easily, because its purpose is pursued with the ruthlessness that is characteristic of its whole system. The West has an equally clear purpose.
Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman says he wants to see actions. Is he thinking in terms of actions coming from only one side, or does he mean actions from, perhaps, the United States on, for instance, star wars?
Mr. Pym: I am speaking particularly about the changes that we see taking place in the Soviet Union. The West has an equally clear purpose. It is to prevent the spread of Communism and to convince the Third world of the superiority in every way of our system, the essence of which is the freedom of the individual. We must convince them that in our parliamentary democracies all views count. Of course, that makes it a more difficult system to manage, but it is a far stronger hand to play.
196
Consistency of policy requires better co-ordination of national views. That can be difficult when national interests conflict or when domestic political interests conflict with international needs. Of course the national interest is of paramount importance to every Government, but so is the international interest, which can sometimes become subsumed by domestic political pressure. A dangerous contemporary example that was mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is the threat of protectionism, which is a form of nationalism. The politics of protectionism may be understandable and its emotion is very human, but any lapse into the trap of protectionism can only lead to impoverishment and the undermining of security.
The world is interdependent, and internationalism must be nurtured in every democracy. The work done today by major international bodies such as GATT, the IMF, the European Community and many more is indispensable and has been made possible only by the confidence in international solutions that was shown after the war. Our task is to carry that forward and build on it.
The next aspect of policy with which I should like to deal is the allocation of resources. Every country is experiencing the enormous cost of defence, the Soviet Union no less than the rest of us. The total defence of the West could be bought at a lower cost if the political constraints against rationalisation and integration could be overcome. Even if they were, the allocation of resources would remain a key issue.
We need to reconsider whether collectively we commit enough resources to preventive action to reduce the risks of subversions and regional conflict. The Soviet Union continues to pursue its nefarious aims around the world with considerable skill. The question arises as to what extent countries such as Nicaragua and Cuba are tools of the Soviet Union or to what extent they are free agents. They are not free, in the sense that they need a great deal of aid, which can only come from Communist sources. The revolutionary zeal that they exhibit cannot be manufactured by Moscow; there is an indigenous element. The idea that all subversion is being done by surrogates is misleading because it obscures the fact that a movement for revolution must already exist in such countries. It would be more realistic to say that such conflicts are not only aspects of East-West competition, but that they also have indigenous causes and consequences.
The policy objective, therefore, is to deny the Soviet Union the opportunity to make such trouble, which is, to say the least, a formidable task and one that encompasses all aspects of international relations.
I shall take one example, which was mentioned by my right hon and learned Friend—the debt crisis. To leave that unresolved is sure to lead to disruption of some kind. It is contrary to the policy objective. We know that efforts are being made at the moment by the Group of Five to solve this problem, but it is nowhere near to solving it yet. Finance and loans have been provided on a massive scale without foreseeing the consequences, such as that most of those countries have little or, in some cases, virtually no means of repayment, and also the unforeseen consequence of the rise in population. Mexico, Kenya and many other countries are such examples.
What has been our response? It has been an insistence on sterner economic discipline. That is fine as far as it goes, but there are obvious political limits to this, which have already been reached in some countries. The only way to

197
obtain more economic discipline is to accompany it with more help. I am glad that the Government are now providing that help, but few others are. I do not see how else the West can create an environment which reduces the opportunities for subversion. I should like to see the annual summit of the seven industrialised nations address this question far more directly and comprehensively than it has thus far because it has a profound bearing on the security of the West.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the all-party committee on overseas development is issuing a pamphlet on the subject of debt, which is to be published on 5 May, and which puts forward some serious suggestions from which the British Government can take initiatives to try to produce a solution to the indebtedness of the poorest and Latin American countries?
Mr. Pym: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Foreign Secretary is doing all that he can. However, it is a major international question. What concerned me for a long time, including when I was Foreign Secretary, was that the issue did not receive the degree of attention that it required.
My final point concerns the supreme importance of keeping our electorate fully informed on East-West relations and of maintaining its expectations at whatever level the circumstances justify. Public opinion is of crucial importance. It is the bottom line of our defence, which is why the lack of all-party agreement on this matter is so dangerous.
If the Sovet Union is beginning to appreciate the deep significance of public opinion, that is a huge advance. Even if it is, the process will take decades to develop. The changes that we are beginning to see must not be exaggerated; they must be encouraged and we must be patient and see how they develop.
The sheer complexity of arms control negotiations must constantly be brought home to people, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have done, otherwise too much will be expected too soon, which will lead to disappointment and frustration. That must be avoided at all costs.
What is required is the utmost dedication to the negotiations in Geneva, Vienna and every other forum until agreements which are acceptable and verifiable to both sides are achieved, however long or short a time that takes.
In the meantime, we must maintain our deterrent in full working order at all times and at whatever level the circumstances of the time require. We must build with enthusiasm and imagination the best working relationship that we can with the Soviet Union and hope that it will be reciprocated.
These are just some of the main considerations for the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to keep in mind in the immediate future. There is no doubt in my mind that the world is entering a phase when the challenges and opportunities are enormous. It is a huge test of statesmanship to ensure that those challenges are met and that those opportunities are taken.
5.45 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: During the exchanges which took place last Thursday after the Prime
198
Minister had reported on her visit to Russia I observed that a radical transformation in the defence and foreign policies of this country was in progress. I had the impression, after I had said that, that a number of hon. Members were puzzled as to what I was referring to, but that the Prime Minister was not one of those who were in any difficulty. In the recent past, I will not say that she helped to bring about that transformation, but her actions and words have illustrated and strikingly underlined it.
For the past 30 years the defence and therefore the foreign policy of this country have been based on the nuclear hypothesis, which is otherwise known as the concept of the nuclear deterrent. It asserts that the superiority in conventional armaments of Russia and her allies over ourselves and our allies is so great that the Soviet Union is now and has been during the last generation prevented from engulfing western Europe in war only by the certainty that the United States, in such an event, would resort to the use of its nuclear arsenal.
The nuclear hypothesis has gone though a number of phases, in each of which it has endeavoured to cope with its main difficulty, which is that of its sheer incredibility. Its earliest phase was that of the tripwire, which was the simplest form of the nuclear hypothesis—the first toecap of a Russian soldier which crosses the line dividing Europe will be the signal for the nuclear holocaust to be unchained by the United States. That was incredible in itself because of the lack of balance between the nature of a perceived event and the response to it, as well as the difficulty of assuming that the United States would so closely identify itself with a certain state of affairs in western Europe as to be prepared, and at all stages visibly ready, to take that step for the sake of it.
Progressively the tripwire had to be modified. The two days' interval was lengthened to five days. Then, it was thought to be quite a good idea for us to have a battle or two and see how we would get on following a Russian invasion. An American SACEUR even had the thought that it would be a good plan, in the throes of a Russian invasion, to counter-attack the country from which that invasion had been launched.
But the biggest development which took place in the theory of the nuclear deterrent, however it originally came about, was the introduction of the intermediate range ballistic missile.
The beauty of the intermediate range ballistic missile was that whereas previously the Soviet Union and the United States, facing one another across the infernal chessboard, had been equally at risk by any move which they made upon it. By means of the intermediate range ballistic missile it was possible to suppose that they could make at any rate gambits in the deadly game without involving their own existence and safety or the survival of the populations which they represented. So, thanks not least to the intermediate range ballistic missile, we lived, until recently, with reasonable contentment under the umbrella, not of the nuclear deterrent, but of the nuclear hypothesis. It is, incidentally, a hypothesis of extreme convenience and, for Treasury Ministers, of extreme advantage, in that if one can believe that one's enemy is kept at bay by the threat of someone else using nuclear armaments that is about the cheapest defence policy available.
This delightful state of affairs has in recent years been disturbed by two events. The first is star wars. Star wars raised the terrible prospect that there might be an effective

199
means of neutralising the inter-continental ballistic missile, whereby the two great giants who held what had become to be seen as the balance of terror would contract out of the game altogether : the deterrent would be switched off by the invulnerability of the two providers of the mutual terror.
Thus, it was with great difficulty and not without the inducement of a number of valuable research and development contracts that the United States European allies were brought along to acquiesce in the United States engaging in the rational activity of discovering whether there was after all some defence against nuclear attack. Even so, they were only quieted by the apparent assurance obtained from the United States that it was only engaged in experiment and research, and that, if there were any danger of effective protection being devised, of course the United States would not avail itself of that protection without the agreement of its European allies. That was the first recent event which shook to its foundations the nuclear deterrent with which we had lived these last 30 years.
The second and more recent event was the threat to the intermediate ballistic missile itself. This was sprung upon us by our old friend Gorbachev with his suggestion to the United States, "Let's both scrap them, old boy; let's have the zero option"—I do not know why it is called the zero option but it is fashionable to call it that. "Let's get rid of the intermediate range ballistic missile altogether." Terror then spread through the ranks of the European end of the NATO Alliance. What were they to do with their nuclear deterrent because they would lose the possibility of a credible nuclear gambit sufficient to provide for their defence and would be back again staring in the face the basic inconceivability of United States suicide as the response to Russian aggression.
The negotiations and observations of the Prime Minister on that subject in the last few weeks, and particularly during and subsequent to her visit to Russia, have been particularly revealing. The Prime Minister was reluctant to see what was called the zero option. Logically—given her assumptions—she wanted something considerably less far-reaching. She therefore said, "If we are to lose the intermediate range ballistic missile, we cannot stop there; as soon as possible, and preferably within any such negotiation, we must do something about short range ballistic missiles." But the most significant point was when she went on to say that we must aim at a conventional forces balance. So, after all our journeys of the last 30 or 40 years, the disappearance of the intermediate range ballistic missile revived the old question of the supposed conventional imbalance between the Russian alliance and the North Atlantic Alliance. The rabbit had gone back down the hole from which it originally emerged.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): The right hon. Gentleman's premises are interesting, but they are not quite up to date. The spectrum of deterrence will not be dramatically altered by the zero option if we take into account that submarine-launched ballistic missiles and air-launched missile systems will remain. The right hon. Gentleman says that if intermediate range ballistic missiles go we shall not be able to inflict massive destruction on
200
centres of population in the Soviet Union. That is not so, since strategic deterrents will remain and many medium-range systems of other types will remain.
Mr. Powell: I was obviously not clear. My point was that with the disappearance of the intermediate range ballistic missiles from the picture we should be back again with the strategic exchange—that very exchange between the heartlands of the two nuclear giants which underlay the inherent incredibility of the whole nuclear hypothesis.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), however, is in line with the Prime Minister—I make no complaint about that—for the Prime Minister arrived at a remarkable conclusion. She said :
"we simply will not stand for the denuclearisation of Europe."—[Official Report, 2 April 1987: Vol. 113, c. 1229.]
What a remarkable conclusion. After all these endeavours at disarmament as a detente, the Prime Minister is forced by the inherent implications of British defence policy into a declared assertion that she
"will not stand for the denuclearisation of Europe".
The reason is obvious. It is because she is confronting the collapse, or evaporation into the upper air, of the nuclear hypothesis itself. That hypothesis never had a realistic basis. It never was a rational assumption. It is not entirely accidental that closer contact between this country and the Soviet Union has helped to mature that perception.
The Prime Minister constantly asserts that the nuclear weapon has kept the peace in Europe for the last 40 years. It is an article of faith repeated by her in a manner that shows how conscious she is of the weakening foundations upon which it now rests, not only in people's minds generally, but in her own perception. After all, she has, for the first time, formed some conception of the nature of that extraordinary people, the Russian nation, whom our difficulty in understanding is exceeded only by their difficulty in understanding us.
Let us make a test. Let us go back to the middle 1950s or to the end of the 1940s, and let us suppose that nuclear power had never been invented, that no such advance had taken place in science or technology, but that everything else was the same. I assert that in those circumstances there would still not have been a Russian invasion of western Europe. What has prevented that from happening was not the nuclear hypothesis, not the incredible threat of an incredible act—I use words already used this afternoon by the Opposition spokesman—but the fact that the Soviet Union knew the consequences of such a move, consequences which would have followed whether or not there were 300,000 American troops stationed in Europe.
The Soviet Union knew that such an action on its part would have led to a third world war—a long war, bitterly fought, a war which in the end the Soviet Union would have been likely to lose on the same basis and in the same way as the corresponding war was lost by Napoleon, by the Emperor Wilhelm and by Adolf Hitler.
It was that fear, that caution, that understanding, that perception on the part of Russia and its leaders that was the real deterrent against Russia committing the utterly irrational and suicidal act of plunging into a third world war in which the Soviet Union would be likely to find itself confronting a combination of the greatest industrial and economic powers in the world.
There is no particular mystery about the fact that peace has existed in Europe over the past 40 years. It is due to the fact that the Soviet Union, and indeed the Soviet Union's enemies, have not intended to face the

201
consequences of a third world war waged between the major powers on earth. In the minds of the Russians the inevitable commitment of the United States in such a war would have come not directly or necessarily from the stationing of American marines in Germany, but, as it came in the previous two struggles, from the ultimate involvement of the United States in any war determining the future of Europe.
There never has been a rational basis for that upon which we have founded the defence policy of this country for the past 35 years, and the defence policy of this country is necessarily linked ultimately to its foreign policy. For of course a logically irresistible conclusion followed from the creed that our safety depended upon the nuclear capability of the United States and its willingness to commit that capability in certain events. If that was so—and we assured ourselves for 40 years that it was—the guiding principle of the foreign policy of the United Kingdom had to be that, in no circumstances, must it depart from the basic insights of the United States and that any demand placed in the name of defence upon the United Kingdom by the United States was a demand that could not be resisted. Such was the rigorous logic of the nuclear deterrent, a logic under which not merely the defence, but the foreign policy of this country has lived for more than a generation.
It was in obedience to it—we are indebted again to the Prime Minister for her candour; sometimes it is the candour of the Prime Minister which is most revealing as well as her choice of words—that the Prime Minister said, in the context of the use of American bases in Britain to launch an aggressive attack on Libya, that it was "inconceivable" that we could have refused a demand placed upon this country by the United States. The Prime Minister supplied the reason why : she said it was because we depend for our liberty and freedom upon the United States. Once let the nuclear hypothesis be questioned or destroyed, once allow it to break down, and from that moment the American imperative in this country's policies disappears with it.
A few days ago I was reminded, when reading a new biography of Richard Cobden, that he once addressed a terrible sentence of four words to this House of Commons. He said to hon. Members : "You have been Englishmen." The strength of those words lies in the perfect tense, with the implication that they were so no longer but had within themselves the power to be so again.
I believe that we now have the opportunity, with the dissolution of the nightmare of the nuclear theory, for this country once again to have a defence policy that accords with the needs of this country as an island nation, and to have a foreign policy which rests upon a true, undistorted view of the outside world. Above all, we have the opportunity to have a foreign policy that is not dictated from outside to this country, but willed by its people. That day is coming. It may be delayed, but it will come.
6.4 pm
Sir Carol Mather: I hope that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument, because I am on a slightly different tack. I think that this afternoon is an opportunity to try to look at some of the origins of the problems that we face today in foreign affairs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said that, in common with the Russians, we should think long, and
202
I believe that we should think longer than we usually do. Therefore, I make no apology for going back in time to consider some of the problems.
First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on their extremely successful visit to Moscow. There has been a great change of atmosphere between ourselves and the Soviet Union, indeed between the West and the Soviet Union, and that change has been greatly enhanced by this recent visit. I believe that we are witnessing the biggest change in atmosphere in the postwar period. I can think of no other period when we were involved in such dialogue with Russia other than the year of 1944 when we were allies with the Soviet Union, and the Germans and their collaborators were our enemies.
Of course, things changed in 1945 when we began to see the true nature of the Russian bear. We learnt this at the Yalta conference when we were trying to deal with the intractable problems of the reoccupation of Germany by the allied powers, free elections in Poland and the repatriation of our prisoners, both Russian and British. I wish to dwell on the problem of repatriation for a few moments because that problem has not gone away.
The reasons why it was so important for us to come to an agreement at Yalta were, above all, that we had 50,000 allied prisoners in Russian hands. We also had a continuing war with Japan, which looked likely to continue for another two years—it was important to have the Russians on our side—and there were vast problems in Germany and the occupied territories. There were millions of emaciated people in Germany and Austria whom we were trying to feed as well as vast numbers of refugees and large numbers of displaced persons—Poles, Hungarians and so on.
Then, the urgent problem was to repatriate the people hack to their homelands while we had enough food for them. I had experience of this because I was with the northern armies and was liaison officer to Montgomery. I was working on those problems, visiting the camps and trying to report on how we would repatriate all the people. It was an immense problem.
In the north there were 20 million Germans and displaced people to look after and to feed. Housing had been destroyed and the standard of health was low. There were 2·5 million German prisoners of war and 1 million displaced persons—Russians, Poles, Hungarians and so on. In West Berlin alone there were 3 million people whom we had to feed, not from the hinterland, but from the western zone of Germany. There was one policy alone—everyone must go home. It was the same in Austria.
In addition to such problems, we were faced by the frightening attitude adopted by the Soviet Union under the leadership of Stalin. At that time our future was indeed precarious. In the biography of Eden written by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) Churchill is reported as saying that the situation was more dangerous in 1945 than it was in 1939.
By far the most important factor in our discussions was, of course, the prisoners—the return of our prisoners to us and vice versa in the case of the Russians. My noble Friend Lord Barber wrote an interesting letter. He was a prisoner of war in Russian hands in East Germany, overrun by the Russians. He made an important point which was reported in a debate in the House of Lords in 1976. He was a member of an air crew which had been captured. His letter said:

203
"We realised at the time that we were being kept as hostages until the return of the Russians, who had been liberated by the British. If the Government had refused to return the Russians, I do not doubt that most of us would have accepted our unhappy lot as being a necessary consequence of the aftermath of war!"
That was a noble sentiment, but it did not wash at home. It would not have been in accordance with British public opinion at the time when the main desire was to get everyone back home. That is the background to events in Austria in 1945.
My first contact in Normandy after we landed on D plus one was, strangely enough, with a Cossack unit. They were among the first German troops that I met. I was having my breakfast. They were more surprised at seeing me than I was at seeing them. Those were the people with whom we were faced in many of the German units.
Under the Yalta agreement we repatriated about 45,000 Wehrmacht Cossacks to the Soviet Union. Inevitably, White Russians were included in those numbers. If we had not maintained the Yalta agreement we would have been in dire trouble. At the same time, major units of Russians and Ukranians were spirited away—the Ukranian division of some 10,000 men and the White Russians Schutz Corps of some 4,500 men.
That has been the subject of two books by Mr. Nicholas Tolstoi which contain some pathetic stories. But untold so far have been the successful efforts by anonymous pimpernels to thwart the Soviet intentions and free those people to the West. I have no personal axe to grind in this, but I should like to see historical justice done. Tolstoi, in his book, "Minister and the Massacres", accuses the then Minister resident in those parts, Harold Macmillan, of conspiring to send those people to their deaths. That is the clear implication of what he said.
There is plenty of opinion by the author in that book, but very little hard fact. It casts a slur on the War Cabinet of those days and on the commanders and staff in the field as well as on our allies who were in full agreement with the policy. I utterly reject the theory that the late Lord Stockton was involved in a devious plot.
What was the outcome? Stalin insisted upon his pound of flesh and we had to send the Soviet citizens back. Many of them were shot or perished in the gulags. There were no free elections in Poland, as we had agreed, and many of the smaller old European countries were swallowed up by Stalin.
But this last outcome, in particular, could have been avoided. Unfortunately, there was a dispute between the British and the Americans about our policy in the final stages of advance. The Americans favoured a broad front advance and we favoured a narrow one, as advocated by Montgomery. I am convinced that we could have been in Berlin by Christmas 1944 if we had adhered to the narrow front strategy. As it was, we halted and waited for the Russians to move up. We could also have occupied Czechoslovakia. I remember being sent to Czechoslovakia in 1946 by Montgomery to see the commander there. I talked to the people and I remember how fearful they were of being swallowed up by the Russians, as, indeed, they were. If we had continued with our advance, Europe would have been a different place today.
There are two more cautionary tales that I would like to tell and they concern the middle east. The Attlee Government ordered the evacuation of Palestine in
204
October 1947. It was to be evacuated by May the following year. I and my chums who were there were told to pack up and go home. We had been keeping the peace there and we were astounded by that drastic and ill-considered decision.
As it turned out, the Arabs did not see off the Jews. The Jews were trained for war because they had been fighting us, and the Arabs, unfortunately, were seen off and lost their lands. That has set off a kind of political Chernobyl, whose noxious fumes are still poisoning the world today. We have only to look at worldwide terrorism, events in the Lebanon and the rising of the Arab Jihad to see what a pot we stirred up in those days.
My final tale concerns the events in the Persian gulf a few years ago. When the Conservative Government came to power in 1970 it was virtually a fait accompli that we had to leave the Persian gulf. That had been decided by the previous Labour Government. I want to ask some rhetorical questions to which there are no answers, but they should still be considered.
If we had retained our presence in the Persian gulf and had been in communion with the Arab rulers who were friendly towards us, would the oil crisis have taken quite the same form that it took? Would OPEC have arisen in the form that it did? Would the Shah have fallen if we had been there to hold his hand? Would the American hostages have been taken by the following Government? Would, indeed, the Iran-Iraq war have taken place?
I hope that recounting those experiences gives some clues to the problems that we are facing today. This is, in a way, my maiden speech, but, in case it is also my valedictory one, I wanted to put that on the record.
6.17 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: It will be a pity if the hon. Member for Esher (Sir C. Mather) has, indeed, just made his valedictory speech because he spoke from personal experience on matters which I hope the House will some day debate at greater length. This is not the opportunity to go into them, but it would be instructive if the House were to debate that period and some of the things that happened.
That period teaches us something about what can go wrong in Government in such circumstances. It cannot have been right that the Government's policies should have been so distorted in the event that people, many of whom were not even citizens of the Soviet Union, were sent back there to certain death or to long periods of imprisonment in camps in which they eventually died. It is also instructive because it tells us something about what the Soviet system is like when used in the malevolent way in which Stalin used it. It tells us a great deal about the evils of that system. but that is a matter for another occasion.
I said last week that there would be a general and genuine welcome for the outcome of the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow, and that has proved to be the case. I do not believe, as she said, that the world is significantly safer as a result of the visit, although it could become so if the right steps now follow from it. It certainly changed the Prime Minister's perception of the Soviet Union. It was remarkable to hear some of the things that she said when she returned.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was obviously struck by that and made much of it, although, having made his speech, he fled instantly from

205
the scene to visit the far east. When he made so much of the Prime Minister's conversion, I had some sympathy with what he was saying, but he did nothing to indicate whether some similar process or a different process explained his conversion from the belief that a nuclear deterrent had to be stationed on British soil to the view that there should be no such thing and that all nuclear weapons should be removed from Britain. At some point he may explain how that came about. Perhaps it will lead us to be more sympathetic to the view advanced by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). The right hon. Member for Leeds, East owes it to us to explain how that conversion took place—whether it was through talking to a foreign leader, or at a Labour party back room discussion, I do not know.
The Prime Minister said that we should support Mr. Gorbachev in his great endeavour. That was a remarkable phrase for her to use after the years of megaphone diplomacy. She also said that if he gave her his word she would trust him. I think that that was a rather naive phrase. It is an understandable reaction to Mr. Gorbachev, whom I met, in company with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and Lord Whitelaw, a year ago, in what turned out to be a dress rehearsal for Mrs. Thatcher's visit. We were taken round the same places on the standard tour. It is a naive remark because it underestimates the extent to which Mr. Gorbachev is part of a system. He is attempting in certain ways to change that system, but we do not know how far he is able or willing to change it. Most of us admire what he is trying to do and what he has achieved so far, but we must be a little cautious about the type of deals that we do with him; the best basis on which to form agreements is one on which there is realism on both sides. Both sides must accept that an agreement that has been reached safeguards their interests, and that sacrifices must be made by both sides. It is on that basis, and not on the trust of words alone, that matters must proceed.
So far as I can glean from what the Prime Minister said, and from her reported remarks, I believe that she got it about right on some of the major issues, including that of intermediate nuclear forces. I was genuinely worried about what she said before she went to Moscow, when she seemed to be ruling out an intermediate nuclear forces deal that was not directly linked with short-range missiles or human rights issues.
I am glad that the Prime Minister raised human rights issues in Moscow—the position of Jews wanting to emigrate, the position of Christians, and issues of general political rights. By raising those issues, the Prime Minister did us a service.
It was also sensible for her to raise our concerns about short-range missiles. However, to link either of those issues with the achievement of an agreement on intermediate nuclear forces would be to condemn the deal. There is no way in which progress on them could objectively be ascertained. One cannot ascertain objectively whether sufficient progress on human rights has been made to allow a deal on intermediate nuclear forces. The linkage is not even a logical one. Still less was it any part of the West's original insistence on the zero-zero option. The Prime Minister's remarks about verification, about follow-on talks on short-range missiles and about allowing the West to match—if it wanted to—the East's numbers were all within the terms of reference of the Soviet leadership's acceptance of the zero-zero option. It
206
is, by the way, curious at this stage to raise the idea of the West matching the short-range missiles, when we have not attempted to do that in all the years during which we have not been prevented from doing so. So that is a false hare to raise now.
I hope and pray that we shall obtain a deal on intermediate nuclear forces that will help to make the world a safer place. However, I do not agree with all that the Prime Minister said in Moscow. Naturally, we profoundly disagree with her line on star wars—as would Dr. Andrei Sakharov. If that was one of the subjects that she discussed with him, she will have found him a critic of it. It is helpful that the Soviet Union has set aside for a moment its preoccupation with the star wars issue in order to make progress in other areas, but it remains a matter of real concern that the British Government should fuel President Reagan's commitment to the project, which is the subject of so many doubts and criticisms inside the United States.
What a contrast there was between the two visits that were made, respectively, by the leader of the Labour party and the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman's visit was doomed to failure from the start—by its very nature, it could not succeed. It involved trying to persuade the United States that NATO can continue without its bases in the United Kingdom. For the Prime Minister's visit to fail, however, would have been both difficult and foolish. However, she took her opportunity well, and succeeded.
The two leaders are alike in one respect : they are both, in one sense at least, unilateralists. The one believes that Britain can achieve general disarmament by acting alone: the other believes that British nuclear weapons should for ever be excluded, even from multilateral negotiations. The Labour party believes that we can act as if we had neither allies nor enemies, and abandon every category of nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom without first having negotiated to make the world safer. The Prime Minister said that she could not conceive of a position in which British or European nuclear weapons would be negotiated away, even if the superpowers negotiated away all their nuclear weapons. Both Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev have explicitly stated that that is their aim.
The Prime Minister told the leader of the Labour party that one could not build one's defence policies on dreams, and most of us would agree with that. The leader of the Labour party was wrong, not in having dreams, but in building his defence policy on the assumption that they had already been realised. To have no dreams, vision or ambitions, as the Prime Minister's remark suggested, is to throw away any prospect of' achieving great things—
"where there is no vision, the people perish".
Without dreams there would have been no desegregation in the United States, no United Nations, and no abolition of slavery. All those were achieved because of vision and ambition. The mistake is to assume that one has achieved one's dream before one has done so. Of course, we should have a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. It should drive us on the step-by-step route to negotiated disarmament.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs mentioned the issue of Afghanistan, which has also, doubtless, been the subject of discussion between the Government and the Prime Minister of Pakistan. I and other hon. Members also had discussions on the issue with him during his visit. There is a sense of optimism abroad.

207
From Pakistan there are suggestions of a real prospect of movement. From Moscow, one senses that Mr. Gorbachev is serious about getting out of Afghanistan. He suggested as much to us last summer. I believe that to be true for the reasons that the Foreign Secretary advanced. The whole exercise has been a disaster for the Soviet Union from every point of view. It has cost it a great many lives and a great deal of repute in parts of the world in which it hoped to win friends.
The Soviet Union has not yet found terms that it considers would be acceptable for leaving Afghanistan. The attempt to move to a position in which the people of Afghanistan can have a say in their own future and the vast numbers of refugees in Pakistan can return to their country should be a major objective of all the nations that are involved. I hope that the British Government are doing what they can in that direction.
Central America is another area of conflict that we must examine. The American-supported Contra attacks on Nicaragua continue, and unrest persists in a number of neighbouring countries. It is time the Government clarified their position. They have frequently said that their policy is to seek a peaceful solution. As a logical consequence of that, they must be opposed to the arming of groups that are seeking to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua. Why cannot the Government state that? Is it because of their inability to give candid advice to the President of the United States, while so many of his own countrymen are doing precisely that—including most of Congress? The Government should change their stance on the issue.
It is important to argue for human rights in Nicaragua and in many other countries. It is impossible, however, to justify the Contra attacks on the ground that Nicaragua has a distinctively bad record on human rights, as compared with other countries in south and central America. There is no reason why the Government should not argue for more human rights there, but they cannot defend such attacks on that basis.
In the context of human rights, I hope that the Government will examine the proposals that have been put forward by the representatives of three Nicaraguan Opposition parties who are in the United Kingdom now. Senor Godoy of the Independent Liberal party and representatives of other parties have made proposals for an internal political settlement that would make a major difference in Nicaragua and in the attitude to Nicaragua of neighbouring countries. It has common features with the Arias plan, and I hope that the British Government will consider that seriously. There will be hon. Members from all parties in Managua to attend the Inter-Parliamentary Union congress and I have no doubt that the arguments to which I have referred will continue then.
Another major area of conflict that concerns us all is the middle east. The Foreign Secretary said a little about the prospects for a middle east peace conference, which were somewhat advanced by the discussions of the Council of Ministers. Perhaps the Minister of State will say more about that when he replies. I hope that he will tell us what is envisaged and the sort of time scale that will apply. It would be foolish to get down to discussing in this debate the formulae for the representation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and the Foreign Secretary was rightly cautious about that. It is clear, however, that the
208
voice of the people of Palestine must be heard at the conference, and the PLO has an honoured record of representing that voice over a long period.
We are dealing with a rapidly changing situation. Who would have imagined a time when Israel could be so relaxed about Syria moving into Beirut? Who would have imagined the main opponent of the PLO would not be Israel but an Arab grouping of fanatical ruthlessness? It is a fanatical and ruthless grouping which claims to be pursuing the same cause as the unfortunate Palestinians who are trapped in camps, and it has subjected them to the most awful privations in the process. It is not Israel that has done that.
It is perhaps surprising that after the arguments that we had about Syria last year we can welcome at least some moves on its part. This prompts the question whether Syria will come in from the cold and what steps we shall take to encourage that to happen. I argued strongly over a considerable period that Britain should end its diplomatic relations with Syria in the light of evidence of Syria sponsoring terrorist activity in Britain, but some of those who were involved in that activity are no longer in positions of power in Syria, and Syria is beginning to show signs of a different approach. When I questioned the Prime Minister on these matters, she seemed appalled by the suggestion that we might in future try to restore good relations with Syria. We must recognise that it is an important player on the middle east scene and exercises a great deal of power. We shall have to consider seriously
what Syria's role will be.
In a general foreign affairs debate we must make some reference to South Africa, where elections among the white electorate alone are shortly to take place. There is surely a need for a clearer signal than has yet been given by the British Government and other European Governments, and I believe that it can be given only by applying sanctions against South Africa.
We are engaged in a series of measures against South Africa but it is not polite to call them sanctions. A much clearer signal needs to be given to the white electorate that Britain cannot be described, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East described the present Government, as the last friend of the apartheid regime. I do not believe that to be the intentional position of the British Government, but I think that they should take clearer measures to ensure that it is not. The situation in some of the neighbouring countries should be exciting the Foreign Secretary's concern as well, not least Angola and Mozambique.
The Philippines, although not the scene of international conflict, are nevertheless an area of real concern. Everyone in the West was relieved to see a transfer of power to a Government with democratic objectives and high ideals for the people of that country, who suffered so much from a corrupt regime. There is a legitimate European interest in the Philippines that is reflected in major aid projects. There are a number of causes for anxiety, and one of them has been expressed by those who are working in the area of development who say that European aid is not taking sufficient account of the non-governmental voluntary organisations and their expertise in the country. If that is the position, I hope that it can be corrected. I hope also that the British Government will make it clear that they are prepared to play their part in relieving the Philippine Government's serious debt problem. There are various

209
devices and methods that can be used. It is part of the wider international problem and we have a part to play in resolving it.
There are many other subjects that I should like to raise in this general foreign affairs debate. Unfortunately, I cannot do so because many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in it. If the world is to be made a safer place, painstaking work will have to be done at many levels. Apart from bilateral discussions, work will have to be done in the United Nations, including in its peacekeeping role, in the Commonwealth, in the Community and in the international financial community. Britain's interests are in a fairer world, and only a fairer world will be a safer world.
6.36 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the shadow Foreign Secretary, saw fit to criticise the leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties for not being present for this debate. I think that he was right to do so. It is unfortunate that they are not present in this increasingly county-council like Chamber in which foreign affairs are not often discussed. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not have the courtesy to listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), who was called to speak immediately after the right hon. Member for Leeds, East had resumed his seat.
Mr. George Foulkes: May I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said? He explained that he would have liked to stay but that he had arranged earlier to go to Japan and that he had to leave. If the debate had started earlier, my right hon. Friend would have been here. His departure from the Chamber was meant as no discourtesy to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), a former Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Amery: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that correction. I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to he present to hear a shameful admission that I am about to make. Not long ago some of us went over to the north of France to celebrate the landings there. A distinguished Minister of a foreign country approached me with his wife and said to her, "I want to introduce you to Mr. Denis Healey." I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman or the ambassador in Washington should be more worried. Personally, I take it on the jaw.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, I think rightly, that her visit might be a turning point in East-West relations. I think that it has underlined three things. The Soviets have reached a point at which they must put first priority on restructuring their system, which has failed to deliver the goods. Whether austerity in the supply of vodka and other goods will do the trick, I cannot tell. That is a matter for them. I think that they will succeed only if they can get the central European economy, the German economy, to work for them.
It was made clear during the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the Soviets attach great importance to arms control. That is not from any dislike of weapons but because it has become clear, especially since the American commitment to the strategic defence
210
initiative, that there is no way in which they can compete with the United States in an arms race and a technological race.
Finally, it has become clear that Mr. Brezhnev's conquests of Angola, Mozambique and finally Afghanistan have failed in the sense that they have been unable in nearly 10 years to consolidate the ground that they took.
We may be on the edge of something similar to the time in the 1920s when Stalin gave up the idea of international revolution and decided to build "Socialism in one country." That did not do the Russian people much good, but it relieved the pressure on the West. Against this background, I think that the phrase "the turning point" may be right.
The opening gambit of the new era of dialogue is the zero-zero option. My impression from talks in Washington are that America would like to see this go ahead. It was their idea originally and the President would like to have an arms agreement if he can get it.
From a European point of view, there is not much in it for us. The arms burden will not be relieved to any extent. It is true that the SS20s will be withdrawn. But even if the agreement is followed by an agreement on shorter range weapons, the fact remains—and I felt that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) had not taken this fully into account—that the intercontinental missiles of the Soviet Union can perfectly well be trained on European targets without involving the United States.
That brings us back to the situation about which Chancellor Helmut Schmidt was concerned when he asked for the Pershing and cruise missiles to be sent. He said then that if one eliminates the American ability to retaliate from Europe, one will magnify European concern that the Americans might not respond to a Soviet attack on Europe whether nuclear or conventional. And this would give momentum to what has always been an underlying Soviet strategy of decoupling western Europe at best and Germany at least from the United States.
It is possible that we are now facing a new situation of which we should take account.. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of a patriotic German. There would be two options open to him. One is to back away from NATO, not too quickly but gently, and let German finance and industry through joint ventures and so on embark on a policy of helping to restructure eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. He would seek as his aim the reunion of the two Germanies. That would be a respectable aim and in itself—taking the example of Finland where a Conservative Government is about to take office—need not necessarily imply a change in the German constitution.
The alternative would be for West Germany to seek to have its own nuclear weapons. I have friends in Germany in quite high places who would take that view and would argue that 40 years after the war when Germany is making the greatest contributions to the defence of the West in conventional terms—the terms on which the Leader of the Opposition is so keen—it is ridiculous to deny it weapons that another half a dozen countries have already. That is not an immediate issue but it will develop in time.
In putting back to us—it was our proposal originally—the zero-zero option Mr. Gorbachev is reopening the German question and with it the whole question of the peace treaty that has never been concluded. He is opening a Pandora's box. I am not sure what will come out of the box, but the implications for Europe are serious.
Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a third option for a patriotic responsible German might be to enhance Franco-German strategic and military cooperation and to ensure that the French force de frappe was more readily available to provide a nuclear response to any Warsaw pact aggression against the Federal Republic? Are not the exercises due to take place in the autumn and the fact that the Force d'Action Rapide is available to deploy in the Federal Republic signals that that option is being explored seriously within the Federal Republic as well as in Paris?
Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend is on to the crucial point. We have to ask ourselves how far the Germans would accept a French or Anglo-French nuclear cover.
There are two lessons we have to draw, not immediately but we must think about it, from the reopening of the German question which the zero-zero option implies. The first is that we and the French must strengthen our own nuclear power along with the French as much as possible and if there is no superpower agreement on short range nuclear weapons we must go ahead and make our own. That is a difficult problem, and we do not yet know the answer to it.
Here I want to say a word to the empty alliance Benches. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the leader of the Liberal party to say that they want a minimum deterrent. They said that they did not think that Trident was necessary because it was too powerful. That is a sort of strategic inverted snobbery. If one is going to think in terms of decoupling Germany, let alone western Europe, from the United States surely one wants the best weapon one can get. One will not get anything cheaper than Trident, so one might as well go for the best.
Mr. Beith: If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of decoupling, how is it effective decoupling to have a system which is wholly dependent on the continued support of the United States for its supply?
Mr. Amery: It is conceivable that in the process of decoupling the United States would go on supplying us with Trident, just as it is conceivable—the hon. Gentleman should not forget this—that it would supply the Germans with nuclear weapons under their own control as the price for letting its troops go. I hope that we are moving gradually into a rather different era.
The other implication we must consider—here I meet the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—is that we must strengthen the Western European Union and make it into an effective defence organisation and ensure that Germany plays a more important role in it. I see no conflict between NATO and the WEU. It so happens that I wrote the memorandum that persuaded Sir Anthony Eden to accept WEU. In it I said that NATO is a box to keep the Russians out of Europe and that we need to have a box to keep the Germans in Europe. That is really the effective programme. I put it crudely, but these things had better be said crudely if they are to be followed.
The Soviet Union is clearly keen on arms control and that provides an opportunity that we should press to resolve the regional problems that separate us. The arms race, which had come to a halt in what one might call the Nixon-Brezhnev period, started up again with the Soviet
212
invasion through surrogates in Angola. Mozambique and Ethiopia, the takeover of Aden, increasing influence in Vietnam and finally the invasion of Afghanistan.
In none of those places has the Soviet Union succeeded in consolidating Communist rule. The Soviets can supply arms, and they do, but they cannot supply development aid. Mozambique has become a caricature from that point of view. It is nominally a Marxist-Socialist country, but it is helped, as far as I can make out, by South Africa, Britain and the United States and help is going, in some cases, to both sides in their civil war.
To abandon any of those countries, particularly Afghanistan, involves a denial of the Brezhnev doctrine that one can never let down a Socialist state. However, some interesting exercises in semantics are going on. Dr. Kissinger claims that he was told at a seminar in Moscow the other day that Afghanistan is not really a Communist country or even really Socialist. Therefore, perhaps the Soviets are prepared to seek a way out.
It looks to me as if the West should stress the importance of the withdrawal of Soviet influence from the countries it has, to use Mr. Gladstone's phrase, "desecrated and despoiled" since 1974. Regional settlements must go hand in hand with arms control. I am not saying that they should be an integral part of arms negotiations, but I am saying that there should be linkage between them. If the Soviet attitudes are changing, and if we are up against a new era, this will be a test, and if it is proved, it is more than welcome.
However, let us be sure in our own minds that the Soviets have come to this point from the failure in their system at home, in competition with the West, and in consolidating their own empire. So that there is no need for us to pay for what they want to buy.
6.50 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: One of the interesting characteristics of this debate is that, although many references have been made to changes in the Soviet Union, and they have been interpreted by some speakers, few have spoken about the changes occurring in Britain. I believe that a profound change has occurred in this country, and that of the two visits—one by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to Washington and one by the Prime Minister to Moscow—the former was as significant as the latter. Both visits threw a light on the reality of the situation.
Strangely, as I entered the House, I opened a package containing the latest Gallup poll. I do not agree with polls much when it comes to election forecasts. However, before the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow, this poll asked the following question :
"Who do you think has done the most to try to reach agreements about controlling nuclear weapons—President Reagan or Mr. Gorbachev?"
The result was that 12 per cent. thought that President Reagan had done the most and 56 per cent. thought that Mr. Gorbachev had. As we are the British House of Commons, it might be worth spending a moment on these figures, which have been building up for some time, and examining the significance of the two visits at what is undoubtedly a turning point in terms of the way that the British people are assessing what is happening.
Since the end of the war, or shortly thereafter, there have been in British foreign and defence policy three basic assumptions, which I can easily rehearse. One was that the

213
Soviet Union would, if it had a chance, invade Western Europe, occupy West Germany, Italy, France, Norway and Sweden and come to Britain, except that we had the bomb, so it dared not do it. That assumption has appeared time and again. Indeed, somebody sent me the other day a letter that he had received from the Secretary of State for the Environment, which said :
"Thank you for your letter … I am certain that the Russians would have been here already if it wasn't for the West's nuclear deterrent."
That assumption is absolutely fundamental to the policy of the present Government and of successive Governments since the war.
The second argument is that the United States stands for peace, democracy and human rights all over the world. The third assumption is that the very existence of nuclear weapons is our security. The American nuclear umbrella keeps the Russians out, and our own nuclear weapons provide us with an ultimate safeguard. I put it to the House that none of those assumptions is true, and that the public is beginning to come to that conclusion.
Let us examine what price we are paying for those assumptions before I go into them in any detail. First, we carry a massive arms burden in Britain—far higher as a proportion of national income than any other European member of NATO. When I compare that with the burden that the Japanese carry, it does not surprise me that the Japanese can sell videos, cars, televisions and telephone equipment all over the world. Only 1·5 per cent. of their much bigger national income goes on defence, whereas in Britain it is about 6 per cent. of a smaller national income.
The arms burden has also cost many lives in other parts of the world. I did not believe the figures that I am about to quote when I first saw them. Every week, 250,000 babies die in the world from preventable diseases, while we waste masses of our resources, on both sides of the world, on these huge budgets, of which star wars is the most criminally wasteful.
The second price that we pay is that we accept in Britain the United States bases that can be used without the consent of the British Parliament. I am an old parliamentary historian, and I believe that we should not have a standing army. Every year, when we pass the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order, I regard it as a real order, which allows us to prevent, as the 17th century Parliament resolved to prevent, a standing army from remaining on our territory. However, we have a standing army of 30,000 American troops in 125 installations and, in the event of conflict, whole areas of our country would be handed over to American control. Short of a nuclear war, President Reagan felt able to use our bases for the Libyan bombing raid, primarily to show that there was some international support for his action.
There is something else that the people should know. We do not have an independent nuclear weapon. One of the reasons why the Zircon film aroused security questions was that in it a former senior civil servant in the Ministry of Defence made it clear that our so-called independent deterrent is not only American-built but requires the American satellite system to be used. We discovered that in 1964, when we came to power at the time that Polaris was about to come into service.
The third price that we pay for these three assumptions is the loss of the right to negotiate. I heard time and time again in the statements made about the Prime Minister's
214
visit to Moscow that she was not negotiating, but that is because she is not allowed to do so. The only negotiations that take place between Britain and Russia go through Gorbachev and Reagan. Recently a German Member of Parliament from the Green party asked me how many people realised that the bloc system in Europe makes countries that have never had any clash of interest, such as Poland and Portugal, into enemies. Poland and Portugal can talk to each other only through Reagan and Gorbachev. I have heard it argued that our possession of weapons gives us a seat at the high table, but it does not, because our allegedly independent nuclear weapons do not give us the right to sit in when Reagan negotiates on our behalf.
The final and heaviest price that we pay is that we have lived under fear for 40 years. That fear has corrupted a great deal of our thinking about the future. When I listen to the cold war propaganda, which goes out all the time, I wonder how big a factor that is in the development of our domestic politics.
That fear is spread by untrue statements. I have never forgotten one occasion in Cabinet, when a defence White Paper was brought to us, which showed a massive superiority of Soviet conventional forces. One of my colleagues in the Cabinet asked, "Where are the French?" They had not been included in the balance of forces as if, in the event of war, one was not quite sure whether France would be on the side of Russia because it is not a military member of NATO. The BBC and the media pump out false figures about military balance because they want to keep people in the thrall of fear.
If those three assumptions are questioned, one opens up a new range of options. I believe that the Russians have not attacked Western Europe because, having lost 20 million people in the last war, they have no desire to do so. I have been to the Soviet Union on ministerial visits on many occasions and I have been to Leningrad and seen a city where as many people died as died in the entire British and American armies put together. One hears Russians speak about the war in a way that nobody who lived in an island that was only bombed but never occupied could, and that makes one realise that the need for peace in the Soviet Union is great.
That need for peace is not because the Soviet economy is breaking down. Actually, our economy is not all that successful, with 4 million rotting on the dole when there are so many needs to be met. Do not let us be so very superior about the success of our system of market forces.
Let us look back. The British sent an army to Russia to destroy the revolution. That is never mentioned on the radio. The forgery of the Zinoviev letter, and the Arcos raid are never mentioned either. And those who wish to be reminded of a bit of history, I shall read what Harry Truman was reported as having said in the New York Times in 1941 :
"If we see that Germany is winning the war we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and in that way let them kill as many as possible."
That was said by the architect of NATO when a United States senator. The Russians do not forget that, and they do have anxieties about security. Any policy towards them must be based on that recognition.
I do not need to say in the House—I argued about it with the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) at the time of Suez—that when I was born we were an empire. I checked it out the other day. One fifth

215
of the land space and population of the world was governed from this Chamber on the day that I was born. If we cannot recognise a new empire when it looms out of the mist, we must have forgotten our history. The Americans are an empire, and empires pursue policies—as our empire did—in support of its own economic interests.
The idea that the United States is in favour of human rights in Chile is an outrage. It toppled an elected Government and put Pinochet there to protect its economic investment. We did the same. When we were an empire, I remember, as a little boy, being taken to meet Mr. Gandhi when he came to London in 1931 for the round table conference. No Conservative Members talked about human rights in India then, because we were running India. When Mr. Gandhi was asked what he thought of civilisation in Britain, he replied "I think that it would be a very good idea." That was an accurate reflection of the way in which the Indians saw us.
The Americans went into Grenada; they support Botha; they back Turkey. They have no regard for human rights if they conflict with their interests. We were the same. The Russians, as a very powerful country, invaded and intervened in Hungary. As a Member of Parliament, I raised that in a letter to Pravda. I went with others, leading the Labour delegation at the time of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. It cannot be said that Britain's record on human rights, either present or historical, entitles us to say that "We will not talk to you until you recognise it."
Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. His reputation on human rights is well known in all parts of the world. Is he aware that on 28 November 1973, when the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was a junior Foreign Office Minister, he condoned what was happening in Chile after the coup, and said that Britain had no right to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries? Where can it be said that Tory Members are concerned about human rights outside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe?
Mr. Benn: I think that every major country must be very careful. When I was interviewed by the Moscow newspaper that was quoted against me, I said in respect of human rights:
"Frankly, I don't think any government in the world can be credited with outstanding achievements in this sphere."
That led to the Prime Minister beginning to draft a deportation order for me, as far as I could make out, but I made a true point. Those who believe in human rights do not have a double standard. They favour them wherever people in the so-called free world are threatened.
Other options are open. One that has been mentioned is the possibility of a Franco-German force de frappe. I have long been of the opinion that the Germans have the capacity to build nuclear weapons because of their high degree of skill. Ten years ago, as Energy Secretary, I stopped in Frankfurt on my way to Saudi Arabia and had lunch with the chairman of Nu-Kem, the German BNFL. He said that only 50 people would have to know if nuclear facilities were diverted from peace to war. With their arrangements with the Brazilians and others, I think that it is highly unlikely that the West Germans have no capacity to have the bomb anyway.
216
The question is, what should our policy be? I share the view of my right hon. Friends—expressed to a President who was exceedingly discourteous to them—that the policy they put forward is the right one. But, at the same time, we should look a little beyond that. I want to look as far ahead as I can. We still live under the legacy of Hitler, who divided Europe and left us with a divided Europe. Are we really to say that, into the 21st century, we are content to be lined up in blocs?
I went back to the treaty of friendship that we signed with the Russians in 1942. It was signed by Mr. Anthony Eden, who was later Prime Minister, and, on the other side, by Molotov. It dealt with wartime collaboration in the war against Hitler, and also with the post-war period. The words that I am going to read were signed by Eden and remained in force after we joined NATO:
"The High Contracting Parties: Desiring to contribute to the maintenance of Peace … to give expression to the intention to collaborate … in adopting proposals for common action to preserve Peace, and resist aggression, having regard to the interests of the security of each of them, agree to work together in close and friendly collaboration, for the organization of security and economic prosperity in Europe … will act in accordance with the two principles of not seeking territorial aggrandisement for themselves and of non-interference in the intended affairs of other States"——
Mr. Nicholas Soames: That rules out Afghanistan.
Mr. Benn: At least most of the people responsible for the Soviet intervention in Hungary are dead, whereas one of the arch-aggressors of the Suez invasion is still sitting on the Woolsack. Let us not lecture people about that.
The treaty continues:
"to render one another all possible economic assistance … undertakes not to conclude any alliance and not to take part in any coalition directed against the other High Contracting Party."
We should now build on the Moscow visit. I am not one of those who mock it, although it may not have had the intended effect. We should build on the visit by trying to renew the treaty of friendship signed by Eden, or by Winston Churchill, with the Soviet Union during the war. In place of the ghastly bloc system, in which I have no confidence, we should start to build bilaterals in Europe. Mr. Papandreou has gone to Bulgaria—one party from NATO, the other from the Warsaw pact—and signed an agreement with Zhivkov. The West Germans and the East Germans are now working together. I should like us to move out of the bloc system towards a European security that recognises the specific and distinct interests of every European country. Such a treaty could be signed on a much more multilateral basis by an assertion of bilateral agreement. If we did that, we could reallocate resources to meet the real threat to the survival of humanity—the threat posed by starvation in the Third world—and reduce arms expenditure.
I do not agree, and nor did the Labour party conference, with the view that every penny to be saved from nuclear weapons should be spent on conventional weapons. The motion for transferring resources was carried at the conference by 5 million votes to one. The policy that was put forward at conference is the correct one.
Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman read to us the terms of the Anglo-Soviet agreement, and there would be much to be said for it if it was honoured and respected. He

217
took as one example the Soviet intervention in Hungary, and brushed it aside by talking about what we did at Suez. However, he said nothing about the defenestration of Mr. Masaryk in Prague. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the events in Poland, or about the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. The Russians cannot be said to have respected the terms of any agreement. That is why the bloc system has come into being.
Mr. Benn: I quoted the report of my interview in the Moscow paper, in which I said that no great power has a very good human rights record. I did not know whether the question would be raised, but I looked up the letter that five or six of us wrote to Pravda at the time of the invasion of Hungary. We said :
"We protest against Soviet intervention in Hungary, because we think it wrong for any great power to impose its will on a small country for strategic or any other reasons. For this very reason we condemned the Anglo-French attack on Egypt."
The Prime Minister has done so much to undermine human rights and civil liberties in Britain. She said that the Russians have agreed to stop jamming the BBC, but the Government have been jamming the BBC by sending in the security services. When the Russians stopped jamming the BBC the Prime Minister started jamming it. Human rights cannot be used as an argument for deferring progress on disarmament.
The assumptions upon which Britain's post-war foreign and defence policies have rested are no longer true: that the Russians have ever wanted to invade, that the Americans are the defenders of freedom and that nuclear weapons—particularly after Chernobyl—provided an element of stability in the world. The time is coming—it may come after the next general election, but I am also looking towards the 21st century—when we shall have to replace the bloc system and the arms race, including the nuclear arms race, with a British policy that is designed to bridge the gap between East and West and to narrow the gap between the north and the south that is caused by poverty. Apart from the injustice that it creates, that, too, in the end could be the ultimate cause of a war that would destroy humanity.
7.12 pm
Mr. Dennis Walters: I hope that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will forgive me if I do not follow him down all the paths that he has travelled, some of which were very esoteric. However, I do not disagree with him that the last war left a scar on the Soviet Union that has not yet healed.
Several of my hon. Friends have rightly paid tribute to the remarkable and highly successful visit to the Soviet Union by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. They were not joined by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I have considerable respect and, indeed, affection for him, although I do not approve of his present posture on defence. In his knockabouts he can be excellent and extremely funny, but today he was not up to his usual standard.
It is not unreasonable to hope that, as a result of the visit and the long and wide ranging talks, progress will follow on a number of important issues. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the talks held in Moscow about the middle east. Progress towards peace in the middle east would be as important an achievement as any. It is an area
218
of continuing and acute tension and a major international conflict could still be triggered off there. Advance to a settlement has been lamentably slow, and one significant cause for the paralysis has been the determination of the United States Administration to exclude the Soviet Union from the peace process. This has been an attitude lacking in statesmanship and vision, because the Soviet Union could make a valuable contribution to progress and, just as easily, could impede the peace process. Of course, that is not the only or the most important aspect of American foreign policy in the middle east that has continued to demoralise not only those of us who are anxious to see progress towards peace but also those of us who wish to see Western influence in the area preserved and strengthened.
The main cause of the failure of American policy has been its incapacity to provide any semblance of an evenhanded approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Its bind support for Israel, irrespective of the circumstances, has lost it both credibility and influence. There are, however, some new factors and some recent developments that are perhaps worth looking at. It is, for instance, conceivable that Irangate and the Pollard affair may have just begun to shake the stranglehold that the Zionist lobby in Washington has held for so long. In Irangate, for instance, it became increasingly clear, as the story emerged, that Israel played a major and invidious role in it.
What is particularly striking about this—as the late David Watt, who will be sadly missed, wrote in one of his last articles in The Times—was the ease with which the Israelis were able to play on the United States Administration's weaknesses for their own ends. Equally remarkable, he pointed out, was the kid-gloved caution' with which most of the American media treated this aspect of the affair. He concluded that anybody who has worked in Washington or New York knows the reasons: the Israeli lobby has established an unrivalled position of power over the years. The question we should now be asking ourselves is whether this lobby has been undermined. Just conceivably it has been, and that would be a hopeful development. It is at least worth trying to find out.
I have often argued in the past few years that the only way in which progress could start to be made towards a middle east settlement would be through an international conference and that the participation of the Soviet Union in such a conference was essential. That it will now come about seems far more likely. A real opportunity has opened up, whereby my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, before or after the general election, might be able to persuade President Reagan to support such an endeavour. But an international conference would make progress only if serious preparatory work were carried out in advance. Here again, Britain and the EEC have a significant role to play.
The most recent EEC communique on the middle east was realistic and positive, addressing itself—as it did—to the fundamental issues that needed to be resolved. It is encouraging that Mr. Tindemans is shortly to embark on a fact-finding tour of the area. He should, however, add Syria to his itinerary if he wants to understand and influence the Arab side.
If it proved possible to establish a shared Arab negotiating position, an important step towards a successful conference would have been taken. The essential

219
people in formulating such an accord, who would also be key participants, would be King Hussein, President Assad and of course the Palestinians.
Even more important and much more difficult is to persuade Israel to make the territorial concessions necessary for a successful peace settlement. Only the United States has the leverage which could make Israel move. The question is, will it exercise such leverage? There is no doubt that territory in exchange for peace remains the only realistic basis for successful negotiations. After 20 years, the implementation of resolution 242 still is at the heart of the solution. An international consensus on this point exists and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might be able to convince President Reagan and his advisers that one state should not be allowed to veto a settlement. Here lies the key to peace in the middle east.
Shortage of time prevents me from touching on the Iran-Iraq war except to say that, although separate, it is part of the same malady which pervades the whole area. The resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict would have a decisive influence on the war and greatly weaken the threat of expanding and aggressive Islamic fundamentalism.
The outlook for a settlement since 1982, the year of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, has been exceedingly bleak. There are now some windows which show signs that they may conceivably be prised open. The EEC and Britain in particular are in a unique position to assist in doing so.
Next year will mark the 40th anniversary of the tragic ending of the British mandate in Palestine, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir C. Mather) referred. It would be wholly right and appropriate if by then British and European diplomatic action had succeeded in establishing a process of negotiation which was making progress. Thereby we could redeem at least part of our failure in Palestine and go some way towards fulfilling our mandatory obligations to the Palestinian people.
7.22 pm
Mr. James Lamond: The response of the Prime Minister to her recent visit to the Soviet Union was perhaps the most interesting aspect of it. Of course, she planned the visit and the programme with an eye to impressing the British electorate and she returned flushed with her success, as she saw it, in that respect, because she had enormous television coverage and the impression she wished to convey—that of a world statesman—perhaps came over to the public. But I think that that could be quite short-lived.
What interests me more is the feeling the right hon. Lady gained from her visit. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned the Inter-Parliamentary Union trip in May and June last year under the leadership of the deputy Prime Minister which followed the same pattern almost as the Prime Minister's visit. That was not my first visit to the Soviet Union either. My own experience and feelings stem from visits beginning as long ago as 1960 when I was a trade unionist.
No one can visit the Soviet Union without being impressed by the desire of the ordinary people for peace and friendship with the world and in particular with the West. There is no anti-American or anti-British feeling there. Their concern for peace stems from the suffering which they went through in what they refer to as the great
220
patriotic war and the struggle that they have had to rebuild their country since 1945. They do not want to go through all that again. They do not want to launch any war against the West. They are very anxious to build bridges. I hope that the Prime Minister at least gained that impression from her visit to the Soviet Union.
The Prime Minister did not quite follow the complete pattern of the IPU visit because we went to Leningrad. A visit to Leningrad is a valuable experience in the education of anyone from the West because we do not realise the struggle that the people of that city went through in the 900-day siege during the last war: the starvation in the city, the pitifully small rations, the deaths. No one who has visited the mass graves, as the IPU delegation did, could fail to be impressed by the fact that more than 600,000 people were buried in that cemetery in huge mass graves. That is just about half the number who lost their lives in Leningrad.
I was there with a young woman of perhaps 30 years of age who was visiting the memorial. A film was shown of what happened during the siege and that girl was in tears. As far as I know, she was not Left wing in her political views. I have no reason to think that she was anything other than what an Oxford graduate might be expected to be—perhaps at least moderate in her views. She said that what struck her most of all was that, although she had been given perhaps as good an education as it is possible to get in this country, she knew nothing of the sufferings, the struggle and the tremendous resistance of the people not only in Leningrad but in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of towns and cities similarly placed throughout the Soviet Union.
One has to understand that background when one goes to the Soviet Union and tries to talk to its leader. This desire for peace did not begin with the arrival of General Secretary Gorbachev at the top of the political tree in the Societ Union. It has been there certainly as long as I have been visiting that country, and it is very deep-rooted and sincere.
Mr. Gorbachev has put proposals on the table in a very imaginative way in an attempt to achieve some movement in the West towards agreement. There was the moratorium on nuclear tests, for instance, which went on for over 18 months, without the slightest sign of response from the United States or Britain, and was broken only when the United States began its new series of tests. Then there were the proposals Mr. Gorbachev made in January of last year and those he made at Reykjavik when he met President Reagan. None of them was responded to as it should have been.
Now we have our Prime Minister going to the Soviet Union, and that is where her dilemma arose. She was perhaps satisfied that she had had a lot of television coverage and that the impression was given that something had been achieved. But the poverty of the achievements was revealed today when we heard the Foreign Secretary again try to outline what they were. There was the initialling of agreements on trade. Of course we welcome that, but there is much room for improvement in our trading position with the Soviet Union. We need only to discuss it with the British Soviet Chamber of Commerce to understand that our share of the market has been dwindling over the years and that our place has been taken by other western European countries.
There is a suggestion that there will be new embassies. That is welcome, of course. I hope that when the new

221
embassy for the Soviet Union is built we do not have the absurd hullabaloo that there was in Kensington last time. These are small matters internationally. The fact that they have to be emphasised as achievements of the visit drew attention to what had not been achieved.
What has happened once again is that the Prime Minister has come back determined to emphasise that she, if no one else, believes that nuclear weapons are a good thing. When she said that on Soviet television, I am sure that the people could not believe their ears. That is the same as saying that the future of humanity does not matter. The Prime Minister has made that clear even on her return from the Soviet Union. The Prime Minister put all sorts of obstacles in the way of achieving the elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2000.
She mentioned human rights. Of course we are all concerned about human rights. I suppose that every hon. Member has received letters about the treatment not just of Jews in the Soviet Union but of others. If other hon. Members are like me, they have taken up the matters in the appropriate place and tried to help. But to suggest that it is impossible to reach agreement on nuclear weapons and disarmament with a country which has people whom we think of as political prisoners is nonsense.
The Government, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary achieved an excellent agreement with the Chinese People's Republic about the future of Hong Kong and the 4·5 million who live there, irrespective of the fact that they were dealing in the Chinese People's Republic with a Government who certainly have political prisoners and certainly have abused human rights. Yet, despite our disagreement with them, agreement was possible on Hong Kong. If we are not to negotiate with any country that has political prisoners, we will cut down sharply on the number of countries with which we can negotiate.
The Government say that the Russians must come out of Afghanistan before it is possible to believe that they will keep their word. It has suddenly been discovered that the Russians would like to come out of Afghanistan. I invite hon. Members to read the debate which took place at the time of the Soviet Union intervention in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union never wanted to go there in the first place. It was not an invasion. The Russians had lived in peace and harmony with Afghanistan for more than 50 years. It was the first country with which they have signed a pact of friendship.
Those who think that Afghanistan was a heaven on earth before 1978 have never been there, as I have. I was there before the Russian intervention when the country was under the dictatorship of Daud. It was one of the most backward countries in the world with its illiteracy, its treatment of women and its record on human rights. Hon. Members should examine the record of the Daud Administration. Let us set that aside. There are hon. Members who know very well that the Soviet Union was asked on at least three occasions to intervene in Afghanistan. When I was speaking in the debate at that time, I was told by some hon. Members that the Russians had been asked many more times to intervene before they were finally persuaded to help the Afghanistan Government.
The Russians want to get out as soon as foreign intervention in Afghanistan ceases. By that I mean, of course, the assistance given by the dollars that are sent to
222
the Afghan rebels through Pakistan. All that is open now, although there was an attempt in 1979 to suggest that there was no such intervention.
In any case, what has all that to do with us reaching agreement with the Russians? It has been mentioned in the debate that there was a lull in the arms race at the time of Nixon. The Soviet Union was prepared to deal with President Nixon despite the fact that the Americans had troops in Vietnam to whom the Soviet Union had as much objection as we have to the Russian troops in Afghanistan, but they did not let that stand in the way of negotiations with Nixon. They realised that world disarmament and the survival of the human race stand above such differences.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has already said a great deal of what I intended to say. I agree wholeheartedly with the point he made about the need to use any money we can save from the arms race for constructive purposes, particularly in the Third world. We speak so smugly about 40 years of peace in Europe having been achieved by this tremendous expenditure on nuclear weapons, but that peace has not been achieved without deaths being caused in the Third world. The Russians are just as much at fault as we are. Of world expenditure on arms, 80 per cent. was and is made by the nations who signed the Helsinki final act in 1975. There has been no improvement in 12 years. Those who suffer in the arms race are the millions who go to bed hungry, who have no proper health provision and who have no proper water supply, and the children who die in thousands every day because of the lack of proper facilities, all of which could be provided easily out of the unnecessary expenditure on arms by the Americans, the Soviet Union and ourselves.
Government supporters may think that that is an amusing and idealistic view; they may say that my feet are not on the ground because there will always be an arms race in the real world. We must speak out against it. We must make it clear that we do not accept the inevitability of the arms race and that we can help the Third world. Our foreign policy should be based firmly on that. The big arms manufacturers in the United Slates and here must have an enemy so as to frighten the people of this country and the United States into providing the money for the profits that they make from the arms race.
If the Soviet Union disappeared as an enemy and there was subsequent pressure on the United States, Britain and other countries to reduce the amount spent on defence, a fresh enemy would have to be found. In the next century perhaps that enemy will be pinpointed as the Third world. The poor and the have-nots who make up 80 per cent. of the world will ask why the other 20 per cent. should consume 80 per cent. of the world's provisions. They will then be shown to be the enemy and we will have to arm to the teeth to guard against them. If that is the future, it is very bleak. This is a turning point and an opportunity to cut arms expenditure and use it for far better purposes.
7.40 pm
Sir Peter Blaker: The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) referred to the desire for peace of the ordinary people of the Soviet Union. I hope that they will soon be able to express their views on peace because until now they have not had that opportunity. In contrast to what I understood to be the impression of the hon. Member of the consequences of the Prime Minister's interview with the three Soviet

223
journalists, I believe that that remarkable interview helped to get across to the Soviet people and their leaders our desire in the West for peace. The Soviets have not had the opportunity yet to hear that point of view. That is a breakthrough. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other western leaders will be able to express their views on Soviet television again.
It has been observed that we may be at a favourable turning point in East-West relations. That may well be so. There are indications that the Soviet Union and the West now simultaneously have a desire to negotiate on the same subjects. There is evidence that Mr. Gorbachev sincerely wants to achieve radical changes in the economy and political scene in the Soviet Union and also to make advances—modest though they are so far—in human rights.
I assume for the purpose of my argument that the speech that was made by Mr. Gorbachev last spring at the 27th Soviet Communist Congress may indicate that he is beginning to come to the conclusion that the positive, forward-thrusting attitude of the Soviet Communist party until now towards the rest of the world, its assumption that the destiny of Soviet Communism is to supplant eventually the systems in the free countries and the dogma that has existed ever since the Russian revolution of 1917, can be the cause of world friction. Let us hope that Mr. Gorbachev may be realising that circumstances in the world are changing in such a way that it is time that that dogma should be abandoned. If that were to happen, it would be a breakthrough of enormous significance.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) in his interesting speech said that our task is to survive in unity and freedom until the Soviet rulers come to this conclusion. Assuming that there are these favourable developments in the Soviet Union and in the international scene, we should ask what factors have led to these better East-West relations. I refer to three factors. The first has been the firmness and unity of the West. The Soviet strategy has been and is now to divide the West.
I have taken part in negotiations for some years with the Soviet Union on arms limitation. Its strategy in those negotiations and in other negotiations that I have observed has been to see whether it can divide the Western countries from one another. Only when they fail in that effort do they get down to serious negotiation. The greatest danger to the West and to Western Europe is not that of war, as long as we are reasonably sensible in maintaining our defences and our resolution. The greatest danger is political division between Western countries. If that occurred, the Soviet Union would end up by dominating Western Europe as it has for so many years dominated Eastern Europe.
The unity of the West in relation to the introduction of cruise and Pershing missiles has been very important. If we had succumbed to the threats of the Soviet Union about the dire consequences of persisting in our policies of bringing in those missiles to match the existing SS20s on the Soviet sites, there would have been a profound loss of confidence and division between the NATO countries, and there would have been no negotiations on independent nuclear forces in Europe. The Soviet Union would not have needed to negotiate. It could have kept its SS20s and other missiles without the need for any negotiation at all.
224
The second factor for this more favourable situation is the economic failure of the Soviet Union. Nowhere in the world is there a Socialist economic system that works. The Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, France in the first years of the Mitterrand Administration, Tanzania and others—all those countries are realising that Socialism is a flop and they have to seek better systems based on human incentives. Mr. Gorbachev sees the need to invigorate the Soviet system by moving in that direction. I hope that he also sees a need for a reduction in the massive Soviet spending on arms of between 13 and 15 per cent. of Soviet GDP.
Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Member has spoken of Socialist systems. I agree that an overcentralised and largely bureaucratic economic system is not likely to work, but does the right hon. Member not accept that under the capitalist system, leaving aside what happened before the second world war, there remains in the advanced capitalist countries—certainly in Britain and the United States—great poverty, deprivation and misery, and also in many Third world countries that are far from Marxist?
Sir Peter Blaker: There is an analogy with what Sir Winston Churchill said—that the system of democracy has many disadvantages but there is no system that is not even worse. Capitalism may have many problems and disadvantages but there is no better system; every other system is worse.
The third factor that has helped to created better East-West relations is the role of Her Majesty's Government—especially relevant during a time when the United States Government has had more than its share of problems in its international policy. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on his role in giving greater emphasis since 1983 to dialogue with the Soviet Union. The former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East, said that he had planned to visit the countries of Eastern Europe. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has visited every country in Eastern Europe. He has had 12 meetings with successive Soviet Foreign Ministers and has not spared himself in the cause of promoting dialogue with the Soviet Union.
The Prime Minister's trip to Moscow must be seen as the culmination of a process that has been continuing ever since the beginning of this Parliament. One of the main features of the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow will prove to be the particular relationship—I use the word "particular" rather than "special" because I might cause confusion if I applied that word to this relationship—that has developed between her and Mr. Gorbachev. They are able to discuss without rancour matters on which they differ profoundly. That is a unique relationship to develop between a Western leader and a leader of the Soviet Union. I can think of no other relationship of that sort. The relationship potentially has very great importance for East-West relations and for peace over the years ahead.
One component of that remarkable relationship is the recognition by Mr. Gorbachev of the Prime Minister's ability—which has been demonstrated on a number of occasions—to persuade President Reagan to adopt practical, sensible and workable policies on matters of importance in the context of East-West relations. I am particularly thinking of the two Camp David meetings

225
that the Prime Minister had with President Reagan, one of which was about SDI in December 1984 and the other after the Reykjavik summit in 1986.
What a contrast we have seen between the successful policies of Her Majesty's Government in the context of East-West relations, defence and disarmament and the chaos on the Opposition Benches. The Leader of the Opposition endorses NATO, but rejects its policies. He accepts the protection of the United States, but only if the United States protects us in the way that he wants. So far as I can make sense of his policies, they involve depriving our forces in Germany of the protection of nuclear weapons while neighbouring allied troops have those nuclear weapons. In one of his most recent statements, the Leader of the Opposition said that a Labour Government would not insist on American nuclear forces being withdrawn from this country so long as negotiations between East and West were continuing. That reveals the fundamental weakness of the Labour party's position. I do not believe that this point has been made yet—if it has been made, it has not been made firmly enough and should be repeated regularly. If we had a Labour Government with basic policies of ejecting American nuclear forces from this country and throwing away our own nuclear defences, the Soviet Union—if it was then engaged in negotiations—would only have to terminate negotiations with the United States to achieve its objective. It would not need to negotiate to get what it wanted. It could get that through no effort on its part. There would be no incentive for the Soviet Union to continue negotiations. The reality of the Labour party position is that it wants to eject all nuclear weapons from this country as fast as possible.
The pretence in the Labour party position that a Labour Government would so increase our conventional forces that nuclear deterrents would become irrelevant is wholly fraudulent. That simply cannot be achieved within our budget even if—contrary to the wishes of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) as expressed this afternoon—the Labour Government saved the money to be spent on Trident and put it to building up our conventional forces. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) knows that the Labour policy is nonsense. When addressing audiences in the United States he tries to pretend that Labour's policies are different from what they really are, but that only makes the confusion worse.
I am sorry that no representative of the Liberal party or the Social Democratic party is present in the Chamber. This debate has been marked by a total absence of any SDP Member apart from a rapid visit by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) who came in for about five minutes son-le two and a half hours after the beginning of the debate, but was whisked away by the leader of the Liberal party to some destination, we know not where. One member of the Liberal party was present. I reflected while the spokesman on foreign affairs, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), was speaking on defence and disarmament negotiations that it was a pity that he did not have some of his Liberal colleagues with him in the Chamber so that we could hear about their policies and learn how they differed from the policies of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. That would have been an interesting debate. It would have been even more interesting if the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) had been present to add his version which, of course, is wholly different from that
226
of any member of the Liberal party. I can sum up the position of the Liberal and Social Democrat parties—so far as the Liberals have a coherent position at all—by saying that the Liberal party is against nuclear deterrence and the SDP is in favour of it. Therefore, they compromise on the basis of two words: "don't know". It is certain that after the election, whatever the result may be, the first thing that will happen will be civil war between the two different parties in the alliance.
If the Labour party or the alliance had been in power for the past seven or eight years, would we now be in this favourable international position in the context of East-West relations? I believe that the confusion and disarray that would very likely have existed in that period would have meant that the Soviet Union would have felt it unnecessary to make any concessions. It would not have felt impelled towards the fruitful developments we have seen in the Soviet Union in recent times.
Would Mr. Gorbachev have seen the necessity to reform Soviet society if NATO had been in disarray? Would he not have waited to see what happened on the Western side? The answer it perfectly clear. NATO's firmness and unity have helped to bring the Soviet Union to negotiations as Conservative Members forecast in the years 1979 to 1983. Mr. Gorbachev has given the conclusive answer to the women of Greenham common.
7.57 pm
Mrs. Renée Short: I was delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary say that his recent visit with the Prime Minister to the USSR was
"certainly an important opportunity to bring our two countries and our peoples together".
I was also delighted to learn that the Prime Minister said that she was
"struck by the spontaneous warmth and friendliness of my reception by the people of the Soviet Union".—[Official Report, 2 April 1987; Vol. 113, c. 1225.]
That is a good start to warmer relations and a better understanding of the Soviet Union and her people.
Had the Prime Minister had an open mind about the Soviet Union, she need not have been so struck, for she would have known that already. My visits to the Soviet Union extend over many years from the late 1950s arid early 1960s and they have shown me how warm-hearted the Soviet people are. Last June, during the visit of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation of which I had the privilege to be a member—a delegation led by Lord Whitelaw—we saw again the spontaneous friendship and goodwill towards us.
The Soviet people, of course, have poignant memories of the sacrifices that they made in defending their country against facism and they are ever grateful to us for the help that we were able to give. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) referred to the destruction and appalling loss of life suffered by the Soviet people followed by many long years of sacrifice in order to build up their country again. We should be ever mindful of their sacrifice. They are grateful for the help that we were able to give in defeating Hitler's evil regime. We should always remember the comradeship that bound us together over those years during the war and in the years afterwards.
When she came back from Moscow, the Prime Minister stressed the Helsinki agreement and of course we support that agreement. In June, when we talked to him about

227
those matters, Mr. Gorbachev gave us the same reply that he gave to the Prime Minister. Since then a number of so-called dissidents have been released and reunited with their families and some Soviet husbands have been reunited with their British wives. We hope that this process will continue and I have every confidence that it will.
Before I went to Moscow many cases were raised with me by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. These cases were raised with Mr. Gorbachev and we drew attention to the plight of Soviet psychiatrists and others being held against their will, clearly for no other reason than that they held unconventional political views. As a result of our representations a number of Jews were released and given exit permits. This process must continue. All these changes will make for better relations with the Soviet Union, and I am confident that with Mr. Gorbachev in power this lessening of tension and the release of people from prison will continue.
I am rather disturbed that the Prime Minister made no reference to British-Soviet co-operation in the general disciplines of science and technology. This is a very important way of building bonds and links between the two countries, and Soviet scientists are very keen to see those links developed. We were told this when we met Soviet scientists at various meetings. They are anxious to co-operate and work with our scientists, but that requires resources to enable Soviet scientists to come and work here. This ought to be part of our programme. There is no doubt that collaboration and contacts in these fields have been reduced since 1979, largely as a result of the negative attitude of the British Government.
I know a good deal about the construction industry. It is trying to produce a new system of Euro codes through co-operation with member states of the European Community. The Soviet Union is involved in this development of Euro codes and has taken part in the Commit& Europôen du Beton. The new Euro codes are based on the scientific work of international and professional organisations of which the Soviet Union and most other Socialist countries in Europe are members, together with our representatives and those of other Common Market countries.
What is the Prime Minister and the Government doing to reactivate scientific contacts with the Soviet Union? I hope that the Government will regard these as important ways of developing more bonds between our practical scientists and our technologists in ways that will benefit both our peoples. Until recently, student exchanges between us and the USSR were hampered by inadequate financial support from the Government. The sum of £1,906 per annum per student was allowed. That was about £400 less than the amount assessed by university departments as being necessary to maintain students here and allow them to take part in journeys in Britain to visit cultural establishments, theatres and so on. However, I am glad to hear that this amount is to be increased to £2,246 from next September. I hope that this will enable many more students from the Soviet Union to spend some time here.
Contacts between young people are among the best ways of pursuing a fruitful and friendly policy towards other countries. The British Council has played an important part in enabling young people to go to the Soviet Union to study, but the council's resources have
228
been reduced by the Government. I hope that we can persuade the Government to look again at the resources made available to the British Council.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister about an increase in Government financial help towards the £500,000 that is the cost of exchange between the National theatre and the Mayakovsky theatre in Moscow. This is chickenfeed, a tiny amount of money. The Government have offered the miserable sum of £12,500. In view of the Chancellor's recent £6 billion bribe to the electorate, surely the Government can do better than that miserable amount. I hope that the matter will be looked at again so that an additional amount can be made available to allow this exchange to take place. It will be an exciting, stimulating and fruitful exchange between two nationally famous and internationally regarded theatres.
Cultural agreements are very important, especially for improving our relations and furthering a positive foreign policy. However, such agreements are pointless unless they are backed with resources that will make them effective. Cultural contacts with the Soviet Union have largely been conducted by voluntary organisations such as the British-Soviet Friendship Society, of which I am vice-president, and the Society for Cultural Relations. To be effective both rely on the goodwill of their members. The Foreign Office was and is indifferent to such efforts.
Another organisation in which many of us are interested is the Great Britain-USSR trade delegation. Representatives of our best industries are keen to develop trade, and that is valuable for both sides. I hope that the Government will provide more resources to enable that organisation to be more effective. I take issue with the statement made by the Prime Minister that it had taken her quite a time
"to turn Britain round from Socialism to a country with a high standard of living, …strong defence … Therefore, it will take much longer to turn round the Soviet system."—[Official Report, 2 April 1987; Vol. 113, c. 1237.]
She has got a hope coming, because she will not turn round the Soviet system and I doubt whether anybody else will. I do not think that Mr. Gorbachev is unaware of the prominence of this country. Have we a high standard of living, a strong defence? I think that he knows better than that, just as we do. I doubt whether he would be any more pleased than we are at her interpretation of Britain after years of her Government. There are nearly 4 million people unemployed. There are threats to reduce benefit to young people and others, we have a depleted Navy and merchant marine, and a huge gap between the well-off and the poor in respect of health, housing and jobs.
The Prime Minister's talk of turning round the Soviet system is not exactly a good foundation on which to build better relations and a more constructive foreign policy towards the Soviet Union. One hopes that she will learn sense before too long. For the peace of the world a constructive foreign policy that recognises the positive aspects of the new leadership in the Soviet Union is essential and could bring enormous benefit to all of us. That is what we all must build on.
8.7 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is always a pleasure to follow a speech by the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). She and I, together with my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, went on

229
the IPU delegation to the Soviet Union. We all came back with an intimate, if not privileged, impression of the amount of change that was going on there and the degree of opportunity for progress in disarmament that now exists between East and West. In the main, the hon. Lady made a constructive contribution to this debate. We are well aware of the good work that she does for Anglo-Soviet relations which she has been doing for many years.
I do not wish to take up much time, because many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members wish to contribute to the debate. I shall headline points and not embellish them to too great an extent. As I have said, the present situation is extremely promising and there is virtually a unique opportunity for progress. However, to my mind, the present situation is more than a little dangerous, not in terms of simple danger but because of the real possibility that between us all we could fail to take one of the greatest historical opportunities to make progress in disarmament that has existed in my lifetime.
That great opportunity has been there for some years. It has not just sprung up but has even been reflected in my speeches in the House in successive foreign affairs debates since 1984. It precedes Mr. Gorbachev and, apart from defence policy, the reason for it is simple and has been developing within the Soviet Union. Basically, it is that the economy of the Soviet Union is not working and the cost of the arms race is increasing, not only in terms of nuclear potential but because of the enormously increasing cost of conventional armaments. Mr. Gorbachev is introducing many dramatic suggestions. It was his mentor, Mr. Andropov, who, for a brief period, represented the beginning of this current opportunity which exists in East-West relations.
As to the West, while I agree with many of the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) made about the need for the unity of the West, the question which must be posed is whether the strain of maintaining that unity will cause us to lose out on the existing opportunity. The West has not got its act together in that regard to the extent that I should like. I shall draw attention to certain specifics of which the strategic defence initiative is paramount. That is utterly wrong because it threatens the progress of negotiations. It is a new chapter in the arms race, as I have said before in some detail. There are grave European misgivings about it which go far beyond the officially spoken word of many western European and NATO countries.
As to the ABM treaty, the broad interpretation to many of us appears to be illegal and certainly against its spirit. The reason for my saying that is that progress on strategic arms, which must be at the pinnacle of disarmament, is in doubt while we have the strategic defence initiative in its present form, because the Soviet Union will rely, in default of technological advantage in this sector, on a policy of saturation. Therefore, the programme will be put out of sequence. With a strategic stalemate we start to look desperately for progress in any area.
I would go along with any suggestion that represented progress, but I should like to make it clear to the House—here I may appear to be speaking against the INF agreement—that I am a package man. The negotiations should be conducted as a package—these remarks are addressed to Capitol Hill and the White House as much as they are to hon. Members. We should be negotiating strategic arms and the strategic defence initiative at the
230
pinnacle. We should also be negotiating on short-range missiles, chemical warfare and other aspects which have been mentioned by hon. Members.
That brings me to the Soviet INF offer. Here I would accept and advocate progress. I do not want hon. Members to get wrong what I am about to say. I would take the risk and have the progress, but we must remind ourselves—this point has not been made as much as it should be—that taken alone the INF offer represents, from the Soviet point of view, a brilliantly timed offer. It hits at the soft underbelly of the West's desperate desire for progress, which is often frustrated, in European eyes, by its differences with Washington. Europe is looking for progress and the United States, because of Irangate, is desperately looking for progress, not least for presidential credibility. Taken separately, it must be to the Soviet advantage.
The INF proposal detaches the United States from Europe. We all remember the battles to install these weapons in the first place. A major Soviet fear is removed of the presence with a nuclear capability of the United States on non-American soil. An American missile five minutes from Moscow was always the major fear of the Soviet Union in this regard. It was in the context of encirclement, and anybody who has been there will know what I am talking about. An intermediate range missile operated by the United States is what the Soviet Union would term as a free shot within Europe. The Soviet Union regard that as an unfair advantage.
The INF offer leaves the Soviets with an advantage as to short range superiority, unless negotiations rapidly follow. In view of the general situation, and in spite of that, I would still like to make every possible progress on the INF offer. But once one gets out of the proper sequence of disarmament, and because it is not within our power in this House to control that sequence, we may be asking for more trouble than some of us bargain for.
The Soviet Union wants to progress in these negotiations. The scale of change in the Soviet Union over the last two years is staggering to behold. I refer to the policies of openness and reconstruction, the massive dismissals, and the massive political and commercial changes. In his speech at the last party congress the Soviet leader actually denounced the system for not working and referred to such matters as corruption. He announced matters which none of us imagined would have been announced so quickly—multi-candidate elections within the party and the republics. The pilots to those elections have been announced. The point of this is not to sing the praises of what is happening so quickly, but to say that by any standards it is formidable if not fantastic in our conceptions of the Soviet Union and its system. It has created many problems in the Soviet Union, and anyone with any knowledge or feeling of that system must realise that any leader who introduces such matters so quickly needs to make progress. In the introduction of them he has made many enemies within one of the most conservative systems in the world.
If the West ignores the need within the Soviet Union to make international progress, and ignores the degree to which the proverbial neck has been stuck out, it does so at its peril. There is nothing permanent about the offer, and while we may be arguing about the minutiae among ourselves in an effort to get a united approach against something which on this side of the Atlantic, let alone on

231
the other side, sounds rather strange—with this mass of offers—if we delay too long those offers may not be there.
I want to address myself to the United Kingdom role in all of this and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on her visit. Personal relations are important in foreign affairs and she obviously has a formidable relationship with Mr. Gorbachev.
Internationally, with regard to the British role, we must make vigorous representations to Washington and, dare I say it, I should like to see my right hon. Friend putting in nine, 10 or 11 hours with President Reagan as much as I would with Mr. Gorbachev—or rather I should say President Reagan and his advisers.
As to Europe, there is an undoubted need for greater defence co-operation. I welcome the speech that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made in that regard in the last fortnight. What I am saying mirrors certain feelings that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) expressed in his speech. I would differ from him by saying that for such a contribution to be effective it must be a European rather than a British contribution, even in a multilateral context. If NATO is to survive as an Alliance, it must become more equal, and that means that we must have a more vigorous European defence policy.
There are enormous trade opportunities in our bilateral relations with the Soviet Union. We should trade with the Soviet Union, even if the result of that trade is that it becomes stronger in the sense that it becomes our commercial rather than military competitor.
We must continue to press on matters of human rights, but we must recognise what has already been done and allow time for changes within the Soviet system to take effect. We must press but we must not overdo it.
One of the best gestures that the Soviet Union made before the Prime Minister's visit—which it substantiated afterwards—was that there should be no jamming of the BBC Russian service. That was a formidable gesture.
I gave notice to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I would mention the BBC external service and satellite television services. Early-day motion 846, an all-Conservative motion, had attracted 108 signatures by this morning and has gathered more. It reflects concern that the United Kingdom should not lose out by delaying a decision, bearing in mind that other countries are rapidly expanding their satellite television news services. We seem to be delaying the decision. Early-day motion 852, an all-party motion with widespread support, had attracted 157 signatures this morning and has since gathered more. That states that the BBC, through its outstanding record and international credibility, is by far the best instrument to put Britain's case abroad. Of my hon. Friends who signed the general motion I am pleased to say that 75 per cent. also signed the all-party, BBC-oriented motion. I invite the Minister of State to refer to that in his reply.
I have been as brief as I can and I end where I began. We must make progress. The opportunity is there, and history will judge the western Alliance harshly if we do not take advantage of it.
8.22 pm
Mr. David Young: As day succeeds day the faces of the hostages in the Lebanon fade
232
from our memory. As week succeeds week their names also fade. The name that most people remember is that of Terry Waite. Many of the hostages are as much hostages of American policy as they are of the groups that hold them. Apparently, while claiming to oppose terrorism, the Americans were prepared to treat with terrorists behind the scenes when that served their own selfish interests. The Americans are no strangers to dealing with terrorists as they showed by their sleazy deals with the Contras.
It is not surprising that small terrorist groups in the Lebanon saw their opportunity and that the more cash and guns were handed out by the Americans, the more the currency in hostages increased and continued. I am not anti-American, but I am a little careful about the present occupant of the presidency. Providing that he is not impeached, he will retain that post for another two years. However I think that he is impervious to the reactions of the middle east. That is illustrated by his bombing of Libya, which was endorsed and underwritten, I am sad to say, by the United Kingdom Government.
If the United States President was after those guilty of the La Belle nightclub bombing in Berlin, where many Americans died, evidence shows that he got the wrong country. If the object was military targets, a recent television film shows clearly how indiscriminate that targeting was. Women, children and other civilians paid with their lives for an American action endorsed and supported by the British Government.
That was an act of vengeance. It did not deal with terrorism. I can imagine the outcry in the House if we released Fl11s to deal with terrorists in Northern Ireland. The Americans' blunt instrument turned many Arabs away, not only from the United States but from the United Kingdom. It is sad that we are being dragged along to be regarded by many in the Arab community not as people to whom they can turn for justice but as potential enemies.
No country has suffered more in the middle east than the Lebanon. During the civil war about 10 per cent. of the people have become casualties, being seriously wounded or killed. There will be no solution to the Lebanon problem until all foreign troops, be they Syrian or Israeli, are removed from that country. Only then can we hope to achieve stability.
The greatest casualties in the Lebanon tragedy are the refugees in the Palestinian refugee camps of Bourj-albarajneh, Chatila and Rashideyeh. The camps have been under siege since last October or November. Medical teams report that the blockade causes a complete lack of food and medical supplies.
One camp houses 12,000 and another, 5,000. The estimated casualties in the camps amount to almost 5,000. So severe is malnutrition and starvation that medical teams say that many mothers cannot produce milk for their infant children. But there is no replacement for such milk. British people serve on those medical teams and the House will want to pay tribute to all those who work under such difficult and dangerous conditions to preserve life. The medical teams report that mothers and children are shot if they try to leave the camps to find food. In Chatila camp, for example, no anaesthetics or antibiotics are available.
Hospitals, like the camps, have been subject to intense artillery bombardment. In one camp it is estimated that there have been about 200 direct hits from artillery on the

233
hospital. The hospital at the Chatila camp has been reduced from four to two storeys. The camps are short not only of food and medical supplies but of clean water.
The crucial shortage in those camps is fuel. Without fuel they not only cannot cook, but they cannot work the pumps that raise clean water. In effect the people are literally drinking their own sewage. That is the position for thousands and thousands of people. To start with, they were refugees and were deprived of human dignity. Now they are existing—that is the only word to describe their lives—from day to day.
When we talk in the Chamber today about human rights we must think of the human rights of the men, women and children in those Palestinian refugee camps in the Lebanon. Hunger strikes there mean that members of the family give up eating to try to preserve the lives of others. They face escalating casualties and the fact that almost 95 per cent. of some of the camps have been destroyed.
I am aware that grants of money have been given to help the refugees, but what we need more than anything else is an international solution of the problem. There will be no peace in the middle east until a solution is fund to the Palestine question. That solution will not solve every problem in the middle east, but it will be a giant step forward. It is no good talking of maintaining human rights, removing terrorism, or peace in the middle east—escalating conflict in the middle east could be a major factor in an international war—unless the countries of the West, including Britain, realise that they must back the resolution of this problem. We can no longer be prepared for the United States, which is a prisoner of Israel, time after time to block a solution. We need a resolution of this key question. Without it we shall see no peace in our time in the middle east.
8.32 pm
Mr. David Howell: Praise has rightly been heaped upon my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for her brillantly successful Soviet visit. I would like to add a word of warm praise for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, whose patient work over the years helped to prepare for the recent visit. Successes such as the Soviet visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister do not happen out of the blue. That visit was the result of an immense amount of work by my right hon. and learned Friend and we should recognise that. I should also like to pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he has opened our eyes to what is going on in eastern and central Europe in recent years. My right hon. and learned Friend has paid many visits to that area. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) mentioned those visits.
There is no doubt that the mood in eastern Europe has changed as those countries have begun to come out of the extraordinary time warp in which they existed and consumers have begun to raise their sights, look westwards and want more. It is questionable whether those countries can cross the Rubicon of political reform into a genuine capitalist system without bringing the Soviets straight down on their backs.
On a recent visit to Budapest my impression was that the country was full of people good at enterprise, who wish to develop an enterprise system, but who live in intense fear that if they move too quickly and go too far the iron
234
heel will be down on them immediately. I heard the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) talk about empires, but there can be no more vivid example of living under the imperial yoke than the atmosphere that pervades a country such as Hungary. That country is looking increasingly to the West. It has a tradition of enterprise and capitalism, but it dare not move for fear of bringing the iron heel down upon it.
I should also like warmly to associate myself with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Leed, East (Mr. Healey) concerning the late David Watt. He was a good friend of mine and it was a horrifying and miserable thing to hear of his death. Although I did not agree with him on every issue, nevertheless he was a stimulating, fair-minded person and it is a tragedy that he has gone.
Obviously, after the Soviet visit, the focus of the debate has been on east-west relations and a balance of forces in Europe and the Atlantic area. I suggest to my hon. Friends and hon. Members that it is as well to remember that the world's second richest and third most powerful nation—the third super power of the late 1980s—lies outside that area. I refer to Japan. It is the Japanese dimension to our affairs and our overseas policies on which I wish to dwell for a few moments. I do not believe that it is wholly unrelated to our narrower discussions of the world within Europe and the possibilities now open to us by Soviet disarmament proposals.
I was glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary say that, when it comes to relations with Japan, the aim is to increase market access. Apparently our policy is a liberalising intention and a commitment to free trade. If that is so, I am bound to say that the idea of threatening to revoke Japanese banking licences and pushing the Japanese institutions out of London seems a questionable way of achieving that aim. I have long argued that we should have a much more comprehensive approach to Anglo-Japanese relations. In that way we could deal with such crises as they occur rather than waiting until something goes disastrously wrong and then making threatening noises or proposing measures that may not do much more than damage the United Kingdom.
I appreciate that the present economic dispute with Japan is extremely irritating. Indeed, it is one of many irritating things—the Scotch whisky curb and the habit of placing absurd standards On imports. I appreciate why people are concerned about the saga of Cable and Wireless. But I urge my right hon. Friends to think extremely carefully about the idea of placing curbs on Japanese institutions and on the free entry of Japanese finance institutions to the City of London. I urge them to keep the question of financial institutions and our opportunities to get into Tokyo separate from the issue of the Cable and Wireless investment in the second telecommunications system in Japan. I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware that we have not heard the full story about Cable and Wireless—nothing like it. There are many ramifications that may not lend themselves to emotional utterances in the House, but they must be studied carefully before we go at half-cock on that issue.
As a nation we are committed to the open trading system and for that reason I was encouraged by my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks. We must remain committed. The suggestion that we are prepared to move away from that commitment when we are faced with minor squalls in economic matters represents a worrying

235
route. The strands go deep, and we must be careful that what appears to be a temporary deviation does not become a habit. The main aim of world economic policy at the moment is to get countries such as Japan to spend much more and expand much faster. The policy is not to put up more barriers by retaliation or to move the world into a cycle of protectionism.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the toleration that he is spelling out, with which I agree wholeheartedly, is admirable, none the less there must come a point when Japanese penetration of our markets becomes intolerable? At that stage we must act from strength to get the Japanese to open their markets to our imports. How does my right hon. Friend believe we can do that?
Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend anticipates me. I shall describe in a moment how we should proceed rather than how we should not proceed in this matter.
I have mentioned two reasons why short-term retaliatory threats are not the right way. The third and fundamental reason is that the idea of each country being in bilateral payments balance with another country is utterly absurd. It means nothing at all. It may happen that we have a large current deficit with Japan. We have an even larger current deficit with Germany. But in neither case is that a meaningful economic concept. The flow of trade is triangular or quadrilateral—or many-sided—in a variety of countries at different levels of processes and products. The proposition that we must work to obtain an equal balance of trade with each country and that something is wrong if we do not belongs to the world of fantasy. It is certainly not a guide to policy, or should not be.
Japanese exports have been falling recently and Japanese imports have been rising rapidly—15 per cent. in volume in the past two years. If a little patience is shown, because of the enormous appreciation in the yen, we shall see a major impact on the Japanese balance. That will take time. In the meantime, people want instant results and we have the sort of dramas that we had only a few days ago.
Another reason why the open threats that we have heard so far are not valuable is that they are incredible. They do not carry any weight. Everyone knows that if we were to prevent the movement of financial institutions into the City of London, or demand the removal of those already here, they would go elsewhere. If it is suggested that somehow they could be kept out of the EC, there are other countries in Europe that are not in the EC that would find it hard to say no to them. Switzerland is the obvious example.
If I may stick for a moment on the negative side, there is one more reason why it is a mistake to deal in terms of open retaliatory threats. My young son, who learns judo at school, or it may be karate—I am not very good on these things—tells me that the secret of wrestling with rivals in those styles and techniques is to let a rival's own weight work against him. That is extremely good advice in dealing with the colossally powerful Japanese economy.
The truth is that the weight of Japan today is its staggering prosperity; its enormous capacity to save and to generate investment. Its weakness is that it is not an effective part of the global security system. It has grown
236
powerful and has lived by the belief—which is a complete anachronism in today's integrated defence and financial systems—that it is a small island that can safeguard its vulnerability as far as possible and lie low, and that as long as it does that it need not fulfil any responsibilities in the international global system. That is no longer true. It is no longer true of defence and it is no longer true, and it has not been so in Japan for some years, of energy and, in particular, oil. The question of Gulf and middle east stability is central to the survival and development of a peaceful Japanese society, and many Japanese recognise that.
Above all, we should be pressing Japan on its weak point—the failure of that giant so far to contribute to the global security system even remotely on the sort of scale commensurate with its enormous prosperity, size and importance in the world's economic system. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield made some points on that, although I cannot remember whether he gave a figure. Japan spends about $12 billion a year on so-called self-defence against the $24 billion or $25 billion a year that Britain spends, yet Japan has a GNP three times the size of ours. We should now be pressing the Japanese on precisely that point. If they are to expand and prevent the world economy going into recession, of which there is a great danger now, it may well be that on defence spending, among other things, there is room for expansion.
Dr. Kissinger told some of us the other day that that is all very dangerous. He said that we could not let the Japanese spend more on defence because that would lead again to the rise of militarism in Asia, of which we have seen horrific consequences in the past and of which we do not want any more. I think that he is looking too much at the past. We are talking not about the rise of national militarism, or its dangers, but about a gigantic nation—the world's second richest—contributing to the incredibly expensive global security system.
The reality is that the SS20s that are pointing at Europe and that we want taken out of the INF system are also deployed in Asia, for reasons that I have never quite understood. Certainly they do not harmonise closely with the idea of the Soviet Union as entirely benign. But the point is that if Japan wants the intermediate nuclear missiles to be removed, and if it wants to move into the post-INF order, it will have to consider playing a much bigger part in the global defence system that follows.
We have all heard enough in this debate to understand that the zero option is bound to mean in the short term, and I suspect in the long term as well, increased expenditure on conventional forces to make some match with Soviet Union superiority, although we have argued about how great that superiority is. It is also bound to mean, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pointed out, a considerably enhanced importance for British and French nuclear weapons. It is also bound to mean, as we have already heard from leading German authorities, that they now have a growing interest in seeking some kind of French or Franco-British nuclear protection. Those things are already happening.
But it is not only western Europe which will be more vulnerable in the new post-INF situation if it comes about. Japan will be vulnerable too. If anyone has any doubts about that, he should read the speech that Mr. Gorbachev made in Vladivostok when he visited that part of the world the other day, when he said clearly that there would be

237
pressures, and that the Soviet Union would have interests in that end of its empire just as much as it has interests in eastern Europe.
Rather than trying to tackle Japan on specific pin-prick points—I am afraid that they are only pin pricks—we would do better to be pressing this gigantic nation, which will dominate the 1980s and 1990s, including our own interests, on defence expenditure, overseas investment and support for overseas and world development. We should also press that nation to be making a much larger contribution to science and technology internationally than it has done in the past.
The thought that I want to encapsulate in this short intervention is that we should certainly press the Japanese on opening their markets, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. That would be right. We have some reason in some areas to be irritated and I wish good luck to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He has gone into the lion's den to explain how unacceptable and irritating some of those restrictions are. But also let us press the huge nation of Japan to become a much bigger and more open spender in defence and other areas of overseas investment. Let us realise that open threats of retaliation are not the subtle, clever or effective way in which to achieve the aim of expanding the world economy and maintaining the open free trade system.
8.48 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Possibly the most important proposal to come out of the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union was that more British schoolchildren will be able to visit Soviet families in their homes. Therefore, unlike the Prime Minister, they will not take until their 61st year to realise that in the Soviet Union are real people with the same sort of aspirations as the rest of us in the world who want peace, who are striving for a decent standard of living and who hold out the hand of friendship to people throughout the world.
The Prime Minister, in her speech at the Kremlin dinner, mentioned the memories of the second world war. Speaking of Britain, she said that our great cities had been bombed night after night. My first memories of the Soviet Union go back to the days when, as a child, I spent a year and a half sleeping every night in an Anderson air-raid shelter at the back of the garden. I remember the eight consecutive nights in Liverpool when we faced the wrath of Hitler's Luftwaffe. We faced many other nights of bombing in that city, too. Liverpool was the second worst-bombed city in the country after London.
In May 1941 we faced the May blitz, but I also remember what happened after 22 June 1941. Then we came in for a quieter time, and things became easier. There were not so many air raids. Those of us who remember Liverpool in those days remember the words that were spoken during the second world war by a former Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr. Duff Cooper, who said that we should never forget the debt that the British people owed to the gallant Red Army. I shall never forget that debt and I shall never forget what we owe to the Russians. Many people, inside and outside the House, are alive because of the valour of the Soviet army during those years. That was borne out in a speech made by Winston Churchill at President Roosevelt's press
238
conference in Washington DC on 25 May 1943. We do well to remind ourselves of those days and of what Churchill said.
Mr. Andrew Hunter rose——
Mr. Wareing: I shall not give way. Many hon. Members still want to speak and I do not want to take up more time. Churchill said :
"The Russians have held the weight of 190 German divisions and 28 divisions of satellite axis nations. They have done what no one else could do—torn part of the guts out of the German war machine. They have been grand allies in the heroic fashion".
Yes, there are those in this country who will remember what we owed to the Red Army during the second world war.
I went on my first visit to the Soviet Union in 1967. I was not part of any delegation. My wife and I simply got in my car in Liverpool, drove to the Soviet Union via Viborg and visited Leningrad, Novgorod and Moscow. We met ordinary people in those places. That was 20 years ago, and I realised then that there is more to compare between our two countries than there is to contrast—certainly as regards ordinary 'people. The Prime Minister is just gleaning a little of that truth.
Let us examine what the Soviet Union has had to suffer. It has faced three invasions from the West in this century. During the revolution and civil war 14 nations invaded the Soviet Union. It was attacked by Germany during the first world war and invaded during the second world war—an invasion that saved many of our necks. European Russia was devastated in 1945, but the Russians built up their country for the second time this century. That calls in question the attitude of those Tories who belittle the economic system in the Soviet Union. I would not support every facet of the system there—of course I would not—but where, if not in the Soviet Union, has the real economic miracle taken place since 1945? If its system is so weak, what are the Tories afraid of? Why do they think that Mr. Gorbachev and the Soviet Government are just waiting for us to give up nuclear weapons so that they can launch an attack?
After all the euphoria of the Prime Minister's visit and the propaganda of the Tory press that was associated with it, one thing emerged: the real differences between the position of the Prime Minister and that of President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev, who have said that they want denuclearisation and an end to nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister alone holds the view that we should support the continuance of nuclear weapons. Mr. Gorbachev does not agree that nuclear deterrence is the only way of averting war. What sane person would disagree with him?
I was fortunate in 1984—thanks largely to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris)—to be introduced to the Soviet leader. I did not spend nine hours or 28 minutes with him, but I was fortunate enough to have 10 minutes. I was impressed by his attitude to nuclear weapons, and I remember him telling me that the Soviet Union would never turn its weapons against those countries that did not have nuclear weapons on their soil.
The Prime Minister, however, still argues that a world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for us all. If she is right, why should not every country have its own nuclear arsenal? Let us all have nuclear arms. Does anyone seriously believe that the world

239
would be a safer place, and that there would not be an even greater risk of an accidental outbreak of nuclear conflict? Mr. Gorbachev has offered to negotiate not only on the issue of nuclear arms but on conventional reductions, too.
What concessions do we offer? The Foreign Secretary has spoken of constraints on shorter-range weapons, yet at this very time the United States army, supported by the United Kingdom, has deployed the W79 8-inch artillery shell in West Germany. That is a weapon with a potential neutron capability, a fact that was hidden from this House for a number of years after the Montebello proposals.
The Prime Minister has talked of keeping the peace by the withdrawal of Russian troops from Afghanistan. I and my hon. Friends believe that it is highly desirable that the Afghanistan people should be allowed rightful self-determination, but freedom to choose one's own Government should not end in Afghanistan. That right—the Prime Minister often speaks of freedom of choice—must include the right of the peoples of Nicaragua, Vietnam and Angola to throw off their oppressors and seek economic solutions that are different from the ones that we would choose—solutions that are not to the liking of international finance capitalism.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) spoke of Communism in one breath and the dangers of subversion in the next. The only subversion that we have heard about that has threatened the British Government has come in the form of the allegations in Peter Wright's book. It is alleged that the Government of Harold Wilson were in danger of being subverted by the agents of the CIA and of others who wanted to ensure that democracy produced the right results in the eyes of American capitalism. The Harold Wilson Government were not in danger of being subverted by the agents of Moscow.
The Prime Minister has said that the withdrawal of Russian troops from Afghanistan will have a crucial part to play in the future of Afghanistan and in deciding how others see the Soviet Union, whether they trust it or fear it. The same must be true of the Americans, who have occupied Grenada and who currently occupy the Guantanamo base in Cuba without the approval of the Cuban Government. Equally, the same must be true of the United States Government continually giving support to the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, to the UNITA South African-backed forces in Angola and to other regressive forces elsewhere in the world.
The Prime Minister has the audacity to go to the Soviet Union to talk about human rights. The Soviet General Secretary made one or two comments about that, and I believe that they are well worth repeating. At the Kremlin dinner, Mr. Gorbachev said that he hoped that his word would be heard openly and loudly in the West by the millions who are unemployed, the homeless, the destitute, by those beaten by the police and victimised in court—like the Liverpool city councillors—and by those whose civil rights and dignities are subjected to glaring discrimination because of the colour of their skin.
The Prime Minister has been a Member of this place since 1959 and we look in vain for any early-day motion which she has signed opposing oppressions by the Pinochet regime in Chile or by the dictatorships of Salazar and Caetano in Portugal. The right hon. Lady was a Member of this place when those two were in control of
240
affairs in Portugal, and the same applies to the colonels' regime in Greece. We can look in vain for the name of the Prime Minister being signed in opposition to oppression and violation of human rights in any of the countries to which I have referred.
To send the Prime Minister to Moscow to preach human rights is like sending a burglar to inaugurate a home-watch scheme. When she visited the Soviet Union the Soviet Government were generous enough to allow her to see the dissidents Mr. Sakharov, Mrs. Bonner and Mr. Begun. I hope that Mr. Gorbachev will take up the Prime Minister's invitation to revisit Britain. When he does so, I hope that he will be allowed to see our unemployed, homeless and old people who have had their heating allowances reduced and are endangered by the threat of hypothermia every winter. I hope that he will visit Liverpool and Tyneside to see our dissidents. I hope also that one day we shall have a Prime Minister who feels as popular and as safe in Liverpool and on Tyneside as the present Prime Minister felt last week in Moscow and Tbilisi.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for short speeches because I understand that those who occupy the Front Benches may seek to reply at 9.20 pm.
9.4 pm
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) drew attention to the fact that we owe a great deal to the Soviet army because of its sacrifice during the second world war. The hon. Gentleman spoke about bombing, and the Chamber was bombed six weeks before the Soviet Union was attacked. We should not forget that Britain was involved in fighting against the Third Reich for some years before the Soviet Union was attacked.
Recently I had hoped to visit Moscow to be one of three Members of Parliament to be present at the British embassy to present awards to a certain group of refuseniks, including Mr. Josif Begun. I was glad that, instead of the three of us going, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was able to present the award herself. I feel that she was entitled to raise the issue of human rights. The Russian Government accepted the commitments in the Helsinki final accord relating to the free movement of people and ideas, and my right hon. Friend was entitled to request that the commitments be observed.
That issue has a relationship with arms control, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in the House that the way in which the Soviet Union honours the Helsinki accord is an indicator of the way in which it would honour any other agreement. How it acts in respect of its own communities is evidence of its good intentions.
There is no doubt that those directly concerned wish the issue of human rights to be raised. Mr. and Mrs. Begun were quoted by the Prime Minister as saying:
"There is a great deal to be done. Will the West please continue to make representations?"—[Official Report, 2 April 1987; Vol. 113, c. 1230.]
Apparently they believe that the changes that have taken place would not have happened in the absence of pressure from outside.
Mr. Gorbachev has said that he would look at humanitarian cases carefully and that wherever possible there would be positive results. I would like to raise the

241
case of one family which is known to me. In June 1975 Mrs. Cherna Goldort applied to the department of emigration in Novosibirsk in order to emigrate to Israel with her daughter Galina. She worked for a research institute for chemical technology and she signed an undertaking not to leave the Soviet Union for a period of five years after she had finished her work there. That period ended in 1976 but she was still refused an exit visa.
In 1979 Mrs. Cherna Goldort was summoned to an interview with General Slontezky, an official in the emigration department. The general said :
"You have one daughter in Israel and another with you. If you want to be with both of them, then let Galina go, and it will be easier for you to receive permission for yourself."
Therefore, Galina was allowed to leave and she settled in Israel. Mrs. Cherna Goldort applied for an exit visa as General Slontezky had suggested but she was refused.
In October 1980 her two daughters in Israel appealed to the Madrid review of the Helsinki accords. They were informed that the official reason for refusal was the fact that Mrs. Goldort's two brothers remained in the Soviet Union. When her brothers went to meet the relevant officials to say that they did not wish to stand in the way of their sister emigrating, they were removed from the building by force.
Since that time Mrs. Cherna Goldort has had a heart operation and is not in good health. She has been refused an exit visa until at least 1995. Her letter states:
"I am here … You are there and there is no end in sight."
I raise this case because I met her daughter Galina in the House of Commons with Martin Gilbert who is Sir Winston Churchill's official biographer. I promised to raise the matter with the British ambassador in Moscow.
The point is one of principle. Divided families should, wherever possible, be reunited on humanitarian grounds and in future there should be a higher regard for the Helsinki accords in the Soviet Union. We must appreciate, as was said earlier, how much has been done already and how much Mr. Gorbachev is trying to do. However, we should not underestimate the extent of the opposition to him within the KGB.
I am glad that the Prime Minister had the courage to raise these issues. It is particularly significant that she went on television, possibly before a much larger audience than any other Western leader. The commercial contracts worth £400 million and the various other agreements she has signed along with the Foreign Secretary are extremely important, including the new arrangements for an improved hot line between No. 10 and the Kremlin. It seems that those are remarkable achievements and full advantage should be taken of them. The Prime Minister's visit will act as a catalyst, not only in reducing tension but in making it easier to achieve future advantages in arms control and in human rights negotiations. In doing that, I believe that she has rendered a service to the Western democracies.
9.8 pm
Mr. David Winnick: The Prime Minister's pre-election visit to the Soviet Union was far more concerned with television audiences in Britain than in the Soviet Union. It was clearly a pre-election public relations exercise, and there is no doubt that that is the view of most people in politics and the media. I am sure that that view is expressed in one way or another in the country as a whole. However, that is not to minimise in
242
any way the changes that are occurring in the Soviet Union, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) said. Those changes are of considerable importance. There is undoubtedly a welcome change of atmosphere and a climate where criticism is being permitted on a number of topics. It is especially expressed in films, plays and some books. The press is beginning to play a somewhat different role in the Soviet Union than it has played until recently.
The other evening I watched on "Newsnight" excerpts from a Soviet film that is playing to crowded audiences in the Soviet Union. The film is called "Repentance". The main character—he is certainly no hero in the film—is based largely on Beria, Stalin's criminal chief of the secret police, who had many other responsibilities. He did not survive Stalin for long. Clearly, the audience were happy to be able to watch a film that, to some extent at least, dealt frankly with a topic that, until now, could not be mentioned.
At long last, "Dr. Zhivago'' is to be published, and that is a welcome change. I well remember, in 1958, the uproar in the Soviet Union when that book was published in the West. Other publications and articles are appearing, and plays and films dealing with what, until now, have been sensitive and controversial themes are being shown That is all to the good.
I look forward to the time when Soviet citizens can leave and enter their country as we can leave and enter ours, and I believe that Soviet people should be able to enjoy that right. Moreover, this is the opportunity for the West to respond to the new atmosphere, and certainly to the repeated offers by the Soviet leadership to negotiate meaningfully on a wide range of subjects such as nuclear disarmament and arms control.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I believe that most people in Britain feel that the United States has more responsibility for the failure to negotiate properly than has the Soviet Union. There is a widespread feeling here—one that I share—that there is no wish or enthusiasm on the part of the American Administration, and certainly not on the part of President Reagan, to respond constructively to what is happening in Moscow. There is too much enthusiasm for the status quo on nuclear weapons, for star wars and the rest.
Whatever view the British people take about unilateral nuclear disarmament, there :is no passion for nuclear weapons as such. However, the Prime Minister seems to have that passion. Her constant theme is that for the past 40 years peace has been kept because of them, and it will be maintained in the future only because of such weapons. There are two logical conclusions from that. The first is that there should be no reduction in nuclear weapons. According to her, that would be a danger to the continuation of peace. Secondly, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, why not spread this more widely? And instead of trying to limit the production of nuclear weapons by various countries, why not say that the more that have nuclear weapons in Europe, Africa and Asia, the more peace there will be? Is that not after all the logic of the Prime Minister's argument?
Our concern on the Labour Benches for human and democratic rights is universal. It is not confined by any means to the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe. Of course the people in those countries do not enjoy anything like the civil liberties that we have. As I have often said, in the Labour movement, in the House, and elsewhere, if we have

243
these democratic rights, there is no reason why the people of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Hungary should not have them. That makes sense. However, there are double standards and they are not on this side of the House.
In 1973, when the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was a junior Minister in the Foreign Office, he spoke about what had happened in Chile as a result of the armed coup. I gave the right hon. Gentleman notice that I would mention this. The Pope has just visited Chile and he went to the national stadium, where, as we know, following the coup thousands of people were held, and many were executed. The bodies were piled high. On 28 November, the right hon. Member for Pavilion said :
"It is not possible for the Government of the United Kingdom to intervene everywhere all over the world. We do our best to protect human rights in the Council of Europe and through the United Nations, but it would be unrealistic to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries as suggested in the motion and it would also very often be, in our experience, counter-productive".—[Official Report, 28 November 1973; Vol. 865, c. 483.]
This illustrates that, when it comes to Chile, there is no great concern on the Tory side about human rights.
As I asked during an intervention, did the Prime Minister, in the week before she went to Moscow, lecture the King of Saudi Arabia when he came over here? Did she talk about human rights in that country? Could it be argued that the Prime Minister has been a champion defender of the rights of the black majority in South Africa? Is it not more accurate to say that, time and again, the Prime Minister has used every argument to stop effective British and international action being taken to undermine that notorious and evil regime in South Africa, which denies human rights to millions of people simply because of the colour of their skin?
Before lack of time compels me to finish, let me deal with another matter relating to Eastern Europe—that is Czechoslovakia. I note that Mr. Gorbachev is visiting that country this week. Like many others, I am very disturbed that two members of the Czechoslavakian Jazz Section were recently put in prison. Undoubtedly, there is a good deal of repression in Czechoslovakia—far more than there is at present in the Soviet Union—and we hope that that will change.
I should also like briefly to mention the Palestinians in the refugee camps in the Lebanon. I welcome the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young), who made a passionate plea about those Palestinians. He is right; I cannot deny it. But, if I am interested in human rights in various parts of the world, should I not also be concerned about the human rights of the Palestinians?
I have no time now to deal with what has been happening in the camps, and to a large extent my hon. Friend has already dealt with it. However, I have always taken the view—and I make no apology for it—that Israel has as much right to existence as any other country. That remains my view, whether it is that of the majority or of the minority at any given time. It does not mean that I am not a very harsh critic of that country's policies. It does not mean either that I believe that the West Bank should be in Israel. But I do believe that there will be no lasting security in the middle east, or for Israel itself, until the solution is found for a Palestinian state. If the people
244
of Israel have a right to their country, the Palestinian people have no less a right to a state. It is absolutely essential that effective action is taken internationally to try to secure a settlement, and the Soviet Union and the United States certainly have a role to play in that.
9.17 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accelerating his comments. As you reminded us three minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, before the Front Bench takes over, the best prepared of all speeches must be cast aside.
If I had had longer, I would have wished to turn from five hours dominated by a debate on East-West relations—and the related feature of human rights and disarmament—to discuss a forgotten element in our foreign affairs debates of the past four months. I refer—after what the hon. Gentleman has just said—to South Africa.
There is, as I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will note, a lull in the debates and deliberations in this place on the affairs and fortunes of South Africa. It gives us time to reassess, to revalue and to take fresh stock. In that lull, let us recall that the objective is to see established in South Africa a form of Government that is acceptable to all races. The present Government have tried faithfully to pursue that objective.
During this time for reassessment, let us consider whether we should not make a more positive assessment of the role to be played in South Africa by the tribal leaders. In recent days, we have heard announcements and pronouncements about the possible establishment of an indabha in Kwazulu-Natal. We have also seen further advances towards genuine independence in Bophuthatswana. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take on board the sincere plea that, in pursuing the encouragement of those who seek moderation and a peaceful solution acceptable to all races, he will listen to those voices of moderation from both black and white. Many Conservative Members wish to place on record their personal esteem for the move made by Denis Worrall in his courageous stand for Parliament in the approaching white minority general election.
With one minute to go, let me sum up my argument by saying that voices of moderation are at work in South Africa. Let the Government hear those voices, identify them, encourage them and reassess the low value that hitherto has been accorded to the leaders of tribal groupings in South Africa.
9.19 pm
Mr. George Robertson: The debate has ranged across such a large number of issues that it will be impossible for the Minister and me to cover all of them this evening. However, all hon. Members will agree that it has been a fascinating debate. It has rightly concentrated on the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union and all that it means to us. We look forward to hearing the Minister's predictions in his summing up, because he and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) have seen their weekend predictions crumble into dust. The Minister is here to face the music this evening, but the right hon. Member for Devonport has probably not yet caught up with the fact that the election will not take place next

245
month. He, together with all his hon. Friends, is probably campaigning now in another part of the country or, who knows, in another part of the world.
Right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow. We welcome the fact that the trip was a success. It is not a grudging welcome; it is not forced. We are genuinely happy that the Prime Minister returned with such refreshing views of Mr. Gorbachev and of what he is doing and also with such enlightened sentiments about the future.
Hon. Members have pointed out that there are few tangible results from the days of walkabout, intimate chat and electorally appealing photography, but we do not deny the value of establishing trust with the general secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. Hon. Members have also pointed out that the climate for an agreement on intermediate nuclear forces was not helped before the visit by the Prime Minister having needlessly invented fresh conditions or linkages—from human rights to coincidental short range nuclear agreements. Hon. Members have pointed out, too, the glaringly obvious fact that negotiations on arms control, as distinct from after dinner speeches about the subject, are the property of Mr. Shultz next week. That does not detract for a moment from our genuine relief that the Prime Minister has now abandoned the empty rhetoric of the cold war and embraced the idea of dialogue and the establishment of trust with the Soviet Union.
When BBC4 listeners turned on their radios last Wednesday morning, 1 April, and heard the breathless tones of the Prime Minister when she said,
"If he gave me his word, I would believe him",
many of them must have had good reason to feel that this was one of the broadcasters' jokes that had been specially created for that particular morning, but when they had woken up to the fact that it was genuine there was undoubtedly a collective sigh of relief that this would be a safer world than the world that we normally associate with the analyses of our national leader.
Now that the Prime Minister has caught up with the enlightened views of Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand, whom she tried to put off before she visited Moscow, perhaps she will now wend her way to Tokyo and use her now famous charm on Prime Minister Nakasone on a subject that has also exercised hon. Members in this debate.
Where, however, does this new re-think leave the Government's vision of Europe? The confusion of the signals from all sources must be a sign of ministerial nervousness about the election that looms over them and threatens them.
The Foreign Secretary made a speech in Brussels a couple of weeks ago which represented a complete volte face by the Government on the subject of Western European union. That speech, combined with his reported veto at the weekend on the European Community's strengthening its links with the United States, certainly suggests that the Foreign Secretary is still performing his act of getting into the Prime Minister's consciousness by making radical speeches rather than through the ignored Foreign Office memoranda which land on or are discarded from her desk.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That suggests to me that the hon. Gentleman is giving far too much credence to what he reads in the newspapers. On the second point that he
246
made, he should not believe for one moment that I am seeking to stand in the way of effective co-operation across the Atlantic. We are all seeking to discover the best way of advancing it. On the first point, he just happened to have read the most recent speech. If he read the points which I made on many previous occasions, he would find no difference in the points of view. I acknowledge the incompleteness of his information.
Mr. Robertson: The Foreign Secretary may seek to clarify the record, but I do not think that he persuades very many people. It would perhaps help the House if major meetings of the Foreign Ministers of the European Community took place at the weekend. Perhaps then we could have a precise record of what happens at those meetings and a report from the Foreign Secretary or a junior Minister to the House of Commons to let us know precisely what takes place. I do not like relying on newspaper reports any more than the Foreign Secretary does, but sometimes the House of Commons has no alternative because it gets no more information from him.
Just as we welcome the Prime Minister's conversion, so too do we welcome the Foreign Secretary's conversion to the creation of robust Western European self-reliance, because we see the merit of Europe's starting to prepare for possible reductions in the physical United States presence on our continent.
It has to be said that the fashionable obsession which we hear about very often from the other side of the Atlantic via the airways with alleged American isolationism or the Americans' rejection of a role in Europe is knocked on the head by the splendid study of American opinion which was made by the authoritative and very distinguished Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. When its sample was asked about leaving troops in Europe, no less than 82 per cent. said that they should be left in Europe and only 16 per cent. said that they should be withdrawn. So the scaremongers who question the Atlantic relationship would be well advised to absorb this study.
If the Foreign Secretary is to fly such radical kites, we have the right to ask whether the Prime Minister flies them with him. While we more than welcome the objective of European equality with our American ally—and equality is what we seek with the Americans—there is no sign that the Prime Minister has abandoned her affection for the subservient, lap-dog approach which has characterised her premiership. We seek in vain signs that she has changed—but maybe the Foreign Secretary continues to work on her.
If evidence of the poverty of the right hon. Lady's strategy on Atlantic relationships is needed, it can be found in the news today from Westland, only a year after the forced marriage with the American partner took place and resulted in large numbers of redundancies. That is the partnership that brought so much chaos to the Government and that we were told at the time would protect jobs and protect Westland. We know precisely what value to place on the Government's record and their view of the way in which that relationship should develop.
The Foreign Secretary rightly mentioned the European Community but dealt inadequately with it. Two weeks ago we marked the 30th anniversary of the signing of the treaty of Rome. The celebrations in the United Kingdom were

247
appropriately muted as if to recognise that the 30-year-old European Community had little to celebrate other than the fact that it had survived at all until 1987.
The Community is beset with crises. The budget is still in financial chaos, with elastoplast ineffectively keeping all the cracks covered and with inventiveness confined to more and more desperate creative accountancy. Indeed, the week before last the Court of Auditors described the recent attempt at a budget as illegal. The common agricultural policy is still an uncontrolled shambles. The drive by Lord Cockfield to a barrierless Common Market by 1992 is already doomed because he fails to see that such a concept is impossible without the necessary and coincidental balances against the market dictating that all the benefits go to the strongest areas and member states.
Nothing betrays this Government's cynical betrayal of the European interest more than the fiasco of the European research programme. At the same time as the Foreign Secretary is preaching the virtue of European self-reliance our so-called technology Minister, the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), the Minister of State at the Department of Industry, is in there openly sabotaging the one programme which might make Europe competitive with those in the United States and in the far east who threaten us.
Britain stands alone—the only nation in Europe blocking the £4·5 million European framework research programme. We were abandoned by our last reluctant ally—West Germany—at the end of last week. We are attacked by everybody else in the Community. We are even isolated from the entire sycophantic group of Conservatives in the European Parliament. The Government project their image of King Canute on the beaches of high technology.
The Government embarrass the nation and disgrace our reputation with their inexplicable opposition to the most valuable and relevant of European programmes. That is true even if it did not contrast so starkly with the pusillanimous attitude to the out of control farm spending and food stockpiling. The Government add their words of opposition to that scandal, but their ineffectiveness is manifest.
But glorious opposition to a realistic research effort is the real fighting ground for the neanderthals in Downing street and the Treasury. When it comes to destroying the European capacity to recover in high technology, it is small wonder that even the Conservative research spokesman in the European Parliament, Mr. Amedee Turner, said that the Pattie position was "becoming untenable"—delicately put. The CBI disagrees with the Government, the other 11 countries of the Community disagree with them, the 63 Tory Members of the European Parliament disagree with them. Their case is isolated and discredited. We get more from European Community research programmes than we pay in, but the stubborn, irrational resistance goes on. We are made a laughing stock and branded as short-sighted by the rest of the Community.
Our cynicism is not alone in European Community politics. The West Germans, refreshed by a general election when the Christian Democrats won another majority, are now entering the cynicism game to equal our Government. Last Thursday in Bad Godesburg, West Germany, I listened to a speech by the opposite number
248
of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker),. Dr. Inngard Adam-Schwaetzer, the Minister of State in the Foreign Office of the Federal Republic, who said :
"There is no alternative to the continuing integration of the member states of the European community. This sometimes requires that we put our national interests behind us."
When next day I looked in the British newspapers for this declaration of faith in the European Community, what headlines did I see:
"West Germans warn EEC that their own interests come first".
It was a betrayal of the ideal by those who preached that European unity is what matters and that national interest must be pulled behind us. The prospects for a resolution of the major financial crisis in the European Community have diminished with each act of cynical self-interest.[Interruption.] I ignore the sedentary interruptions from Government Members whose heckling reaches new heights. Election fever is now overcoming even the Foreign Secretary, who is carried away by that prospect.
The middle east is of common concern to us all. There must be widespread relief in this House that the disgraceful siege of the Palestinian camps in Beirut may have begun to end. This serious issue has been raised by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young).
The slow starvation of the tragic inhabitants of the camps at Chatila and Bourj-al-Barajneh has been a real horror that has been given wholly insufficient attention by the world community. One can only compare the attention and concern that we paid to the slow, calculated and cynical attempted destruction of these people with all the attention that was given to the attack on them by the Christian militia. When Jews help Christians to destroy Arabs it is an outrage to humanity, but when Arabs starve Arabs it is viewed simply with concern and resignation. The sieges are not over yet. Maximum pressure must be put on all parties to get them stopped immediately.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East is right to remind the House of the British citizens who still languish kidnapped in the back streets of Beirut. Our friend Terry Waite is the best known but certainly not the only one whose fate still remains unknown but for whom we still keep our hopes high.
We welcome the Foreign Secretary's report that the European Community has now launched a new initiative by convening an international conference on the middle east. With the Americans apparently opting out of the process, and with new responsibilities lying all the more heavily and onerously on the shoulders of the European Community, it is vital that the momentum be maintained even if the outcome is far from clear.
There are some welcome signs in the middle east. The Americans do not seem to be so opposed to an international conference. Mr. Shimon Peres is continuing the effort of persuading his Prime Minister of the merits of some dialogue in this area. The Soviet Union is making historic, if tentative, moves towards recognising Israel. King Hussein is also making valiant efforts to deal with both the Palestinian case and the Syrians. The key to progress in the middle east lies in Syria. If King Hussein's visit to Damascus last Friday is productive, then a glimmer of hope may exist.
But if Mr. Tindemans' perambulations round the middle east bring back one message, it must be that

249
nothing will happen in the troubles of the middle east, the Lebanon or the West Bank without the involvement of Syria. What happens then? What do the British Government do at that point? Is there not a case for reviewing—in the light of developments since we broke off diplomatic relations—our relationship with Syria? Surely it is better to do that than to find ourselves, as so often before, out-manoeuvred by our Community partners and forced to change against our will.
Many other subjects of central importance to this country and its future were raised in this debate, including the whole question of central America and the trade war with Japan that we seem to be on the brink of. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who is not in his place, remarkably chose to deal with that in his speech.
Finally, I wish to comment on a subject mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, human rights in eastern Europe. We have heard much about human rights in the past few days and, as my hon. Friends have said, we have strong views about such issues. We do not have the same partisan view about human rights that is so often displayed by individuals on Opposition Benches. However, I entirely endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North about the Czech repression of the Jazz Section of the Czech musicians' union. Suppressing ordinary musicians as though they were commercial criminals persuades no one outside Czechoslovakia that their actions are right. I returned an invitation to attend a conference in Czechoslovakia, declining on the ground that I could not accept an invitation to a country which acted in that way towards people who were simply practising their music.
The Prime Minister's visit to Moscow may yet turn out to be a watershed representing the point when at last she saw that there was a common destiny for the world and that the idea of frozen hostile camps at each other's throats could have no sense in a world with split-second timed weapons of mass destruction. If that is the case, we will welcome the dawning of the blindingly obvious and the world will perhaps be slightly safer as a result.
9.41 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that this is a very hard debate to summarise, especially in the 19 minutes now left to me. In the course of the debate we have been taken down some extremely interesting avenues. For example. my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) referred to the possible reunification of Germany and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir C. Mather) mused on what might have happened if we had stayed in Palestine and if we still exercised strict influence over the Persian gulf. Unfortunately, I do not have time to pursue those interesting thoughts. I must come straight to the detailed points raised in the debate.
First, I must state how very much I agree with all hon. Members, and most recently my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who referred to the enormous success of the recent visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to Moscow. It most certainly was an enormous success and I thank the hon. Member for Hamilton for adding his tribute.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and other Opposition Members could not
250
be as generous. When those Opposition Members referred to my right hon. Friend's visit in the disparaging terms that they used, the words "sour grapes" came to mind. They simply cannot stand the thought that a Conservative Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary were so well received and so attentively listened to in Moscow.
The question of human rights has been much referred to in the debate and quite rightly. We shall try to look into the human rights case specifically mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West. I can tell the hon. Member for Hamilton that I met members of the Jazz Section and members of Charter 77 when I was in Prague a few weeks ago. The Czech Government already know what we think about the trial of the members of the Jazz Section and we shall puruse that matter.
Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Renton: No. I have many points to answer.
We heard a great deal about human rights. However, there is a strange and curious affliction that appears to strike down Opposition Members. That is the compulsion to shout "Chile" or "South Africa" whenever the subject of human rights abuses in the Soviet Union is raised. I must make the point that it is a peculiar idea that somehow human rights abuses in one country cancel out those in another. This Government take up human rights abuses wherever they occur—in the Lebanon, in Chile, in South Africa or in the Soviet Union. A particular point about human rights abuses in the Soviet Union is that the Helsinki accord imposed upon signatories precise obligations. Therefore, there is a duty and an obligation to focus on and highlight abuses of human rights in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe. Moreover, for years these abuses have been systematic and institutionalised.
During the debate a number of Opposition Members, notably the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Members for Walsall, North and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), talked about the Prime Minister's love of nuclear weapons. Nuclearphilia was the word used by the right hon. Member for Leeds., East. It is sad but not surprising that Opposition Members follow this propaganda line. The Soviet Union has 50 times more nuclear missiles than us.
Mr. Winnick: The Prime Minister does love nuclear weapons.
Mr. Renton: It is foolish for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Prime Minister loves them. NATO cruise and Pershing deployments were a response to Soviet INF deployments, which now total over 900 warheads. Even under Mr. Gorbachev, new Soviet nuclear systems have been deployed in Europe. In a wise and measured speech my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) said that the gap in defence capability continues to widen in favour of the Soviets. As that is true, the talk of a nuclear-free world is nothing but that—just talk, aspiration and dreams.
We cannot disinvent nuclear weapons. They will continue to be deployed for many years, and as long as there is a civil nuclear industry, and that is growing all the time, nuclear material will be created. As long as nuclear weapons are there and as long as they represent a threat to our security, it would be irresponsible madness for this country unilaterally to surrender its own deterrent.
The Opposition often think that by cancelling Trident and spending more money on conventional weapons they

251
would achieve such a balance that they would be able to do without nuclear weapons. However, Trident's share of the defence budget will, on average, be no more than 3 per cent. In the peak years of the procurement process its share will be less than 6 per cent. Planned future expenditure takes full account of the Trident programme in the same way as it takes account of any other major project. Indeed, the Tornado programme has been much more expensive than Trident will be.
Further, it is known that the Warsaw pact countries have a superiority over NATO of about 30,000 tanks in the central region of Europe. If Trident were cancelled and all that money was spent on other equipment, over a 20-year period all the Trident resources would buy just slightly more than one armoured division with 300 tanks. That includes the infrastructure, support and running costs. The Opposition should think about those figures. What is the purpose of just 300 more tanks in one armoured division when the Warsaw pact countries have 30,000 more than us in the central region of Europe?
I shall now turn from arms control to some of the many other matters raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) asked about the death threat against Dr. Pauline Cutting. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, we very much condemn the reported threats. I pay tribute to the courage of Dr. Cutting who carries out vital humanitarian work in difficult and dangerous conditions. There is little that the Government can do at present, but we are certainly ready to help with arrangements for Dr. Cutting to leave when conditions permit. We call on all concerned to end the violence and to allow free access to the camps for food and medicines.
A number of hon. Members including the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Dundee, West raised the question of the Lebanon. I fully agree with them that the press reports about the situation in the camps are deeply disturbing. The current situation is very confused. There are conflicting reports about whether the ceasefire is holding or has been breached and we do not know about the extent to which food will continue to get into the camps.
In his opening remarks my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred to the further aid that we have recently given to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The scope for United Kingdom action is limited, but we shall consider what we can do.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Renton: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) raised the question of the international conference. We support the principle of an international conference and we are co-operating in setting it up with the United Nations Secretary-General. We are not overoptimistic. It is right that the modalities should be worked out in advance to ensure that the conference, if it takes place, is a success. We accept that at the moment the international conference seems to be the only way of taking the peace process forward, and therefore we are playing our part in the relevant discussions.
The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to the fact that the Belgian Foreign Minister, Mr. Tindemans, who is now
252
President of the Foreign Affairs Council, is shortly going to Jordan, Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Peres, is going to Madrid, Rome and Belgium. That shows that there is a certain momentum in the peace process, and we hope that it will be successful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury asked about the Soviet Union. We have agreed with the Soviets on the urgency of getting the peace process moving. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State found that Mr. Shevardnadze's ideas on an international conference were not far from his own. In so far as we see a place for all five members of the Security Council in the international conference, there is acceptance that the Soviet Union will have to be involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher raised the question of Count Tolstoi's books and the massacres of displaced persons. He spoke movingly on that issue. I understand his deep concern. It has been the subject of much discussion over the years. The best contribution that the Government can make is to facilitate access to official records, which we do under the 30-year rule. The official records relating to post-war policy on repatriation have been open to scrutiny for more than a decade. It is not the business of the Government to reach a verdict on such issues, but I understand the strong feelings which lay behind my hon. Friend's remark, in which he utterly rejected the thesis that the late Lord Stockton was involved in a devious plot.
I was asked about Greece and Turkey. We welcome the restraint that has been shown by both sides. Confrontation is clearly in no one's interests and we are glad that Greece and Turkey are talking directly with each other. It is not for us to take sides in that dispute. It is best solved by direct negotiations, but we welcome Lord Carrington's offer of good offices.
I return to the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, even though he is not in the Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East said that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East had trivialised foreign affairs. That was a kindness. I have only one word for his speech—dreadful. As a reward for publicly abandoning his beliefs and supporting policies that he knows are nonsense the right hon. Member has been promoted to the post of the Labour party court jester, doing comic turns and trying in vain to amuse his dispirited Back Benchers. Every comic wants to play Hamlet, but it is sad to see a formerly serious actor volunteering to play the clown.
Mr. Winnick: The Minister is the clown.
Mr. Renton: As the days pass, his ability to fantasise increases. For example, on 25 March he made the astonishing claim on the "Today" programme that the zero-option was a Labour party proposal made in a Healey-Foot visit to Moscow in September 1981 and adopted later by President Reagan.
Nice try. We never learnt what Mr. Brezhnev said in reply. Unfortunately, the zero-option was discussed in NATO for months before President Reagan announced it in November 1981. It was even debated in the Bundestag in May 1981. Moreover, whatever his views in 1981, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East had clearly abandoned the zero-option by 1983 because on 31 October he commended to the House Mr. Andropov's offer to cut

253
SS20s in Europe to 140. He said that it was made not to negotiate on this offer because it would give the West a very good deal.
It is sometimes said that the alliance has no policies. I do not think that that is fair. The alliance has yards of policies—at last two for every subject. However, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has been the only member of the Liberal party present and no SDP member has attended at all.
It is convenient to have variations on policy to deploy depending upon the audience, but it leads to confusion, certainly within the alliance. I well remember the statement in the House during our last foreign affairs debate on 9 March by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) who said that, fortunately, he was not responsible for Liberal policies. I can sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's wish to dissociate himself from the alliance's loony Left but if the alliance spokesman for defence is not responsible for alliance defence policies, who is?
Mr. Gorbachev's treatment of the Prime Minister confirmed her status as a senior Western leader. Britain's standing in the world has seldom been higher. Given our long list of foreign policy successes, that is not surprising. We have achieved agreement with China on Hong Kong, guaranteeing a stable and secure future for the Hong Kong people. Within the European Community, contrary to the artificial indignation of the hon. Member for Hamilton, we have negotiated a favourable settlement on the longstanding budget dispute. We have played a key role in improving Community decision-making and in speeding up the creation of a single market in which goods, peoples and services can circulate freely.
The Gibraltar border has been reopened and negotiations have been started with Spain on the differences over Gibraltar. We played a leading role in the Stockholm conference on disarmament in Europe, which was successfully concluded last autumn. In Geneva last summer I was proud to table our proposals on challenge inspection, the ultimate test of verification for chemical weapons. Those proposals are now being carefully considered.
We have maintained a substantial aid programme totalling nearly £4 billion since 1983. We have responded quickly and generously to appeals for emergency aid in Africa. Meanwhile, we are giving bilateral aid to 120 countries.
254
Most important, we have maintained Britain's firm commitment to national defence and to the NATO Alliance, while promoting closer European defence cooperation, not least, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion suggested, through a revived Western European Union. We have worked steadily for a more stable relationship between East and West and for balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear and conventional weapons.
Those achievements have come as a result of determination, persistence, consistency and reliability. I note with great pleasure the credit given for those achievements to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary by my right hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and for Guildford (Mr. Howell). It is no wonder that other European leaders said that the Prime Minister spoke for Europe when she visited Moscow. Other Governments know where we stand and what we stand for. I contrast that with Labour party policy. All parties in Opposition face the problem of achieving consistency in foreign policy because they often have to react to issues as they come along. But the Labour party has achieved that because its members have all rallied under the disreputable banner of anti-Americanism.
If the Leader of the Opposition can say that there is an almost miserable equality of threat between the United States and Russia, if he attacks the United States on Libya, Grenada, SDI and signs an advertisement in The Guardian describing President Reagan as continuing a brutal terrorist war against Nicaragua, how can he expect to be taken seriously in Washington or other western capitals?
The Labour party has achieved a unique double. It has lost the respect of both Washington and Moscow. Soon it will be a triple crown as it will lose the respect of the British electorate as well.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Family Law Reform Bill[Lords], the Minors' Contracts Bill[Lords], the Recognition of Trusts Bill[Lords] and the Reverter of Sites Bill[Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Family Law Reform Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
10.1 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In recent years, as part of the Government's programme of law reform the Lord Chancellor has tried each year to include at least one important item relating to family law.
The subject of illegitimacy has twice come before the Law Commission for England and Wales and has once come before the Scottish Law Commission. The purpose of the Bill is to enact generally the recommendations of the first report of the English Law Commission, subject to modifications proposed in the second report, deriving from the Scottish line of approach, which has already been enacted.
The importance of the subject may be illustrated by the fact that, in 1985, 126,000 children were born of parents who were not married to one another at the time of their children's birth. Illegitimacy, being a result of sexual intercourse outside marriage, may occur for a number of reasons. They range from indifference as to whether children are brought up within the framework of a marriage, to promiscuity, adultery and rape. None is facilitated or encouraged in the least degree by this Bill, which does nothing to undermine the institution of marriage but which does mitigate the impact upon children of the sins of their fathers—or for that matter their mothers—by eliminating so far as possible the legal disadvantages of illegitimacy.
Under the existing law there is discrimination that directly affects the position of both the illegitimate child and its father. The maintenance of such a child is subject to special restrictions affecting the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts; for instance no lump sum exceeding the relatively paltry figure of £500 may be awarded. An illegitimate child is subject to discrimination in its right to inheritance. It cannot, upon intestacy, inherit from a brother or sister or any other collateral, and though it can inherit from a parent it cannot inherit from any more remote ancestor. It cannot be the heir to an entailed interest. The father of an illegitimate child is also subject to discrimination by law, which may adversely affect the interest and welfare of the child.
Part I of the Bill contains only one clause, but it lays down the fundamental principle on which the Bill is based. Subsection (1) applies both to enactments and to instruments passed or made after the commencement of the Act. It provides that, unless a contrary intention appears, relationships are to be construed without regard to the marital status of the parents at the time of birth. This reflects the Scottish approach.
The policy of clause 1 is applied, by clause 2, only to certain specified past enactments. Clause 3 renders enforceable an agreement between parents relating to parental rights and duties, if, but only if, the court considers that the child will benefit by the agreement. Clause 4 and following clauses give the father of an illegitimate child various rights that he does not, at present, enjoy. It provides that the court may order that he may enjoy—subject to any contrary direction—jointly with the mother, if she is alive, or guardian, all parental rights and duties with respect to the child. The
256
courts will, of course, have a discretion as to whether to make such an order and such an order will be made only if to do so is in the child's interest. It is envisaged that a typical situation in which such an order might be made would be where the child's parents have been living in a stable relationship which is ended by the mother's death. The effect of an order vesting all the parental rights and duties in the father would effectively be to put the father into the same legal position in relation to the child as he would have been in had he been married to the mother at the relevant time. The need for the ability to make such an order was emphasised in a recent case.
Under this Part of the Bill the father of an illegitimate child is also given certain other rights in relation to that child. He will be able to apply for these rights only if he already has rights to custody, or care and control over, the child in question.
Additionally, whenever it is in the child's interests to do so, the father of an illegitimate child who actually has custody of him is given certain rights as a "parent" under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and the Child Care Act 1980. It is considered that the creation of these rights strikes the righ balance between the father's parental rights and the duties of the local authority in such a case. They also ensure that a father who, before a child is taken into care, has had responsibility for its upbringing, is put in the same position as its mother.
Part II makes general provision for custody and access orders and for financial provision on behalf of the illegitimate child.
The Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 is amended so that the courts will be able to make custody or access orders in relation to all children, whether or not legitimate, either on the application of either parent, or where a guardian has been appointed to the exclusion of the surviving parent, or where there is a disagreement between joint guardians, one of whom is a parent. When the court makes an order under those provisions it will in all cases apply the principle that the child's welfare is to be the first and paramount consideration.
Let me deal in a little more detail with the financial provision for illegitimate children. The Bill repeals the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957. That Act is a direct descendant of the old bastardy laws, whose object was to relieve the parish of the burden of child maintenance if it could be placed on the father. The repeal of this Act abolishes the separate and distinct procedure for enforcing financial provision for an illegitimate child by affiliation proceedings. The Bill provides that orders for financial provision for all children, irrespective of their parents' marital status, are to be obtained by proceedings under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971, as amended.
Accordingly, there will no longer be a time limit of three years after the birth of the child for the bringing of financial proceedings for illegitimate children. Secondly, there will no longer be any special rule of law requiring corroborative evidence that the putative father is the natural father of an illegitimate child. This distinctive requirement, which the Law Commission thought had no place in the civil law, dates back to the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, under which the overseers of the poor could recover from the putative father the cost to the parish of supporting the illegitimate child. Thirdly, the child's mother will be able to apply for a financial provision order in respect of an illegitimate child, notwithstanding that she is married to a man other than

257
the child's father. Finally, the special avenue of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court will no longer be available. Such an appeal has been unique to this area of domestic jurisdiction and has been an accident of history.
Under the Bill the High Court, the county courts and the magistrates' courts will all have jurisdiction to make orders for financial provision for an illegitimate child, as they already have for legitimate children. Magistrates' courts will cease to have exclusive jurisdiction. As with orders for custody and access, the courts will be empowered to make financial provision orders, either on the application of one of the child's parents, or where there is a guardian to the exclusion of the surviving parent, or where there is a disagreement between joint guardians, one of whom is a parent. Additionally, provision is made for applications by children over the age of 18 whose parents are separated and who are undergoing further education or training, or who have special needs, such as some form of physical handicap.
Part III deals with an illegitimate person's entitlement to certain property rights. This area of the law was last reformed by the Family Law Reform Act 1969. It made various changes which to some extent improved the position of an illegitimate person. However, that Act did not remove all the legal disadvantages which affect an illegitimate person in this regard. Part III remedies this deficiency.
The rules of intestacy are amended so that illegitimacy becomes, in general, irrelevant for the purposes of entitlement or intestacy; and this covers not only the succession of the illegitimate child to the property of others but the rights of others to succeed to the estate of an illegitimate person who dies intestate. Various reforms are effected which benefit illegitimate persons in relation to their rights of succession under wills and other dispositions, including entailed interests.
None of these changes affects succession where a person dies intestate before the coming into force of the provisions, or succession under a will made before their coming into force. None of these reforms will alter the descent of titles of honour, or the devolution of property along with such titles.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Am I right in understanding that adopted children will have all the rights of natural children except that they will not be able to succeed to a peerage?
The Solicitor-General: I shall deal with my hon. Friend's question about adoptive children in more detail later, if he will permit me to do so.
Part IV provides a new remedy by way of a right to seek a declaration by the courts, to those who seek to establish the facts of their own parentage. For example, there may be a question of future entitlement to property which turns on a dispute as to parentage. The best evidence to resolve such a question, such as blood tests, might no longer be available at the time when the property came to be distributed. In such cases a potential claimant might wish to seek a declaration of parentage at the earlier stage when that evidence is still available.
Part V facilitates the recording of paternity on the birth certificate of an illegitimate child, and part VI deals with a number of miscellaneous and supplemental matters. The most significant clause in this Part is clause 27, which deals
258
with the legal status of a child born as the result of the artificial insemination of a married woman by a donor. When the woman is artificially inseminated with the semen of someone other than her husband, and her husband consents to such insemination, the clause provides that the child is to be treated in law for all purposes as the child of the marriage.
Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that that would apply equally to a test tube baby that was born to an anonymous donor, be it a father., a mother or both parents?
The Solicitor-General: As I have said, it applies to the artificial insemination of a married woman by a donor in circumstances in which the husband consents to that insemination with the semen of someone other than her husband.
The policy of clause 27 has been endorsed in the report of the Warnock committee of inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology. The clause was part of the draft Bill that was attached to the Law Commission's first report in 1982, but after the publication of its second report, the Law Commission indicated that it-would have preferred the matter to be dealt with as part of any future comprehensive legislation on the issues discussed in the Warnock report. However the Government considered that the clause should remain in this Bill. They did not think that a Bill that removed, the discrimination against illegitimacy would be just without clarifying the position of the AID child at least to the extent that Warnock approves. If need be, the clause can be amended later in the light of any future legislation. But to delay an agreed policy until full legislation on the Warnock report could not, in our view, be justified.
The Bill is an important law reform measure that will help illegitimate children to have as normal a family life as possible. Because such children may be born in unstable family circumstances, it is of great importance that the law should not inflict any additional disadvantages upon them. The Bill seeks as far as possible to remove the remaining legal disadvantage from which they suffer. I acknowledge with gratitude the work that the Law Commission put into the preparation of the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
10.14 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: First, I thank the Solicitor-General for his detailed explanation of the Bill's contents and for letting me have sight of the notes on clauses, which have been prepared to help him make his presentation. It is helpful for me, on behalf of the Opposition, to have sight of the enormous amount of detail that is contained in the document. It helps to deal with detailed matters that perhaps we would otherwise have trawled in Committee. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
The purpose of the Bill is to enact the recommendations of the first report of the English Law Commission, which is LC 118, which was modified into the second report, which is LC 157. The object of the Bill is to remove any avoidable discrimination against, or stigma attaching to, children born out of wedlock. I welcome that principle unreservedly. The policy that lies behind the Bill is that to the greatest possible extent the legal position of a child born to unmarried parents should be the same as that of

259
a child born to married parents. This will bring the United Kingdom into line with the Council of Europe convention on the legal status of children born out of wedlock and with the European Convention on Human Rights.
This is clearly an important subject. In 1985, there were 126,000 children born to unmarried parents. At present children who are born out of wedlock are discriminated against in a number of ways. For example, in the provision of maintenance, there is special jurisdiction exercised by magistrates. They cannot award a lump sum for maintenance in excess of £500. The law on inheritance provides that a child born out of wedlock cannot inherit on an intestacy from a brother or sister. He or she can inherit from a parent but not from remoter ancestors. Although it is less common, a third example of discrimination is that the father of a child who is born out of wedlock is also subject to discrimination. If he is awarded custody of the child, no maintenance contribution can be ordered from the mother, irrespective of her means. Further, a father's consent is not required for the adoption of such a child or the marriage of such a child who is under the age of 18 years.
Clause 1 applies to instruments passed both before and after the commencement of the Act and provides that in general, unless a contrary intention is evident, relationships are to be construed without regard to the marital status of a person's parents at the time of his or her birth. In clause 4, certain rights are given to the father of a child who is born out of wedlock. The courts are given a discretion to order that the father can enjoy jointly with the mother or guardian of the child all parental rights and duties. Furthermore, there are a number of rights that are given specifically to the father. The father has the right to apply to the courts for directions when the parents disagree on questions of the child's welfare. There is now the right to apply to become the child's guardian on the death of the mother, and the right to appoint a testamentary guardian. As well as this, the father has the right to object to a testamentary guardian appointed by the mother. The father's agreement is now to be a precondition to the child being adopted or to him or her getting married under the age of 18 years.
The Solicitor-General referred rightly to the financial provisions. The Bill abolishes the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957. This removes the separate procedure which exists for enforcing provisions for children born out of wedlock by affiliation proceedings. The procedure will be that laid down under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971. In other words, the position will be the same for all children. The High Court and county courts will have jurisdiction to make orders to provide financially for children born out of wedlock.
The Solicitor-General referred also to property rights. The rules of intestacy are to be amended so that illegitimacy becomes irrelevant for most purposes as regards entitlement to property on an intestacy. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) will, I assume, be pleased to be able to anticipate good news in later years. The descent or devolution of titles or property which devolves with titles is unaffected by the Bill. I do not know whether that is good news for the hon. Gentleman, but he has expressed an interest.
Mr. Thurnham: It is my understanding that an adopted child is not in a position to succeed to a peerage. That is my reading of the position, and I consider it to be unfortunate.
Mr. Brown: Obviously the hon. Gentleman is not pleased enough. It is my understanding that the Bill makes no change in that direction, so perhaps it does not go as far as the hon. Gentleman would like.
The Bill contains a number of miscellaneous provisions. There will be a new remedy whereby a child born out of wedlock can apply for a declaration from the court to seek to establish the facts of his or her parentage. Paternity can be recorded on the birth certificate of a child born out of wedlock. Where the husband consents to his wife conceiving by artificial insemination, the child is to be treated as a child of the marriage.
All of that is welcome. However, there is a major anomaly that we shall wish to trawl in Committee with an amendment from the Opposition. That deals with the effect of the Bill on anomalies as regards citizenship. The principal defect of the Bill is that it does nothing to remove the anomaly created by the British Nationality Act 1981. The problem was stated clearly by the Law Commission in paragraph 3.22 on page 13 of its report. It states:
"A legitimate, legitimated or adopted person can derive British citizenship under the new British nationality Act 1981 from his mother or from his father. An illegitimate person can only derive citizenship from his mother because for the purposes of the Act "father" means only the father of a legitimate or legitimated person."
That issue has received widespread public attention, especially from pressure groups, particularly the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the Commission for Racial Equality. Briefly, the arguments are that the Bill is designed to
"remove, as far as possible, the legal disadvantages of illegitimacy so far as they affect the illegitimate child."
By failing to deal with the question of nationality the Bill is subject to a glaring omission. The British Nationality Act 1981 created the problem. The Act ended the conferral of British citizenship by birth. British citizenship is the key to the right of abode, which makes the problem all the more important. By virtue of the 1981 Act children born in the United Kingdom are British by birth only if one parent is British or is settled in the United Kingdom. By section 50(9) of the Act the word "parent" does not include the father of an illegitimate child. Therefore, if his mother is a foreigner the child does not obtain British citizenship. Similarly, fathers of illegitimate children born abroad can confer no rights of citizenship.
When the 1981 Act was in Committee the Government said that they were not dealing with the problem because the Law Commission was reconsidering the position of illegitimate children. That reconsideration brought about the legislation that we are discussing today. However, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said :
"If an acceptable solution could be found, the matter could be dealt with by legislation based on the Law Commission's reports."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 17 February 1981; c. 102.]
The Commission argued strongly for the change. In paragraph 11.9 of its report it said :
"we see no reason of principle which would cause us to change the proposal … that non-marital children should be enabled to acquire British citizenship from their fathers on the same terms as does a marital child under the existing law."
However, it did not draft proposals, because it was unable to make definite proposals as regards Scotland.

261
In another place amendments were sought to rectify the position and the noble Lord Silkin was the principal proponent. The Lord Chancellor stated that he and the Government had no objections to the general principle that a child should be able to acquire citizenship from his father. However, the Lord Chancellor itemised two objections. The first was that the Bill applies only to England and Wales whereas citizenship is a matter for the United Kingdom. He said that that required consultation. Secondly, he said that there could be difficulties in establishing the paternity of children born abroad. I have to say that that looks like time-wasting. There does not appear to be evidence that the issue will be contentious. Further, it is five years since the Law Commission made its proposal. Why has nothing been done since then? What has been done since the matter was raised in the Lords? Where do the Government stand on the issue now? We shall find out in Committee, if not later tonight.
To deprive children born out of wedlock of their right to British nationality is to deprive them of a fundamental human right. To fail to correct that glaring omission in the Bill and to pass the buck between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department seems to be cruel and contrary to the whole object behind the Bill. If the Government do not deal with the issue now, it is fair to ask, when are they going to get round to it? That is the only major matter that we shall be wishing to pursue in Committee. However, there are three other minor matters that I shall trail now.
The first is the representations that I have received, and I am sure that Conservative Members have received, from the Magistrates Association. It proposes an amendment to the Bill to rectify what it describes as an anomaly as regards illegitimate children. Its case is that section 16(1) of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 provides that :
"Either party to a marriage may … apply to a magistrates' court for an order under this section."
The section empowers the court to grant injunctions to parties to a marriage to restrain domestic violence. The Magistrates Association argues that it is in the interest of law and order that small children should be protected from violence in the home, whether or not their parents are married. I am sure that no hon. Member will disagree with that.
The association goes on to argue that the children of married parents are afforded this protection by section 16, but it is contrary to the principles of natural justice that children of unmarried parents should be treated differently. While unmarried mothers and their children can obtain injunctive relief from a county court judge under section 1 of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976, the Magistrates Association argues that county court judges are not as easily accessible and available as magistrates. Therefore, protection should be extended to non-married people and their children by amending the Bill.
262
As I understand it, the Lord Chancellor argues that the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for such an amendment because it would be outside the scope of the Bill. While it affects children who are born out of wedlock, it has wider-ranging implications and consultation with child welfare authorities is necessary. I can see that there is some force in this, and I am certainly not pre-judging the issue. Unlike the issue of nationality, I still have an open mind on this subject.
The Law Commission, in its report which led to the 1978 Act, decided only to extend the magistrates' jurisdiction to married persons, and clearly there was some good reason behind that decision. While the change in the law is desirable, the protection from county courts is aleady there and the Bill may not be the right place for such an amendment. There will be an opportunity for us to explore these points again more thoroughly in Committee.
Two other points have been made to mc. The first is the use of the word "minor" rather than "child" in the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971. A detailed commentary on this has been sent to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). He was sent it by the Campaign for Justice in Divorce. It is closely printed, if not closely argued, and the substance of the case that it makes is one at which we may be able to look in Committee.
The final argument that is raised on the Bill came in The Sunday Times on 28 January by a journalist, Maggie Drumond, in an article entitled "The Reality of Being Illegitimate". She argues that the real problem is not the legal stigma of illegitimacy, which the Bill proposes to remove, but the poverty that comes from being in a one-parent family. She argues that unmarried mothers are poor because they have difficulties in earning a decent living.
The thrust of the article, which criticises the Bill, is that it does not give fathers rights but merely the opportunity to apply to courts for rights, and that women will be terrified of men trying to get their hands on the children. Furthermore, the Bill
"with its emphasis on men's rights is for the trendy, joint non marital partners with their cohabitation cookbook."
I can see the case that Ms. Drumond is trying to make, in that the points about poverty have some force, and I sympathise with them. However, I cannot see that, by themselves, they make a case against the Bill. The seeks to remove the legal discriminations against children born out of wedlock. That is its narrow purpose, and I support it in that narrow purpose. It does not deal with wider issues, because it was never intended that it should. On its own terms, it is clearly to be welcomed. While there are matters to be explored in Committee, I am sure that the measure will, in principle, command a great deal of support from all sides of the House.

Family Law Reform Bill [Lords]
10.30 pm
Dame Jill Knight: I have no doubt that the Bill has been brought here this evening, and dealt with in the other place, with the best of intentions. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has never introduced a Bill without impeccable intentions. However, I must say that I am worried about some of the Bill's implications.
Last December, a consultation document was presented to Parliament by a number of Cabinet Ministers. My right hon. and learned Friend was not among them, but the Lord Chancellor was. The document is entitled "Legislation on Human Infertility Services and Embryo Research". It concludes:
"The Government's intention is to introduce legislation on the issues dealt with in the Warnock Report but it believes that further detailed discussion is advisable before a Bill is brought forward."
Whatever detailed discussion has taken place, it has not yet been concluded. I note in the consultation paper that views are invited up until the end of June this year. It must be at least a month since the Bill sprang to life in another place—long before the June deadline.
The Bill deals in one particular with precisely the matters to which that paragraph refers—with Warnock matters. However, it does not deal with them with the benefit of considered views, for which the paper specifically asks. Clause 27 is about AID, which was one of the principal issues dealt with in the Warnock report. However, instead of waiting for the results of consultations about AID, clause 27 repeats word for word a clause drafted by the Law Commission as far back as 1982.
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to that; but here is the clause, put down in the Bill with no regard to the discussion paper or to what it might throw up, no regard to the careful and detailed considerations in the Warnock report and no appreciation of the need to update a Law Commission document of 1982—with, in fact, no apparent knowledge that the Law Commission has now repudiated its original 1982 wording. The Law Commission is quite clear on that: it has recognised that the clause is now deficient, bearing in mind what has come to light since 1982 in Warnock. In October last, the Law Commission threw cold water on its own wording, saying that it deplored
"piecemeal measures which may later have to be reconsidered."
I put it to the House that that is exactly what clause 27 is doing. I feel strongly that the clause is slotted into the Bill in a piecemeal way, and that, if it is passed in its present form, there will have to be changes later.
Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend accept that more than 1,000 children have been born by the AID process who would become legitimate with the passage of the Bill, and that, if it is felt at a later stage that the House should amend any part of the Bill, that can of course be done?
Dame Jill Knight: My hon. Friend does not seem to understand that AID is not just about illegitimacy. There is more than one aspect to AID; it should not be treated as though there were only one aspect to be considered. Lord Denning said about AID:
264
"The operation is fraught with tremendous consequences for husband and wife—and the child that is to be."
However, clause 27 treats it as of no great account. Under that clause, AID can be practised without any explanation to either party. Even written consent is unnecessary. The wife can simply ask her husband privately if he consents to AID, and if he says he does he is bound to accept the child as his. Indeed, the clause is so lax in its treatment of AID that nobody would be able later to prove that the question had ever been asked. If the husband denied it, nobody could prove it one way or the other. No record is either made or kept.
Let us suppose that a child born as a result of AID were to be handicapped, or diseased. or of a different ethnic origin from the husband. He could very easily repudiate it. The consultation paper says :
"Counselling is seen as an essential element in the provision of infertility services. The Government accepts that couples should receive counselling and would be glad to have further views on the development of such services and whether such counselling should be a statutory requirement."
I agree with that recognition of the importance of counselling. The Government agreed at one time about its importance, because they say so in the consultation paper. I wonder what made them change their mind. Who put it to them that none of these matters is of great importance and that they could easily be slipped in piecemeal later on? The consequences are enormous. Proper weight is not given to the matter in the clause as it stands.
As for the birth certificate, the consultation paper says:
"It is essential to maintain the integrity and reliability of the birth register as a record of biological fact."
According to the Bill, the birth certificate will be falsified. I recognise that the intention is to do what is best in the interests of the child, but—
Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Dame Jill Knight: I hope that my hon. Friend will permit me to make some progress. I do not want to detain the House for long. I shall give way once more, but once more only.
Mr. Thurnham: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Is she aware that the latest medical research shows that approximately one fifth of the population does not have the genetic father whose name appears on the birth certificate?
Dame Jill Knight: That is totally irrelevant. First, we do not know it for a fact. Secondly, there is a great deal of difference between what happened in the past and legislating for a completely different set of circumstances. And that is what we are doing tonight.
Under these rather loose arrangements, the child will never know the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) may say that other children will never know the truth, either, but that does not mean that children whom we are permitting to be brought into the world should be denied what Warnock clearly stated was their right. A child would never be able to give a true answer about the family's medical history. It would know only half of it.
Warnock, speaking of children born as a result of AID, recommends that
"On reaching 18 the child should have access to basic information about the donor's ethnic origin and genetic health. Legislation should be enacted to provide the right of access."

265
Those are wise words. Probably they followed on the heels of earlier legislation about adoption: that a child should have the right to know about its background and should be able to contact its mother.
The consultation paper regards it as absolutely essential that there should be a registration and recording system for children who are born as a result of AID and that a central record of AID births should be kept.
This carries out exactly the recommendation of Warnock which says:
"The clandestine practice of AID could be very harmful."
It says that it should be available only on a properly organised basis. If hon. Members want to look this up, they will find it in chapter 13 of the Warnock report where the licensing arrangements are clearly described :
"We recommend that the provision of AID without a licence for that purpose should be an offence."
It could not be much more clearly stated than that. Of course, it is not an offence now. That is one of the reasons why some of us are anxious that legislation on Warnock should be introduced. But it still will not be an offence if this Bill is unamended. The Bill gives, as it were, a blessing to AID without giving the child its rights.
In the Bill AID is given less importance than an anti-tetanus jab. A record has to be made of a child having an anti-tetanus jab. One knows what is in the syringe and where it came from, but at the moment any agency can provide an AID service. It can collect semen from a donor without asking him any questions or keeping any record. It can pay him and then take payment from a woman to be inseminated, without any details of the donor being made known to her. It could be a lucrative business. Dozens of women could be inseminated from the one donor. Wherever there is a way of making money in this wicked world, people will use it.
I dispute the figures given earlier. I understand that it is estimated that about 1,700 children are born every year by AID. There is no record of them; no one will ever know the secret of their birth. Perhaps that will be a good thing, but it would be good for them to know even if others do not.
The implications of clause 27 have not been thought through carefully. The production of a child by this method is far more important than the question of its legitimacy. If I am fortunate enough to be a member of the Standing Committee, I shall seek to amend the Bill.
10.42 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I have not yet had the good fortune to come out in the top few in the private Members' ballot, but year on year, ever since I have been an hon. Member, I have given an undertaking to concerned groups that were it my good fortune to come high in the ballot I would present a Bill which would remove the stigma of illegitimacy.
The Bill that I would have presented probably would not have been as well drafted as the Bill before us, which has been drafted professionally; it has had the advantage of two Law Commission reports and has also been through the other place before coming to us. I congratulate the Solicitor-General and the Government on taking the initiative this year to bring this Bill before us.
It is an important Bill which will remove one of the major stigmata which still exist in our society and which discriminate against innocent people. I ask the hon.
266
Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who has raised a serious and important issue, to bear in mind that what the Bill, including clause 27, is concerned with is not the niceties of medical ethics, nor the rules as how AID should be controlled, although they are important, but about what happens to the people who emerge after AID has taken place, people who never asked to be born but who find themselves in the world with an unpleasant and unhelpful stigma attached to them but for the Bill. It is right that the stigma should be removed in this way.
I seek to draw two anomalies to the attention of the Solicitor-General. One has been mentioned in detail by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I do not think that repetition would improve the point. That point refers to the anomaly of children who are the illegitimate children of a British father and a non-British mother, yet who cannot acquire British citizenship. That is a very important, unfair anomaly which ought to be rectified and can be rectified in Committee.
The second anomaly I want to draw to the Solicitor-General's attention relates to Scotland. The place where one is born is often a matter of chance. A mother may be on holiday in Scotland on the day when her child is born prematurely. No doubt the waters of the braes can sometimes encourage an early and successful birth. Someone may live in Langholm where hospital facilities are available at Dumfries in Scotland and at Carlisle in England. If a child is born as a result of artificial insemination by a donor with the consent of the father, according to the Bill if the birth takes place in Dumfries or even one mile to the north of the Anglo-Scottish border, the child will be deprived of the advantage of clause 27. If, on the other hand, the child is born in Carlisle or even one mile south of the border, the child will gain the advantage of clause 27. The English-horn child will be regarded as legitimate and will have all the advantages, which I applaud and support, which arise from that clause.
My hon. Friends and I have received numerous representations from Scotland and particularly well argued representations from the Law Society of Scotland. It stressed what could sometimes happen when a child is born rather suddenly. On such occasions, a child may be born in an ambulance. What will the Government do when the child is born as the ambulance is crossing the Anglo-Scottish border? Artificial insemination in England and artificial insemination in Scotland are artificial insemination of the same nature. Birth in England and birth in Scotland should be birth of an equal standard. Those who are concerned with family law in Scotland can see absolutely no reason why clause 27 should not be extended to Scotland.
I invite the Solicitor-General to consider that point very carefully. It seems that although some arguments have been put forward by his hon. Friend the Minister responsible for industry and home affairs, no doubt concentrating on home affairs rather than industry, none of those arguments is convincing against the proposition that for everyone born in any part of the United Kingdom there should be a united standard for birth and legitimacy.
10.48 pm
Mr. Roger Sims: As my right and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has explained, the effect of the Bill is to remove many of the distinctions that exist between legitimate and illegitimate children—or, to use

267
the alternative phrase produced by the Law Commission which it subsequently decided to drop, "marital and non-marital" children.
It has been argued, especially by the Lord Bishop of London, that the effect of the Bill appears to undermine the status of marriage and the family. I can understand that view. I was critical of legislation passed by the House which reduced to one year that period after which divorce was possible. If that did not positively encourage entering into marriage lightly by making the break so easy, at least Parliament appeared to be saying that the bond of matrimony was not as serious or as important as most of us had believed it to be. The criticism that I made at that time was justified, because we were dealing with people who chose to get married or chose to get divorced. In this instance we are talking about the status of children who, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, have not even asked to be born, and who find themselves either legitimate or illegitimate.
It has been well argued that there is no such thing as an illegitimate child, that there are only illegitimate parents. Therefore, it is right to make what are mainly modest changes and to remove some of the disadvantages suffered by children born out of wedlock. Despite the arguments that have put forward, I do not think that doing that undermines the instutition of marriage. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will make that point abundantly clear.
One of the surprising omissions from the Bill, has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). It is the matter of nationality and I do not need to cover again the ground covered by the hon. Gentleman. The Lord Chancellor said in the other place that there were other complications in this matter, that it was too complex and would need a United Kingdom Bill that would have to be preceded by a good deal of consultation. Surely it is not too difficult to include nationality in the Bill. I shall return to that point.
I am especially concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) about clause 27. There are two grounds for objection to that clause. It allows for the husband of a woman who is the beneficiary of artificial insemination by donor to be registered as the father of the child. Surely that cannot be right. It is legalising a lie. The husband cannot be the father. That is the whole reason why the couple have gone in for AID, yet the husband is being recorded on a legal document as being the father.
If it is not a contradiction in terms, this surely creates a legal fiction. These are not my words, because for them we have the authority of none other than Lord Denning. Without repeating his arguments, I invite hon. Members to read his effective speeches in the other place on this topic. I was surprised that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor got very cross about this issue and allowed himself to be party to what is, in effect, legalising a deception. I hope that in Committee we can persuade my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that that is the case and that this clause is inappropriate on those grounds.
My second ground for objection to clause 27 is that about which my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston spoke. To use shorthand, it seems to be anticipating
268
Warnock, or rather the legislation that we expect in the fullness of time to stem from the Warnock report and the consultation document. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston touched on only a few of the complex issues that surround this whole matter. It raises a lot of moral, religious and legal issues.
I am more sympathetic to the general thrust of Warnock than, perhaps, are my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and some of my hon. Friends. However, the Government were absolutely right to say that this issue should be dealt with as a whole. We are dealing not only with this issue, but with many others, such as experiments on foetuses. There are many aspects with regard to this matter, yet, here one part of Warnock is being plucked out and popped into the Bill. As I mentioned a moment ago, the Lord Chancellor argued that nationality was too complex an issue to be included in the Bill. Yet here a tiny bit of AID—which is just as complex as nationality—is being included in the Bill.
Clause 27 refers only to AID. What about the donation of an egg or embryo? That apparently is not covered. Clause 27 is at best premature and is inappropriate to the Bill. That is not only my view. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston has quoted from part of the consultation document, and I shall quote from another :
"The Government would find it helpful to have further views, therefore, on the way in which a system of registering and recording children born as a result of AID or egg or embryo donation might be set up which would:(a) best meet the child's need for access to the truth about his genetic origins and some information about his genetic father;(b) satisfy the family's need for privacy;(c) take account of the donor's wish for anonymity."
The Government are saying that they would find it helpful to have further views, but they are apparently ploughing ahead with this legislation.
In its second report, after referring to the development of techniques, the Law Commission says :
"It may therefore be desirable to have a comprehensive scheme dealing with all these techniques, which raise similar difficulties in defining parenthood and have implications beyond family law. To avoid piecemeal measures which may later have to be reconsidered, we can see some advantage in deferring legislation on this subject until a comprehensive scheme can be achieved."
To which I add, hear, hear.
I shall refer briefly to two issues, one of which is included in the Bill and one which is excluded. Schedule 4 repeals subsections (10) and (13) of section 20 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978, and thus precludes a young person from applying to a magistrates' court to revive a maintenance order. I do not understand why that should be. Perhaps it is a matter that we can pursue in Committee.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred to representations by the Magistrates Association and the Justices Clerks Society. They believe that the opportunity should be taken to extend the powers of the courts to make orders protecting from violence, or the threat of violence, co-habitees and illegitimate children, a power which at present is limited to parties to a marriage and their children. The Lord Chancellor's Department has resisted their pleas. I hope that in Committee we can persuade my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General Friend that such a move should take place and that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for the change.
10.58 pm
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am profoundly unhappy about the Bill. It is curious that the Government, and indeed almost all Governments, stand aside from what most people regard as moral questions, such as abortion and obscenity, and relegate them to the initiatives of private Members. The social trends in society, which often are even more morally significant, are reserved for Government legislation. Thereby, the permissive society, which most of us deplore, has been advanced in the Government's own legislation with regard to matrimony and divorce law. Parliament seems quite unwilling or unable to arrest and even sometimes seems to encourage the moral decline which is in evidence in violent crime, lawlessness, sexual abuse and cruelty to children.
The Bill's objective is to remove the stigma of illegitimacy from children born outside wedlock. First, last and always that is a good objective which I shall always support. However, will the Bill remove the stigma? Whatever we do about changing the law on the legal status of such children, we cannot remove the social stigma which has no basis in law. I sympathise with the lady who said that the stigma is created by the poverty of the one-parent family.
Why do we have to do this laudable thing in a way which weakens the institution of marriage? I have no doubt that the Bill will lead to a decline in the number of marriages, and to a weakening of the institution of marriage generally and of the conventional family. Children should he born with the maximum chance of happiness within marriage.
It will be argued that it is no longer necessary to be married. Many people marry—they say—for the sake of the children. The Bill's objective is to make it unnecessary to marry for the sake of the children, because it lifts the moral stigma. but the Bill probably will not do that.
Unfortunately it is now all too common, even in public life, for people to live together, to have children but not to be married. We are told that 126,000 illegitimate children were born in 1985. I understand that 53,000 of them were born as the result of an unstable relationship, not to a man and woman living together as husband and wife in a loving relationship. In some cases the identity of the father is not known. That is one of the obstacles to granting British citizenship to the children of British citizens wo have had an illegitimate relationship. There is no right to British citizenship when the father is unknown. The 53,000 births resulting from unstable relationships is far too many and I believe that the number is rising.
The Bill's worst provision is contained in clause 27, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) dealt so well. I adopt everything that she said about it. I emphasise the total rejection of the idea that one can legislate to make true a falsehood. It is an example of the end justifying the means. It was done in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 under which we made it a criminal offence to tell the truth about a man's past, even though that truth was far more preferable to the legal fiction for which it was substituted. Here we have a proposal that a person who is not the father shall be declared to be the father for all legal purposes. Can that possibly be justified? Clause 27 is not justified for the reasons that have been adduced not only
270
by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston but by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). I strongly support them in their rejection of that clause.
I hope that all those criticisms that have been made by my hon. Friends will be seriously considered before the Bill is allowed to become law.
11.5 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I should like to congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. Some people may believe that it could have been brought in as a private Member's Bill. It is an excellent tribute to the Government that they have introduced the Bill. It is also a remarkable tribute to my right hon. arid learned Friend the Lord Chancellor who, in his 80th year, has brought forward a Bill containing not only all the measures recommended by the Law Reform Committee, but also clause 27. Although I have grave reservations about this clause, I believe that it is a remarkable tribute to the Lord Chancellor that he has grasped this nettle and attempted to tackle this difficult problem.
I was pleased that in the other place the Lord Chancellor said:
"To delay an agreed policy until full legislation on the Warnock Report could not, at any rate in my view, be justified.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 1986; Vol. 482, c. 652.]
I fully endorse that approach.
I wish to speak to three issues that I have touched upon in interventions. First, I believe that it would be remiss of the House to pass legislation that prevented an adopted child from succeeding to a title when, in every other respect, the adopted child would be treated as a natural child. I believe that that measure had an easier passage in the other place than it deserves here.
I hope that test-tube children born as a result of a donor either father, mother, or even both—are treated in the same way as AID children are treated in clause 27. Dame Mary Warnock said in a letter to me that
"it would be totally illogical not to".
The numbers involved are small, but I recognise the force of the Lord Chancellor's comments when he wrote to me to say that he feared that my suggestion
"is precisely the straw which would break my camel's back this year"
because of the need to get legislation through the House. I hope that in the urgency to progress legislation we will not sacrifice test-tube children on the altar of electoral expediency.
The main thrust of my remarks relates to clause 27 and how we regard the fathers of AID children. At present, the register of births stands, on the face of it, as the true genetic record. It is an act of perjury deliberately to give false information on registration. In clause 27 of the Bill the Lord Chancellor is suggesting that we give legal sanction to biologically untrue facts. Some hon. Members have said that it is giving legal sanction to lies. However, the Lord Chancellor is acknowledging the farce of the registration of births as it now stands.
As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), there are some new blood tests available, working on the genetic DNA test, that can establish beyond all reasonable doubt to factors of one in a trillion the true parentage. It is known as genetic fingerprinting. I do not believe that it is widely known that such genetic tests have shown that, in this country and in the United States, approximately one fifth

271
of the population appear to have a false father written on the birth certificate based on biological terms. Therefore, at present, one fifth of the population are under a delusion as to who their fathers are.
The evidence that I have——
Dame Jill Knight: I have been following my hon. Friend's remarks closely. How will that be known unless every child has a blood test for that purpose?
Mr. Thurnham: It is done only on a sample basis; but on that basis it has been established in tests in the United Kingdom and America that about one fifth of the population do not have their true fathers' names on their birth certificates. The interesting fact is that, apparently, the higher up the social scale, the worse the percentage is. That leads one to wonder whether some of their Lordships, who laid such stress on truth during their debate on the Bill, should have been in that House in the first place. Perhaps their arguments were a little confused on that point.
I mentioned the problem to the Lord Chancellor, who said that it would have constituted an even greater problem in Edwardian days. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) should bear that in mind when he considers the moral decline of today.
Birth registration is needed for two distinct reasons. One is to provide a true genetic record, and the other is to secure the legal position of the child. Understandably, if there is any potential difficulty, the legal position is bound to be uppermost in a mother's mind when registering the birth of her child. As the birth register is accessible to the public, the mother does not want to burden her child with a cruel social stigma if it is socially more acceptable to put down the name of the man who is to be the child's legal parent—usually, the husband.
The true identity of the father must always be regarded as an essentially private matter, and I should be much opposed to any attempt to require public disclosure of such information. As drafted, clause 27 sanctions an existing fact—that the register of births is not a true genetic record. However, if such a sanction is to be given, it should be given consciously, with full awareness of its implications, and provision must be made for its results.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor talked of our manifest duty under the Bill. Our duty must be to the children. Paragraph 30 of the Government's consultation paper—as my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston has just said—considers it essential to maintain the integrity and reliability of the birth register as a record of biological fact, and to ensure the child's right of access as an adult to an accurate record of the biological facts of his birth. That is an important part of an adopted child's search for his identity.
I suggest that clause 27 should be amended so as honestly and truthfully to provide for the legal status of donor children. I urge the Lord Chancellor not to admit implicitly that the register of births is a bundle of falsehoods but to establish a modern, accurate and workable registration system. It is not good enough to say that we must wait until the Warnock report has been implemented. The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering have advocated that the ideal solution, if time allowed and resources were immediately available, would be to legislate now for the legal status of AID and ovum
272
donation children, and, simultaneously, to provide a system of registration of births that would allow privacy to the families concerned without departing from the principle of a biologically accurate record of births.
In the absence of a statutory licensing authority of the type envisaged by Warnock, the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering felt that it would not yet be possible to devise a satisfactory amendment to clause 27 and that, to use a child care term, the least detrimental alternative would now appear to be to omit clause 27 altogether, and to press for speedy legislation on all the Warnock proposals, with some prospect of retrospective legislation in the case of the legal status of the children concerned.
I suggest that we already have what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described as an excellent voluntary licensing authority, which is now in its third year of operation and which could provide the basis for a satisfactory system of registration of donor births. There should be two registers: a publicly accessible register of legal parentage, and a separate confidential register of biological parentage which would be kept securely, with access given only to children who had reached the age of 18.
It is right and proper for us to use this opportunity to grasp the nettle. I support the aims of clause 27. I would not like it to be deleted; I would like it to be taken a stage further so that we have a register of legal parentage and another of biological parentage, which could be accessed by the individual concerned at the age of 18.
11.15 pm
The Solicitor-General: Notwithstanding the hour, which is a good deal later than the clock usually shows when that expression is employed in another place, we have had an excellent and highly informed debate which I am sure presages a high quality, although I hope not protracted, Committee stage.
I am grateful for the welcome that has been accorded to the Bill by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). There is general understanding of the injustice of the stigma which attaches to the innocent product of an extra-marital union.
I know that that view is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who said that he would always stand for the removal of that unjust slur. He described it as a social slur. I am not sure to what extent social disadvantage exists today, but it is common ground that legal disadvantages should be removed whenever practicable.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East criticised the Bill, not for what it does but for omitting to make any provision for the acquisition of citizenship by a person who is currently regarded as illegitimate in law. It is important to remember that the Bill is designed to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission. We have to deal with one thing at a time.
If my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor had tried to add to the Bill, provisions attaching to nationality, he would have had far less chance, by reason of its increased scope, of securing a place in the legislative programme.
I acknowledge with gratitude what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East said in praise of the Lord

273
Chancellor for having succeeded in bringing the Bill before Parliament. There would have been less chance of success if the Bill's scope had been enlarged in a way which would have led to it avoiding the criticism that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery levelled against it.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East raised two relatively minor matters which, no doubt, we shall explore in Committee, and mentioned a third to say, with his customary fairness, that he does not agree with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) spoke with feeling about clause 27. She was critical of the inclusion of the clause. I have no doubt that we shall have interesting and important discussions on this issue in Committee. It must be remembered, however, that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor was bringing in a measure as comprehensive in its scope as it was practical in his view to introduce. To deal with the injustices that now afflict those who are regarded in law as illegitimately born would have produced a glaring omission if it were decided to leave out the aspect of the Warnock report that bore upon the legal consequences of AID. We are not talking about the difficult issues that surround the circumstances in which AID should be permitted, and, if permitted, regulated, and the Bill will not affect them. Many complex issues are involved upon which diverse and opposing views are held, and it is right that they should continue to be the subject of consultation.
We are concerned with the consequence in law of a human being who is the product of such insemination.Such a person, if the law remains unchanged, is regarded as illegitimate. I acknowledge the difficulty and complexity of the issues about which my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston is rightly concerned—AID and the thrust of the Warnock committee's report—but I do not believe that her strictures on the inclusion of clause 27 were wholly justified. I note the recommendation of the Warnock committee's report—I shall quote from the summary—
which states:
"The AID child should in law be treated as the legitimate child of its mother and her husband, where they have both consented to the treatment."
The Bill provides as it does only where there is consent. As for whether consent might be contested and withdrawn, for example, it is important to note in clause 27 that there is a presumption that
"unless it is proved to the satisfaction of any court by which the matter has to be determined that the other party to that marriage did not consent to the insemination, the child shall be treated in law".
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston makes an important point in law on the proof of insemination, and one to which I am sure that we shall be giving attention later.
Dame Jill Knight: I am grateful for what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, but if it is an argument for leaving clause 27 as it is and for saying that all the complications of dealing with AID can be dealt with
274
outside the Bill, why not include all the children that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is concerned about? If we are including AID, why not IVF and surrogacy, for example? What is good for one group of the infertility parent syndrome is surely good for all.
The Solicitor-General: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that the recommendation to which I have referred relates to the AID child. I do not doubt that there were good reasons why the Law Commission did not extend the recommendation more widely, and I think that we should concentrate on the recommendations of the Law Commission. I have no doubt that the issue will be raised again, but I doubt whether my hon. Friend would wish to see the clause have a wider ambit. I think that the underlying reasons are sufficient for the drafting of the clause as it stands, and I hope that the House will agree to that.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery raised some interesting points about jurisdiction, and not the only ones that can be raised by reason of the separate legal system that is enjoyed, if that is the word, in Scotland. I am grateful for the welcome chat he gave the Bill.
I was particularly grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said firmly that in his view the Bill did not undermine the institution of marriage. I spoke about that in my opening remarks and do not wish to repeat that except to say that I am sure that my hon. Friend is right and that I have the misfortune in this regard to disagree with his close neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington who took the view that it would. I do not believe that the provisions of the Bill are significantly going to reduce the number of marriages that are contracted. However, I share his great concern that we should not, in this legislature, do anything to accelerate any moral decline that may be taking place in this country.
I hope that I have dealt with all the interesting points that have arisen except for two questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East. He asked about adopted children. Adopted children are treated as natural children for all purposes except in cases of succession to titles. That is the provision of the Children Act 1975. He also asked a question in connection with clause 27. That clause applies only where sperm was inseminated into the mother and it does not apply 10 embryo donation where fertilisation of the egg takes place in vitro.
I am sorry to have delayed the House, although I hope not unnecessarily, during my concluding speech at the end of a short Second Reading debate. I am grateful for the points that have been made and I hope that the House will see fit to accept my warm recommendation that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Minors' Contracts Bill [Lords]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.
11.27 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This short Bill has received consideration in both Houses. It gives effect to the Law Commission's report on minors' contracts. Its purpose is to amend and modernise three aspects of the law on this topic which seemed to the commission to be in need of reform. The Bill accordingly repeals two obsolete and confusing 19th century statutes; reverses the common law rule that a guarantee is unenforceable against the guarantor if the principal obligation in unenforceable on grounds of minority, and gives the courts greater power to make restitution of property acquired by a minor under an unenforceable contract.
It is enough to say that it has been generally welcomed as a useful measure of law reform which would make the law in this area more simple and more just. I commend the Bill to the House.
11.28 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Bill is to be welcomed. The aim of the Law Commission—it is the work of the Law Commission that has brought the Bill into being—was to uphold and balance two fundamental principles in this area of the law. It sought to protect the minor against his own inexperience and the exploitation of unscrupulous adults and, at the same time, to avoid causing unnecessary hardship to adults who deal fairly with minors.
Those two principles have been carried through into the Bill admirably and I particularly admire the continued application of the principle of qualified unenforceability. I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for the note and for the exploration we had in Committee of the points contained in clause 3. I am happy to see the Bill come into law.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Recognition of Trusts Bill [Lords]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]
11.29 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This short Bill incorporates into United Kingdom law the main provisions of the convention on the law applicable to trusts and on their recognition, which was adopted in draft by the Hague conference on private
276
internatonal law on 20 October 1984 and which was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom on 10 January 1986. This Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the convention and, by so doing, will assist the position of United Kingdom trusts with interests overseas.
The Bill has been welcomed as a valuable measure of law reform which will serve to clarify and develop the existing law of trusts. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: This Bill is also to be welcomed. As the Solicitor-General said, it is designed to implement the Hague convention, instigated by the United Kingdom relating to the law applicable to trusts and their recognition.
The Bill has a dual purpose. It enables the United Kingdom to ratify the convention, and it brings into force in the United Kingdom the main provisions of the convention. I am sure that it is right that we do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Reverter of Sites Bill [Lords]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]
11.30 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is short and technical but valuable. It deals with statutes that enable land owners to donate land to be used for schools, churches and other charitable purposes, and contains provisions whereby the land will revert automatically to the owner or his successors once it is no longer used for relevant purpose. Problems have arisen both in tracing the person entitled to the land on reverter and in enabling the land to be put to proper use if the owner cannot be traced.
The Bill solves these problems by giving to those persons holding the land at the time of reverter full power to manage the land and sell it with a good title. If the true owner cannot be traced, the Bill enables the sale proceeds to be returned to charitable use.
This Bill has been widely welcomed as a useful measure of reform. I commend it to the House.
11.31 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Bill has been widely welcomed. We were able to explore a number of small, technical details in Committee, perfectly satisfactorily. The Bill arises from the work of the Law Commission, and it is right to record our gratitude and thanks to it for the work that it does.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Education Maintenance Allowances
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]
11.32 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity, even at this late hour, to raise the question of education maintenance allowance and social security disregards. Before I go into detail about the subject, I should put it into context. We are concerned with those grants that are paid to young people aged 16 to 18. The basic problem that concerns me is that far too few young people remain in education. This is particularly unfortunate when one makes comparisons with our competing countries. About 32 per cent. of our young people remain in full-time education, whereas in the United States it is 79 per cent., in the Netherlands 70 per cent., in Japan 69 per cent., in Italy 48 per cent., in Germany 44 per cent. and in France 58 per cent.
I realise that the figures look a little better if one includes those taking part-time education between the ages of 16 and 18, when the figures go up to 64 per cent., but we are still way behind countries such as Denmark, Belgium, the United States, the Netherlands, Japan and Germany with 84 per cent.
We have to consider why we do not do far better at persuading young people to remain in education. When we start to look at one or two of the more detailed figures, we can see that there is a considerable waste of resources of young people who would benefit from either full-time or part-time education, but do not do so. A letter sent to me by a physics teacher illustrates the problem. He says that he is proud of the fact that, having been appointed to the school, he has been building up physics as a popular subject.
"This year I have 15 pupils likely to get good O levels, five of them girls, and out of that group I hope that eight boys and two girls will stay on at school to take A level physics."
He goes on to ask me to imagine his horror when one of the girls announced that as soon as she had completed her O-level exams she intended to leave. He investigated the matter to see why, with her obvious ability, she wanted to leave. He discovered that, like many others in Britain today, she was the only person in the household earning any money.
"She has two younger brothers, and both her parents have been out of work for over three years. She has a part-time job working in a shoe shop on Thursdays and Fridays after school and all day Saturdays."
It seems that the shopkeeper had offered the girl a full-time job selling shoes as soon as she could leave school. The physics teacher is horrified that she should be pushed, because of financial hardship, into leaving school, rather than staying on with, he believes, a good chance of getting A-levels, including a good A-level in physics, and going on to university.
If hon. Members think I am quoting just one example, I assure them that when we look into what is happening in local education authorities throughout the country we see that a substantial number of youngsters with five or more O-levels do not remain in education. In Tameside, part of the area I represent, 23 per cent. of youngsters who get five or more O-levels do not remain in full-time education. In Trafford, it is 20 per cent., in Rotherham 22 per cent., in Dudley 20 per cent. and in Sutherland 19 per
278
cent. In the country as a whole, 13 per cent. of youngsters with five or more O-levels do not remain in full-time education.
The figure is somewhat better in inner London, with only 9 per cent. of those with five or more O-levels leaving. In the city of Manchester it is 11 per cent. I mention those two as being better because those authorities pay education maintenance allowances. They do not pay particularly large allowances, mainly because of the way in which the allowances link up with the social security system.
Since I entered the House I have argued strongly for the introduction of education maintenance allowances as the most effective way of persuading youngsters who would benefit from continuing their education to remain. Up to 1974 I taught in a variety of secondary schools and I was always aware that some very able pupils did not remain in education because of financial pressures.
I took part in deputations to various Ministers at the Department of Education and Science between 1974 and 1979 to press for the introduction of education maintenance allowances. It is with regret that I say that the last Labour Government did not bring in a national scheme.
But while we discussed in Parliament whether a national scheme should or could be introduced, authorities such as Manchester and ILEA set up their own local schemes. The trouble was that the amount that they could pay was fixed by the inter-relationship of those sums with the social security regulations. I understand that in 1978, the amount of education maintenance allowance that could be paid before it reduced the supplementary benefit that a family received was £7·50 if a child was staying on into the sixth form and £9·50 if the child was continuing its education in an FE college.
I think the difference was designed to allow for the fact that if pupils remained in school they were in most instances entitled to free school meals, whereas if they went into FE colleges there was no provision for free school meals. There might also have been a slight difference in the amount of help available for transport to and from school. However, since 1978 no attempt has been made to uprate those allowances. The education maintenance allowance has, in practice, steadily lost its value. None of the local authorities is prepared to pay out more than the £7·50 and the £9·50, because the family would not benefit from it; it would simply be clawed back by the Department of Health and Social Security.
If those figures had been uprated in line with inflation between 1978 and now, the rate in schools would be £14·70 and the rate in FE would be £18·60. There has thus been a substantial deterioration in the assistance that can be given to young people. In 1978, if a young person left school and got a job, he would obviously be much better off; if he did not get a job, the difference between the education maintenance allowance and the social security that he would draw in his own right was fairly small. Now, the difference between the £7·50 and the £9·50 and what a young person can draw on a youth training scheme—£27 in the first year and £35 in the second—is much larger.
The Government should consider uprating the disregards. However, the position is slightly more complicated, because in 1988 a new system of social security uprating will be introduced. Why cannot the Minister uprate the social security disregards now to

279
£14·70 and £18·60, so that at least local authorities could uprate their education maintenance allowances so that they are worth in real terms the same as in 1978? If the new social security regulations are brought into effect, what will happen to education maintenance allowances?
I understand from the new housing benefit regulations, which are now in the Library, that education maintenance allowances will be disregarded in relation to those benefits from 1 April 1988. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is intended that the social security regulations will be the same as the housing benefit regulations. It appears that, 12 months from now, there will be no limit on the level of education maintenance allowances that a local authority will be able to pay, because the entire allowance will be disregarded—as, I understand, will part-time earnings for a young person who has a paper round or works in a shop at weekends.
If I am right, and the Goverment intend to disregard entirely an income from education maintenance allowances, it seems very sad that for 12 months young people will not be able to obtain an uprated education allowance, although from April 1988—assuming that the new legislation comes into force—they will receive a total disregard. I press the Minister at least to uprate the £7·50 and the £9·50 first introduced in 1978 to £14·70 and £18·60, as a first step. I hope that he will also take the trouble to make it clear to education authorities that, as from next April, no limit will be placed on what they can pay in education maintenance allowances, and that, during next year, some of them can take into account the change in the regulations and will be able to put forward proposals for a substantial increase in education maintenance allowances.
I should like further progress to be made and a national scheme of education maintenance allowances to be introduced in the next 12 months. They would substantially address the problem that far too few young people remain in full-time education at 16 or over. There is increasing evidence that some of those who would benefit from full-time education are being lured into youth training schemes that are of less benefit to them and to the community as a whole. I await with interest the Minister's reply.
11.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has a long-standing interest in education that is very well known to the House. Through his chairmanship of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments he will also be as aware as any hon. Member of the social security regulations that are laid before the House. It is therefore a particular pleasure that in responding tonight to his comments I am able to combine the two strands.
The hon. Gentleman began by quoting some international statistics. They are very much a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not expect me, as a DHSS Minister, to follow him too far down that route. However, I know enough about European comparisons to realise that they can be very misleading. I think that what I have to say later will be
280
welcome to the hon. Gentleman. But before I come to our plans for the future I should like to say a few words about the present arrangements and their background.
As the hon. Gentleman has explained, local education authorities have the power to award grants to young people who choose to remain at school or in further non-advanced education beyond the age limit for compulsory schooling. These are known as education maintenance allowances in England and Wales. In Scotland they are bursaries. Their broad purpose is to enable pupils to continue their education without causing hardship to themselves or their parents. They are related to parental income. The powers to make such allowances are discretionary. It is for each authority to decide whether and how to exercise their powers. If they decide to make an award, in England and Wales it is equally open to the local authority to decide the amount paid. In Scotland, as in many areas of our law, the arrangement is slightly different. Where the authority has decided to make an award to someone in full-time education there are fixed rates, depending on the age of the young person and whether they are at home or elsewhere.
The policy on use of the powers in the education legislation and decisions on individual cases are therefore very much a matter for the local education authority. Equally, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that ministerial responsibility for the education legislation rests with my colleagues in the Department of Education and Science. I know he will understand why I shall therefore concentrate in the remainder of my remarks on the implications of education maintenance allowances for the social security system.
The first point I wish to make is that the question of education maintenance allowances is just one small element in consideration of the overall support that is available in the income-related social security benefits for those with children continuing at school beyond the compulsory school leaving age.
People on supplementary benefit with children staying on at school receive an amount for the living expenses of the young person. This is currently £18·75 for someone aged 16 or 17. The amount is the same as an unemployed young person of the same age living in his parents' household would get. So the same direct financial support is available to the low income family overall, whether or not the child remains at school. The value of these scale rates has increased by some 6 per cent. since we took office. Such families can also receive help with their rent and rates—automatically if the parent is on supplementary benefit. For other people on low incomes, including those in work, the system of needs allowances, which determine how much housing help is paid, takes account of the fact that the claimant is supporting a young person continuing at school. Finally, family income supplement is also available to people on low income in work, with children. Again how the amount paid is worked out would take account of the fact that the young person was continuing at school. There is, therefore, an extensive system of direct financial help to low income families which takes account of the needs of the young person continuing at school after 16.
It has been a longstanding principle of the social security system that there should not be double provision from public funds for the living expenses of its claimants and other members of their families. That is why benefits such as child benefit are taken into account. There are also

281
problems of equity if people assessed as having the same level of needs can in practice have fairly different levels of income depending on whether some have other forms of income and what the source of that income is.
If that were taken to its logical conclusion there would be no disregards of other income. Successive Government have, however, recognised that there are good reasons for limited disregards in particular circumstances. As a result education maintenance allowances have received special treatment. The present position is that, for children at school, we ignore the first £7·50 per week when calculating the family's benefit entitlement. For young people in other further non-advanced education it is £9·50 per week; the difference relates to the fact that people at school can as the hon. Gentleman surmised get free school meals during term time. The case for this special disregard has broadly been to cover extra needs connected with education, as the supplementary benefits scale rates themselves already cover normal living expenses.
It is true that there have been no increases in these disregards since they were set in 1978. But that is not unique to this particular form of income. For example, the general disregard of part-time earnings for most claimants has remained at the same level for some years. No Government have made a practice of automatic or regular uprating of disregards. This to some extent reflects the difficult issues of principle in allowing disregards within income-related schemes. Generally, I think it fair to say that Governments have given greater priority to the level of support available to all claimants in similar circumstances, rather than specific concessions which can benefit only a minority of them.
We have, however, taken a fresh look at the question of the treatment of education maintenance allowances in the context of our wider social security reforms. One of the main objectives of our proposals——and one that has been widely welcomed—is to put the rules for the income-related benefits on as common a basis as possible. We have, therefore, reviewed carefully the way in which claimants' resources are treated in the three present schemes to see how they can best be brought together.
At present there are different rules in housing benefit and family income supplement from those in the supplementary benefit scheme. In housing benefit and FIS now no account is taken of education maintenance allowances received by the parents.
For the future, we have concluded that no account will be taken of education maintenance allowances and their Scottish equivalents in any of the three reformed income-related benefits—supplementary benefit, housing benefit, and family credit. This will apply from April 1988 when the wider changes take place. This will give local education authorities a further, useful, measure of flexibility in deciding how they use the powers under the education legislation where they wish to help encourage young people in families of modest incomes to stay at school.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that everyone outside who reads this report of our proceedings will welcome the
282
flexibility that is being offered to local authorities to put up the education maintenance allowance. But would it not be logical to increase the disregards as from next September so that local authorities could pay education maintenance allowances effectively at a higher rate for the whole of next year rather than being able to start paying the higher rate only from 1 April?
Mr. Lyell: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I am glad that he welcomes this significant improvement as from April 1988. He argued persuasively, though not persuasively enough for the Labour Government to make significant improvements. I do not think logic assists him. I think that we are doing the logical thing, which is to make the change at the time when we are making substantial changes, improvements and simplifications in the social security system as from April 1988.
Returning to the point as to the increased flexibility which this will give local authorities, I would expect them to take account of the fact that direct financial help may also be available from the social security system in relevant cases. I am sure they would wish to avoid creating, through their actions, their own inequities in the position of young people in families with similar incomes staying on at school.
I must also make the point that we have been able to take this step in the context of the present education maintenance allowance system designed to provide a further encouragement of education opportunities arid thus directed primarily at education needs. The circumstances would have been rather different if the education maintenance allowance system had been a significant alternative system for meeting the living needs of young people. If that had been the case, I think we could not have offered the improvement in the rules that we are now proposing. Equally if the education maintenance allowance system were ever to develop in such a way that it became, in effect, a routine and overlapping form of support for living expenses, we would have to look again at the question of its treatment in the social security system.
I am, however, very pleased to say that we have been able to plan this worthwhile improvement in the rules. They will give local education authorities greater flexibility in how they use their powers. The charges provide a useful simplification in the treatment of resources which can be seen as a complicated part of the social security system, and it is part of our general objective of bringing the rules for the various income-related schemes closer together and making them easier to understand. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to put this improvement on the record before the House, even at this late hour. I hope he will welcome, as I know that he does, the response that we have been able to make to the concern expressed on this issue over a number of years.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the houses and flats built on land owned by the London Docklands Development Corporation which were sold between July and December 1986 were sold to persons on the housing waiting list of the London boroughs of Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 1 April 1987, at column 553.

  Commercial and Industrial Premises (Revaluation)
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to lay the order regarding the revaluation of commercial and industrial premises in England.

  Dr. Boyson
  My right hon. Friend today laid the two orders needed to provide for a revaluation of non-domestic properties in England and Wales, to take effect in 1990. This will be the first such revaluation since 1973. It will generally assist businesses in those areas and sectors of the economy which have been most affected by the recession. They have been carrying an unfair share of the rates burden in recent years.

  The revaluation is timed to coincide with the introduction of the proposed uniform non-domestic rate poundage. This will remove the present distortions in non-domestic rates. The uniform rate will then increase no faster than the rate of inflation, giving businesses the benefit of stable and predictable rate burdens.

  Research and Development
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's planned expenditure on research and development for 1987–88; and what are the main areas of research selected by his Department under the Rothschild principles of the customer-contractor relationship.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department plans to spend £51·4 million on research and development for 1987–88. All the Department's research and development is selected in accordance with the customer-contractor principle, as defined by Lord Rothschild in his report to the Government in 1971, with the exception of the "discretionary" programme of the director of the Building Research Establishment.

  The areas of research covered by the Department's research programme are; environmental protection, water, countryside, planning, local government, housing and building and construction.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Freud
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of council houses (a) sold and (b) built in Fenland district council and East Cambridgeshire district council in the last five years.

  Mr. Tracey
  The reported sales of dwellings by the authorities and completions of dwellings for the authorities appear in the following issues of -Local Housing Statistics", which are available in the Library.

  Sales of Council Dwellings

  Financial years

  issue number

  1981–82

  63

  1982–83

  67

  1983–84

  75

  1984–85 and 1985–86

  79

  Completions of New Dwellings

  Calendar years

  issue number

  1981, 1982, 1983

  73

  1984

  77

  1985

  78

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information is as follows:

  Friday 13 March—Swindon

  Wednesday 18 March—Cleveland

  Friday 20 March—Newton Abbot

  Agricultural Land (Development)
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply he has made to the request by the National Association of Local Councils to grant an extension of time for the consideration of his Department's circular on development involving agricultural land.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I shall send my hon. Friend a copy of my reply to the National Association of Local Councils' request. There has been very lull public discussion of the matter since the draft circular was published on 9 February and I see no reason to extend the usual two-month consultation period.

  Redundant Hospital Sites
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy for the future use of redundant hospital sites in the green belt.

  Mr. Ridley
  In the next few years many older hospitals, especially those for the mentally ill or mentally handicapped, will no longer be needed. A number of these hospitals are located in the green belts. The Government have been considering how planning for the future of these redundant hospitals can best be handled having regard to green belt policy as set out in DOE circular 14/84.

  Local planning authorities are responsible for considering the future of individual sites. When it is known that particular sites are likely to become redundant, it will often be appropriate to bring forward policies or proposals

  123
  for the future use of those sites when considering alterations to structure or local plans. Some planning authorities are already doing this. Because there are a number of sites in several areas my Department has prepared guidelines to assist local planning authorities in preparing policies for the sites and in dealing with any planning applications relating to them. I and my inspectors will have regard to the guidelines when dealing with any planning appeals or structure plan alterations which come to me for decision.

  Many of the sites share common characteristics. The original hospitals are often large groups of buildings and were typically built between 50 and 150 years ago. Many ancillary buildings for different purposes have been added since. The hospitals are often on the edges of built-up areas and stand in large open grounds.

  In planning for the future of these buildings and their sites the aim should be to use them for purposes compatible with the green belt as set out in circular 14/84, which can include institutional uses. The size, layout and form of the buildings may, however, make them unsuitable for such purposes. In such cases it will be necessary to consider whether, in the terms of the green belt circular, "very special circumstances" exist that would warrant the change of use of the buildings or the construction of new buildings.

  In some cases it may be possible to convert the existing buildings for housing or other uses, perhaps with some demolition of ancillary buildings. But if that is not a practical solution the future of the buildings and the site, and the possibility of redevelopment, will need to be carefully considered. Putting the sites to beneficial use will be preferable to allowing the buildings to remain empty and the site to become derelict. Those are special circumstances that may warrant a change of use or new development. Planning permission will be required if there is to be a change of use of the existing buildings or if new buildings are to be put up.

  Whatever the future use of the site it should be planned with careful regard to its contribution to the green belt and to the amenity of the area—for example, landscaped grounds and mature trees should be preserved and maintained and opportunities should be sought to open up parts of the site to public access.

  Guidelines for the future use of redundant hospital sites in the Green Belt

  i. Re-use of the existing buildings for purposes within the accepted green belt categories (as set out in DOE circular 14/84) is the preferred option, especially where the buildings are of architectural and historical importance. There may in particular be scope for re-use by institutions.

  ii. However, if there is little or no prospect of viable re-use within those categories, other uses are preferable to allowing the buildings to remain empty or grossly underoccupied. The aim should be to achieve redevelopment for other suitable uses by conversion of the existing buildings.

  iii. If the existing buildings, or part of them, are unsuitable for conversion, redevelopment should not normally occupy a larger area of the site nor exceed the height of the existing buildings. The location of the new buildings should be decided having regard to the main features of the landscape and the need to integrate the new development with its surroundings (for example it may be more appropriate to site new development closer to existing developent).

  iv. The amenity value of the site should be retained or enhanced where practical by preserving mature trees
  124
  and keeping or laying out landscaped areas, and if possible opening them to public access with adequate provision for their maintenance.

  v. Redevelopment should not normally involve additional expenditure by the public sector on the provision of infrastructure (for example on roads and sewerage) nor should it overload local facilities such as schools and health care facilities.

  vi. Local planning authorities should where appropriate include policies on these lines in their development plans.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's 1986–87 cash limits.

  Mr. John Patten
  The cash limit for local authorities' capital expenditure (DOE/LA1) has been increased by £0·5 million from £2,368·12 million to £2,368·62 million. This increase follows a transfer from the Department of Energy towards additional costs of the homes insulation scheme and a corresponding reduction in the cash limit for Class VI, Vote 2.

  Sports Grounds (Safety)
  Mr. Lawler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what alterations to the November 1985 building regulations have been made following the recommendations contained in paragraph 3.90 of the final report of Mr. Justice Popplewell into safety at sports grounds;

  (2) what guidance has been issued to local authorities, sporting bodies and other interested organisations regarding the criteria applied by the November 1985 building regulations to the construction of sports stands, including the materials which may be used; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c. 635]: The Building Regulations 1985 require buildings (which include covered sports stands) to be built so that the structure adequately resists the spread of fire and maintains its stability in fire for a reasonable period.

  The approved documents supporting the regulations give guidance on the measures that should be taken to achieve adequate fire resistance. Additional guidance is being incorporated into the approved documents as part of the current review of the technical requirements of the regulations, particularly to improve precautions in new single storey stands.

  Also the "Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds" (the green guide) issued by the Home Office in October 1986 advises that new stands should incorporate from the start comprehensive measures for safety including adequate structural resistance to fire, fire resisting separation from any spaces below or communicating with the stand, escape routes which are planned to keep people well clear of the smokey gases produced by a fire, a roof geometry which should restrict smoke and flame travel along the underside of the roof and internal finishes which have low flammability. In particular, the guide gives advice on the fire risk associated with the existence of voids under the seating in stands which should be excluded if practicable, or completely sealed off to stop litter accumulating in them.
  125
  Copies of the guide were sent to local authorities, independent tire authorities, certified sports grounds and all major sporting organisations; and are available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

TRANSPORT

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the numbers of people killed in motor car accidents in each of the last five years; and if he will divide these figures according to whether the person killed was (a) a driver, (b) a passenger or (c) a pedestrian.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Information for the years 1975 to 1985 is given in table 5 of "Road Accidents Great Britain (the Casualty Report) 1985." A copy is in the Library. Results for 1986 will not he available before May 1987.

  Fatalities in car accidents

  Car drivers

  Car passengers

  Pedestrians

  1985

  1,253

  808

  1,258

  1984

  1,237

  942

  1,310

  1983

  1,198

  821

  1,362

  1982

  1,472

  971

  1,217

  1981

  1,346

  941

  1,265

  1980

  1,339

  939

  1,272

  1979

  1,479

  950

  1,374

  1978

  1,525

  1,044

  1,600

  1977

  1,429

  1,012

  1,492

  1976

  1,441

  1,079

  1,561

  1975

  1,417

  1,027

  1,550

  Thames Crossing
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what study he has given to plans for a new vehicular crossing of the Thames in London between Chelsea and Putney.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have no such plans. Consultants carrying out the west London assessment study will be considering a wide range of possible options for dealing with problems in the area, which could include a new crossing, when they move on to stage 2 of the study later this year.

  North Circular Road
  Sir George Young
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to announce the result of the public inquiry completed in 1985 on the proposed widening of the north circular road between Popes Lane and the A40.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport are still considering the inspector's report. I cannot yet say when a decision will be announced.

  Roade (Bypass)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has had any proposal from Northamptonshire county council for the construction of a bypass to Roade.
  126
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A proposed bypass to Roade is included in Northamptonshire's 1987–88 transport policies and programme submission to the Department for construction after 1992.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total revenue received from light dues on shipping in the United Kingdom, and the cost to his Department of collection, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The revenue in 1985–86 was £41,749,852. The costs of collection are not met by my Department but by the general lighthouse fund : in 1985–86 these costs were £203,874.

  Research and Development
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's planned expenditure on research and development for 1987–88; and what are the main areas of research selected by his Department under the Rothschild principles of the customer-contractor relationship.

  Mr. Moore
  My Department plans to spend £29·803 million gross (£27·537 million net) on research and development in 1987–88. The main areas of research are highways, road and marine safety, land transport, prevention of marine pollution, and work on repayment for the Overseas Development Administration of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. All research undertaken by my Department is commissioned under the Rothschild principles of the customer-contractor relationship.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Mr. Moore
  I made the following official visits in the United Kingdom during March 1987:

  2 March

  Launch of Eurotunnel publicity train at Paddington station,

  London.

  3 March

  Visit to British Caledonian at Gatwick airport.

  4 March

  Launch of new Highway Code at Coteford school, Pinner.

  13 March

  Visit to Kings Lynn to open new BR travel centre and tour Kings Lynn port.

  18 March

  Opening of M5/M42 southern extension, Bromsgrove (Hertfordshire).

  20 March

  Visit to Ashford, Kent at invitation of borough council to see Channel tunnel related development plans and mock-up of the Eurotunnel car shuttle train.

  27 March

  Visit to Sussex police headquarters at Lewes, to see traffic management systems and enforcement in operation.

  Coach Terminals (London)
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) 17 November, Official Report, columns 20–21, if he will make a further statement about the future of London coach terminals.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  On 17 November I announced that I was considering what could be an appropriate form of inquiry to enable the arguments for a single hub terminal compared with the merits of a number of smaller terminals to be properly aired in public. I understand that London Regional Transport is proposing to submit a planning application for a new coach terminal, to be developed at Paddington, in accordance with the report of its own transportation consultants.

  I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is satisfied that the planning aspects of any proposed coach terminal development will involve issues of more than local importance, and that he should himself deal with any application made in this respect by LRT. He will therefore shortly issue a direction under section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to the Westminster city council, requiring the council to refer any such application to him. A public local inquiry will be held with appropriately wide terms of reference, which will allow the consideration of both single and multi-site solutions, at which interested persons may attend and give their views.

  The Government would wish to see the maximum possible private setor involvement in the financing and operation of any new coach terminal, or terminals, in London. No decision has yet been taken on the provision of public sector finance.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing those black and Asian civil servants who hold the rank of executive officer and above (a) in the immigration services and (b) in the remainder of his Department.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information available relates to those members of the staff of the Department who responded to the recent surveys of ethnic origins. Of those respondents, in the immigration service grades (all of which are equivalent to executive officer or above) six were black and 15 were of Asian origin. Outiside the immigration service grades, the equivalent figures from these voluntary responses for staff at the rank of executive officer or above were 26 black and 42 Asian.

  Police Stations (Merseyside)
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the location of manned police stations (a) closed down and (b) opened, on Merseyside, since 1970.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable that, since 1974 when the Merseyside police was formed, one new manned police station, at Copy lane, Bootle, has been opened. No police stations have been closed except for the purpose of replacement by a new station.

  Animals (Experiments)
  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report how many establishments are registered for the purposes of experiments of a non-medical nature using animals.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are some 450 establishments at which licensed experimentation involving animals is carried out. Our records do not distinguish between extablishments on the basis of the nature of the experimental work they carry out.

  Rescue Services (Working Group)
  Mr. Redmond
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to the written answer of 10 March, Official Report, columns 122–23, if he will list the titles and grades of the Home Office representatives on the working group considering guidance on rescue services;

  (2) if he will list the titles and employing authorities of the local authority representatives on the working group considering guidance on rescue services;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the basis for choosing representatives to the working group considering guidance on rescue services from both the Home Office and local authorities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Membership of the working group comprises : the Co-ordinator of Volunteer Effort in Civil Defence (grade 5) (Chairman); the Home Office Civil Defence Adviser (grade 7); representatives at grade 7 and senior executive officer level from the Fire and Emergency Planning Department, a Regional Fire Adviser; a grade I Inspector of Fire Services; and local authority representatives comprising one nominee each from the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, the County Emergency Planning Officers' Society and the Association of Civil Defence and Emergency Planning Officers. Members of the working group represent Home Office policy interests, and operational interests concerned with emergency planning.

  Research and Development
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's planned expenditure on research and development for 1987–88; and what are the main areas of research selected by his Department under the Rothschild principles of the customer-contractor relationship.

  Mr. Hurd
  It is estimated that £16·4 million will be spent on research and development in 1987–88. The main areas of research to which the Rothschild principles apply are police services, fire prevention, civil defence, prisons, forensic science, telecommunications, criminal justice, community services, immigration and nationality, race relations and equal opportunities. Further details are given in the "Annual Review of Government Funded R & D", copies of which are in the Library.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce a concessionary rate for those people above retirement age who are seeking to register for British citizenship; and if he will make a statement.
  129
  Mr. Waddington
  No: such a concession would lead to the cost of the service being spread over fewer applicants and so to an increase in the fee.

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of' the financial management initiative.

  Mr. Hurd
  The financial management initiative forms part of the Government's continuing effort to improve the management of resources and obtain value for public money, and its effects are increasingly indistinguishable within those wider improvements. While much remains to be done, I believe that there has been a significant change of attitude and managements style within the Home Office, with much greater attention being paid to the costing of policies and functions and the setting of clear objectives and targets.

  Among the developments designed to strengthen accountable management in the Home Office in recent years have been : the establishment of the annual performance review, in which line managers and senior officials assess performance against previously declared objectives, and identify fresh objectives for the year ahead; the establishment of cost and responsibility centres around the office, to improve accountability in resource allocation; the provision of increased training in financial management; improved information about costs and output to provide a better basis for management and control; progress towards the introduction of clearer objectives and performance indicators in relation to local authority services and the greater use of accountants and other specialists.

  The head of the immigration and nationality department, and all prison regional directors and governors, have been allocated individual budgetary responsibility, and work is in hand to extend this principle to other parts of the Home Office. Some of these improvements are reflected in the targets and performance measures in the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 56) and the evidence which the permanent secretary gave to the Public Expenditure Committee on 17 December 1986. Examples of better value for money in 1986–87 have been : the targets which were set and met for containing, and slightly reducing, in real terms the cost per inmate of operating prisons, and for reducing prison industry losses by over 20 per cent.; the targets for improvement in the procurement field which are forecast to result in savings of the order of £10 million; and the civilianisation of over 680 posts in police forces, permitting more effective deployment of police officers.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon
  Brown asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Mr. Hurd
  I made the following official visits during March :

  March 4

  NUJ Conference on the future of broadcasting.

  Association of Chief Police Officers/International Police Exhibition and Conference launch.
  130
  March 5

  Birmingham Chamber of Trade and Commerce.

  March 11

  Gaming Board.

  March 13

  Leicestershire Probation Service.

  March 18

  BIS Applied Systems.

  Royal College of Defence Studies.

  March 19

  South Yorkshire Police.

  March 23

  William Hill Organisation.

  March 25

  Overseas Women's Club.

  Tamils
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the original 64 Tamil refugees are currently in detention; if he will list the locations of the detainees and the number per centre, giving a breakdown by sex; and if he will list the dates and numbers of those given temporary admission.

  Mr. Waddington
  On 6 April, 32 of the 64 Sri Lankans who sought entry on arrival on 13 February were still detained in the following places:

  Location

  Male

  Female

  Harmondsworth (10)

  1

  9

  Foston Hall (12)

  12

  —

  Latchmere House (10)

  10

  —

  Temporary admission was authorised for 32 on the following dates:

  Date

  Number

  13 February 1987

  6

  13 March 1987

  7

  20 March 1987

  16

  24 March 1987

  1

  31 March 1987

  2

  Nuclear Disasters
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Cumbria as to, in the event of a civil nuclear disaster at Chapel cross (a) what evacuation time estimates have been prepared for the evacuation of the most populated 22½ deg sector from the power station out to (i) five miles, and (ii) 10 miles, (b) what time estimates have been prepared for the evacuation of the population within (i) five miles, and (ii) 10 miles of the power station, (c) what time estimates have been made for the evacuation of the population of Carlisle, (d) what time estimates have been made for the evacuation of high risk groups from Carlisle, (e) what time estimates have been made for the evacuation of low mobility groups from Carlisle, and (f) what time estimates have been made for the distribution of potassium iodate tablets to the population of Carlisle; and if he will arrange for the basis and calculation of any such time estimates to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the Metropolitan police 1986 force strategic appraisal.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the force appraisal is one of a number of internal management documents prepared as the basis for discussion of future force strategy. It is not intended for publication.

  Maguire Case
  Mr. Heffer
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the conclusions of the internal Scotland Yard inquiry instigated last March by the present Commissioner designate of the Metropolitan police, Mr. Peter Imbert, into the Maguire case; and what part Mr. Imbert himself played in interrogations of those subsequently convicted for the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that there has been no formal internal inquiry by the Metropolitan police into the Maguire case. Following a meeting with Mr. Robert Kee in March last year,>Mr. Imbert asked one of his officers to examine case papers in advance of the publication of Mr. Kee's book. The Metropolitan police subsequently assisted our review of the case by responding to specific questions which we put to them : their responses are full reflected in the memorandum on the case which was placed in the Library on 20 January.

  Mr. Imbert, who was then a superintendent serving in the bomb squad, assisted in 1974 in the questioning of Carol Richardson, Paul Hill, Garard Conlon and Patrick Armstrong about the Woolwich pub bombing.

  Canine Faeces
  Mr. Sims
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the pilot scheme to test the effectiveness of the byelaws relating to the removal of canine faeces.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 2 September 1985 new byelaws came into force in four local authority areas which made it an offence for a person in charge of a dog to fail to remove any faeces it might deposit in designated parks, recreation grounds and open spaces. The authorities were the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, Gosport borough council, North-West Leicestershire district council and Rochester-upon-Medway city council. Gosport and Rochester-upon-Medway also adopted similar new byelaws for footways and grass verges adjacent to the carriageways of highways. The four local authorities conducted a pilot scheme to test the effect of the new byelaws.

  We have placed in the Library a copy of a report prepared by a steering committee of officers from these authorities and Home Office officials which has been monitoring the scheme. The report concludes that, because the parks and other controlled areas are now much cleaner than before the scheme began, similar byelaws should now be offered as models for adoption by other local authorities in England and Wales. It is also clear from the report that the success of the scheme has depended on the willingness of the local authorities concerned to allocate
  132
  the resources necessary for publicity, waste disposal and enforcement, and above all on the hard work they have all put into making the byelaws work.

  Taking account of the results of the pilot scheme we have now considered in greater depth whether to offer the new byelaws as models for adoption by other local authorities. In reaching our decision we have applied the tests of whether it is both reasonable and necessary to subject dog owners to these byelaws, whether such an obligation is capable of enforcement and whether if enforced it is likely to be unreasonably oppressive in its operation.

  Applying these tests we have concluded that the proposed new byelaws for parks, recreation grounds and open spaces should be made available to local authorities as model byelaws, provided there is somewhere else people can exercise their dogs without having to clear up after them. There is s strong case for allowing local authorities to apply these controls to such areas if they wish to do so. The alternative could, in rural areas, be local areas of countryside. We hope that before deciding which areas should be controlled local authorities will ensure that their proposals are well publicised in their localities and will where appropriate consult local organisations of dog owners and other residents. We would not approve the new byelaws for areas such as heaths and woodlands and areas used by horses and grazing animals, because it would be unreasonable to expect people to clear up after their dogs there. We are willing to allow the new byelaws for the whole of parks which are completely, or almost completely, used as children's play areas and sports grounds, even if they are not enclosed, and even though alternative areas do not exist.

  Different considerations however apply to the proposed new model byelaws for footways and grass verges. It would be an unreasonable burden on a dog owner to expect him on pain of prosecution to comply with the new byelaws whenever he took his dog out for a walk. We have also concluded that there would be grave difficulties associated with the enforcement of these new byelaws. We can also foresee the risk of serious disputes between dog owners and other users of footways and grass verges. We have therefore decided that we are not prepared to confirm further the new byelaws as in the pilot scheme in so far as they relate to footways and grass verges, but district and borough councils will continue to be able to adopt and enforce the existing model byelaws which make it an offence for a person in charge of a dog to permit it to foul such areas.

  Local authorities can do much by enforcing the revised byelaws for footpaths and applying the new byelaws to some parks and recreation areas. They can also promote campaigns to encourage dog owners to comply with the law. A number of local authorities have done so, and in the longer term public education of this kind is more effective than recourse to the criminal law. We are therefore issuing a circular to local authorities to draw their attention to the valuable experience gained from the pilot scheme and the criteria which will be applied in considering applications for the new and revised byelaws. We hope that this will assist councils to deal effectively with the fouling of public areas by dogs. We are also inviting the local authority associations to submit comments and suggestions relating to the details of the operation of the byelaws.
  133
  We are grateful to the four local authorities which conducted the pilot scheme for making this action possible.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce selective immigration controls on embarkation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  In the context of our membership of the European Communities I have decided that we can introduce simpler and more rapid procedures for the control by immigration officers of passengers leaving the country without impairing the overall effectiveness of immigration control. Arrangements will shortly be introduced for the selective control on the embarkation of British and other EC nationals. Arrangements will be made to ensure that immigration officers continue to assist in the identification of wards of court and others whom the police and other agencies wish to identify. I have no plans to introduce selective embarkation controls for other nationals or to introduce selective immigration controls for any passengers seeking to enter this country.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Mr. Tebbit
  My sole official visit in March, excluding my constituency engagements and engagements as chairman of the Conservative party, was to address the annual lunch of the Central and West Lancashire chamber of commerce on 10 March in Blackpool.

ENERGY

  Research and Development
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's planned expenditure on research and development for 1987–88; and what are the main areas of research selected by his Department under the Rothschild principles of the customer-contractor relationship.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Department plans to spend £217 million on R and D and related work in 1987–88. Details are set out in the Supply Estimates (Class VI, Vote 2, sections C1 and D1).

  The Department has no in-house R and D facilities. It operates on a customer-contractor basis as far as that is possible on all the work that it funds.

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of the financial management initiative.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department has implemented a range of measures to improve management and value for money.

  Budgets for programme expenditure on research and development and industrial support, totalling some £250
  134
  million in 1987–88, have been fully devolved to managers in divisions, and line managers have also been given devolved responsibility for elements of administrative expenditure.

  The Department's management information systems have been developed and refined to assist the top management in its annual review of divisions' objectives, priorities and resources.

  Targets and output measures are being progressively developed, wherever possible; for example the Department has achieved a target of securing a 50 per cent. contribution by non-Government participants in funding offshore safety R and D; and the Energy Efficiency Office has a target to achieve energy savings of 3 million tonnes of coal equivalent by June 1988 through the energy efficiency demonstration scheme.

  Initiatives taken in the Department to improve management and efficiency has resulted in important savings; for example, accommodation costs have been reduced by nearly £1 million since 1984–85, and savings amounting to over £0·5 million were secured in the first nine months of 1986–87 on the Department's purchasing of goods and services. Departmental manpower has been reduced by some 20 per cent. since April 1979.

  Dungeness A Power Station (Geological Fault)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the investigations by the Central Electricity Generating Board, into the geological fault discovered near Dungeness A power station, to be complete.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The CEGB has advised me that at present there is no evidence of any threat to the continued operation of either the A or B stations as a result of the geological fault. Further investigations of the site are being undertaken, and the CEGB hopes to complete the work this summer. I am advised that it is likely to take up to six months to complete the analysis.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I made no official visits outside London in March.

  Oil and Pipelines Agency
  Mr. Proctor
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if the Oil and Pipelines Agency has published its first year's accounts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The agency submitted its first report and accounts to me today. These cover the 13 months ended 31 December 1986. I have laid copies before both Houses.

  The accounts show that the agency had a successful first 13 months operations, in which it made an operating profit of just over £6 million. The agency also substantially completed its duty under the Oil and Pipelines Act 1985 to realise the surplus net assets which it inherited from the British National Oil Corporation. Details are given in the notes to the accounts. As shown there, I have determined, with the approval of the Treasury. that the agency should

  135
  retain an amount of £2,380,000 as its initial capital. This is £380,000 more than the figure shown in the public expenditure White Paper published in January (Cm. 56-II, page 407). This increase was agreed following discussions with the agency during preparation of its accounts, and reflects the need to treat as a capital item the costs which the agency incurred in establishing itself in smaller offices.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Medical Research
  Mrs. Roe
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total amount of public money devoted to medical research since 1979.

  Mr. Walden
  The information is as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1979–80

  91·8

  1980–81

  108·1

  1981–82

  143·7

  1982–83

  151·6

  1983–84

  159·3

  1984–85

  162·6

  1985–86

  169·2

  1986–87

  176·4

  The figures shown for the years 1979–80 and 1980–81 are on a different basis from those shown for later years. Before 1981–82 figures exclude the Health Department's commissioning funds for biomedical research because these figures cannot be identified separately. In 1981–82 these funds were transferred to the Medical Research Council and are included in that year and the subsequent years shown.

  The figures include the Medical Research Council's grant-in-aid and expenditure on medical research by the DHSS and the Scottish Home and Health Department.

  Expenditure on medical research in universities and medical schools is excluded. Information about such expenditure is not collected.

  GCSE
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the NAS/UWT on the GCSE examination; if he has any plans to alter the funding that has been made available by the Government to local education authorities for this examination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Discussions were held with NAS/UWT in March as part of the Government's early monitoring of GCSE resourcing. The NAS/UWT's representations were based on a sample survey conducted in the early weeks of GCSE courses. For 1987–88 the Government have made further substantial provision for the GCSE, as detailed in my right hon. Friend's reply of 31 March, at column 447 to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). We will continue to monitor the needs of the GCSE and to make appropriate provision.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities about late arrival of materials necessary for the teaching of GCSE in schools.
  136
  Mrs. Rumbold
  A small number of local education authorities earlier reported difficulties in taking up their 1986–87 education support grant allocations for GCSE books and equipment, but current indications are that these allocations have been fully taken up before the close of the financial year.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of schools in England have now received all necessary materials for the teaching of the GCSE.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate has reported that, on average, the material resources available in schools are sufficient at this stage. There is concern, however, about the disparity of resources between individual schools. The Government's planned provision for £115 million expenditure on GCSE in 1987–88 will enable local education authorities to meet in full their assessment of further GCSE needs of schools in that year.

  Teachers (Statistics)
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his Department's estimate of the number of qualified teachers in (a) all subjects and (b) science and technology subjects who are presently not employed but are of employable age.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information is held by the Department on qualified teachers in England and Wales who are not in teaching posts. However, it does not distinguish those who are not employed from those who are in non-teaching employment. The latest date for which information is readily available in 1984. There were then some 400,000 qualified teachers aged under 60 who were recorded as being out of teaching service: 150,000 graduates and 250,000 non-graduates. Information on subjects of teachers' qualifications is not recorded for non-graduates. The majority of out-of-service teachers with qualifications in craft, design and technology of engineering would be likely to come into this category. Among the 150,000 graduates were 87,000 whose last service had been in secondary schools or establishments of further education and 18,000 of those had a science of technology subject recorded as the main specialism in their degree.

  Women Graduates
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what financial help is available to women science and technology graduates wishing to return to work.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Graduates who wish to train as teachers will be eligible for mandatory awards for study leading to the post-graduate certificate of education from local education authorities. If they study to become secondary mathematics, physics or technology teachers, they will attract a £1,250 tax-free national bursary in addition to the award.

  Discretionary and postgraduate training awards for other courses may be available from LEA's or research councils respectively.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what courses sponsored by his Department are provided to re-equip women science and technology graduates to return to work after leaving to start a family.
  137
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government have made available £6·4 million to higher education for specially designed courses to increase the supply of teachers in shortage subjects, including physics and craft, design and technology.

  These courses are open equally to men and women graduates. Some have been specially designed to include part-time study and distance learning with women graduates returning to teaching after starting a family in mind.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to attract women science and technology graduates back into teaching after they have left the profession to start a family.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We are trying hard to attract women science and technology graduates back to teaching. Expenditure on updating courses will qualify for grant under the new in-service training scheme. New forms of training are being designed which will allow part-time and distance learning study which should be especially helpful for women. Discussions with local authorities about more flexible employment practices are taking place.

  The Government are involved in a number of publicity initiatives, and the new teaching as a career unit will encourage women teachers to return to the profession.

  St. Mary's Parish Church School, Stockport
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give his reasons for agreeing to the closure of St. Mary's parish church school, Stockport.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend agreed with the educational and financial case for the school's closure put forward by Stockport education authority.

  Research and Development
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his Department's planned expenditure on research and development for 1987–88; and what are the main areas of research selected by his Department under the Rothschild principles of the customer-contractor relationship.

  Mr. Walden
  The Department's expenditure through the science budget, which funds the research councils, is planned to be £675 million in 1987–88. It is estimated that a further £710 million will be spent in 1987–88 on research in universities from UGC grants and tuition fee income. In addition, the Department has a small budget — £13 million in 1987–88—from which it commissions research into educational matters.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My principal official visits during March were :

  Tuesday 10 March:

  Workbase Adult Literary Initiative Polygram Operations Limited, Walthamstow
  138
  Friday 13 March:

  The Royal Observatory, Edinburgh

  Wednesday 18 March:

  Manchester Business school

  Monday 23 March:

  Wells Cathedral school

  Wednesday 25 March:

  Visit to Durham LEA

  Friday 27 March:

  BP research centre, Sunbury-on-Thames

  Monday 30 March:

  Visit to Kent LEA

  Teachers (Special Qualifications)
  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is available to his Department on the numbers of teachers in each local education authority with special qualifications relevant to the teaching of pupils with statements under the Education Act 1981, other than teachers employed full-time in special schools; if he will publish what information is available for the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 April 1987, c. 579–82]: The printed table gave incorrect figures for Somerset and omitted the authorities of Staffordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Warwickshire, West Sussex and Wiltshire.

  Pursuant to my reply of 23 March, column 32, individual teachers' records held by this Department for pension purposes include information on some special qualifications for teaching children with handicaps. Not all of the qualifications covered carry a salary benefit so there may be some under-recording. The latest available information is for 31 March 1985 and is given for each local education authority in England.

  Full-time teachers with special qualifications for leaching children with handicaps

  England: maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools 31 March 1985 (provisional)

  Teaching in

  Special classes

  Other classes

  Total

  Barking

  4

  3

  7

  Barnet

  5

  9

  14

  Bexley

  8

  3

  11

  Brent

  4

  5

  9

  Bromley

  10

  3

  13

  Croydon

  5

  6

  11

  Ealing

  6

  5

  11

  Enfield

  2

  3

  5

  Haringey

  2

  8

  10

  Harrow

  7

  4

  11

  Havering

  3

  6

  9

  Hillingdon

  2

  9

  11

  Hounslow

  4

  4

  8

  Kingston

  3

  0

  3

  Merton

  1

  1

  2

  Newham

  2

  2

  4

  Redbridge

  3

  4

  7

  Richmond

  0

  3

  3

  Sutton

  1

  3

  4

  Waltham Forest

  0

  4

  4

  ILEA

  18

  96

  114

  Birmingham

  13

  33

  46

  Coventry

  7

  16

  23

  139

  Teaching in

  Special classes

  Other classes

  Total

  Dudley

  6

  5

  11

  Sandwell

  7

  11

  18

  Solihull

  7

  7

  14

  Walsall

  6

  8

  14

  Wolverhampton

  16

  13

  29

  Knowsley

  3

  5

  8

  Liverpool

  3

  33

  36

  St. Helens

  4

  12

  16

  Sefton

  3

  11

  14

  Wirral

  2

  10

  12

  Bolton

  0

  5

  5

  Bury

  4

  7

  11

  Manchester

  0

  6

  6

  Oldham

  0

  5

  5

  Rochdale

  7

  8

  15

  Salford

  5

  5

  10

  Stockport

  7

  4

  11

  Tameside

  3

  4

  7

  Trafford

  5

  2

  7

  Wigan

  2

  5

  7

  Barnsley

  5

  7

  12

  Doncaster

  4

  9

  13

  Rotherham

  7

  4

  11

  Sheffield

  13

  21

  34

  Bradford

  6

  9

  15

  Calderdale

  0

  8

  8

  Kirklees

  9

  8

  17

  Leeds

  0

  20

  20

  Wakefield

  0

  3

  3

  Gateshead

  2

  11

  13

  Newcastle

  6

  24

  30

  North Tyneside

  4

  6

  10

  South Tyneside

  4

  9

  13

  Sunderland

  7

  4

  11

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  6

  59

  65

  Bedfordshire

  3

  23

  26

  Berkshire

  13

  22

  35

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  24

  25

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  36

  39

  Cheshire

  33

  16

  49

  Cleveland

  1

  27

  28

  Cornwall

  16

  13

  29

  Cumbria

  14

  5

  19

  Derbyshire

  27

  35

  62

  Devon

  5

  35

  40

  Dorset

  9

  9

  18

  Durham

  4

  19

  23

  East Sussex

  10

  25

  35

  Essex

  26

  25

  51

  Gloucestershire

  4

  29

  33

  Hampshire

  16

  36

  52

  Hereford and Worcester

  18

  23

  41

  Hertfordshire

  10

  11

  21

  Humberside

  27

  37

  64

  Isle of Wight

  3

  3

  6

  Kent

  12

  39

  51

  Lancashire

  24

  27

  51

  Leicestershire

  31

  37

  68

  Lincolnshire

  16

  16

  32

  Norfolk

  12

  13

  25

  North Yorkshire

  9

  23

  32

  Northamptonshire

  20

  16

  36

  Northumberland

  8

  10

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  15

  23

  38

  Oxfordshire

  9

  13

  22

  Shropshire

  5

  9

  14

  Somerset

  15

  17

  32

  Staffordshire

  18

  17

  35

  Suffolk

  10

  19

  29

  Surrey

  25

  19

  44

  Warwickshire

  10

  13

  23

  West Sussex

  7

  16

  23

  Wiltshire

  4

  14

  18

WALES

  Marginal Land
  Mr. Best
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers on Anglesey have applied for reconsideration of marginal land status; how many decisions have now been made; how many decisions have allowed an increase in marginal land; on what grounds applications have been refused; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  The position on representations and decisions concerning farmers on Anglesey is as follows:

  Number

  Number of representations against exclusion from the less favoured area

  314

  Number of decisions made and conveyed to the farmer

  119

  Number of representations accepted for inclusion in United Kingdom case to European Commission provided that economic and demographic tests are satisfactory:

  10

  Number of representations rejected on:

  (a) non contiguity grounds

  46

  (b) land quality grounds

  48

  (c) lack of defensible boundary grounds

  15

  Mr. Best
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the various extra grants and advantages available to farmers who have marginal land; and how many of these involve funding by (a) his Department and (b) the European Commission.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  Hill livestock compensatory allowances (HLCAs) are payable to specialist beef and sheep farmers within the less favoured area. LFA sheep farmers eligible for the sheep annual premium (SAP) also benefit from advance part-payments of that premium. The European Commission funds approximately 25 per cent. of HLCA expenditure and 100 per cent. of SAP expenditure.

  LFA farmers are eligible for higher rates of grant on certain capital investments. Such grants have been provided under the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme and two European schemes (the farm and horticulture development scheme and the agriculture and horticulture development scheme). The European schemes attract 25 per cent. funding from the European Commission. The agriculture improvement scheme has now replaced the earlier schemes. With some exceptions, it also offers higher rates of grant in the LFA. LFA farmers are also able to benefit from grant assistance towards the provision and development of on-farm tourism and craft facilities. The European element of this scheme is funded by the European Commission at the rate of 25 per cent., except for the young farmer supplement where the rate is 50 per cent.

  The agriculture and horticultural co-operation scheme 1985 offers forage co-operatives in the LFA grant of 25 per cent. towards the cost of forage machinery and 15 per cent. towards the cost of tractors. This scheme is totally funded by the United Kingdom Government.

  Dairy farmers in the LFA receive a concession on the co-responsibility levy on milk. In 1986, non-LFA producers paid 2 per cent. of the target price, 0·364p per litre, whilst LFA producers paid 1·5 per cent. of the target price, 0·273p per litre, on the first 60,000 kg of milk.
  141
  Mr. Best
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales by whom the requirements as to boundaries of marginal land have been laid down; what representations he has made to the European Commission about such boundaries; whether grants presently available to farmers are payable on the basis of (a) farm boundaries or (b) any other features of delineation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  For land to be granted less favoured area status it must meet physical, economic and demographic criteria laid down by the European Commission. Each member state has discretion to set its own requirements in the determination of the boundary of land meeting these criteria. In the United Kingdom Ministers have decided that to facilitate administration, the LFA boundary shall normally be defined by hard natural or man-made physical features in the landscape. Thus the LFA boundary may encompass whole farms or part farms. In the latter case, the extra financial assistance associated with LFA status is payable on that part of the farm falling within the boundary.

  Mr. Best
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if all farms in respect of which applications have been made for redesignation of marginal land have been or will be visited by his officials.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  Following the enlargement of the less favoured area in 1984, it was announced that farmers could make representations against exclusion but only with regard to land immediately adjacent to the existing LFA boundary or pockets of non-adjacent land extending to at least 1,200 hectares in size. All land subject to representations and falling within either category has been or will be inspected by my officials.

  Mr. Best
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales by what amount marginal land may be increased in Wales, as a percentage of the total, under European Community directives; if he will identify the European Community directives; what representations he has made to the European Commission about any increase in this percentage; what are the financial implications for his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  There are no restrictions under EC directives concerning a limit by which the LFA in Wales may he extended, and, consequently, no representations to the European Commission on this subject have been necessary. The financial implications of any extension to the LFA cannot be assessed until the current representations exercise is completed.

  National Art Collections
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what specific undertakings he has received from the Court of Governors and Council that adequate manpower resources and operating funds will in future be provided by those bodies to ensure that the Welsh national art collections are curated and conserved to the professional standards observed by other national museums funded by British taxpayers; and whether he will place a set of the relevant documents in the Library.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In the context of the proposals for the extension and upgrading of the Cathays park building announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last December, discussions are taking place between the 142
  museum authorities and the Welsh Office about the staffing and other needs of the art department to establish what provision is needed for the care and display of the art collection. In the meantime action has already been taken to improve the management of the art department and conservation facilities.

  National Museum of Wales (Japanese Exhibition)
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the £200,000 fee payable for the exhibition of masterpieces from the national museum of Wales at present touring Japan is intended to meet the museum's costs in preparing for the exhibition and undertaking the necessary research and work in preparation of photographs and catalogue material; and if he will place a set of detailed accounts in the Library.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  About half the receipts represent a contribution towards the costs incurred by the museum, including estimated apportioned costs of the time of museum staff for which detailed accounts are not kept. The museum's annual accounts are placed in the Library of the House.

  NHS (Manpower Steering Group)
  Dr. Roger Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is now in a position to report on the findings of the Health Service manpower steering group; what manpower supply problems have been brought to the group's attention; and what recommendations and results have ensued.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  The manpower steering group (MSG) was set up last year as a sub-committee of the executive committee of the Health Policy Board. Its establishment and terms of reference were announced in circular WHC(86)8, a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House. MSG has given early attention to the development of a comprehensive manpower strategy for the NHS in Wales. This will be published shortly. The group is also giving consideration to issues of manpower supply in a variety of staff, groups including medical, nursing, finance and the therapies. This work has only just begun, and it is too early to say when recommendations will be made to the executive committee.

  Potato Industry
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the state of the potato industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  Yes. If market prices are depressed, I believe that support arrangements will provide growers with a reasonable level of fall-back support.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  ECGD (Computers)
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of the costs of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's computerisation programme and anticipated future developments.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The costs of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's computerisation operations and
  143
  developments were £4,952,000 in 1986–87 and are estimated to be £6,628,000 in 1987–88. These figures include staff, operation and full capital costs.

  Japan
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in view of Japan's trading practices, the Government will give their support to the European Community Commission proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 217684 on protection against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to my reply on this subject to the hon. Member on 17 February 1987 at column 523.

  Homelocators (UK) Ltd.
  Mr. Frank Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if the Director General of Fair Trading now has sufficient evidence to seek an assurance under Part III of the Fair Trading Act 1973 from the national directors of Homelocators (UK) Ltd., Mr. Dank and Mr. Jones, and from their associate franchise holders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading, and I will ask him to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Research and Development
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's planned expenditure on research and development for 1987–88; and what are the main areas of research selected by his Department under the Rothschild principles of the customer-contractor relationship.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department plans to spend £415 million in support of research and development in 1987–88.

  Of this total, £44 million is for the running of the Department's four research establishments, the National Physical Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the Warren Spring Laboratory, where the customer-contractor principle helps to direct work undertaken on a number of industrially relevant subjects.

  The remainder of the Department's expenditure will support R and D across a range of industrial sectors with the largest shares being accounted for by information technology and advanced electronics and aerospace.

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of the financial management initiative.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department has introduced a large number of reforms aimed at increasing efficiency and achieving better value for money since the FMI was launched in 1982. In the early stages the reforms could be clearly attributed to the FMI, but with the passage of time, and consistent with the main thrust of the FMI, its effects 144
  have become increasingly indistinguishable from the Department's improvements in management and value for money generally.

  The Department has achieved a more structured approach to decision taking through the annual activity and resource management review, greater attention to evaluation and the widespread adoption of work programmes, objectives and targets which are approved by DTI Ministers. Greater and better management awareness of costs has been secured by the establishment of responsibility cost centres, deputy secretary running cost budgets, the provision of management information systems, more comprehensive training, and the introduction of performance measures where practicable.

  Austin Rover (Information Exchange)
  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to his reply of 30 March, Official Report column 358, what guidance was given by his Department between December 1985 and February 1986 to Austin Rover about exchanging information with the Ford Motor Company.

  Mr. Channon
  As I informed the hon. Member in my answer on 30 March, at column 358, Ford and the Rover Group Board agreed to open exploratory talks in December 1985. My Department was kept informed in broad terms of progress in these talks, but the specific information exchanged was a matter for the judgment of the commercial parties.

  Strategic Mineral Stockpile
  Mr. Bendall
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further disposals from the strategic mineral stockpile will be effected during 1987–88; and on what basis the sales will take place.

  Mr. Channon
  Plans are being made for the disposal in 1987–88 of about one quarter of the present contents of the strategic mineral stockpile.

  The material will be offered for sale on a competitive tender basis, in the first instance to those companies for which the material was purchased. No price preference will be given. Disposals will continue to take place in a manner which seeks to avoid undue disruption of the market.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon
  Brown asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Mr. Channon
  On Saturday, 14 March I visited Worcester. On Monday, 16 March I visited Brough, Hull and Scunthorpe.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Soviet Jews
  Mr. Mason
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give his estimate of the numbers of Soviet Jews who were allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union during the month of March.
  145
  Mr. Renton
  Four hundred and seventy. This is the highest monthly total for some years. We hope this encouraging trend will continue.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I had no official engagements outside London during March, apart from official visits overseas.

  Other Foreign and Commonwealth Ministers had the following engagements outside London during March:

  Mr. Renton addressed the World Veterans Federation conference in Brighton on 9 March.

  Mrs. Chalker attended a briefing lunch for businessmen on the EC internal market at a Heathrow hotel on 2 March.

  Lady Young spoke at King's school, Canterbury on 4 March.

PRIME MINISTER

  Crown Estate Commissioners
  Mr. Kennedy
  asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to alter the existing ministerial responsibilities for the Crown Estate Commissioners; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Engagements
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 7 April.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 7 April.

  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 7 April.

  Mr. Amess
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 7 April.

  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 7 April.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 7 April.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 7 April.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I am attending a dinner to mark the 30th anniversay of the Institute of Economic Affairs.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  The Prime Minister
  I visited north Wales on Friday 13 March.

  Nuclear Weapons (Modernisation)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister what is her policy towards the modernisation of British nuclear weapons in the light of the study by the Bradford School of Peace Studies, a copy of which has been sent to her.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on 24 March, at column 162

EMPLOYMENT

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list the numbers (a) entering apprenticeships (b) in apprenticeships and (c) completing apprenticeships in each of the industries for which industrial training boards have operated in each year since 1964.

  Mr. Trippier
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General what was the level of Exchequer support for apprenticeships at current and constant prices in each of the years from 1964 to 1985.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information is not available for the financial years 1964–65 to 1974–75. Between 1975–76 and 1982–83, support was provided in the form of premium grants for first year apprentices and grants for award holders, as well as support for redundant apprentices and unplaced award holders, as follows:

  Year

  At cash price

  At constant price (1985–86 base)1

  £ million

  £ million

  1975–76

  18·9

  51·0

  1976–77

  36·0

  85·7

  1977–78

  38·9

  81·4

  1978–79

  37·8

  71·5

  1979–80

  24·0

  38·8

  1980–81

  33·2

  45·3

  1981–82

  36·0

  44·7

  1982–832

  38·7

  44·8

  1 Prices adjusted by the GDP Deflator

  2 For financial years 1983–84 and 1984–85, expenditure covering residual payments for apprentice training under these schemes which commenced prior to September 1983, and continued support for redundant apprentices, was as follows:

  Year

  At cash price

  At constant price (1985–86 base)

  £ million

  £ million

  1983–84

  20·3

  22·5

  1984–85

  3·2

  3·4

  Since September 1983 substantial support for long duration training including apprenticeships has been provided through the youth training scheme. It is not possible to identify the direct level of Exchequer support on a comparable basis with the table.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Leigh
  asked the Paymaster General what are the month-by-month unemployment figures for the constituency of Gainsborough and Horncastle since June

  147
  1983; and if he will state for each figure what percentage this represents of the work force of the Gainsborough and Horncastle constituency.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table gives the number of unemployed claimants in the Gainsborough and Horncastle parliamentary constituency between June 1983 and February 1987. This comparison is affected by changes in the method of collection and compilation of the data. Equivalent estimates of the work force are not available.

  Unemployed claimants in Gainsborough and Horncastle Parliamentary Constituency

  Number

  June 1983

  3,597

  July

  3,573

  August

  3,397

  September

  3,593

  October

  3,479

  November

  3,551

  December

  3,603

  January 1984

  3,775

  February

  3,810

  March

  3,749

  April

  3,690

  May

  3,632

  June

  3,534

  July

  3,722

  August

  3,731

  September

  3,875

  October

  3,729

  November

  3,820

  December

  3,846

  January 1985

  4,065

  February

  4,105

  March

  3,964

  April

  3,980

  May

  3,918

  June

  3,846

  July

  3,947

  August

  3,871

  September

  3,946

  October

  3,852

  November

  4,014

  December

  4,152

  January 1986

  4,358

  February

  4,369

  March

  4,252

  April

  4,172

  May

  4,197

  June

  4,175

  July

  4,276

  August

  4,113

  September

  4,182

  October

  3,964

  November

  4,028

  December

  4,018

  January 1987

  4,233

  February

  4,260

  Mr. Leigh
  asked the Paymaster General what are the month by month unemployment figures for the town of Gainsborough since June 1983; and if he will state for each figure what percentage this represents of Gainsborough's work force.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in 148
  the wards of Gainsborough, East, Gainsborough, North and Gainsborough, South-West from June 1983 to February 1987. This comparison is affected by changes in the method of collection and compilation of the data. Equivalent estimates of the work force are not available.

  Unemployed claimants in Gainsborough

  Number

  June 1983

  1,282

  July

  1,285

  August

  1,182

  September

  1,253

  October

  1,253

  November

  1,278

  December

  1,298

  January 1984

  1,352

  February

  1,359

  March

  1,340

  April

  1,333

  May

  1,304

  June

  1,260

  July

  1,306

  August

  1,310

  September

  1,350

  October

  1,321

  November

  1,347

  December

  1,349

  January 1985

  1,399

  February

  1,372

  March

  1,346

  April

  1,340

  May

  1,319

  June

  1,296

  July

  1,284

  August

  1,248

  September

  1,289

  October

  1,363

  November

  1,406

  December

  1,456

  January 1986

  1,499

  February

  1,472

  March

  1,442

  April

  1,393

  May

  1,420

  June

  1,401

  July

  1,391

  August

  1,340

  September

  1,359

  October

  1,412

  November

  1,437

  December

  1,431

  January 1987

  1,493

  February

  1,465

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will show from the 1986 labour force survey the number of people in Great Britain who are economically active and (a) in employment, (b) unemployed and (c) others on Government training schemes, broken down (i) by ethnic origin and (ii) by age in five-year age bands and the comparable figures from the 1984 and 1985 labour force surveys.

  Mr. Lee
  Preliminary labour force survey results for the spring of 1986, together with comparable estimates from the 1984 and 1985 surveys, on the employment status of the economically active by ethnic origin and age are shown in the following table:
  149

  Economically active persons in Great Britain—employment status, ethnic origin and age (thousands)

  Ethnic origin

  Economically active

  In Employment

  4 Unemployed

  Employees and self employed

  On Government employment and training schemes

  19841

  White

  24,895

  21,948

  295

  2,652

  Non-White

  1,042

  812

  16

  213

  Of which:

  West Indian/Guyanese

  293

  217

  5

  67

  Indian

  371

  311

  5

  56

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  128

  83

  5

  44

  Other

  249

  202

  5

  46

  All Ethnic Origins3

  26,304

  23,072

  315

  2,916

  Age

  16–19

  2,432

  1,690

  227

  515

  20–24

  3,541

  2,903

  34

  604

  25–29

  3,004

  2,342

  12

  390

  30–34

  2,838

  2,532

  10

  296

  35–39

  3,277

  3,002

  5

  267

  40–44

  2,724

  2,502

  5

  216

  45–49

  2,534

  2,355

  5

  174

  50–54

  2,349

  2,182

  5

  162

  55–59

  1,991

  1,816

  5

  171

  60–64

  1,205

  1,104

  5

  98

  65–69

  237

  222

  5

  15

  70 and over

  171

  163

  5

  5

  All Ages

  26,304

  23,072

  315

  2,916

  19851

  White

  25,257

  22,302

  373

  2,582

  Non-White

  1,013

  792

  18

  203

  Of which:

  West Indian/Guyanese

  299

  227

  10

  62

  Indian

  304

  248

  5

  52

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  137

  95

  5

  42

  Other

  272

  223

  5

  46

  All Ethnic Origins1

  26,533

  23,343

  396

  2,814

  Age

  16–19

  2,440

  1,685

  290

  464

  20–24

  3,643

  3,033

  41

  568

  25–29

  3,116

  2,713

  17

  387

  30–34

  2,845

  2,541

  10

  294

  35–39

  3,342

  3,062

  5

  274

  40–44

  2,809

  2,602

  5

  202

  45–49

  2,573

  2,369

  5

  197

  50–54

  2,298

  2,130

  5

  161

  55–59

  1,986

  1,820

  5

  157

  60–64

  1,084

  999

  5

  83

  65–69

  245

  228

  5

  18

  70 and over

  171

  162

  5

  5

  All Ages

  26,533

  23,343

  396

  2,814

  19861

  White

  25,308

  22,345

  377

  2,585

  Non-White

  1,071

  841

  17

  213

  Of which:

  West Indian/Guyanese

  283

  214

  5

  61

  Indian

  352

  289

  5

  61

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  139

  97

  5

  40

  Other

  297

  241

  5

  52

  All Ethnic Origins3

  26,657

  23,341

  399

  2,827

  Age

  16–19

  2,409

  1,674

  264

  471

  20–24

  3,665

  3,024

  62

  579

  25–29

  3,221

  2,787

  20

  414

  30–34

  2,898

  2,590

  11

  297

  35–39

  3,329

  3,048

  12

  268

  40–44

  2,928

  2,715

  5

  205

  45–49

  2,559

  2,374

  5

  180

  50–54

  2,279

  2,114

  5

  160

  55–59

  1,945

  1,786

  5

  151

  60–64

  1,041

  956

  5

  80

  150 151

  Ethnic origin

  Economically active

  In Employment

  4Unemployed

  Employees and self employed

  On Government employment and training schemes

  65–69

  232

  216

  5

  17

  70 and over

  151

  147

  5

  5

  All Ages

  26,657

  23,341

  399

  2,827

  1 Estimates relate to the spring of each year and to resdient in private households.

  2 Preliminary results.

  3 Includes those who did not state their ethnic origin.

  4 Those persons without a job who were looking for work in the survey reference week or prevented from seeking work by temporary sickness or holiday, or who were waiting for the results of a job application or waiting to start a job they had already obtained.

  5 Less than ten thousand.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will provide a breakdown of the latest national unemployment figures according to standard under 18, 18 to 24, 25 to 44, and 45 years plus age groupings, by the standard under 26, 26 to 52, 52 to 104, 104 to 156, 156 to 208, 208 to 260, and 260 plus weeks duration of unemployment groupings as a total, and by sex; and how these figures compare to those of 11 April 1985.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment analysed by age and duration for the United Kingdom is published in table 2.6 of the Employment Gazette, a copy of which is in the Library. The most recent data relate to 8 January 1987, which are published on page S25 of the March 1987 Gazette. Figures for 11 April 1985 on page S31 of the June 1985 Gazette.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General (1) if he will list, for each year of the age range 16 to 25, the number and proportion of those in school, work, further education, higher education, community programmes, or other specified schemes;

  Spring 1986

  Thousands

  Less than a week

  1 week but less than 4

  4 weeks but less than 12

  12 weeks but less than 26

  26 weeks but less than 52

  Total

  Manufacturing

  117

  29

  41

  26

  47

  260

  Services

  462

  98

  177

  71

  171

  988

  Other

  55

  1

  11

  1

  24

  108

  Not specified

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  13

  Total

  635

  138

  230

  109

  258

  1,370

  1 Cell size less than 10,000.

  Equivalent figures on expenditure are not currently available.

  The Manpower Services Commission's study of funding of vocational and education and training should provide more information on training expenditure, both public and private, in all industry sectors. This study is due to report in spring 1988.

  Vocational Qualifications (JTS)
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General what steps he has taken to make available recognised vocational qualifications for those on the job training scheme.
  152
  (2) what was the number and percentage rate of unemployment among 16 and 17-year-olds (a) nationally, (b) by ethnic origin, (c) by region and (d) by sex at the latest available date and for September, January and June in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lee
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will estimate the numbers of people receiving training for less than a week, 1 to 4 weeks, 4 to 12 weeks, 12 to 26 weeks, and 26 to 52 weeks, in each of the industries in the standard industrial classification; and what is his estimate of training expenditures, private and public, on training in each of those industries.

  Mr. Trippier
  Preliminary results from the 1986 "Labour Force Survey", which are not separately available by public and private sector, indicate that the following people in employment were receiving job-related training lasting up to a year in the four weeks before the survey interview.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Managing agents are required to ensure that every trainee entering new JTS has the opportunity to gain a recognised vocational qualification or credits towards one.

  Professionally Qualified Women
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General what is his Department's estimate of the number of professionally qualified women who are not presently working and who could potentially be attracted back into work.

  Mr. Lee
  Preliminary labour force survey results for the spring of 1986 estimate that 184,000 women of working age (ie 16 to 59) with a degree or equivalent qualification were either unemployed or economically inactive in Great Britain.
  153
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General, if he will estimate, for the latest available date the total known annual amount of income received by individuals; of this, how much is paid (a) in wages and salaries to employees, (b) through other forms of remuneration deriving from employment, (c) from the profits of or remuneration of self-employment, (d) by way of interest, dividends and

  £ million

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Total of which

  200,178

  221,221

  242,535

  261,473

  281,427

  308,426

  (a) Wages and salaries including pay in cash of HM Forces

  117,151

  125,441

  134,302

  143,926

  153,288

  166,612

  (b) Income in kind and employers' contributions

  20,201

  22,740

  24,113

  26,137

  27,060

  28,738

  (c) Income from self-employment 1

  13,862

  15,291

  17,291

  19,551

  22,442

  24,240

  (d) Rent, dividends and interest (gross receipts)

  13,605

  13,889

  15,828

  15,562

  17,401

  21,986

  (e) State retirement pensions, widows benefit etc

  10,946

  12,846

  14,231

  15,325

  16,314

  16,999

  (f) Other Social Security benefits and other grants from general government 2

  12,968

  16,509

  20,160

  22,060

  23,955

  26,414

  (g)(i) Other current transfers

  1,448

  1,620

  1,815

  2,082

  2,290

  2,450

  (ii) Pensions and other benefits from life insurance and pensions

  9,997

  12,885

  14,795

  16,830

  18,677

  20,987

  1 After deducting interest payments, depreciation and stock appreciation.

  2 Includes family benefits, supplementary benefit, unemployment benefit other social security benefits and remission of rent.

  Source: Derived from tables 4.1 and 4.4 of "United Kingdom National Accounts" 1986 edition.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General how many out of the total number of those still trading six months after completing the enterprise allowance scheme had been unemployed for more than a year at the time of their entry into the scheme; and how this figure compares with that available at the end of 1985.

  Mr. Trippier
  The first 18-month survey of the enterprise allowance scheme which reported in 1986 showed that 24 per cent. of those still trading six months after completion of the enterprise allowance scheme had been unemployed for more than a year at the time of their entry to the scheme. The figure for 1985, which related to survivors at the 15-month point, was 27 per cent.

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Paymaster General if, pursuant to his answer of 25 March, Official Report, columns 171–2, concerning the numbers of full-time and part-time workers, he will provide an estimate of the median and quartile earnings in each case, together with his forecast of the percentage increase from April 1986 in earnings in the financial year 1987–88.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information on the median and quartiles of earnings is published in table 19 of part A of the 1979 "New Earnings Survey" report and in table 34 of part B of the 1986 "New Earnings Survey" report. Copies of these reports are available in the Library.

  The latest information from the average earnings index indicates that in the 12-month period ending in January 1987 the underlying earnings increase was 7·5 per cent. Forecasts are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  154
  other benefits of investment, (e) in non-state pensions, annuities and similar payments, (f) in social security benefits including the remission of rent and rates through housing benefit, free prescriptions, and similar remissions or (g) in any other way; and how all these figures compare with the previous year's estimates.

  Mr. Lee
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the latest estimates of the nearest equivalent items which are available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Paymaster General if, pursuant to his answer of 25 March, Official Report, columns 171–2, concerning the number of full-time and part-time workers, he will provide figures showing the number of males and females on full-time adult rates divided between manual and non-manual workers, together with their average, median and quartile earnings.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1979 it was estimated that there were 1·6 million full-time manual adult female employees and 3·6 million full-time non-manual adult female employees. Comparable estimates for adult males are not available.

  Estimates of the earnings in April 1979 of manual and non-manual adults are published in table 15 of part A of the 1979 "New Earnings Survey" report.

  Estimates for April 1986 of the numbers and earnings of full-time manual and non-manual employees on adult rates are published in table 29 and 30 respectively of part B of the 1986 "New Earnings Survey" report.

  Copies of these reports are available in the Library.

  Research and Development
  Sir David Price
  asked the Paymaster General what is his Department's planned expenditure on research and development for 1987–88; and what are the main areas of research selected by his Department under the Rothschild principles of the customer-contractor relationship.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Paymaster General whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of the financial management initiative.
  155
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The financial management initiative (FM I) covers a wide range of reforms aimed at improving financial management. It is integral to our efforts to secure improved value for money generally.

  Within my Department introduction of the FMI has been given top priority by senior management. Managers at all levels now have responsibility for setting and reviewing running costs budgets and where relevant for programme budgets. Increasing use is being made in budgeting and planning of challenging but realistic value for money targets and measurement of output and performance. Top management regularly reviews the performance of all parts of my Department.

  Some of these improvements can be seen in the targets, output and performance measures and value for money savings in the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 56); the second report of the Treasury-Cabinet Office joint management unit (JMU) on the implementation of the efficiency unit's report on consultancy, inspection and review services in Government departments and the JMU's progress report on action following the multi-departmental review of budgeting.

  Other major examples of better management contributing to improvements in value for money are TRES, a two-year programme for introducing computer terminals for improving and making more cost-effective the payment of unemployment benefit and work on benefit inquiries, which will be completed at the end of this year, achieving over 1,900 staff savings worth some £1 5 million a year. These savings should cover the costs of the programme within about four years. The 1986 efficiency scrutiny on value for money in the community programme—which has a programme budget of about £1 billion a year—had as its main recommendation the aim to improve the outputs of the programme (for example, improving the employment prospects of participants and achieving the maximum possible benefit to the Community) and this is being carried forward actively. In addition, the Department attaches importance to developing the management skills and experience of its staff through training and management development programmes to ensure that staff can identify and implement improvements in value for money.

  Training and Job Creation
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list each of the schemes currently run by the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment in the area of training and job creation, together with expenditure on each scheme for the last year and estimated expenditure for the next five years, and together with the number of places on each scheme and the number of people expected to benefit from each scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  The employment, training and enterprise measures run by my Department and the Manpower Services Commission are listed in the "Action for Jobs" booklet. Details of provision for last year and planned provision for these measures for the period up to 1989–90 are contained in chapter 3.7 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1987–88 to 1989–90", volume II (Cm. 56-II), a copy of which is in the Library. Beyond this period, plans are received annually. On 28 January I announced a further expansion of certain programmes which will increase my Department's total provision 156
  beyond that shown in Cm. 56-II without adding to public expenditure. A detailed breakdown of all this provision for 1986–87 and 1987–88 is contained in class VII of the "Government's Supply Estimates 1987–88", volume 227-VII. All of this provision is subject to parliamentary approval.

  Training Allowances
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will give the number of people over 18 years who receive training allowances through the Manpower Services Commission to support them in their training; and how this figure compares with each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  16-Year-Olds
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list his estimates of the number of 16-year-olds in the nation in each of the next 10 years.

  Mr. Lee
  The following table lists the projected numbers of people in Great Britain aged 16 at the end of June each year from 1987 to 1996, as given by the 1985-based projections of the Government Actuary's Department:

  Population aged 16 at mid-year Great Britain

  Thousand

  1987

  850

  1988

  797

  1989

  748

  1990

  697

  1991

  673

  1992

  648

  1993

  630

  1994

  630

  1995

  683

  1996

  709

  Wages
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General what was the average wage of (a) 16 to 17-year-old women and men, (b) 18 to 20-year-old women and men and (c) over 21-year-old women and men in 1979, 1984 and 1986; what was the unemployment figure for each group in 1979, 1984 and 1986; and what was the percentage rise over the periods.

  Mr. Lee
  The information from the "New Earnings Survey" in April each year is as follows:

  Average gross weekly earnings (£) of full-time employees in Great Britain whose pay was unaffected by absence

  Percentage Increase

  Age

  1979

  1984

  1986

  1979–84

  1984–86

  Males

  Under 18

  40·3

  63·3

  72·7

  57·1

  14·8

  18 to 20

  61·9

  101·0

  113·5

  63·2

  12·4

  21 and over

  101·4

  181·6

  210·7

  79·1

  16·0

  Females

  Under 18

  36·6

  58·6

  72·1

  60·1

  23·0

  18 to 20

  48·7

  82·3

  93·3

  64·0

  13·4

  21 and over

  65·3

  121·2

  141·8

  85·6

  17·0

  Following is the available information about unemployment which is also in the Library. The table

  157
  shows the numbers of unemployed registrants in the under 18, 18 to 19 and over 20 years age groups in Great Britain on 5 April 1979.

  The table also shows the numbers of unemployed claimants in the same age groups in Great Britain on 5 April 1984 and 10 April 1986. However, direct comparison of the figures between these dates is not possible because of changes in the method of collection and compilation of the data.

  Unemployed Registrants in Great Britain—5 April 1979

  Number

  Age under 18 years

  73,257

  Age 18 to 19 years

  117,467

  Age over 20 years

  1,089,084

  Unemployed Registrants in Great Britain

  5 April 1984

  10 April 1986

  Age under 18 years

  155,580

  181,336

  Age 18 to 19 years

  353,654

  301,820

  Age over 20 years

  2,478,392

  2,715,713

  Skillcentres (Entrants)
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will provide, for the last two years, a breakdown of entrants into skillcentres according to marital status by (a) under 24 years, (b) 25 to 44 years and (c) 45 plus years of age groups; and if he will give for each grouping the further breakdown according to the to-open and to-close status of the centres.

  Mr. Trippier
  Of 23,000 skillcentre trainees sponsored by the Manpower Services Commission's vocational education and training group who started training between 1 April 1986 and 27 December 1986, some 8,000 were less than 25 years of age when they started training, and 15,000 were aged 25 years or over.

  The other information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost in the case of VETG-sponsored trainees, and is not available in the case of industry-sponsored trainees. There are no present plans to open or close skillcentres.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General how many young people entered the youth training scheme in 1986; how many places they occupied; and how these figures compare with 1985.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the available information; it is not possible to provide all the information in the precise form requested.

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Starts

  align="right">1405,938

  1397,581

  Contracted places

  2378,242

  379,488

  Average occupancy

  align="right">370 per cent.

  384 per cent.

  1 The figure for YTS starts includes some individuals who entered more than one YTS programme during the course of the year and therefore slightly overstates the number of individuals participating in the scheme as a whole.

  2 As the information is not available for 1985–86, the figure for that year is an estimate.

  3 These figures show the average number of young people actually in training during the period as a percentage of contracted places. For 1985–86 this figure is an estimate.

  Area Manpower Boards
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General which area manpower boards have no members who are from ethnic minorities; what is the proportion of ethnic minorities in the general population in the area they serve; and how these figures have changed over the last two years.

  Mr. Lee
  Up-to-date information on the proportion of ethnic minorities in the general population in the areas served by area manpower boards is not available. The rest of the information requested is as follows. Currently 29 of the 58 boards have no member representing ethnic minorities as compared with 36 of the 55 boards in 1985.

  AREA MANPOWER BOARDS WITH NO MEMBERS (FULL OR CO- OPTED) REPRESENTING ETHNIC MINORITIES.

  SOUTH EAST REGION

  March 1985

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Surrey

  Sussex

  Essex

  Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire

  February 1987

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Surrey

  Sussex

  Essex

  SOUTH WEST REGION

  March 1985

  Dorset and Somerset

  Devon and Cornwall

  February 1987

  Dorset and Somerset

  Devon and Cornwall

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  WEST MIDLANDS REGION

  March 1985

  Shropshire, Hereford, Worcester

  Staffordshire

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  February 1987

  Hereford and Worcester

  Staffordshire

  Shropshire

  EAST MIDLANDS REGION

  March 1985

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  Derbyshire

  Lincolnshire

  February 1987

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  Nottinghamshire

  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE REGION

  March 1985

  North Yorkshire

  Humberside

  South Yorkshire

  February 1987

  North Yorkshire

  Humberside

  NORTH WEST REGION

  March 1985

  Cheshire

  Cumbria

  159

  February 1987

  Cheshire

  Cumbria

  NORTHERN REGION

  March 1985

  Cleveland

  Durham

  North Tyne

  WALES

  March 1985

  Gwynedd

  Dyfed and West Glamorgan

  Clwyd and Powys

  Gwent

  Mid and South Glamorgan

  February 1987

  Gwynedd

  Dyfed and West Glamorgan

  Clwyd and Powys

  SCOTLAND

  March 1985

  Highlands and Islands

  Grampian and Tayside

  Central and Fife

  Glasgow

  Lanarkshire

  Renfrewshire

  Ayrshire

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Lothian and Borders

  February 1987

  Highlands and Islands

  Grampian and Tayside

  Central and Fife

  Glasgow

  March 1985

  February 1987

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Full members

  (a) Black/other ethnic minority

  8

  (0·8)

  21

  (2·0)

  (b) Women

  82

  (8·2)

  153

  (14·4)

  Co-opted members

  (a) Black/ethnic minority

  19

  (1·9)

  27

  (2·5)

  (b) Women

  14

  (1·4)

  20

  (1·9)

  Co-opted members with voting rights1 (a) Black/ethnic minority

  3

  (0·3)

  1 Following the review of Area Manpower Boards in October 1985 co-opted members do not have voting rights.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On Wednesday 4 March and Friday 13 March, I visited the north Peckham and Bristol 160

  Lanarkshire

  Renfrewshire

  Ayrshire

  Dunfries and Galloway

  Lothian and Borders

  Notes:

  (1) The number of boards was increased by three to 58 in July 1986 as follows:

  The Leicestershire-Northamptonshire board was split into two boards, one covering Leicestershire, one covering Northamptonshire.

  The Shropshire, Hereford and Worcester board was split into two boards one covering Shropshire, one covering Hereford and Worcester.

  The Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire board was split into two boards one covering Buckinghamshire, one covering Hertfordshire.

  (2) The number of MSC regions was increased by one (midlands) in July 1987. Boards shown in east midlands in March 1985 were, in fact, in other regions, but they are listed in this way for convenience and case of reference.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General how many members of area manpower boards are (a) black or other ethnic minority origin, (b) women and (c) young people under 25 years; and, in each case, how many are full members, co-opted members with voting rights, and co-opted members without voting rights; and what proportion these represent of total membership, together with the comparable figures from two years ago.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on the age of area manpower board members is not available. The breakdown of area manpower board membership by black/ethnic minorities and women in March 1985 and February 1987 is as follows (with proportions against total membership shown in brackets):

  inner city task force areas. On Tuesday 10 March, I launched the new enterprise training in the YTS, in Reading.

  My political engagements during the month took me to Nottinghamshire, Clitheroe, Liverpool, Truro, Derby, Cheshire and Torquay.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Paymaster General what recent representations he has received concerning the future of the Construction Industry Training Board's involvement in the youth training scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 38]Since the beginning of the year I have received representations on this subject from the Construction Industry Training Board and from the Federation of Master Builders.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Paymaster General if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letter which he has recently received from Mr. Derek Gaulter of the Construction Industry Training Board on the subject of the Construction Industry Training Board's involvement in the YTS; and if he will also arrange for his reply to that letter to be published.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 38]No. This was a private exchange of correspondence.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Paymaster General how many trainees have so far been affected in each year by the involvement of the Construction Industry Training Board in the YTS.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 38]The numbers of trainees who have started on the Construction Industry Training Board scheme are as follows:

  Number

  1983–84

  18,980

  1984–85

  17,884

  1985–86

  17,742

  1986–87

  19,317

  Total

  73,923

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Paymaster General how many trainees the Construction Industry Training Board have proposed to involve in future years on their YTS.

  Total YTS starts

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1 year Entitlement 1986–87

  2 year Entitlement 1986–88

  Scotland:

  North

  389

  343

  346

  34

  317

  East

  1,012

  1,013

  974

  49

  808

  West

  1,519

  1,189

  1,223

  88

  1,133

  North

  805

  800

  743

  22

  815

  Yorks & Humberside

  1,936

  1,856

  1,822

  72

  1,856

  North West

  2,033

  1,993

  1,928

  86

  2,077

  East Midlands

  1,333

  1,258

  1,294

  62

  1,218

  West Midlands

  1,675

  1,601

  1,529

  91

  1,758

  East Anglia

  1,294

  1,043

  1,031

  42

  1,108

  Greater London

  2,009

  1,748

  1,859

  180

  1,809

  South East

  935

  995

  998

  73

  1,114

  South

  1,427

  1,440

  1,541

  121

  1,550

  West

  1,340

  1,414

  1,335

  111

  1,452

  Wales

  1,097

  1,074

  1,014

  66

  1,106

  18,804

  17,767

  17,637

  1,097

  18,121

  162
  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987. c. 38]The Manpower Services Commission has received a proposal for some 21,500 YTS places for the hoard's 1987–89 two-year programme.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the record of the Construction Industry Training Board's past involvement in the YTS.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 38]The Construction Industry Training Board has made a valuable contribution to YTS. The Government hope that the board's contribution to YTS will continue and be developed.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the placement record of youngsters who have taken part in the Construction Industry Training Board's YTS.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 38]By 14 October 1986, 17,742 young people had started the board's 1985–86 one-year YTS programme. Of those, 3,486 had left the scheme prematurely, including 1,607 who left because they had found employment.

  Some 12,967 young people had completed the scheme, of whom the board estimate that about 91 per cent. had been placed in employment.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Paymaster General how many individual construction companies have so far been involved in the Construction Industry Training Board's YTS.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 38]The Construction Industry Training Board estimates that the number of construction companies which have participated so far in YTS is between 21,000 and 23,000 in total.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Paymaster General if he will give a regional breakdown for each of the years for which the scheme has existed of the number of youngsters taking part in the Construction Industry Training Board's YTS.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 38]The information is as follows:
  163

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1 year Entitlement 1986–87

  2 year Entitlement 1986–88

  19,218

  Bircham Newton Tring Centre

  176

  177

  105

  18

  81

  99

  18,980

  17,884

  17,742

  19,317

  Moss Side Task Force
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Paymaster General (1) if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department in the Moss Side task force area;

  (2) if he will give details of actions taken by the Moss Side task force since it was established;

  (3) if he will give details of the budget allocated to the Moss Side task force during 1986–87; how much will be spent by 31 March and on what projects; and what will happen to any unspent funds after 31 March;

  (4) if he will give details of the budget to be allocated to the Moss Side task force during 1987–88;

  (5) if he will give details of the Moss Side task force's relationship with the local community, including the extent to which their views are taken into account and influence decisions on how the task force's budget is allocated.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 March 1987, c. 294–95]I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his earlier questions on 28 November 1986 at columns 391–92, in which I made a full statement on the activities and progress of the Moss Side and Hulme task force. Since that time, the task force has continued to make useful progress in developing initiatives centred on employment, enterprise and training.

  I regard the close involvement of the local residents in the work of the task force as extremely important and it is focused through a steering group of local residents and workers, and councillors. The task force ensures that this group is aware of all projects and project ideas. The group discusses each funding proposal before any submission is put to me and I pay strong regard to its views.

  No set budget has been allocated to the Moss Side and Hulme task force or any other inner city task force. Task force projects are financed out of the budgets of Government and Manpower Services Commission topped up as necessary out of the central project fund, of the inner cities initiative. Central unit funds are subject to the normal Treasury rules. on annuality, in common with the rest of my Department.

  During 1986–87, it is anticipated that projects sponsored by the task force will spend more than £747,000 in public funds including about £200,000 from the task force top-up funds. These projects include support for (a) positive action for training in housing (PATH), a 12-month training scheme aimed at increasing employment opportunities for black people in housing associations; (b) Prince's Youth Business Trust, which supports business start-up by young people; (c) Selcare trust, a community programme engineering workshop; (d) the Northern Black Business Association.

  For 1987–88 the task force is currently working up and progressing those initiatives mentioned in my reply of 28 November, including the establishment of managed workshops in association with a large private sector
  164
  company; and a number of more recent proposals. Discussions are continuing with a wide range of local organisations, including the university of Manchester and the chamber of commerce and with private sector employers in the area about ways in which employers and others can help the task force to meet its objectives. A number of initiatives are being jointly pursued, including the possibilities of local procurement, training and land development.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax treatment will be given, in the light of the proposal that pension rights accruing under the new free-standing additional voluntary contributions shall not be commutable into a tax-free lump sum, to existing additional voluntary contributions paid under an employer's occupational pension scheme.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Tax relief is given for additional voluntary contributions (AVCs) to a pension scheme in order to assist members to top up their expected pension benefits and thereby provide themselves with an improved level of income in retirement.

  This is why my right hon. Friend proposed in his Budget that benefits derived from the new "free-standing" AVCs, which will start next October, should not be commutable into a tax-free lump sum.

  Where AVCs are paid under existing arrangements within an employer's occupational scheme, part — in many cases all—of the benefit is at present normally commuted. In order that such in-scheme AVCs should not enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over "freestanding" AVCs, we shall be bringing forward proposals under which the benefits of new AVCs will not be capable of commutation.

  This provision will not apply, however, to AVCs paid (i) to an occupational scheme which provides lump sum and pension benefits in fixed proportions, thereby making it impossible for the whole AVC benefit to be taken as a lump sum or (ii) to an existing scheme by a member who is paying, or has in the past paid, AVCs to that scheme in respect of current service.

  Customs Clearance Facilities
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce a scheme for Customs clearance at Leeds/Bradford airport, and at the Leeds container base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Customs clearance facilities already exist at Leeds/Bradford airport and at the Leeds container base. An application for direct input facilities to the Customs computer from those locations has been made by the
  165
  Yorkshire DTI group. However, because of the current limitations on capacity of the Customs computer system and because of the need to cater for major changes to Customs procedures which must come into operation on 1 January 1988, it is unlikely that direct input facilities can be introduced at Leeds/Bradford airport and Leeds container base until after that date.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Mr. Lawson
  None.

  Financial Services (VAT)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the yield in 1987–88 of extending value added tax to all financial services at present exempt under (a) European Economic Community rules and (b) otherwise; and if he will provide a breakdown by service.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987]: There are considerable technical difficulties in determining the value of the supplies to which value added tax would apply, and I regret that it is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the potential revenue yield.

  South Africa (Military Equipment)
  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of all cases in which prosecutions or Customs compounding have taken place in relation to the supply of arms and related material to South Africa since the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 418, 1977.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c. 630]This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken following the discovery by Her Majesty's Customs officials on 27 February 1986, that cargoes on board the MS St. Maguire at Felixstowe described as agricultural machinery bound for a company known as M & I Engineers Pty, Pretoria, South Africa, were in fact components of 140mm howitzers being exported in breach of the United Nations mandatory arms embargo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c. 630]I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the MS St. Magnus rather than MS St. Maguire. That case involved exports of field guns by Clement Shaw Ltd. and was compounded by Customs and Excise under section 152 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action will be taken by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to investigate allegations that the MV Lady Anita exported 140 howitzers from Felixstowe on 28 November 1984 which were destined for South Africa in breach of the United Nations mandatory arms embargo.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c. 630]Following investigation by Customs and Excise, this case was compounded under section 152 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.
  166
  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the results of the investigation into Clement Shaw Ltd in relation to possible breaches of the United Nations mandatory arms embargo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c. 630]The case involved the export of field guns and spare parts to South Africa. It was compounded by Customs and Excise under section 152 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

THE ARTS

  Acceptances in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  asked the Minister for the Arts if any further items have been accepted in lieu of tax in the year ended 31 March 1987.

  Mr. Luce
  I am pleased to announce that a further three items have been accepted in lieu of tax:

  Item

  Amount of tax satisfied £

  Sidereal clock by Matthew Boulton

  440,000

  'Portrait of a Girl on a Sofa' by Philip Wilson Steer

  55,000

  A painting by Giacometti, and two drawings by Cezanne and Toulouse-Lautrec

  206,250

  The acceptance of the sidereal clock by Matthew Boulton has been allowed by the provision of extra funds from the Contingency Reserve, to which I referred in an earlier reply on 19 February, at column 737, together with resources from the annual AIL Vote.

  Allocation of the above items will be announced in due course.

  I am also pleased to announce that the Portland archive, acceptance of which. I notified to the House on 25 March 1986, at columns 427–28, has been allocated in accordance with the wishes of the executors to the following five institutions: Bodleian library, Oxford; British library; Hampshire record office; Nottinghamshire record office; and Nottingham university library.

  Acceptance in Lieu (Stratford Mill)
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received regarding (a) the completeness of the information made available to the chairman and all members of the Museums and Galleries Commission in their consideration of the proposal to accept in lieu Stratford Mill by John Constable, (b) the role of the commission in the valuation of the painting and (c) the commission's recommendation concerning the recipient of the picture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received five letters concerning the acceptance in lieu of tax of the Constable painting "The Young Waltonians", also known as "Stratford Mill"; each letter raised some of the points raised by the hon. Member.

  When this painting was offered to the nation I received advice from the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission, which included independent valuations given by two separate expert advisers to the Government. They both confirmed the valuation of £10 million. I have full confidence in the advice which was given to me by the

  167
  various parties, but the final decisions on acceptance and allocation were, of course, mine. This was the most valuable item ever accepted in lieu of tax, and it was clear that speed and discretion were essential. The enhanced provisions announced by my predecessor in 1985, allowing for calls on the Contingency Reserve, have enabled the acquistion of this major work of art, central to our heritage. It has been allocated to the National Gallery, in accordance with the strongly expressed wishes of the executors of the deceased owner, and is already on public display there.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC (Discrimination)
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by whom, in the case of those full-time and part-time women reserve police offers who were adjudged to have been discriminated against by the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, the cost of meeting the compensation awards and legal costs of both plaintiffs and the Chief Constable will be met; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The cost of compensation awards and legal costs of both plaintiffs and the Chief Constable will be met by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. I have no more up-to-date information than that given to my hon. Friend on 6 April 1987 in response to his earlier questions. I have therefore nothing more to add to that reply.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Conservation
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for South Shields on 20 January 1987, Official Report, column 495, whether a voluntary conservation body which has received aid from public funds to purchase land within an environmentally sensitive area, but which is not receiving any aid from public funds for the management of that land, will be eligible to receive payments made under the environmentally sensitive area arrangements;

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 20 January, Official Report, column 495, whether a voluntary conservation body which is receiving aid from public funds for the management of land lying within an environmentally sensitive area, will be eligible to receive payments made under the environmentally sensitive area arrangements;

  (3) pursuant to the answer of 20 January, Official Report, column 495, in what circumstances he will refuse to enter into management agreements with voluntary conservation bodies in relation to land lying within environmentally sensitive areas which is owned or managed by those bodies.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As I said in my answer of 20 January, each such application will be considered individually. It may be necessary to refuse to enter an agreement where the body concerned has received or is continuing to receive public funds for purposes which substantially overlap with the purposes of the environmentally sensitive area. This could in principle occur where the funds in question represented a contribution either to land purchase or to land management.
  168
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to the answer of 20 January, Official Report, column 495, whether a voluntary conservation body which has received aid from public funds to purchase land lying within an environmentally sensitive area, and which subsequently repays the moneys received, will be eligible to receive payments made under the environmentally sensitive area arrangements.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  If a conservation body were contemplating such a course of action we would be prepared to consider it constructively.

  Farmers (Income)
  Sir Peter Hordern
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average income of a dairy farmer in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The estimated average net farm income of dairy farms in the United Kingdom during each of the last five years for which data are available is as follows :

  Average net farm income of dairy farms

  (£'000 per farm)

  1981–82

  10·0

  1982–83

  12·4

  1983–84

  8·3

  1984–85

  8·5

  1985–86

  10·2

  Source The Farm business Survey in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Note: Figures given are the latest obtained from the survey for the year in question.

  Research and Development
  Sir David Price
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's planned expenditure on research and development for 1987–88; and what are the main areas of research selected by his Department under the Rothschild principles of the customer-contractor relationship.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department's planned expenditure on research and development in 1987–88, on a full cost basis, is £111·4 million. Of this total, £58·8 million will be commissioned under the Rothschild principles with outside contractors, primarily the Agricultural and Food Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, the food industry's research associations, and the universities.

  The main areas of research comprise:

  £ million

  Agriculture and horticulture

  39·8

  Food

  14·9

  Fisheries

  1·8

  Protection of the aquatic environment

  0·3

  River and coastal engineering

  2·0

  In addition, my Department funds the trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, through a grant-in-aid; of this, it is estimated that £4·9 million will be devoted to R and D in 1987–88.

  The remaining £47·7 million represents the cost of R and D conducted within the Department's Agricultural

  169
  Development and Advisory Service, food science laboratories and fisheries laboratories, and central administration costs.

  The allocation of funds between areas of research is guided by the recommendations of the Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food; and in the case of fisheries and protection of the aquatic environment, by consultation with the industry and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to co-ordinate a national programme.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Mr. Jopling
  I paid two official visits outside London in March. The first was to open the new production complex of Middlebrook Mushrooms in Selby on the 27th and the second to a dinner organised by Cumbria National Farmers Union on the 28th.

  Cruelty to Animals
  Mr. John
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet received notification of any decision taken by the EEC Commission indicating its response to a complaint lodged by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in February 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

DEFENCE

  Research and Development
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's planned expenditure on research and development for 1987–88; and what are the main areas of research selected by his Department under the Rothschild principles of the customer-contractor relationship.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Planned defence expenditure in 1987–88 on research and development is £2,346 million. Customer-supplier arrangements apply throughout defence research. The major fields of activity are as follows:

  MF A—Air Vehicles, Aerodynamics, Structure and Materials

  MF B—Gas Turbines

  MF C—Navigation and Avionics

  MF D—Space

  MF E—Ships and Submarines, Signature Reduction, Human Factors

  MF F—Ships Systems

  MF G—Undersea Warfare and Countermeasure Systems

  MF H—Rocket Propulsion, Explosives and Weapons Materials

  MF J—Conventional Weapons, Armaments and Command and Control

  MF K—Military Vehicles and Army Engineering Equipment

  MF L—Chemical and Biological Defence

  MF M—Guided and Air-Launched Weapons

  MF N—Tri-Service Electronic Systems

  MF P—Electronic Components

  MF Q—Electronic Technology

  NAAFI Hostel, West Germany (Police Search)
  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence who authorised the search of the NAAFI hostel at Salamanca barracks, Soest in West Germany on 10 February 1987; what evidence there was to justify this search; what was the outcome of the search; what guidelines the Royal Military police operate under when dealing with civilians: and if NAAFI employees in Germany are subject to the same discipline as service personnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  The search of the NAAFI hostel at Salamanca barracks, Soest in West Germany on 10 February was authorised by the commanding officer of 3 Regiment Army Air Corps in his capacity as Station Commander, Soest. It was considered justified as a result of witness evidence received to the effect that stolen goods were held on the premises. This allegation was also considered pertinent to an inquiry being undertaken into offences committed at the NAAFI HQ in Soest in 1986. Nothing of evidential value was found during the search. The Royal Military police operate under the following guidelines when dealing with civilian personnel:

  (a) The Manual of Military Law 1972.

  (b) Queens Regulations for the Army 1975.

  NAAFI personnel are subject to the same disciplinary processes as are applicable to United Kingdom based civilians and their dependants who are attached to, or are employed by, the armed forces in Germany. The provisions of the service discipline Acts apply to civilians in a modified form.

  Magilligan Ranges
  Mr. Hume
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement indicating which proposed developments or activities in the area of Magilligan ranges would lead to restrictions on access to Magilligan Point.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no plans for further restrictions on public access to Magilligan Point.

  Mr. Hume
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement indicating which future planned or possible activities or developments by the Ministry of Defence and Crown forces in the area of Magilligan ranges are part of, or related to, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation programmes.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no plans to develop facilities at Magilligan range for use by NATO forces.

  Mr. Hume
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement indicating the total acreage of land purchased by his Department over the past 30 months in the area of Magilligan ranges in County Derry.

  Mr. Freeman
  A total of 561 acres of land has been purchased by the Ministry of Defence over the past 30 months, in this area.

  Mr. Hume
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement indicating what pieces of land have been bought by his Department in the area of Magilligan ranges since July 1986.

  Mr. Freeman
  The only land purchase by the Ministry of Defence since July 1986 was of an area of land extending to 235 acres in the vicinity of Ballymagoland Oughtymore in August 1986.

  Mr. Hume
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement indicating whether his

  171
  Department is presently involved in or contemplating approaches or negotiations to purchase further lands in the area of Magilligan ranges in County Derry.

  Mr. Freeman
  The existing dry training area at Magilligan does not fully meet the needs of the units which have to use it. Some informal approaches have therefore been made to local landowners about the possibility of acquiring adjoining land, although there are no firm plans for an extension at present.

  Mr. Hume
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement indicating what proportion of Benowen beach is treated by his Department as part of its range area in Magilligan; and what are the restrictions on access to that beach.

  Mr. Freeman
  The 4½ miles of beach between Benowen beach Sangar and Magilligan Point Sangar are closed to the public when firing on the range is in progress. Firing takes place between 8 am and 4 pm on every day of the week. However, the beach is open to the public during a six-week period in the summer, between the last week in June and the first week of August, when the range closes down.

  Mr. Hume
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement indicating his Department's policy on possible tourist developments in the Magilligan-Benowen area and particularly Magilligan Point.

  Mr. Freeman
  The only concern of the Ministry of Defence is to ensure that any developments are compatible with defence requirements, such as range safety areas.

  Leave (Equestrian Events)
  Mr. Marlow
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent leave is granted to (a) officers, (b) warrant officers, (c) non-commissioned officers, and (d) other ranks with regard to participation in equestrian events.

  Mr. Freeman
  When applying for leave under normal rules, personnel are not required to state the purpose for which they wish to take leave. Special leave may exceptionally be granted to officers and other ranks in certain circumstances, for example when an individual has been selected to represent his country at a competitive sport.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Mr. Younger
  On 3 March I made official visits to the British Aerospace sites at Warton and Preston, and to the Pilkington Research and Development Establishment, Latham.

  Greenham Common (Vehicle Transfer)
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what information he has as to why 10 Dodge Ram support vehicles were transferred from Greenham common to Alconbury on 1 April; and to what use they will he put;

  (2) what information he has as to the purpose for which United States service personnel were transferred from Greenham common to Alconbury on 1 April.
  172
  Mr. Stanley
  I shall answer shortly.

  Armed Forces (Brutality)
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many courts martial have been held since 1979 concerning allegations of maltreatment or brutality in the armed forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 382]Courts martial are held under the terms of the service discipline Acts. These make it an offence for an officer, warrant officer or non-commissioned officer to strike or otherwise ill-treat a person of inferior rank : the relevant provisions are contained in section 36A of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, section 65 of the Army Act 1955 and section 65 of the Air Force Act 1955. Numbers of courts martial convictions for offences under these sections since 1979 are as follows:

  Royal Navy and Royal Marines1

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  1979

  —

  29

  3

  1980

  1

  6

  5

  1981

  1

  8

  2

  1982

  Nil

  3

  1

  1983

  Nil

  17

  1

  1984

  5

  8

  2

  1985

  —

  15

  3

  1986

  —

  4

  4

  1 Figures for 1985 and 1986 have not yet been collated.

  Note: Figures for 1979 arc not available.

  Details of courts martial not resulting in convictions could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 1979 his Department has held an internal inquiry concerning maltreatment and brutality in the armed forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 382]Internal inquiries can take a number of forms and no central records are kept of the numbers held. However, the number of cases since 1979 where inquiries have led to disciplinary proceedings and convictions under the terms of section 36A of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, section 65 of the Army Act 1955 or section 65 of the Air Force Act 1955 are as follows:

  Royal Navy and Royal Marines1

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  1979

  —

  92

  4

  1980

  1

  67

  11

  1981

  8

  59

  4

  1982

  2

  36

  2

  1983

  15

  42

  2

  1984

  10

  63

  4

  1985

  —

  62

  8

  1986

  —

  50

  5

  1 Figures for 1985 and 1986 have not yet been collated.

  Note: Figures arc not available for 1979.

  Armed Forces (Cruelty and Brutality)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence in how many cases in each of the last four years disciplinary proceedings have been taken because of unfair, cruel or brutal treatment in the armed forces.
  173
  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 March 1987, c. 2]Disciplinary proceedings are brought under the terms of the service discipline Acts. These make it an offence for an officer, warrant officer or non-commissioned officer to strike or otherwise ill-treat a person of inferior rank: the relevant provisions are contained in section 36A of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, section 65 of the Army Act 1955 and section 65 of the Air Force Act 1955. Numbers of convictions following disciplinary proceedings under these sections in the last four years are as follows:

  Royal Navy and Royal Marines1

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  1983

  15

  42

  2

  1984

  5

  63

  4

  1985

  —

  62

  8

  1986

  —

  50

  5

  1 Figures for 1985 and 1986 have not yet been collated.

  Details of disciplinary proceedings not resulting in convictions could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Paper Mill (Irvine)
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department is taking to ensure that United Kingdom companies are given their proportion of the supply of materials for the Finnish investment at Irvine.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who also has an interest in this matter, are taking all possible steps to ensure that United Kingdom companies win a fair proportion of the supply of materials for the paper mill currently being built at Irvine. We have secured undetakings from Caledonian Paper plc, the Finnish company concerned, that British companies are given a full and fair opportunity to bid for orders. We have ensured that Caledonian Paper is fully aware of the existence and abilities of relevant United Kingdom companies; that contacts have been facilitated between

  Tayside

  Grampian

  Year

  Gross NHS expenditure1 at cash prices £m

  At 1985–86 prices as measured by GDP deflator £m

  Gross NHS expenditure1 at cash prices £m

  At 1985–86 prices as measured by GDP deflator £m

  1980–81

  119·718

  163·244

  110·133

  150·173

  1981–82

  130·440

  161·949

  120·031

  149·025

  1982–83

  139·313

  161·275

  130·279

  150·817

  1983–84

  147·606

  163·583

  140·170

  155·342

  1984–85

  156·199

  165·936

  150·652

  160·043

  1985–86

  163·452

  163·452

  163·292

  163·292

  1Comprising expenditure on hospital and community health services, family practitioner services and capital.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the number of times the Manpower Services Commission has been informed of redundancies taking place in numbers greater than 10 employees since 1979 in each of the four Scottish cities.
  174
  United Kingdom companies and Caledonian Paper; that Caledonian Paper regularly supplies information about its current needs; and that the United Kingdom companies concerned are made fully aware of these needs so that they may maximise their chances of success in tendering. 'We have also impressed on United Kingdom companies that while we are happy to provide as much assistance as possible in this form the final decision is one for the commercial judgment of Caledonian Paper.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of Slate for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the setting up of regional centres for breast cancer screening as recommended by the Forrest report;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that Tayside health board has the staff, resources and finance to carry out breast cancer screening as recommended in the Forrest report.

  Mr. John MacKay
  My noble Friend the Minister of State announced on 25 February that £1 million will be made available in 1987–88 to enable a start to be made in Scotland on the implementation of the Forrest report's recommendations. About 10 breast cancer centres will be required in Scotland; and we shall shortly be approaching health boards to discuss where the first two or three centres should be established.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women have been screened in total in Scotland in the past five years for breast cancer; and what percentage of the female adult population they comprise.

  Mr. John MacKay
  This information is not available.

  NHS (Grampian and Tayside)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on the National Health Service in both Grampian and Tayside health boards in each year since 1980; and if he will express these figures also using a gross domestic product deflator for prices.

  Mr. John McKay
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Lang
  The following table shows the number of reports of redundancies involving 10 or more workers confirmed as occurring over the period January 1980 to December 1986.
  175

  Local Authority District

  Number of Reports

  City of Aberdeen

  411

  City of Dundee

  316

  City of Edinburgh

  413

  City of Glasgow

  1,119

  Notes:

  (1) the above figures may be subject to amendment as the statistics for 1986 are still provisional;

  (2) the estimates relate to Jobcentre areas located wholly or partly within the 4 local authority districts.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the change in the number of people employed in manufacturing industry in each of the four Scottish cities since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The estimated numbers of those working in manufacturing plants with over 10 employees in each of the four Scottish cities in 1979 and 1985 are shown in the table. These estimates are taken from the regional data system. No reliable information is available from this source for plants with less than 10 employees. The estimates for 1985 are provisional.

  City

  Employment 1979

  Employment 1985

  Aberdeen

  20,400

  17,000

  Dundee

  29,200

  15,900

  Edinburgh

  38,500

  31,200

  Glasgow

  91,800

  59,800

  Victim Support Schemes
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the victim support schemes his Department is currently assisting in Scotland; and if he will indicate the level of finance involved.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Grant has been paid to the Scottish Association of Victim Support Schemes since it was formed in March 1985; in the financial year 1986–87 grant offered amounted to £26,000 revenue and £1,500 capital with a further £2,000 capital being made available to upgrade computer facilities. An additional revenue grant of £15,000 has been offered to the Association for each of three years commencing in 1986–87 to assist specific projects. It is intended to offer the Association revenue grant of £38,000 for the financial year 1987–88.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many school leavers in (a) Dundee,(b) Aberdeen, (c) Glasgow and (d) Edinburgh have never had a job since leaving school.

  Mr. Lang
  The table shows the number of unemployed claimant school leavers under 18 years of age in each of the specified local authority districts as at 12 February 1987.

  City

  Number of unemployed school leavers

  City of Dundee

  587

  City of Aberdeen

  337

  City of Glasgow

  4,501

  City of Edinburgh

  1,060

  176
  Note: An unemployed school leaver is defined as a person under 18 years of age who has not entered employment since completing full-time education.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of people currently unemployed in each of the four cities in Scotland; what percentage unemployment rates these represent; and how many people have been unemployed for one year or more in each case.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not available in the precise form requested.

  On 8 January, the total number of unemployed claimants and those who had been unemployed for more than one year in each of the 4 Scottish cities was as shown in the table below.

  Number of unemployed claimants

  Area

  Total

  More than one year

  Aberdeen Local Authority District

  12,218

  2,686

  Dundee Local Authority District

  15,448

  6,686

  Edinburgh Local Authority District

  28,903

  11,035

  Glasgow Local Authority District

  78,707

  39,015

  Unemployment rates are not available for local authority districts.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of people unemployed in each of the four cities in terms of the primary manufacturing, services and construction sectors.

  Mr. Lang
  I regret that information on the number of unemployed according to the industry in which they last worked is no longer available. The industrial analysis of unemployed registrants was discontinued in May 1982.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the number of job vacancies in each of the four Scottish cities; and what is the Scottish total of job vacancies.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not available in the precise form requested.

  On 6 February 1987 the total number of job vacancies notified, and remaining unfilled, at jobcentres located within the four Scottish cities and the Scotland total as a whole was as shown in the table below.

  Area

  Unfilled Job Vacancies

  City of Aberdeen Local Authority District

  1,389

  City of Dundee Local Authority District

  369

  City of Edinburgh Local Authority District

  1,483

  City of Glasgow Local Authority District

  2,211

  SCOTLAND

  15,200

  The figures provided do not represent the total number of vacancies in the economy. It is estimated that only around one-third of all vacancies nationally are notified to jobcentres.

  Rates (Abolition)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with, and what advice was received from, the Data Protection Registrar in relation to the proposed abolition of rates in Scotland.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what items of personal data will be collected by local government to administer the proposed abolition of rates in Scotland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill provides that the entry in the community charges register for each person liable to pay the personal community charge will specify his or her name, address, date of birth, and the date from which such liability begins. The Secretary of State may also prescribe other matters which are to appear on the register. Only the addresses and names appearing on the register will be available for public inspection.

  Glasgow District Court
  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average delay in hearing cases at Glasgow district court; and if there are any proposals to increase staff employed at the court.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The approximate period between pleading diet and trial diet at Glasgow district court in custody cases is three weeks; in non-custody cases the period is 31 to 32

  Central government direct grant (recurrent)

  Scottish central institutions 1979–80—1987–88 (£ million)

  Central institutions

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–831

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987—88

  Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology

  3·763

  5·073

  5·477

  7·226

  8·119

  8·432

  29·172

  29·999

  10·642

  Paisley College of Technology

  3·483

  4·814

  5·252

  6·694

  7·294

  7·784

  28·399

  29·076

  9·443

  Dundee College of Technology

  2·227

  3·094

  3·032

  4·061

  4·351

  4·676

  24·993

  25·536

  5·756

  Glasgow College of Technology3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24·721

  29·897

  10·337

  Napier College of Commerce and Technology3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25·944

  214·054

  14·498

  Scottish College of Textiles

  0·711

  0·972

  1·190

  1·471

  1·709

  2·011

  1·883

  22·025

  2·087

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  1·515

  2·028

  2·100

  2·608

  2·798

  2·897

  3·028

  3·180

  3·337

  Edinburgh College of Art

  1·649

  2·241

  2·446

  2·815

  3·145

  3·272

  3·443

  3·619

  3·742

  Glasgow School of Art

  1·462

  2·020

  2·216

  2·648

  2·812

  2·985

  3·120

  3·330

  3·474

  Queen Margaret College

  1·512

  2·158

  2·338

  2·928

  3·127

  3·248

  3·506

  3·662

  3·807

  Queen's College Glasgow

  1·093

  1·462

  1·535

  1·962

  2·150

  2·298

  2·490

  2·625

  2·755

  Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  0·722

  0·993

  1·151

  1·263

  1·395

  1·482

  1·554

  1·673

  2·058

  Micro Electronics Development Centre

  —

  —

  0·144

  0·207

  0·271

  0·316

  0·318

  0·346

  0·418

  Leith Nautical College

  1·020

  1·407

  1·462

  1·604

  1·710

  1·628

  1·612

  1·684

  40·645

  Total

  19·157

  26·262

  28·343

  35·487

  38·881

  41·029

  63·418

  70·706

  72·999

  1 The significant increase between 1981–82 and 1982–83 reflects the reduction in tuition fees paid by home students by 50 per cent.

  2 Figures include grant allocated under the Switch to Technology Programme. (£1·7 million has been earmarked for Switch Phase III in 1987–88 but not yet allocated).

  3 Napier College of Commerce and Technology and Glasgow College of Technology joined the Central Institution Sector on 1 September 1985, and the figures reflect recurrent grant from the Scottish Education Department.

  4 LNC will transfer to the local authority sector with effect from 1 August 1987.

  178
  weeks before a stipendiary magistrate and 14 weeks before a justice of the peace. The number of staff employed at the court is a matter for the district council.

  Lead Piping
  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many grant applications have been approved for the replacement of lead piping in the Glasgow area in each of the last four years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ancram
  The table shows the numbers of grant applications for the replacement of lead plumbing approved by Glasgow District Council.

  Grant applications approved

  Year

  Number of approvals

  1982

  Nil

  1983

  1,783

  1984

  1,466

  1985

  Nil

  Complete figures for 1986 are not yet available.

  Education (Direct Grants)
  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the level of direct grants to each central institution of education in Scotland for each year since 1979.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The latest available information is contained in the tables.
  179

  Central Government Direct Grant (Capital)

  Scottish Central Institutions 1979–80—1986–87 (£ million)

  Central Institutions

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Robert Gordons Institute of Technology

  0·845

  0·985

  1·210

  2·322

  2·362

  2·009

  32·215

  32·982

  Paisley College of Technology

  0·411

  11·345

  12·233

  11·225

  10·876

  11·209

  1 30·915

  31·237

  Dundee College of Technology

  0·492

  0·431

  0·534

  1·009

  0·953

  0·443

  30·750

  30·560

  Glasgow College of Technology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2 30·438

  30·496

  Napier College of Commerce and Technology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2 30·297

  35·313

  Scottish College of Textiles

  0·158

  0·553

  0·791

  0·101

  0·345

  0·178

  0·050

  30·231

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  0·343

  0·175

  0·190

  0·057

  0·088

  0·127

  0·200

  0·029

  Edinburgh College of Art

  0·099

  0·092

  0·131

  0·039

  0·118

  0·255

  0·088

  0·003

  Glasgow School of Art

  0·310

  0·201

  0·201

  0·295

  0·094

  0·302

  0·203

  0·029

  Queen Margaret College

  0·360

  0·296

  0·763

  0·663

  0·253

  0·121

  0·215

  0·015

  Queen's College Glasgow

  0·113

  0·201

  0·403

  0·346

  0·466

  0·201

  0·043

  0·190

  Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  0·041

  0·415

  0·184

  0·443

  1·158

  2·085

  3·649

  6·119

  Leith Nautical College

  0·273

  0·144

  0·059

  0·015

  0·010

  0·020

  0·009

  —

  Total

  3·445

  4·838

  6·699

  6·515

  6·723

  6·950

  9·072

  17·204

  1 Includes capital expenditure on Microelectronics Development Centre

  2 Napier College of Commerce and Technology and Glasgow College of Technology joined the Central Institution Sector on 1 September 1985

  3 Figures include grant allocated under the Switch to Technology Programme

  4 £15·9 million, including £3·8 million under the Switch to Technology Programme is available to be allocated in 1987–88

  180

  Jedburgh Abbey
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the original budget estimate and the estimated final cost of completion of the Jedburgh abbey excavation and visitors' centre; and when he expects it to be officially open to the public.

  Mr. Ancram
  The original budget estimate for the Jedburgh abbey visitors' centre, the excavation and associated works was £537,000. The final cost is estimated at £582,000. I intend to open the visitors' centre officially on Monday 18 May. The abbey, with the improvements as they have been completed, has of course been open continuously to the public throughout.

  NHS (Staff Shortages)
  Mr. Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the most recent available total expenditures by each health board or agency nursing to fill staff shortages.

  Mr. John MacKay
  This information is not held centrally.

  Roads
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the motorway and trunk road construction contracts with a works cost of £1 million or more which his Department intends to award in 1987–88, showing in each case the total value of the contract and the expenditure likely to be incurred in that year.

  Mr. Ancram
  Contracts for the following major schemes, each estimated to cost over £1 million, are expected to be let in 1987–88:

  Estimated Total Cost1 £ million

  A7

  Middleton Bypass

  1·9

  A75

  Castle Douglas Bypass

  3·9

  A75

  Glenluce Bypass

  3·8

  A77

  Balsalloch to Balcreuchan

  3·8

  M8

  Starlaw Junction, Livingston

  1·8

  M80

  Stepps Bypass (Advance Works)

  5·1

  A82

  Auchendennan to Arden (Loch Lomond)

  1·7

  A82

  Luss to Camus Nan Clais (Loch Lomond)

  7·5

  A830

  Polnish to Lochailort

  2·5

  A9

  Dornoch Firth Approach Roads (South)

  6·0

  A9

  Dornoch Firth Approach Roads (North)

  2·5

  A9

  Dunbeath Bridge

  3·1

  A92

  East Fife Regional Road, Stage III

  12·2

  A92

  East Fife Regional Road, Stage IV

  5·1

  A92

  Ellon Bypass

  3·7

  A92

  Tipperty

  2·2

  A94

  Candy to Stonehaven

  3·0

  1 Includes works, land and professional fees.

  Start dates during the year, and hence likely expenditure in the year, are dependent on the completion of statutory procedures and monitoring of expenditure on schemes in progress. Depending on these factors, it might prove possible to bring some additional schemes into the programme for 1987–88.

  Tourism
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those tourism-related projects in Glasgow for
  182
  which the Scottish Development Agency has made grants available in each of the last five years; how many jobs have been created in each project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Agency has not contributed grant finance to any projects solely related to tourism in Glasgow. However the agency has made finance available to a number of projects in which tourism is one of the benefits to be derived: these include the Glasgow garden festival, the Scottish exhibition and conference centre and several projects funded under the local enterprise grants for urban projects scheme. It is not at present possible to estimate the impact of these projects on tourism employment.

  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of overseas tourists visiting Glasgow in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Information from the international passenger survey is as follows:

  Trips

  1981

  160,000

  1982

  180,000

  1983

  220,000

  1984

  200,000

  1985

  260,000

  Note: The sample size for Glasgow in the international passenger survey is 600. Thus, variations from year to year may be due [o sampling errors rather than any real change in visitor numbers.

  The regeneration of Glasgow through various action programmes, the opening of the Burrell Collection and the Scottish exhibition and conference centre have provided an impetus to the growth of tourism. A further boost is expected next year when the garden festival will be held in Glasgow and in 1990 when Glasgow is the European city of culture.

  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs were created in tourism in Glasgow for each of the last five years; and if' he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available.

  Inverclyde Initiative
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect an answer to his letter dated 9 March relating to the Inverclyde initiative.

  Mr. Lang
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 3 April.

  Housing
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dwellings in (a) the public sector and (b) the private sector in (i) Scotland and (ii) Edinburgh, respectively, were classified as unfit at the latest available date.

  Mr. Ancram
  The classification "unfit" is not used in Scotland. The nearest equivalent classification is of houses below the tolerable standard as defined in section 14 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974.
  183
  The table shows the BTS figures as supplied to the Department by district councils in their annual returns for 31 March 1986.

  Number of BTS houses at 31 March 1986

  (i) Scotland

  (ii) Edinburgh

  (a) Private sector

  39,001

  6,041

  (b) Public sector

  2,234

  —

  (c) Not stated1

  15,250

  —

  (d) Total

  56,485

  6,041

  1 It may be assumed that most of these cases lie in the private sector.

  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Mrs. McCurley
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what response has been made by the South of Scotland electricity board to the report on the board by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which was published in 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have received the initial response of the South of Scotland electricity board to the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission published on 20 August 1986. It gives the board's comments on the Commission's findings and describes the action it is taking to meet the recommendations. Copies of the board's response have been placed in the Library of the House.

  I welcome the Commission's findings that the board is not pursuing any course of conduct against the public interest and that the board is a well run organisation managing its core function of generating, transmitting and distributing electricity efficiently and effectively. The Commission found that the board's finances are soundly run, that the management structure and information systems are satisfactory and that the board sets itself tight targets for reducing costs and improving efficiency.

  The Commission drew attention to some areas where there is scope for improving performance, particularly in billing and debt collection, manpower levels and appliance retailing. The board in its response has described a number of steps being taken which should result in a significant reduction in billing costs and bad debts over the next few years. It has not accepted all of the Commission's recommendations on manpower levels but has indicated that they are reviewing and systemising a number of current procedures and have described their strategy for matching manpower requirements with work load. I shall be keeping in touch with the board's thinking as it develops. I welcome the board's confirmation of its commitment to putting appliance retailing activities on to a profitable basis. Further discussion will be required with the board about how profitablility should appropriately be measured and reported upon and the board's strategy should their endeavours prove unsuccessful.

  The Commission made important recommendations about fuel purchasing and tariff structure. I welcome the positive evidence in the response of the progress being made in the board's commercial dealings with British Coal against the background of its strategy to balance the short-term advantages offered by fluctuating fuel prices with long-term security of supply. On tariffs, the board has undertaken to carry out a review and further discussion is necessary to determine the scope and objectives of this exercise. I am asking the board to keep me regularly informed about progress in this important area.
  184
  The Commission also made a number of useful recommendations on investment appraisal procedures, quality control and aspects of the arrangements for electricity trading with the CEGB which the board is taking steps to implement.

  My Department will be maintaining close contact with the board on the follow-up to the report and the board will report to me again on progress achieved at the end of the year.

  Nuclear Disasters
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Strathclyde police as to, in the event of a civil nuclear disaster at Hunterston (a) what evacuation time estimates have been prepared for the evacuation of the most populated 22½ deg sector from the power station out to (i) five miles, and (ii) 10 miles, (b) what time estimates have been prepared for the evacuation of the population with (i) five miles, and (ii) 10 miles of the power station, (c) what time estimates have been made for the evacuation of the population of Glasgow, (d) what time estimates have been made for the evacuation of high risk groups from Glasgow, (e) what time estimates have been made for evacuation of low mobility groups from Glasgow, and (f) what time estimates have been made for the distribution of potassium iodate tablets to the population of Glasgow; and if he will arrange for the basis and calculation of any such time estimates to be placed in the Library;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway as to, in the event of a civil nuclear disaster at Chapel Cross (a) what evacuation time estimates have been prepared for the evacuation of the most populated 22½ deg sector from the power station out to (i) five miles, and (ii) 10 miles, (b) what time estimates have been prepared for the evacuation of the population with (i) five miles, and (ii) 10 miles of the power station, (c) what time estimates have been made for the evacuation of the population of Dumfries, (d) what time estimates have been made for the evacuation of high risk groups from Dumfries, (e) what time estimates have been made for evacuation of low mobility groups from Dumfries, and (f) what time estimates have been made for the distribution of potassium iodate tablets to the population of Dumfries; and if he will arrange for the basis and calculation of any such time estimates to be placed in the Library;

  Mr. Lang
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Forestry
  Mr. Rogers
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the predicted average yield class of the forestry plantations established in the flow country of Sutherland and Caithness in the last five years.

  Mr. John MacKay
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 53]The predicted average yield class of these plantations is 12, which compares favourably with yield classes in many other parts of Scotland.

  Mr. Rogers
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what response the Forestry Commission has made to the findings regarding the internal rates of return from various forestry plantations outlined in Appendix 4 of the recent

  185
  report by the National Audit Office on Forestry Commission objectives and achievements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John MacKay
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 53]The National Audit Office review of Forestry Commission objectives and achievements is being considered by the Committee of Public Accounts. It will be for the Government to respond to such recommendations as may be made by the Committee in its report to Parliament.

  Mr. Rogers
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the average windthrow hazard class of the land in the flow country of Sutherland and Caithness approved for afforestation in the last five years.

  Mr. John MacKay
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987,c. 53]The estimated averge windthrow hazard classification of this area is 4–5, on a rising scale of 1–6. This is fairly typical of upland areas in other parts of Scotland.

  Motoring Offences (Deaths)
  Mr. Milian
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases in each of the last 10 years, in which a driver has been charged with careless driving, a death was involved in the charge.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 53]I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Millan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases of disposal of charges relating to causing death by reckless driving in each of the last 10 years the sentences have been passed in the sheriff court and the High Court respectively.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 53]The information requested is given in the table:

  Persons against whom a charge of causing death by reckless driving was proved

  Scotland

  High Court

  Sheriff Court

  1976

  1

  44

  1977

  4

  39

  1978

  0

  25

  1979

  1

  29

  1980

  1

  33

  1981

  1

  24

  1982

  3

  24

  1983

  2

  24

  1984

  0

  19

  1985

  1

  27

  11986

  2

  24

  1These figures are provisional.

  "Rural Scotland"
  Dr. Owen
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much it cost his Department to produce the document "Rural Scotland"; how many copies have been printed and what were their production costs; and how many he expects to be issued to the public.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 52]The time spent by officials of my Department in the preparation of "Rural Scotland" cannot be identified separately from their other duties. No estimate of the overall cost to my Department of producing the document can therefore be provided.
  186
  A total of 20,000 copies were printed at a cost of £12,350. Subject to demand, apart from those copies required for parliamentary, press and official use, I expect all the copies to be issued to the public.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mrs. Shields
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to ensure that before any hospital for the mentally handicapped is closed down full provision for care in the community is made for discharged patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  Mentally handicapped people should not be discharged from hospital until their needs have been assessed and arrangements have been made for those needs to be met appropriately. The closure of hospitals should be a consequence of residents being suitably accommodated in the community and not vice versa.

  Cumberlege Committee
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to make a statement outlining Her Majesty's Government's reactions to the conclusions of the Cumberlege committee report.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government are currently considering the views that emerged during the consultation on the primary care and community nursing reviews, including the report of the Select Committee on Social Services, and expect to be responding to the Select Committee shortly.

  Personal Pensions
  17. Mr. Gerald Bowden asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further proposals he has to encourage the take-up of personal pensions.
  Mr. Major
  The introduction of freestanding additional voluntary contributions in October and the earlier start for personal pensions in January 1988, both announced by the Government last month, have attracted great interest. We will be taking steps later this year to explain the new pensions choices and opportunities that will be available as a result of last year's Social Security Act. It will be for the personal pensions providers themselves to sell their products.

  AIDS
  Mr. Roger King
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with Church leaders on the campaign to combat AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  We have had several very helpful meetings and a range of other contacts with religious leaders to discuss the problem of AIDS and measures to prevent its spread. They have been both understanding and constructive and we look forward to continuing and building upon this relationship.

  Mr. Stern
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received in response to the television series on AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  We are aware of only one letter received by the Department related directly to the recent
  187
  programmes produced by the television broadcasting authorities. However, we understand that research undertaken by the authorities themselves has shown a generally very favourable response.

  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on measures proposed and being taken to prevent the spread of AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) earlier today.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people died from AIDS during 1986 and in 1987 to date.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of deaths due to AIDS which were reported to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre in 1986 is 153. By 28 February 1987 another 84 AIDS cases were reported as having died.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what National Health Service funds are being diverted away from existing services in order to provide care and nursing facilities for AIDS patients; what effect this will have on hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Allocations to health authorities in England in 1987–88 provide for an increase of £631 million, 1·5 per cent. above forecast general inflation. This includes £25 million under the waiting list initiative, which is expected to produce about 100,000 additional operations. They will also retain the benefit of cash released through their cost improvement programmes, which are planned to achieve £150 million in the current year. The estimated cost of hospital care of patients with AIDS in England in 1987–88 is £12 million to £24 million, of which £4·4 million has been provided centrally to the three regions which together treat some 75 per cent. of cases.

  Homeopathy
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what provision exists at present for, and what plans there are to extend, the homeopathy service on Merseyside.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Member the information he seeks. It is not available centrally. The provision of homeopathy services on Merseyside is the responsibility of Mersey regional health authority. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the regional chairman.

  Nurses
  19. Mr. Geraint Howells asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about nurses leaving National Health Service employment in order to begin private sector nursing employment.
  Mr. Newton
  We have not received any on this specific issue, and nurses are free to work where they choose. However, in the light of the United Kingdom Central Council's project 2000 proposals, we will be discussing with representatives of the private health care sector the ways in which its contribution to nurse training can be expanded.
  188
  Sir Russell Johnston
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the most recent figure, or estimate, he has for the number of agency nurses working in National Health Service hospitals.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of agency nursing and midwifery staff employed in England at September 1985 was 4,120 in wholetime equivalent terms; about 1·0 per cent. of the total nursing and midwifery staff at that date.

  Mr. Silvester
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses are currently employed in the north-west region; and how many were employed in 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The provisional figure from the latest census of nurses and midwives, including agency nurses, is 37,800 whole time equivalents. The corresponding figure for 1979 was 32,200. That is an increase of 5,600 or 17·7 per cent. It compares with an increase of 12·2 per cent. over the same period for all health authorities in England.[These figures are taken from the DHSS Annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.]

  Mr. Pavitt
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to stem the flow of qualified nurses now leaving the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  Information about nurses leaving the National Health Service is not collected centrally but the latest available information shows that the number of qualified nursing and midwifery staff in the National Health Service in England continues to increase: by a further 2·8 per cent. between September 1984 and September 1985. We do however recognise that the situation will vary between location and specialty, and a number of initiatives aimed at improving recruitment and retention have been taken.

  The position in London is currently the subject of a review commissioned by the National Health Service Management Board. The Department is also currently undertaking a special enquiry into nurse recruitment and retention problems across the country with the aim of identifying management action which may be required to overcome recruitment difficulties. The management and staff sides of the Nursing and Midwifery Staff negotiating council are reviewing nursing clinical grading structure and are aiming to develop a structure which is appropriate to current and future needs. A joint DHSS/NHS group is examining equal opportunities, with specific reference to management of the career break. Additionally health authorities have been asked to consider increasing male recruitment, making greater efforts to recruit mature entrants, organise "Back to Nursing" campaigns, establish nurse banks and give more opportunities for flexible working arrangements, part-time working and job sharing.

  Finally, in addition to consultation on the "Project 2000" proposals on future nurse education and training published by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, the Department has set up a major feasibility study into the extended use of the youth training scheme in the National Health Service. A feature of this study, which is purely exploratory, is to look at the way such training might facilitate entry to professional nurse training and thus help to alleviate recruitment difficulties.

  Mr. Stevens
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much nurses' pay has increased in real terms since the pay review body was set up.
  189
  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to point (c) of my reply to him today.

  Mr. Weetch
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current position with regard to nurses leaving the profession; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information about nurses leaving the profession is not collected centrally. However, we are aware of some work undertaken by the Institute of Manpower Studies which suggests that about 10 per cent. of qualified nurses and midwives leave the National Health Service each year. On that basis — that is including retirements, and including those not lost to the profession but going to undertake further post-basic training or other nursing employment—some 23,000 in wholetime equivalent terms left the National Health Service in England in the last year. At the same time, however, some 7,000 returned to nursing after a break, in addition to those newly qualified nurses who joined the National Health Service.

  Mr. Redmond
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses have been employed within the National Health Service in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on 20 March at column 661.

  Pensioners (Heating Allowance)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give details of the number of pensioners who are in receipt of a heating allowance.

  Mr. Major
  It is estimated that nearly 1·5 million pensioners were in receipt of a heating addition in 1984, the latest year for which information is available.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Wainwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of supplementary benefit claimants in Colne Valley constituency for the current year and for 1979.

  Mr. Lyell
  In February this year approximately 17,000 claimants were receiving supplementary benefit from the Huddersfield local office which serves the constituency of Colne Valley. The equivalent figure for February 1979 was 10,000.

  Leicestershire District Health Authority
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the Leicestershire district health authority regarding financial provision under the National Health Service; and what reply he has sent.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have not received any such representations from Leicestershire health authority. We would expect any such representations to be made to the Trent regional health authority.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Spencer
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the heart disease prevention campaign, "Look After Your Heart".
  190
  Mrs. Currie
  We are planning, in association with the Health Education Authority, to launch the campaign on 22 April. The aim during the initial phase will be to increase public awareness about the main risk factors associated with coronary heart disease. The campaign will involve the support and co-operation of many sectors of society, including the National Health Service, industry and commerce, community and voluntary organisations, and the educational service. A particular feature will be community-based "healthy cities" programme which has already brought together health and local authorities in initiatives to promote heart disease prevention programmes, and will be developed further during the course of the campaign.

  The national launch will be supported by a series of booklets on aspects of coronary heart disease. Six million copies have been printed for distribution direct to the public. A publication will give detailed statistics about the deaths and illness attributable to coronary heart disease and illustrate its financial consequences. Substantial coverage through the mass media, both nationally and locally, has been arranged for the early months of the campaign. An advertising campaign on television is planned for the autumn. The national campaign is intended to serve as a focus for the very many local initiatives already planned to draw the public's attention to the dangers of coronary heart disease and ways to avoid the main risks.

  In the longer term the campaign's objective is to achieve a significant reduction in the very high rates of death from coronary heart disease.

  Drugs (Expenditure)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by what percentage in real terms National Health Service expenditure on drugs has increased over the last five years.

  Mr. Newton
  The increase in real terms of expenditure on National Health Service drugs in England between 1980–81 and 1985–86 was 21 per cent.

  Pensions
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next expects to raise the level of pensions for women over the age of 60 years and men over the age of 65 years.

  Mr. Major
  The level of state retirement pensions was last increased from 6 April of this year. The next increase will take effect in April 1988.

  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for the year 1979 and for the most recent year for which figures are available the number of those receiving a pension by reason of age together with the single and married rates of pension payable.

  Mr. Lyell
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 3 November 1986 at columns 355–57. The numbers of people in receipt of retirement and supplementary pensions on the dates for which information is available and which are the most relevant for the years specified are as follows:
  191

  Numbers

  Retirement Pension1

  November 1978:

  8,775,480

  September 1986:

  29,853,540

  Supplementary Pension only

  December 1978:

  107,000

  February 1986:

  294,500

  The weekly rates of benefit applicable from 6 April 1987 are as follows:

  £ per week

  Basic retirement pension (full-rate)

  Single

  39·50

  Married couple

  63·25

  Non-contributory pension3

  Single

  23·75

  Married couple

  37·95

  Supplementary pension scale rates4

  Single

  38·65

  Married couple

  61·85

  1 Includes non-contributory pensions for people over 80, pensions paid to people overseas and those who receive graduated pension only.

  2 Latest dates for which information is available.

  3 Paid to those people over 80 who are not in receipt of a contributory pension or whose pension is payable at a rate lower than that of the non-contributory pension.

  4 Excludes any weekly additional requirements which might be payable.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will reconsider the decision to change the rule relating to the assessment of pensions from inflation to wages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  We have no plans to alter the existing statutory requirement which ensures that pensions are up-rated by an amount at least equivalent to the relevant percentage rise in price inflation.

  Mr. Sayeed
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will compare the current state pension with contributions made to it by (a) all pensioners, (b) pensioners up to 70 years of age, (c) pensioners between 70 and 75 years of age, (d) pensioners between 75 and 80 years of age, (e) pensioners between 80 and 85 years of age, and (f) over 85 years of age during their working lives after allowing for (i) inflation and (ii) average rates of return on investments.

  Mr. Major
  National insurance contributions finance all contributory benefits; there is no separate pension contribution. The cost of pensions and other benefits is financed on a pay-as-you-go basis, and there is no actuarial relationship between the level of contributions paid during an individual's working life and the pension he or she receives. In particular, many employments were not insurable for pension purposes prior to the introduction of the national insurance scheme in 1948. The method of calculating entitlement to basic pension means that pensioners who were not in insurable employments prior to 1948 can receive full basic pension for fewer years of contribution than those who were insurable before that date. For all these reasons, I regret that it is not possible to give all the information requested.

  From the week beginning 6 April 1987, the basic single person's retirement pension will be £39·50 and the married
  192
  couple's pension £63·25. An addition of 25 pence a week is paid to pensioners aged 80 or more. Those who do not have title to a contributory retirement pension may be entitled to a non-contributory pension of £23·75 for a single person and £37·95 for a married couple.

  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in light of the coming into force of the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 in November 1987, he will review the five-year age difference in eligibility for the basic state retirement pension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  The Sex Discrimination Act 1986 has no bearing on the question of pension age. The Government will however continue to examine ways of achieving greater equality in this area.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the average basic, graduated and earnings-related retirement pension awarded to women aged 60 years and men aged 65 years respectively in each year since 1978, including the guaranteed minimum pension for contracted out employees.

  Mr. Major
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 412]The tables show pensions in payment to women aged 60 and men aged 65 at a given date in each year. The figures thus represent awards made within the previous 12 months to those in receipt of each pension component. The average rate of notional additional component incorporates both additional pension and guaranteed minimum pension, and includes inherited entitlements.

  Table 1: Women aged 60

  £ per week

  Date

  Average basic pension

  Average rate of graduated pension

  Average rate of notional additional component

  November 19781

  15·49

  0·37

  —

  November 1979

  17·70

  0·41

  0·51

  November 1980

  19·68

  0·49

  0·92

  November 1981

  20·85

  0·55

  1·56

  September 19822

  20·22

  0·56

  2·04

  September 1983

  21·63

  0·63

  2·90

  March 19843

  21·79

  0·64

  3·24

  September 1985

  24·60

  0·70

  4·38

  September 1986

  26·46

  0·76

  5·38

  Table 2: Men aged 65

  Date

  Average basic pension

  Average rate of graduated pension

  Average rate of notional additional component

  November 19781

  19·14

  1·04

  —

  November 1979

  23·12

  1·25

  0·72

  November 1980

  26·92

  1·49

  1·33

  November 1981

  29·39

  1·66

  2·19

  September 19822

  29·32

  1·68

  2·90

  September 1983

  32·49

  1·87

  4·16

  March 19843

  33·64

  1·95

  4·75

  September 1985

  35·47

  2·11

  6·69

  September 1986

  38·30

  2·30

  8·65

  1 Figures for women aged 60 and men aged 65 not available for 1978. These figures represent average amounts in payment to women aged 60–64 and men aged 65–69.

  2 The reduction in the average rate of basic pension payable in 1982 is attributable to a change in the composition of the retiring population. Men aged 65 at the date of the count were, on average, entitled to a slightly lower proportion of the full standard rate of basic

  193
  pension than those retiring in earlier years. Among women aged 60, a higher proportion were entitled to pension on their own contributions, but their percentage rate of entitlement was smaller. The average rate in payment was thus reduced. From 1982, the annual count ceased to be made at the end of November. The November 1981 and September 1982 figures are thus based on the same rates of benefit, since no uprating intervened.

  3 September 1984 figures not available.

  Source: Retirement Pensions Biannual Enquiry.

  Maternity Allowance
  Mr. Evans
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements he has made for publicising changes in the maternity allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lyell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) on 10 March, at column 160.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the proposed level of severe disability premium.

  Mr. Major
  The proposal is to set it at the same level as invalid care allowance. That rate is currently £23·25; the actual rate payable from April 1988 would be determined nearer the time.

  Home Visitors
  Mr. Dykes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider issuing new guidelines for local authorities and other public and private agencies promoting home-visitor programmes for single parent families with infant age children and related similar groups.

  Mrs. Currie
  We intend to issue fresh guidance on the provision of day care services for pre-school children, which would include the subject of appropriate support for families in the home. The timetable for its issue is linked to the parliamentary timetable for introducing legislation on all the proposals in the White Paper "The Law on Child Care and Family Services".

  Trade Unions (Meetings)
  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what subjects he discussed at his last meeting with trade union representatives of employees in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to him on 23 February at column 106 and 5 March at column 673.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to review the free availability of prescriptions or dental treatment to students or other people under the age of 19 years who are on low incomes.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no plans at present to change the arrangements under which young people get free prescriptions or dental treatment because of their age or 194
  educational status. We are considering the recommendations of an efficiency scrutiny which examined the arrangements for determining entitlement on the grounds of low income to exemption from or help with charges for prescriptions and dental treatment.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Livsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what conditions will govern the making of statements about government health policy by members of the newly constituted Health Education Authority.

  Mr. Newton
  None, as far as the Government are concerned.

  Hospital Beds (Utilisation)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which regional health authority has the best utilisation of beds and which has the worst; and by how much those authorities have improved their performance since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  Inter-regional comparisons should be treated with some caution given the differing age structure and range of provision. however, information in terms of the number of in-patient cases treated for each available bed in 1985, the latest year for which figures are available centrally, is given in the table.

  In-patient cases treated per available bed, NHS hospitals

  1985

  1979

  Percentage change 1979–1985

  Acute specialties

  Highest throughput in 1985, Oxford RHA

  38·6

  31·6

  +22

  Lowest throughput in 1985, Yorkshire RHA

  34·4

  27·6

  +25

  All specialties

  Highest throughput in 1985, Oxford RHA

  23·7

  18·4

  +29

  Lowest throughput in 1985, SW Thames RHA1

  15·5

  11·9

  +30

  1 Figures are not strictly comparable because of the effects of NHS restructuring in 1982.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish guidelines for the operation of the social fund.

  Mr. Major
  Draft directions and guidance were sent to interested organisations on 25 March, and I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 25 March at column 211. The final version of the directions and guidance will be published nearer the introduction of the second phase of the social fund in April 1988.

  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to indicate the criteria on which budgets for local offices will be set for the social fund.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Members for Sheffield.. Heeley (Mr. Michie), for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) earlier today.

  Unemployed Persons (Mortgage Interest Payments)
  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much he expects to save by the changes in the regulations on payment of mortgage interest for the unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  The estimated saving from the recent changes to the regulations on the amount included in supplementary benefit for mortgage interest for new claimants under 60 is £38 million in the year 1987–88, based on the latest available information.

  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate his Department has made of the percentage increase in real terms of pensioners' incomes from savings since 1979.

  Mr. Major
  Pensioners' incomes from savings grew in real terms by 52·5 per cent. between 1979 and 1985, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Note: Figures are obtained from the Family Expenditure Survey and relate to pensioner tax units i.e. single pensioners and married couples where the husband is over 65.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to implement section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement about the Government's intentions in relation to sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Major
  I discussed how best to proceed towards the further implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act with representatives of the local authority associations on 24 February. It was agreed that urgent discussions at official level should proceed to determine more realistic estimates of the costs of those parts of the Act which have resource implications, including sections 5, 6 and 7. I agreed to meet the associations to review progress in May.

  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is considering further proposals to help the disabled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  The Government will continue to seek opportunities to build upon their record of improved provision for disabled people. The full results of the survey of disabled people being carried out by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys are expected to be published in 1988 and will provide us with evidence relevant for a review of benefit provision for sick and disabled people.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further representations he has received on the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Major
  Since my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) on 1 April at column 521 another 33 written representations have been received
  196
  from organisations or individuals relating to implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Kidney Dialysis Machines
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many self-care kidney dialysis machines are available to National Health Service patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that self-care kidney dialysis is practised only in the Wessex region. For further details my hon. Friend may wish to contact the Wessex regional health authority.

  NHS (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Watts
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total of capital investment in the National Health Service in Slough since 1979–80; and what was the comparable investment in the period 1974–75 to 1978–79.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand from Oxford regional health authority and East Berkshire district health authority that the total health authority capital invested in hospitals, health clinics and health centres in the town of Slough since 1979–80 was £23,486,000. The capital invested in the period 1974–75 to 1978–79 was £1,919,000. Both figures are at 1985–86 price levels and exclusive of expenditure on major medical equipment, computer equipment and ambulances.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Mr. Hirst
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what savings have resulted to date from the operation of the limited list of medicines on prescription; and how these savings have been used.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) on 23 March at column 75.

  Pregnant Women (Questions)
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to change the current advice issued to liable relative officers regarding questions asked of young pregnant women.

  Mr. Lyell
  There are no plans to change the current instructions. We have no evidence that these instructions are not being adhered to.

  Hip Operations
  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest convenient figures for those awaiting hip operations.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the information he seeks. Information available centrally on in-patient waiting lists is categorised according to specialty of consultant but not according to the intended method of treatment.

  Warnock Report
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the conclusions of the Warnock report.
  197
  Mr. Newton
  The health departments have so far received a small number of comments about the issues on which the consultation document "Legislation on Human Infertility Services and Embryo Research" invites views by the end of June. We also continue to receive a wide range of views about research involving human embryos.

  Income Support
  Mr. Kennedy
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the financial implications for claimants aged under 25 years of age of the proposed income support scheme.

  Mr. Major
  The precise effects will not be known until the rates of income support are set later this year. Some general illustrations are shown in table 11B of the technical annex to the White Paper "Reform of Social Security (Cmnd. 9691), a copy of which is in the Library.

  NHS (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will report progress on the programme of capital expenditure works in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Fowler
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply shortly.

  Community Care
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those categories of public expenditure relevant to Sir Roy Griffiths' "Review of Community Care Policies".

  Mrs. Currie
  We expect the review to concentrate on the contribution to community care of public expenditure on health services, local authority social services and social security, but it is not precluded from considering any relevant public expenditure.

  Pensioners (Electricity Expenditure)
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information his Department has collected on the proportion of expenditure by pensioners on the state pension which goes on electricity.

  Mr. Major
  The latest available information shows that pensioners' expenditure on electricity in 1985 represented 4·3 per cent. of their total average weekly expenditure.

  Note: Figures are derived from the 1985 Family Expenditure Survey and are for all pensioner income units, i.e. single pensioners and couples where the man is over 65.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the numbers on the waiting lists for operations in the Exeter health district for each of the years 1975 to 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give my hon. Friend the information he seeks in precisely the form requested. Information available centrally on inpatient waiting lists is categorised according to the specialty of the consultant but not according to the intended method of treatment. The available information on the numbers awaiting admission to surgical specialties is given in the table.
  198
  Exeter district health authority will receive £40,000 in 1987–88 from the first year's allocation of the hospital waiting list fund, which was announced by my right hon. Friend on 17 February. This will provide for increased day surgery to treat an extra 700 patients all of whom are at present on the waiting list.

  Numbers of cases on inpatient waiting list for acute surgery in National Health Service hospitals in Exeter district health authority

  Position at

  Total cases on list

  31 December 1974 1

  3,859

  31 March 1976

  3,606

  31 March 1977

  3,165

  31 March 1978

  3,381

  31 March 1979

  3,810

  31 March 1980

  3,331

  31 March 1981

  3,329

  31 March 1982

  3,410

  31 March 1983

  4,474

  31 March 1984

  4,184

  31 March 1985

  4,084

  31 March 1986

  4,614

  1 Figure for March 1975 not available therefore number at 31 December 1974 given.

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people on Merseyside are waiting for (a) hip operations, (b) knee joint operations, (c) kidney treatment and (d) eye operations.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the information he seeks. Information available centrally on in-patient waiting lists is categorised according to the specialty of the consultant but not according to the intended method of treatment. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the Mersey regional health authority for the information required.

  Nutrition Education
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to procure advice from outside experts in the field of nutrition education, in the light of the winding-up of the Joint Advisory Committee on Nutrition Education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  My right hon. Friend looks for advice in the field of nutrition from the chief medical officer's committee on the medical aspects of food policy. The joint advisory committee on nutrition education is a body established jointly by the Health Education Council and the British Nutrition Foundation. It is for the new Health Education Authority to determine the source of any professional advice it may require.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. O'Brien
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the expenditure of the Yorkshire regional health authority for the past five years on (a) revenue and (b) capital.

  Mr. Newton
  Following are the total expenditure figures recorded in the annual financial accounts of the Yorkshire regional health authority and those of district health authorities (area health authorities for 1981–82) within that region:
  199

  Hospital and community health services

  Revenue £ million

  Capital £ million

  1981–82

  547·8

  50·9

  1982–83

  583·4

  52·6

  1983–84

  619·6

  51·4

  1984–85

  657·6

  51·6

  1985–86

  699·5

  72·8

  Expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded although the figures for the years 1981–82 to 1984–85 include a small element representing family practitioner committees' administration expenses.

  Food (Radiation Contamination)
  Mr. Butterfill
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures are currently being taken under European Community Council Regulations to check the levels of radiation contamination of food imported into the United Kingdom; and with what results.

  Mr. Newton
  European Council Regulation EEC No. 1707/86 of 30 May 1986 set out maximum permitted levels of radiocaesium for imports of food into the Community on an emergency basis following the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The arrangements have been extended to 31 October 1987 by Council Regulation EEC No. 624/87 pending further scientific evaluation.

  The regulation requires certification or testing of food imports from third countries. In the 10 months to March

  Table 1

  Current expenditure by health authorities analysed by function

  1985–86

  1984–85

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  per cent.

  A. Patient care services

  i

  Medical Staff Services

  901·9

  9·39

  820·0

  8·98

  ii

  Nursing Staff Services

  3,284·8

  34·18

  3,092·2

  33·85

  iii

  Other Direct treatment Services and Supplies

  864·8

  9·00

  810·2

  8·87

  iv

  Diagnostic Departments

  531·2

  5·53

  483·6

  5·30

  V

  Other Medical and Para Medical Services, Ambulance Services etc

  765·1

  7·96

  722·4

  7·90

  Total

  6,347·8

  66·06

  5,928·4

  64·90

  B. General Services

  i

  Unit Administration and Clerical Support Services

  575·0

  5·98

  542·7

  5·94

  ii

  Medical Records

  105·9

  1·10

  99·8

  1·09

  iii

  Training and Education

  53·3

  0·55

  50·5

  0·55

  iv

  Catering

  355·1

  3·70

  354·1

  3·88

  V

  Domestic/Cleaning

  404·0

  4·20

  417·6

  4·57

  vi

  Portering

  149·3

  1·55

  146·4

  1·60

  vii

  Laundry

  63·9

  0·66

  64·1

  0·70

  Viii

  Linen Services

  121·2

  1·26

  114·8

  1·26

  ix

  Transport

  46·9

  0·49

  44·7

  0·49

  X

  Engineering maintenance

  270·6

  2·82

  262·7

  2·88

  xi

  Energy and Utility Services

  319·9

  3·33

  329·4

  3·61

  xii

  Building Maintenance

  165·0

  1·72

  167·0

  1·83

  xiii

  Grounds and Gardens

  21·8

  0·23

  22·3

  0·24

  xiv

  General Estate Expenses

  173·0

  1·80

  164·4

  1·80

  XV

  Miscellaneous Services and Expenses

  (0·4)

  —

  3·7

  0·04

  Total

  2,824·5

  29·39

  2,784·2

  30·48

  C. Other

  i

  Headquarters Administration

  374·4

  3·90

  361·4

  3·96

  ii

  Other Services and Expenses

  62·7

  0·65

  60·8

  0·66

  200
  a large number of samples have been tested. All but 18 were below the levels set out in the regulation. The 18 consignments concerned have been refused entry into the United Kingdom.

  I am placing a copy of the results of the monitoring in the Library.

  NHS (Expenditure)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much of the annual National Health Service expenditure, in money and percentage terms, was spent on (a) pay and related costs, (b) drugs, medicines and bandages, (c) medical equipment, (d) hospital building and maintenance, (e) administration and (f) general services, catering, laundry. and so on for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The tables show the analysis of health authorities' current expenditure by function (table 1) and subjectively (that is, by type) (table 2) for 1984–85 and 1985–86. Total capital expenditure by the health authorities whose current expenditure is included in the tables was £795·4 million (1984–85) and £891·9 million (1985–86).

  For the years 1979–80 to 1983–84 I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given him by my right hon. and learned Friend, the then Minister for Health, (Mr. Clarke) on 18 January 1984 at cols. 251–54 and 21 December 1984 at cols. 413–14.
  201

  1985–86

  1984–85

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  per cent.

  Total

  437·1

  4·55

  422·2

  4·62

  D.Total

  9,609·4

  100·00

  9,134·8

  100·00

  Note: The figures are derived from the annual accounts submitted to the Department by health authorities for 1984–85 and 1985–86. They include all current expenditure except that on the family practitioner services, the expenses of the Dental Estimates Board and Prescription Pricing Authority and the costs of other special health authorities providing NHS central services.

  Table 2

  Current expenditure by health authorities analysed subjectively (i.e. by type)

  1985–86

  1984–85

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent..

  A.Pay

  NHS staff salaries and wages

  7,007·8

  72·93

  6,697·9

  73·32

  Non-NHS staff (agency etc.)

  105·4

  1·10

  78·5

  0·86

  Chairmens remuneration

  2·2

  0·02

  2·0

  0·02

  Total

  7,115·4

  74·05

  6,778·4

  74·20

  B.Non-pay

  Drugs

  296·6

  3·09

  278·8

  3·05

  Medical gases

  10·8

  0·11

  10·9

  0·12

  Dressings

  51·8

  0·54

  50·0

  0·55

  Medical and surgical equipment—purchases and maintenance contracts

  333·5

  3·47

  306·0

  3·35

  X-Ray equipment, film and materials—purchases and maintenance contracts

  53·8

  0·56

  51·6

  0·57

  Patients' appliances

  73·3

  0·76

  63·0

  0·69

  Laboratory equipment, instruments and materials— purchases, maintenance contracts and services

  87·1

  0·91

  80·5

  0·88

  Provisions—purchases and contract catering

  182·9

  1·90

  178·0

  1·95

  Staff uniforms and patients clothing

  48·3

  0·50

  44·5

  0·49

  Fuel, light and power

  294·5

  3·06

  139·1

  1·52

  Laundry—equipment, materials and contracts

  13·1

  0·14

  12·7

  0·14

  Cleaning—equipment, materials and contracts

  52·1

  0·54

  39·4

  0·43

  Engineering maintenance—equipment, materials and contracts

  112·0

  1·17

  110·3

  1·21

  Building maintenance—equipment, materials and contracts

  87·4

  0·91

  91·8

  1·00

  Grounds and gardens maintenance—equipment, materials and contracts

  6·0

  0·06

  5·8

  0·06

  Computers— purchases, maintenance and licensing fees

  29·2

  0·30

  21·9

  0·24

  Office equipment

  28·8

  0·30

  31·1

  0·34

  Printing, stationery and postage

  73·6

  0·77

  70·6

  0·77

  Telephones—rental etc. and call charges

  75·6

  0·79

  70·2

  0·77

  Transport—fuel and oil, maintenance—equipment, materials and contracts
  etc.

  57·9

  0·60

  53·7

  0·59

  Travelling, subsistence and removal expenses

  163·1

  1·70

  152·8

  1·67

  Rates

  147·5

  1·54

  137·0

  1·50

  Contractual arrangements for patient care

  44·3

  0·46

  39·5

  0·43

  Other expenses

  359·8

  3·74

  495·7

  5·43

  Total

  2,683·0

  27·92

  2,534·9

  27·75

  C.Total pay and non-pay

  9,798·4

  101·97

  9,313·3

  101·95

  Less direct credits (staff lodging charges, canteen and other sales etc.)

  189·0

  1·97

  178·5

  1·95

  D.Total

  9,609·4

  100·00

  9,134·8

  100·00

  Note:—The figures are derived from the annual accounts submitted to the Department by health authorities for 1984–85 and 1985–86. They include all current expenditure except that on the family practitioner services, the expenses of the Dental Estimates Board and Prescription Pricing Authority and the costs of other special health authorities providing NHS central services.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to restore the number of beds available in National Health Service hospitals to 1979 levels.

  Mrs. Currie
  No. Our main concern is people, and services arid treatments provided for them, not beds. Improvements in the cost effective use of resources have
  202
  enabled treatments to increase since 1979, despite bed reductions. We now (1985 figures) care for well over 6 million in-patient cases—almost 1 million more than in 1979; nearly 374½ million, that is 3⅓ million more, outpatient attendances and nearly 1 million, that is over ⅓million more, day cases.

  COMA
  Sir Anthony Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give in the Official Report the names of the members of the working group of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy on dietary matters, together with their qualifications and interests in nutrition and dietary matters.

  Mrs. Currie
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the COMA working group on very low calorie diets. Details are as follows:

  CHAIRMAN :

  Professor H. Keen, Professor of Human Metabolism, Unit for Metabolic Medicine, United Medical and Dental Schools of Guys and St. Thomas' Hospital, London. MBBS 1948; FRCP London 1970; MD London 1971. Medical and Scientific Secretary of Medical Research Society and British Diabetic Association. Author, 'Blood Vessel Disease in Diabetes Mellitus' 1971; 'Complications of Diabetes' 1982; Papers on Epidemiology of Diabetes, Diabetic Angiopathy, Insulin Infusion Techniques, Associated Metabolic Disorders etc.

  MEMBERS :

  Ms. C. Bowyer, Senior Dietician, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, St. Georges Hospital, London. State Registered Dietician. Secretary and Treasurer, Association for the Study of Obesity. Member of Dietetic Committee of Anorexic Aid. Chapters and papers on obesity, anorexia nervosa, and bulimia nervosa.

  Dr. D. Craddock, General Practitioner, Croydon, Surrey. MB Chem B 1944; D Obst RCOG 1950; MD Liverpool 1967; FRCGP 1977; Hawthorne Prize, BMA 1968. Author, 'Obesity and its Management' : 'A Short Text Book on General Practice'; Chapters and papers on other medical subject.

  Dr. J. S. Garrow, Director, Nutrition Research Group, Medical Research Council, Clinical Research Centre, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow. Professor-elect Chair of Nutrition at St. Bartholomews Hospital Medical College. MB ChB 1952, MD 1957, PhD St. Andrews 1961; FRCP Ed 1976; Mem Assn Phys & Med Research Society; Chairman, Association for the Study of Obesity. Author, 'Energy Balance and Obesity in Man' 1978; 'Zero Muddler for Unprejudiced Sphygmomanometry' Lancet 1963; 'Treat Obesity Seriously' 1981.

  Professor M. G. Marmot, Professor of Community Medicine, University College London and Middlesex Hospital Medical School. B Sc(Med) Sydney 1967, MBBS 1969, MPH University of California 1972, Ph D University of California 1975, MFCM 1984. Author, papers on Heart Disease Epidemiology and Social Factors in Disease and Ethnic Differences in Health.

  Dr. J. F. Munro, Consultant Physican, Eastern General Hospital and Edenhall Hospital, Musselburgh, Midlothian. MB Ch B (hons) Ed 1960; FRCP Ed 1971. Author, papers on Management of Obesity, Diabetes and Bacterial Infection and Use of Antiobesity agents in Treatment of Obesity.

  Professor T. Silverstone, Professor of Clinical Psychopharmacology, University of London at St. Bartholomews Hospital Medical College. MA, BM Bch 1958; DM Oxf. 1968, FRCP Lond. 1976; FRC Psych 1973. Author, Drug Treatment in Psychiatry, Editor, Drugs and Appetite 1987, papers on clinical Psychopharmacology and Human Feeding Behaviour.

  NHS (Staff Accommodation)
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services under what authority the sale of nurses' accommodation has been carried out in the last two years; what is the current status of the relevant circular which
  204
  was issued and then withdrawn in 1986; if he will publish the findings of the review then initiated; and what general objectives and precise targets he now has for the sale of nurses' accommodation in the next year.

  Mr. Newton
  Although the National Health Service Acts do not include a specific power to dispose of surplus land and property, Treasury counsel has advised that there is an inherent power. Circular HC(86)8 issued in 1986 advises authorities on the implementation of a previous circular, making it clear that they should not implement any part of their plans for rationalising property holdings where this involved giving staff notice to quit. Neither circular has been withdrawn. We expect shortly to consult on the outcome of the review of the conditions on which staff occupy residential accommodation initiated last year. Our general objectives for the next year are that authorities should continue to dispose of any properties they judge to be surplus to local requirements, wherever practicable by selling them to the current occupants at the generous discounts available; ensure that the remaining stock is fully utilised; and bring up to a reasonable standard any of the remaining properties which are in a poor state of repair and decoration. We have not set any precise targets within these general objectives.

  Handicapped People (Respite Care)
  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to alter the provision of short-term respite care for the handicapped in England and Wales.

  Mr. Major
  We recognise the potential value to families with a handicapped member and to the handicapped person of respite or short-term care. This can be provided in the family's own home, by substitute families or in residential accommodation (often in small units in the community) run by health or local authorities or by private or voluntary organisations. It is for individual health authorities and local authorities to determine in the light of local needs and priorities the appropriate level and pattern of services within available resources. The National Institute for Social Work's working party, under the chairmanship of Lady Wagner, is currently reviewing the role of residential care (including respite care) and the range of services given in statutory and independent residential establishments and considering what changes are required to enable the residential care sector to respond more effectively to changing social needs. The working party's report is expected in early 1988.

  Freefone Service
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of calls received by his Department's Freefone service during the past year.

  Mr. Lyell
  The Department's Freefone service dealt with 680,259 calls during the 12-month period 11 February 1986–9 February 1987.

  Benefits
  Sir Russell Johnston
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost in benefits of an individual male and an individual female unemployed person in each of the past five years.
  205
  Mr. Major
  Based on an analysis of unemployment benefit recipients the estimated average benefit cost of male and female unemployed beneficiaries is given in the table :

  Year

  Male £

  Female £

  1982–83

  2,122

  1,769

  1983–84

  2,270

  1,910

  1984–85

  2,422

  2,070

  1985–86

  2,645

  2,290

  1986–87

  2,744

  2,399

  Note The estimates cover unemployment benefit, supplementary benefit and housing benefit. They do not include other benefits that may be in payment, for example child benefit.

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of supplementary benefit claimants and the total sum paid in the six Liverpool constituencies in 1979 and in the current year.

  Mr. Lyell
  The six Liverpool constituencies are covered, for supplementary benefit purposes, by 11 of the Department's offices; but their boundaries are not conterminous. The numbers of people receiving supplementary benefit from those offices on 10 February 1987, the latest date for which information is available, were 138,287 and 20 February 1979 were 90,515.

  I regret that information about the total sum paid is not available.

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action.

  Documents (Reproduction)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what basis photocopying of HN(87)13 is restricted to health authorities only.

  Mrs. Currie
  HN(87)13 may, in common with all health notices and circulars, be photocopied or reproduced in any other form by any of the bodies to whom it is addressed. In this instance an earlier form of copyright waiver was used in error.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services under what authority health authorities and community health councils may reproduce copies of HC(87)7: Resource Assumptions and Planning Guidelines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Reproduction of health circulars is covered by Crown copyright, as are all Government publications. As one of the aims of publishing circulars is to reach as wide an audience as possible the legal right is not enforced. To emphasise this, circulars will in future state that they may be freely reproduced by all those to whom they are addressed.

  Runaways (Definition)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will redefine the term runaway, for his Department's purposes, as a young person, aged under 17 years or in local authority care, who has either left home or residential care of his or her own accord but without agreement, or who is forced to leave, and is missing for one or more nights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department does not have a formal definition of the term runaway.

  Research and Development
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his Department's planned expenditure on research and development for 1987–88; and what are the main areas of research selected by his Department under the Rothschild principles of the customer-contractor relationship.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Speech Therapy (Exhibition)
  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to speech therapy to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 1 June 1987 to 5 June 1987.

  Insulin
  Mr. Carter-Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements and facilities are made available to diabetic patients to enable them to store their insulin in an efficient manner; if he will make a statement on the problems faced by low income patients in maintaining the insulin in good order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  No special arrangements are necessary for storage. The shelf life of insulin at room temperature is one month. It may be stored for longer periods if kept refrigerated. Patients who keep insulin at room temperature may need to make arrangements with their doctor or pharmacist for smaller and more frequent supplies. Diabetics are exempt from prescription charges.

  Maternity Payments
  Mr. Barron
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in the Rother Valley constituency claimed maternity grant in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The Rother Valley constituency is covered by the Department's local offices at Rotherham north and Rotherham south, although their boundaries are not conterminous with the constituency. The numbers of claims for maternity grant received at the two Rotherham local offices during the 1986 calendar year were as follows:

  Number

  Rotherham North

  769

  Rotherham South

  2,577

  Mr. Barron
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in the Colne Valley constituency claimed maternity grant in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  Information is not available in the form requested.
  207
  The Colne Valley constituency is covered by the Department's local office at Huddersfield, although its boundaries are not conterminous with the constituency. The number of claims for maternity grant received at the Huddersfield local office during the 1986 calendar year was 2,651.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list his official visits throughout the United Kingdom during the month of March.

  Mr. Fowler
  During March, I undertook the following outside engagements:

  Friday 13 March — Visit to Bromsgrove hospital, Bromsgrove

  Wednesday 18 March — Regional health authority Chairmen's meeting, Oxford.

  Speech to Office of Health Economics 25th anniversary dinner, London

  Thursday 19 March—Address to Financial Times pensions conference, London

  Monday 23 March—Opening of conference "Future Trends in AIDS", London

  Wednesday 25 March—Opening of conference "Caring for AIDS Sufferers in the Community", London

  Friday 27 March — Opening of new emergency ward, Grantham hospital, Grantham

  Blood Products
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will state the date when his Department gave instructions that all Factor VIII blood products should be heat treated.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 March 1987, c. 82]Manufacturers of Factor VIII initially developed heat treatment techniques to prevent the transmission of hepatitis. These techniques were found to inactivate HIV during 1984 and heat-treated Factor VIII was available for clinicians in the United Kingdom to prescribe on a named patient basis from the end of 1984.

  All imported Factor VIII released for use in the United Kingdom since January 1985 has been heat-treated. From April 1985 heat-treated Factor VIII has also been produced by the blood products laboratory at Elstree.

  Mr. Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is yet in a position to answer the question from the hon. Member for Birkenhead, 23 March, Official Report, column 82, concerning heat treatment of blood products, to which a holding answer was given.

  Mr. Newton
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

  NHS directly employed staff: 30 September 1982

  Numbers and Whole-time Equivalents1

  Region

  Medical2 and Dental

  Nursing3 and Midwifery

  Administrative and Clerical

  Ancillary

  Others4

  Total

  1.Northern RHA

  Number

  3,500

  30,000

  6,800

  14,400

  8,000

  62,600

  Whole time equivalents

  2,700

  26,400

  6,100

  11,400

  7,500

  54,000

  NHS (Pay Bill)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total wage and salary bill of the National Health Service for 1985–86, broken down by (a) medical and dental, (b) nurses and midwives, (c) administration and clerical, (d) ancillary and (e) other staff; what was the average pay level for each category; and what the percentage change in the average pay level from 1984–85.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Staff group

  (1) Expenditure 1985–86 Financial year £ million

  (2) Average pay level £ thousand

  (3) Change in average pay since 1984–85 Financial year Per cent.

  Medical and Dental

  1,024

  23·8

  6·3

  Nurses and Midwives

  3,210

  8·1

  8·6

  Administration and Clerical

  773

  7·5

  4·7

  Ancillary

  902

  6·5

  4·7

  Other staff

  1,133

  9·6

  n.a.

  Total

  7,042

  Notes:

  (1) Figures in column 1 are for hospital and community health services in England. They are derived from the summarised accounts of health authorities and include employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions but exclude agency staff.

  (2) Figures for "other staff" in column 1 cover professions allied to medicine, professional and technical staff Whitley B, scientific and professional staff, maintenance staff and ambulance men.

  (3) The figures shown in column 3 include pay increases awarded during the financial year 1985–86. In some cases these were paid in full from February 1986.

  n.a. = Not appropriate.

  National Health Service (Staff)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give, for regional health authority, SHA and district health authority in England and for each year since 1982, the numbers of staff in the following groups (a) medical and dental, (b) nursing and midwifery, (c) adminstrative and clerical, (d) ancillary, (e) other employees and (f) total employees in terms of: (i) the actual number of employees and (ii) whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 March 1987, c. 331]The table gives the information requested for each regional health authority in England, and a total for the London Postgraduate SHAs, for each of the years 1982 to 1986 inclusive. Figures for district health authorities are not readily available in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  209

  Region

  Medical2 and Dental

  Nursing3 and Midwifery

  Administrative and Clerical

  Ancillary

  Others4

  Total

  2. Yorkshire RHA

  Number

  3,900

  34,300

  8,300

  17,600

  9,800

  73,900

  Whole lime equivalents

  3,000

  30.000

  7,100

  13,300

  8,600

  62,000

  3.Trent RHA

  Number

  4,400

  40,400

  10,500

  22,500

  11,300

  89,000

  Whole time equivalents

  3,500

  35,400

  9,000

  16,600

  10,200

  74,700

  4.East Anglian RHA

  Number

  2,000

  16,600

  4,500

  7,900

  4,900

  35,900

  Whole time equivalents

  1,500

  14,400

  3,900

  6,000

  4,200

  30.000

  5.North West Thames RHA

  Number

  4,400

  34,000

  10,000

  15,200

  8,400

  72,000

  Whole time equivalents

  3,300

  29,100

  8,500

  12,400

  7,100

  60,400

  6.North East Thames RHA

  Number

  5,300

  39,500

  11,800

  19,600

  10.600

  86,700

  Whole time equivalents

  4,100

  35,100

  10,100

  16,000

  9,500

  74,800

  7.South East Thames RHA

  Number

  4,500

  37,300

  11,400

  18,700

  10,000

  81,900

  Whole time equivalent

  3,400

  31,600

  9,400

  15,000

  8,600

  67,800

  8.South West Thames RHA

  Number

  3,400

  29,100

  7,900

  13,200

  7,400

  61,000

  Whole time equivalents

  2,500

  25,000

  6,500

  10,500

  6,200

  50,700

  9.Wessex RHA

  Number

  2,900

  25,400

  6,600

  11,800

  6,700

  53,400

  Whole time equivalents

  2,100

  21,600

  5,500

  8,700

  5,800

  43,800

  10.Oxford RHA

  Number

  2,700

  19,700

  5,900

  8,000

  5,700

  42,000

  Whole time equivalents

  1,800

  16,700

  4,700

  6,300

  4,700

  34,200

  11.South Western RHA

  Number

  3,400

  31,400

  8,200

  14,000

  8,600

  65,600

  Whole time equivalents

  2,600

  26,100

  6,800

  10,600

  7,500

  53,600

  12.West Midlands RHA

  Number

  5,600

  47,100

  12,700

  22,500

  13,200

  101,200

  Whole time equivalents

  4,200

  41,100

  10,800

  16,800

  11,800

  84,700

  13.Mersey RHA

  Number

  2,800

  25,600

  6,300

  12,600

  6,700

  53,900

  Whole time equivalents

  2,200

  22,500

  5,300

  9,400

  5,900

  45,200

  14.North Western RHA

  Number

  4,900

  42,200

  11,600

  19,300

  11,700

  89,600

  Whole time equivalents

  3,800

  37,000

  9,800

  14,900

  10,600

  76,200

  20.London PG SHAs

  Number

  1,600

  5,800

  2,000

  2,800

  2,000

  14,200

  Whole time equivalents

  1,000

  5,200

  1,800

  2,400

  1,900

  12,300

  England total5

  Number

  55,300

  458,200

  128,400

  220,200

  127,600

  989,600

  Whole time equivalents

  41,500

  397,100

  108,800

  170,500

  112,700

  830,600

  Source: DHSS Annual Censuses of Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 100 (numbers and whole-time
  equivalents).

  2 Includes permanent (whole-time, part-time and honorary) staff and locums.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  4 Includes Professional and technical, professions allied to medicine, scientists,
  works, maintenance and ambulance staff.

  5 Includes London Ambulance Service, Dental estimates board and Prescription
  Pricing Authority staff.

  NHS directly employed staff: 30 September 1983

  Numbers and Whole-time Equivalents1

  Region

  Medical2 and Dental

  Nursing3 and Midwifery

  Administrative and Clerical

  Ancillary

  Others4

  Total

  1.Northern RHA

  Number

  3,700

  30,500

  6,900

  14,200

  8,000

  63,300

  Whole time equivalents

  2,800

  26,800

  6,200

  11,200

  7,500

  54,50

  2.Yorkshire RHA

  Number

  3,900

  34,200

  8,300

  17,400

  9,800

  73,600

  Whole time equivalents

  3,000

  29,800

  7,100

  13,100

  8,600

  61,700

  3.Trent RHA

  Number

  4,500

  40,300

  10,500

  22,000

  11,500

  88,900

  Whole time equivalents

  3,600

  35,200

  9,000

  16,200

  10,400

  74,400

  4.East Anglian RHA

  Number

  2,000

  16,800

  4,700

  8,000

  5,000

  36,600

  Whole time equivalents

  1,500

  14,500

  4,100

  6,000

  4,300

  30,500

  5.North West Thames

  RHA

  Number

  4,500

  33,100

  10,100

  14,800

  8,400

  70,900

  Whole time equivalents

  3,300

  28,700

  8,500

  12,100

  7,200

  59,700

  6.North East Thames RHA

  Number

  5,300

  40,100

  11,800

  18,800

  10,500

  86,500

  210 211

  Region

  Medical2 and Dental

  Nursing3 and Midwifery

  Administrative and Clerical

  Ancillary

  Others4

  Total

  Whole time equivalents

  4,000

  35,200

  10,200

  15,400

  9,500

  74,400

  7.South East Thames RHA

  Number

  4,700

  37,000

  11,400

  18,000

  10,000

  81.100

  Whole time equivalents

  3,500

  31,500

  9,400

  14,500

  8,600

  67,400

  8.South West Thames RHA

  Number

  3,400

  29,500

  8,100

  12,800

  7,600

  61,300

  Whole time equivalents

  2,500

  25,200

  6,600

  10,200

  6,300

  50,800

  9.Wessex RHA

  Number

  2,800

  26,000

  6,800

  11,700

  6,800

  54,100

  Whole time equivalents

  2,000

  22,000

  5,600

  8,600

  5,900

  44,200

  10.Oxford RHA

  Number

  2,700

  19,700

  5,900

  7,900

  5,700

  41,800

  Whole time equivalents

  1,900

  16,600

  4,700

  6,100

  4,700

  34,000

  11.South Western RHA

  Number

  3,500

  30.800

  8,300

  13,700

  8,700

  64,900

  Whole time equivalents

  2,600

  26,100

  6,900

  10,300

  7,500

  53,400

  12.West Midlands RHA

  Number

  5,700

  46.800

  13,100

  22,100

  13,500

  101,200

  Whole time equivalents

  4,200

  40,800

  11,100

  16,500

  12,000

  84,600

  13.Mersey RHA

  Number

  2,800

  25,600

  6,300

  12,100

  6,700

  53,500

  Whole time equivalents

  2,200

  22,300

  5,300

  8,900

  6,000

  44,800

  14.North Western RHA

  Number

  5,000

  42,400

  11,600

  18,900

  11,900

  89,800

  Whole time equivalents

  3,900

  37,100

  9,800

  14,600

  10,900

  76,300

  20.London PG SHAs

  Number

  1,600

  5,500

  2,000

  2,800

  2,100

  14,000

  Whole time equivalents

  1,000

  5,200

  1,900

  2,400

  1,900

  12,400

  England total5

  Number

  56,100

  458,300

  129,600

  215,300

  128,800

  988,000

  Whole time equivalents

  42,300

  397,100

  110,000

  166,200

  113,900

  829,400

  Source: DHSS Annual Censuses of Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 100 (numbers and whole-time
  equivalents).

  2 Includes permanent (whole-time, part-time and honorary) staff and locums.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  4 Includes Professional and technical, professions allied to medicine, scientists,
  works, maintenance and ambulance staff.

  5Includes London Ambulance Service, Dental estimates board and Prescription Pricing Authority staff.

  NHS directly employed staff: 30 September 1984

  Numbers and Whole-time Equivalents1

  Region

  Medical2 and Dental

  Nursing3 and Midwifery

  Administrative and Clerical

  Ancillary6

  Others4 6

  Total

  1.Northern RHA

  Number

  3,600

  30,600

  7,100

  13,600

  8.200

  63,000

  Whole time equivalents

  2.800

  26,700

  6,300

  10,700

  7,700

  54,200

  2.Yorkshire RHA

  Number

  3,500

  34,300

  8,500

  16,200

  10,200

  72,800

  Whole time equivalents

  2,700

  29,900

  7,300

  12,100

  9,000

  61,000

  3.Trent RHA

  Number

  4,600

  40,700

  10,900

  20,700

  12,000

  88,800

  Whole time equivalants

  3,700

  35,500

  9,300

  14,900

  11,000

  74,500

  4.East Anglian RHA

  Number

  2,000

  17,500

  4,800

  7,500

  5,200

  37,000

  Whole time equivalents

  1,500

  15,000

  4,100

  5,500

  4,500

  30,700

  5.North West Thames RHA

  Number

  4,400

  33,600

  10,100

  13,600

  8,500

  70,100

  Whole time equivalents

  3,300

  28,700

  8,400

  11,000

  7,200

  58,600

  6.North East Thames RHA

  Number

  5,300

  41,000

  11,600

  16,900

  10,900

  85,700

  Whole time equivalents

  4,100

  35,300

  10,100

  13,900

  9,800

  73,100

  7.South East Thames RHA

  Number

  4,800

  37,100

  11,200

  15,700

  10,300

  79,100

  Whole time equivalents

  3,500

  31,100

  9,300

  12,500

  8,900

  65,300

  8.South West Thames RHA

  Number

  3,400

  29,500

  7,800

  11,400

  7,500

  59,600

  Whole time equivalents

  2,500

  24,900

  6,400

  9,000

  6,300

  49,100

  9.Wessex RHA

  Number

  3,000

  26,300

  6,900

  11,100

  7.000

  54,300

  Whole time equivalents

  2,200

  22,300

  5,700

  8,000

  6,200

  44,300

  10.Oxford RHA

  Number

  2,800

  20,200

  6,100

  7,400

  5,900

  42,400

  Whole time equivalents

  1,900

  17,000

  4,900

  5,700

  5,000

  34,500

  11.South Western RHA

  212 213

  Region

  Medical2 and Dental

  Nursing3 and Midwifery

  Administrative and Clerical

  Ancillary6

  Others4 6

  Total

  Number

  3,500

  31,000

  8,200

  12,800

  8,800

  64,300

  Whole time equivalents

  2,600

  26,200

  6,800

  9,500

  7,700

  52,800

  12.West Midlands RHA

  Number

  5,600

  47,200

  13,100

  20,700

  13,800

  100,500

  Whole time equivalents

  4,300

  41,000

  11,200

  15,200

  12,300

  84,000

  13.Mersey RHA

  Number

  2,800

  25,300

  6,400

  11,300

  6,900

  52,700

  Whole time equivalents

  2,200

  21,900

  5,400

  8,200

  6,200

  44,000

  14.North Western RHA

  Number

  5,000

  42,800

  11,500

  17,600

  11,800

  88,700

  Whole time equivalents

  3,900

  37,300

  9,700

  13,600

  10,800

  75,400

  20.London PG SHAs

  Number

  1,600

  5,300

  1,900

  2,400

  2,000

  13,200

  Whole time equivalents

  1,100

  4,900

  1,700

  2,100

  1,800

  11,600

  England total5

  Number

  56,100

  462,400

  130,100

  199,000

  131,400

  978,800

  Whole time equivalents

  42,300

  397,500

  110,300

  152,200

  117,000

  819,300

  Source : DHSS Annual Censuses of Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 100 (numbers and whole-time
  equivalents).

  2 Includes permanent (whole-time, part-time and honorary) staff and locums.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  4 Includes Professional and technical, professions allied to medicine, scientists,
  works, maintenance and ambulance staff.

  5 Includes London Ambulance Service, Dental estimates board and Prescription
  Pricing Authority staff.

  6 Not adjusted for transfer of Operating Department Assistants from Ancillary to
  Professional and Technical staff group on 1 April 1984.

  NHS directly employed staff: 30 September 1985

  Numbers and Whole-time Equivalents1

  Region

  Medical and Dental2

  Nursing and Midwifery3

  Administrative and Clerical

  Ancillary6

  Others4 6

  Total

  1.Northern RHA

  Number

  3,700

  31,000

  6,900

  13,000

  8,200

  62,900

  Whole time equivalents

  2,800

  27,100

  6,100

  10,000

  7,700

  53,800

  2.Yorkshire RHA

  Number

  3,900

  34,800

  8,300

  15,400

  10,400

  72,600

  Whole time equivalents

  2,900

  30,200

  7,000

  11,300

  9,200

  60,600

  3.Trent RHA

  Number

  4,700

  42,000

  10,600

  19,700

  12,400

  89,400

  Whole time equivalents

  3,800

  36,700

  9,000

  14,000

  11,300

  74,800

  4.East Anglian RHA

  Number

  2,100

  18,300

  4,700

  6,600

  5,300

  37,100

  Whole time equivalents

  1,600

  15,500

  4,000

  4,900

  4,600

  30,600

  5.North West Thames RHA

  Number

  4,500

  33,800

  9,500

  11,900

  8,500

  68,100

  Whole time equivalents

  3,400

  28,500

  7,800

  9,600

  7,300

  56,500

  6.North East Thames RHA

  Number

  5,500

  41,500

  11,400

  15,500

  10,800

  84,700

  Whole time equivalents

  4,200

  34,600

  9,800

  12,600

  9,700

  70,800

  7.South East Thames RHA

  Number

  4,600

  37,200

  10,900

  14,300

  10,200

  77,200

  Whole time equivalents

  3,500

  30,800

  8,900

  11,400

  8,900

  63,400

  8.South West Thames RHA

  Number

  3,500

  29,600

  7,400

  9,500

  7,500

  57,600

  Whole time equivalents

  2,500

  24,700

  6,000

  7,600

  6,400

  47,200

  9.Wessex RHA

  Number

  3,000

  26,800

  6,600

  10,500

  7,100

  54,000

  Whole time equivalents

  2,100

  22,800

  5,400

  7,600

  6,300

  44,200

  10.Oxford RHA

  Number

  2,900

  20,300

  5,900

  6,500

  6,000

  41,600

  Whole time equivalents

  2,000

  16,900

  4,700

  5,000

  5,100

  33,600

  11.South Western RHA

  Number

  3,500

  31,700

  8,100

  11,900

  9,000

  64,200

  Whole time equivalents

  2,600

  26,700

  6,700

  8,800

  7,800

  52,600

  12.West Midlands RHA

  Number

  5,700

  48,600

  13,000

  19,900

  14,000

  101,200

  Whole time equivalents

  4,400

  42,100

  11,000

  14,400

  12,600

  84,400

  13.Mersey RHA

  Number

  2,900

  25,800

  6,300

  10,600

  6,900

  52,500

  Whole time equivalents

  2,300

  22,200

  5,300

  7,600

  6,200

  43,600

  14.North Western RHA

  Number

  4,900

  43,200

  11,100

  16,800

  11,900

  88,000

  Whole time equivalents

  3,900

  37,700

  9,400

  12,800

  10,900

  74,700

  20.London PG SHAs

  Number

  1,600

  5,600

  6,700

  2,100

  2.000

  18.000

  Whole time equivalents

  1,000

  5,000

  6,300

  1,800

  1,900

  16,000

  214 215

  Region

  Medical and Dental2

  Nursing and Midwifery3

  Administrative and Clerical

  Ancillary6

  Others4 6

  Total

  England total5

  Number

  57,000

  470,300

  131,300

  184,200

  132,800

  975,500

  Whole time equivalents

  43,000

  401,200

  111,000

  139,400

  118,300

  812,900

  Source : DHSS Annual Censuses of Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 100 (numbers and whole-time
  equivalents).

  2 Includes permanent (whole-time, part-time and honorary) staff and locums.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  4 Includes Professional and technical, professions allied to medicine, scientists,
  works, maintenance and ambulance staff.

  5 Includes London Ambulance Service, Dental estimates board and Prescription
  Pricing Authority staff.

  6 Not adjusted for transfer of Operating Department Assistants from Ancillary to
  Professional and Technical staff group on 1 April 1984.

  NHS directly employed staff: 30 September 1986 (Provisional)

  Numbers and Whole-time Equivalents1

  Region

  Medical2 and Dental

  Nursing3 and Midwifery

  Administrative and Clerical

  Ancillary6

  Others4 6

  Total

  1, Northern RHA

  Number

  3,700

  29,100

  7,100

  12,500

  10,400

  62,800

  Whole time equivalents

  2,800

  27,300

  6,300

  9,200

  7,800

  53,500

  2.Yorkshire RHA

  Number

  4,000

  n.a.

  8,300

  13,900

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Whole time equivalents

  3,000

  30,300

  7,000

  9,900

  9,400

  59,600

  3.Trent RHA

  Number

  4,700

  42,600

  10,500

  18,700

  12,600

  89,100

  Whole time equivalents

  3,800

  37,100

  8,900

  13,000

  11,500

  74,300

  4.East Anglian RHA

  Number

  2,100

  18,700

  4,800

  6,100

  5,500

  37,200

  Whole time equivalents

  1,600

  15,600

  4,000

  4,500

  4,800

  30,500

  5.North West Thames RHA

  Number

  4,400

  33,700

  9,500

  9,700

  8,400

  65,700

  Whole time equivalents

  3,300

  28,700

  7,700

  7,800

  7,300

  54,800

  6.North East Thames RHA

  Number

  5,400

  35,700

  11,400

  13,600

  10,800

  76,900

  Whole time equivalents

  4,200

  34,100

  9,800

  11,100

  9,700

  68,800

  7.South East Thames RHA

  Number

  4,700

  36,300

  11,000

  12,800

  10,100

  74,900

  Whole time equivalents

  3,500

  30,200

  8,900

  10,100

  8,900

  61,600

  8.South West Thames RHA

  Number

  3,500

  29,500

  7,400

  8,100

  7,600

  56,000

  Whole time equivalents

  2,500

  24,400

  5,900

  6,400

  6,400

  45,700

  9.Wessex RHA

  Number

  2,900

  27,300

  6,600

  9,400

  7,200

  53,300

  Whole time equivalents

  2,100

  23,100

  5,400

  6,600

  6,300

  43,500

  10.Oxford RHA

  Number

  2,900

  20,500

  5,900

  6,000

  6,000

  41,300

  Whole time equivalents

  2,000

  16,900

  4,700

  4,500

  5,100

  33,200

  11.South Western RHA

  Number

  3,600

  32,200

  8,200

  11,200

  9,100

  64,300

  Whole time equivalents

  2,600

  27,000

  6,700

  8,100

  8,000

  52,400

  12.West Midlands RHA

  Number

  5,800

  49,400

  13,400

  18,700

  14,300

  101,600

  Whole time equivalents

  4,400

  42,500

  11,300

  13,200

  12,800

  84,200

  13.Mersey RHA

  Number

  2,800

  26,200

  6,300

  9,600

  7,000

  52,000

  Whole time equivalents

  2,200

  22,300

  5,300

  6,700

  6,300

  42,900

  14.North Western RHA

  Number

  5,100

  43,500

  11,400

  15,500

  11,700

  87,100

  Whole time equivalents

  4,000

  37,800

  9,600

  11,600

  11,000

  74,100

  20.London PG SHAs

  Number

  1,700

  4,800

  1,800

  1,500

  1,800

  11,600

  Whole time equivalents

  1,200

  4,800

  1,700

  1,500

  1,800

  10,900

  England Total5

  Number

  57,300

  n.a.

  226,000

  167,300

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Whole time equivalents

  43,300

  402,100

  111,400

  124,300

  120,000

  801,000

  Source : DHSS Annual Censuses of Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 100 (numbers and whole-time equivalents).

  2 Includes permanent (whole-time, part-time and honorary) staff and locums.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  4 Includes Professional and technical, professions allied to medicine, scientists, works, maintenance and ambulance staff.

  5 Includes London Ambulance Service, Dental estimates board and Prescription Pricing Authority staff.

  6 Not adjusted for transfer of Operating Department Assistants from Ancillary to Professional and Technical staff group on 1 April 1984.

  n.a.= not available.
  216

  NHS (Pay)
  Mr. Stevens
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much nurses pay has increased in real terms (a) between the implementation of the Halsbury award in 1974 and May 1979, (h) since May 1979 and (c) since the establishment of the pay review body in 1984.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 March 1987, c. 260]The information is as follows:—

  a. Between 1974 and 1979 nurses' pay fell by 21 per cent. in real terms;

  b. Since 1979 nurses' pay has increased by 23 per cent. in real terms; and

  c. Since 1983 nurses' pay has increased by 10 per cent.in real terms.

  The percentage real increase reflects the percentage cash increase for the pay round year (1 August to 31 July) deflated by the RPI increase in the pay round year in the 12 months to July.

  Mr. Stevens
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what the gross pay of stair nurses and ward sisters was in (a) 1974 after the implementation of the Halsbury award (b) May 1979, (c) in 1984 prior to the establishment of the pay review body and (d) following the 1986 pay award.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 March 1987, c. 260]Information in the form requested is not available. The basic salary scales for staff nurses and ward sisters at the dates requested are given in the following table. Staff in these grades are eligible for additional payments mainly for working overtime and unsocial hours. Currently average earnings (excluding London weighting) of full-time staff nurses and ward sisters are estimated to be about 17 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively greater than basic pay.

  Basic Salary Scales as at:—

  Grade

  May 1974 (a) £

  May 1979 (b) £

  May 1984 (c) £

  May 1986 (d) £

  Staff Nurse

  (a) Min

  1,692

  3,150

  4,998

  6,475

  (b) Max

  2,202

  3,813

  6,094

  7,750

  Ward Sister

  (Nursing Sister II)

  (a) Min

  2,262

  3,888

  6,321

  8,070

  (b) Max

  3,000

  4,949

  8,163

  10,800

  Mr. Stevens asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much the pay of (a) consultants, (b) house officers and (c) general practitioners, has increased in real terms (i) between February 1974 and May 1979 and (ii) since May 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 March 1987, c. 260]Based on the rates of pay effective on the dates specified, the changes in doctors' pay in real terms were:—

  February 1974 to May 1979 per cent.

  May 1979 to March 1987 per cent.

  House Officer

  +13·6

  +24·5

  Consultant

  -19·5

  +19·2

  General Practitioner (intended net remuneration)

  -10·5

  +17·0

  218
  Mr. Pavitt
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the present pay scales for National Health Service nursing officers, ward sisters and radiographers.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 March 1087. c. 305]The current basic salary scales for senior nurses 6–8, ward sisters and radiographers are given in the following table.

  Salary scales as from 1 July 1986

  Grade

  Salary scales

  Minimum £

  Maximum £

  Senior Nurses1

  6

  10,880

  12,480

  7

  9,765

  12,190

  8

  9,350

  11,300

  Ward Sister

  Nursing Sister II

  8,070

  10,800

  Radiographers

  Superintendent I

  13,195

  14,560

  Superintendent II

  11,935

  13,195

  Superintendent III

  11,020

  11,935

  Superintendent IV

  9,625

  11,020

  Senior I

  9,625

  11,020

  Senior II

  8,045

  9,625

  Radiographer

  6,695

  8,045

  Teaching Grades

  Principal 24+

  15,470

  16,835

  Principal I

  14,105

  15,470

  Principal II

  13,195

  14,560

  Senior Teacher

  12,775

  14,105

  Teacher

  11,935

  13,195

  Student Teacher

  7,025

  8,045

  1 Senior Nurses in pay grades 6–8 equivalent to obsolete grades of Senior Nursing Officer and Nursing Officer.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Dr. Glyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what assessment he has made of the financial position of nurses in the National Health Service, with particular regard to their ability at current pay levels, to obtain suitable accommodation; what representations he has received on this subject from nurses in Berkshire; what discussions he has had with the nurses and midwives negotiating bodies; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will expedite his consideration of the recommendation of the review body on nurses' pay; if he will make it his policy, in reaching his conclusions on those recommendations, to allow health authorities sufficient flexibility to enable them to implement a higher pay increase in areas where recruitment and retention is especially difficult; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 March 1987, c. 306–7]Although we are aware of suggestions that housing costs are affecting the ability of some health authorities in parts of London and the home counties to fill key nursing posts, we have not received any representations on this issue from nurses in Berkshire, or from the staff side of the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council. The review body reports to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to anticipate its recommendations or the Government's response to them.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Lord Trafford
Sir Joseph Anthony Porteous Trafford, Knight, having been created Baron Trafford, of Falmer in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Shawcross and the Lord Gibson.
Baroness Blackstone
Tessa Ann Vosper Blackstone, having been created Baroness Blackstone, of Stoke Newington in Greater London, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Serota and the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Life Sentence Prisoners: Provisional Release
2.57 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will revise the procedure for reviewing the question of provisional release of prisoners serving life sentences, in the light of the High Court ruling in the case of Mr. Brian Handscomb.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is still studying the judgment, which relates only to prisoners serving discretionary life sentences and not to all life sentence prisoners, and will announce the Government's response in due course.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but is he aware that it was precisely to avoid oversights in the review of life sentence cases which were occurring—if he will take my word for it—not infrequently in his department before 1973, that a joint committee was set up in that year composed of Parole Board members and officials of his department and chaired by the vice-chairman of the Parole Board, who was a High Court judge? Does not this case demonstrate the desirability of reinstating that committee, which did excellent work for 10 years until it was abolished by Mr. Leon Brittan in 1983?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, yes, I am aware that the joint committee used to undertake this work but I think the court's criticisms were confined to the applications of certain aspects of the policy for dealing with the cases of life sentence prisoners announced in 1983. The court upheld the lawfulness of that policy,
896
which it described as unassailable. I do not think this judgment has any effect upon that policy itself.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, will the Minister appreciate that the court of three judges castigated the Home Secretary on the manner in which this policy had been carried out and pointed out that it had led to prisoners being kept in custody for a minimum of nine years, far beyond the time the sentencer had envisaged? Is the Minister also aware that the Home Secretary was castigated for accepting the arrogant view that he could ignore the judges' recommendation on tariff if he so wished and substitute his own view on tariff?
Does not the Minister feel that he owes an apology to all those who suffered from this injustice and also an apology to those Members of this House who pointed out at the time that this policy was probably unlawful and certainly autocratic and that it had upset the whole basis of the parole system as it had been administered since the days of my noble friend Lord Hunt?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, no. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary would not accept that the parole system has been made less effective or has been in any way denigrated since the days of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. As I said, I cannot comment further on what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's response will be at this stage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister listen to the voice of sweet reasonableness? In regard to the judgment of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench, would he not agree that as the judgment was delivered on 2nd March and as the matters dealt with—especially, if I may say so, by the learned Lord Justice Watkins—are matters of some urgency, the Home Secretary should have formed some opinion before now on just two of the main points? The first one is that the Divisional Court decided that to wait for three or four years before fixing the term that should be served by a prisoner for retribution and deterrence was wrong and that this should be done soon after the sentence, if not at the time of sentence, and that the Home Secretary should take regard of the wishes of the judiciary and should not impose his own views when deciding this period. Does not the noble Lord think that those two matters are somewhat simple to decide upon in regard to policy, having regard to the clear judgment of the court?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the terms of the declaratory relief offered to the applicants was settled only yesterday and this has inevitably delayed consideration of the implications of the judgment. The formal position is that the Government now have 28 days in which to consider the question of whether an appeal should be made.

Airbus: British Aerospace Request
3.2.p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.

897
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are yet in a position to announce their decision regarding the request from British Aerospace for £750 million of taxpayer finance towards the cost of their participation in the A330 and A340.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not yet in a position to announce a decision regarding the request from British Aerospace for launch aid towards the cost of participating in the Airbus A330 and A340, but discussions with the company continue.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply and, in particular, for the note of caution which it strikes. Would my noble friend care to comment on the revelation from the chairman of Airbus Industrie yesterday, that in 13 years of trading this great corporation has failed to turn a penny piece of profit for any of its participants? Could he also explain, in the light of views expressed on previous occasions in your Lordships' House, what benefit there can be to the shareholders in British Aerospace in the contraction of orders for any of these models unless there is a profitable return in real terms from the acceptance of those orders? Could he say whether any of the orders so far received for the airbus been taken on a basis of profitability?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot comment on what the chairman of Airbus Industrie said. As regards the activities of British Aerospace and bringing a benefit to the shareholders, that is surely a matter for the shareholders to determine—not for me.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is this not the third occasion on which there has been a Question in your Lordships' House when the Government have replied that they are still considering the matter? On the last occasion did the Minister not agree that sales of the A320 had been unparalleled and that it had been a great success for this country? Is not time now running out, and should not an urgent decision be made by the Government in order that we can be a participant in this European venture instead of just being a contractor?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not wish in any way to be offensive to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but the answer to his first question is, yes. The answer to his second question is, yes, and the answer to this third question is, no. As regards the question of time running out, we are in touch with airbus partner governments on the progress of the A330 and A340 projects. As I have said previously, there are complex matters and take some time to resolve, bearing in mind that they are under consideration by our governmental partners as well.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is it not correct that delay has already cost the consortium
898
several orders? Is it not also true that if discussions are prolonged much further it will lose still more orders? Is that what the Government wish to bring about?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not aware that there is delay. Certainly, there is consideration of this important and complex matter. I do not believe that this has cost orders, because an announcement has been made of 104 commitments from nine airlines for the A330 and A340. I believe that to be a very encouraging position which we shall certainly take into account in our deliberations.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Lord that this is indeed a complex matter, not least because Airbus Industrie is not in itself a profit-making organisation as we know it—it is not a company, as we know it—would the noble Lord not agree that, leaving aside any question of the actual amount or the terms of any loan, it would be quite intolerable if these two projects went ahead without Britain being a partner?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will know better than I that we are not talking in terms of a loan; we are talking in terms of launch aid. Of course we wish to give British Aerospace what support we can in launch aid, as we have done in the past, so that our British aerospace industry can play its full part in the world industry.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Minister agreed on the last occasion that although we use the term "launch aid", it is, in effect, a loan and the moneys will be repayable? Is it not also a fact that there has been one delay in Airbus Industrie being able to announce that it is definitely going to launch these two programmes, partly because the United Kingdom's decision is awaited? Therefore is it not an urgent matter for Airbus Industrie as well as for British Aerospace and its workers?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the position of British Aerospace's participation, and thereby the Government's position vis-àvis British Aerospace, is one—but only one—of the factors. It is anticipated that Airbus Industrie will take all the necessary formal decisions to launch the programme later this month, by which time we should be in a position to give our considered response to British Aerospace.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, might not the tolerability of the proposed taxpayer investment in this project be best judged if my noble friend and right honourable and honourable friends who are Ministers in the department concerned, should they decide to give a favourable response to this request from British Aerospace, were themselves committed to putting, let us say, 5 per cent. of their individual personal net worth behind British Aerospace as a gesture of their confidence in the effectiveness of this investment?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, what an interesting and unique way of raising money! However, it would not perhaps be quite sufficient to satisfy British Aerospace's need in this regard.

Manufacturing: Trade Deficit and Employment
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the deficit in Britain's overseas trade balance in manufactured goods in 1986 and how many employees in manufacturing industry lost their jobs as a consequence.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the deficit in Britain's overseas trade balance in manufactured goods was £5.4 billion in 1986. No useful conclusions can be drawn from this deficit about the level of employment in manufacturing industry.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that time could have been spared on this Question this afternoon if in his 26-minute speech on 11th March he had answered precisely the same question which I put to him during the debate? Is he also aware that the figure that he has just given is the worst in history for British manufacturing industry? Is he further aware of the fact that, whereas in 1979 out of every pound spent by British shoppers on manufactured goods 26p went on imported goods, last year the figure was 35p out of every pound?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that three-quarters of total imports are taken up by manufacturing industry in terms of semifinished products, raw material and machinery in order for those industries to improve their competitiveness and to secure, as they have secured, their volume share of world markets, 28 per cent. of manufactured goods having been exported last year out of a total of £55 billion. That record of improvement since the low of the recession of 1981 is a credit to manufacturing industry.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures issued by the Department of Employment in February show that 22,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing industry in the month of January alone? Taking November, December and January as a quarter, the average was 8,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector each month, which is an increase of 33 per cent. over the preceding quarter. Whichever way we look at the situation, does it not show that the bedrock of our future and of the economic survival of manufacturing industry is still being eroded at an alarming rate?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, suppose that in answer to the noble Lord I suggested, with a degree of certainty, that 65 per cent. of the population of working age are in work and that that is a higher number of people out of the population than we find generally in Western Europe. I may also say to him that to pick on one particular sector is not very helpful. We require a competitive economy. That is central to our prosperity. Both manufacturing and
900
services are important and have a role to play in our economic position.
Lord Morris: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that our overall trading deficit with Japan is some £3 billion and that a considerable amount of that is in the manufacturing sector, may I ask my noble friend (although I appreciate that it is somewhat wide of the Question) for an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will in no way lessen their resolve in dealing with the way in which the Japanese are treating the United Kingdom?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that is a little wide of the original Question. Perhaps I can best answer by saying that Her Majesty's Government are committed to free, open and fair trade conditions throughout the world. We do not subscribe in any way to protectionist measures, wherever they may be practised.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a further reduction in interest rates, with its consequential beneficial effect on the sterling exchange rate, particularly in relation to the German mark, would greatly assist our major companies on whose exporting performance our overseas trade balance in manufactured goods largely depends?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, along with exchange rates, inflation, competitiveness and quality come interest rates. All of those matters have a bearing on the ability of our manufacturing industries to compete across the world. As I said in the debate of 11th March to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred, there is no doubt that British manufacturing stands on the threshold of a great opportunity. I have little doubt that it will take advantage of that opportunity this year and next year.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, leaving aside cause and effect, will the noble Lord give the House the Government's estimate for 1987 for both manufacturing trade deficit and the expected loss of employment in manufacturing?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, not without notice.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, in the light of my noble friend's response to the noble Lord opposite, can he advise the House whether current conditions of credit trading and the credit boom point to a case on domestic credit grounds for any reduction in interest rates?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords; I am sorry; I do not like refusing to answer my noble friend's question. However, I think it is just a bit wide of the original Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell us, in response to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Williams, what the comparison is between the deficit figures which he gave to me in his first Answer and those of the previous year? Is he aware

901
that for three years now Ministers have been telling us that we are on the threshold of a great boom in manufacturing industry and that every year the deficit has become greater? Will he also for the House compare production, which he said so much about in his first answer to my supplementary question, not with the low of 1981 produced by a Conservative Government but with the year 1979 when the Conservative Government first took over?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord always asks a number of fascinating questions which demand number responses. I do not have all the numbers at my fingertips. I can say that we have enjoyed a balance of payments surplus for a number of years. As conditions have changed, particularly as regards the recession and oil prices, the position has changed somewhat. If one looks at the overall position that we must face for the future, we expect no more than perhaps a £24 billion deficit in current account payments for 1987, which is after all just one half of 1 per cent. of gross domestic product. Instead of looking backwards I prefer to look forwards to the great opportunities which lie before us and which I am convinced British industry will take.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Lord offer great opportunities also to those in the major areas of unemployment in this country mainly within manufacturing? They also look for a ray of hope.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the ray of hope which is before them lies in increased productivity, increased competitiveness, increased profitability and the reinvestment of those profits in British industry. All of those results will have stemmed from the policies of this Government. Those manufacturing industries, as they capture a bigger share of world markets, will provide the long-term jobs.

Fishing Vessels: United Kingdom Registration
3.16 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to introduce legislation to prevent foreign fishing vessels from registering as British and thus qualifying to participate in catching the quotas of fish allocated to the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government are considering the introduction of legislation that would require stricter nationality or residence conditions to be met by companies or individuals seeking to register fishing vessels in the United Kingdom.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Is he aware that a
902
number of Spanish fishing boats have now met the present requirements of British registration and that more may do so, thereby nullifying the main purpose of the quota system?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. That is why we hope to be able to introduce legislation as soon as possible. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs at the moment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend further aware that many Spanish fishermen disapprove of what is happening? I have with me a letter from a fishermen's federation based in Vigo, Spain. It expresses the hope that the loopholes will soon be eliminated because they are placing in doubt the carefully negotiated agreements on the transitional period following Spain's entry into the EC.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. I suspect that I have seen the letter. The Spanish Government are also well aware of our concern.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as a generality, is my noble friend happy that on this issue we are receiving from the Common Market countries the cooperation we are entitled to believe we should have?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are in touch with the EC Commission on our proposals but we have to be very careful that such legislation would be compatible with our obligations under the treaty.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that we recognise the importance of the answer he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy? In regard to the legislation, he said that it will be brought forward as soon as possible. Can he give an indication of how soon that will be, because, in the meantime, terrible damage could be done to our fishing fleets?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope it will be possible to bring forward a Bill at the earliest opportunity. But legislation of this nature would introduce novel constraints that demand most careful consideration if they are to be effective in practice.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill will be taken.

Petroleum Bill
3.21 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House

903
that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Petroleum 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.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 8 [Liability for personal community charge:]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 131 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 132.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 7. line 41, leave out ("aged 18").
The noble Lord said: This heralds another series of amendments pointing out some of the difficulties that will be met particularly by students if the Bill is not considerably amended or if the Minister does not find a way of coping with the problem.
Under Clause 10, many problems begin to show. What will happen, for instance, to those people aged over 18 who decide after 1st April to enter education in September or October? Will they be registered at their home address or at their term-time address? If they start off registered at their home address and pay the charge, then move to pursue a course of education—they may not know until quite late that they have been accepted—and so become liable for a full year's charge at their new address, how will their previous payment be refunded?
There is another group of people. It is not uncommon nowadays for married students to maintain two homes. In fact, the award schemes make specific allowance for this. How will the joint and several liability apply in such cases? Will the home address become subject to standard community charge, and who will be the person responsible for the home address under Clause 19?
Another group of students will be those in placement. Many students spend a large part of their course away from their registered university or college. They undertake field work placements for various periods away from their studies. I refer to students on social work courses, those in community education, those on teaching courses and those on business and industry-linked courses of which there are an
904
increasing number. Such periods can range from part of a term to a whole term; so another problem arises there.
One of the most difficult problems—the last I shall mention—is the position of those students in further education who are assisted by local authority bursaries. In 1984–85, some 10,700 students aged 18 or over were in receipt of bursaries—the figure is considerably more now—and remained eligible to claim benefit. In this case our concern is about the way all benefit claimants tend to lose under these proposals.
I do not believe it is possible to deal with these various categories of students merely by amendments such as that I am proposing. I have brought forward the amendment and Amendment No. 132 which follows in order to give the Government a chance to respond to the real problems which students are pressing on us and I hope on the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: It may be of assistance to the Committee if I explain the reason for the exemption from personal community charge liability of persons in respect of whom child benefit is payable because, as the noble Lord will appreciate, this also comes into the concept of the amendment which the noble Lord has put down. These will be people who are either still at school or attending certain courses of non-advanced further education. In any case, they will be fairly dependent on their parents. If they were liable for the personal community charge, their parents would in fact have to pay for it. That cannot be right since the personal community charge, as I have said on more than one occasion, is in principle the personal responsibility of each individual resident.
The words "aged 18" in paragraph (a) are included purely for the sake of clarity because child benefit is not normally payable in respect of people aged 18. Paragraph (a) exempts from liability to pay the personal community charge the comparatively small group of people aged 18 in respect of whom child benefit is payable. The intention is simply to clarify any doubt about the position of this group of people. That is why I suggest there are good reasons for retaining the wording in the Bill.
I believe that the noble Lord may have been proposing to speak to Amendment No. 132 in connection with this. That amendment would be unnecessary because child benefit is never payable in respect of anyone above the age of 18. I can perhaps round up my response by saying that the noble Lord has raised a whole number of different matters to do with students. He even raised the question of bursaries. As I understood the original amendment, he was largely concentrating on the point about child benefit to which I have referred. What I should like to do, if the noble Lord will allow me, is to look at the whole concept that he has raised in connection with the earlier amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and come back to it in due course.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: That is the solution we should like. I tried to say how impossible it is to deal with this complicated matter through Opposition amendments. It really is a job for the

905
Government. Our debate last week, and today's, have pointed out some of the genuine problems and I am grateful to the Minister for his promise to look at them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 133:
Page 7, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) persons who are severely disabled;
( ) persons who are severely mentally handicapped;").
The noble Lord said: I have no desire to speak to any great extent on this amendment. I think I missed by five minutes the Minister's further explanation of the debate we had on this part regarding the severely disabled, physically and mentally handicapped, and all the others who are dependent on someone else to look after them. As long as I can confirm that this aspect will be taken with the pledge given by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, late on Thursday last then I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord must move the amendment if he requires an answer.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I received the answer in a nod from the Minister, so I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: We come now to Amendment No. 135. If this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 136.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 7, line 43, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: My purpose in moving this amendment is to express my concern that if subsection (7) (b) stays in the Bill it has the effect (does it not?) of treating people who happen to be living in common lodging-houses or houses of multiple occupation differently from the rest of the community. In my view, by doing this the Government's proposals run contrary to the whole raison d'etre of their Green Paper.
Why does the administrative cost, as the Government allege, outweigh the link between voting and paying in the case of people occupying such forms of communal establishments? Apparently everyone else will subsist under the accountability argument which is frequently advanced by the Minister. I want to know why this group of people will not. The Minister must keep in mind that direct and individual responsibility for paying will be removed from such people and the community charge will be submerged in a global rent charge so that the direct link, much argued by the Government, is broken.
The Government have attempted to justify their position by declaring that people in that type of accommodation are highly mobile and that it would be difficult to register them for the personal
906
community charge. However, many groups who represent their interests—including, in particular, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless—have stated that the stereotype of high mobility is at best questionable. Therefore, I believe that the Minister must attempt to justify to the Committee that there is a case for treating those who are said to be highly mobile differently from everyone else.
In addition, there are a number of other reasons why, in my view, the Committee should accept this amendment to delete subsection (7) (b). First, the advantages of the collective community charge, made much of by the Government in recent debates, do not outweigh the need to treat this sector of the community in the same way as we intend to treat other members of the community. Secondly, the collective community charge destroys the clear link between the citizen and his authority, which again the Government have been saying frequently is central to the concept of the community charge.
Finally, at present persons in hostels are treated as being resident in such establishments for electoral purposes. I contend that this principle should be equally applicable to the community charge. If the Minister does not agree, I want him to argue the case and tell me why he does not. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I certainly support this amendment. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has dealt with the matter so fully that all I need to say is that I share entirely his anxieties about this whole matter. No doubt we will have an opportunity of discussing it more fully when we deal with Clause 11.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I understand that we are discussing Amendment No. 168 with Amendment No. 135. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 168, which rests on the arguments so ably advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on the responsibility put on people staying in these establishments because it puts no accountability on them whatever.
I am putting the case for lodging-house keepers. Why should they be put to the enormous trouble of collecting the money and handing it over? The Government are using them as tax collectors and I am sure that they have enough to do without that. Therefore, first, the principle of accountability of the person paying does not apply; and, secondly, the lodging-house keeper is yet again to be used, as in the case of PAYE, as a non-paid tax collector by the Government. There is far too much of that and it is against the principle and the practice of the Bill. In any case, the formula for calculating—dividing by 365—no doubt can be done fairly reasonably.
I should like the Minister to explain why he is penalising the owners of lodging-houses and why he is going entirely against the principle which runs through the whole Bill of paying the charge, making the citizen responsible for his local government and for taking a deep interest in it. He will have no interest whatever in this charge. He will grumble about it and move on, and so will the lodging-house keepers. This does not appear to me to be a very sensible subsection.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask my noble friend the Minister, for clarification only, to confirm that the intendment of Clause 8 (7) (b) is not designed to apply to students who would be dealt with separately either under the rebate provisions of Clause 24 or, perhaps, as a separate category by extension of Clause 8 (7)? I know that my noble friend the Minister is consideriing his position on this but for clarification I seek assurance, because we may come to this later, that Clause 8 (7) (b) is not intended, as it stands, to apply to students.
Lord Glenarthur: I confess that when I studied these amendments—I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that Amendment No. 168 is grouped with Amendment No. 135—I found them rather puzzling. I first refer to Amendment No. 168. It appears to remove any liability for the collective community charge from owners of the premises to which the charge relates but provides instead that the owners should supply information about their tenants and sub-tenants to the registration officer. Tenants and sub-tenants would then be liable for the collective community charge and payments would be made presumably in relation to the length of each tenancy.
That seems to me to be an attempt to replace the collective community charge proposals, which I agree we shall come to in due course, with a system which would approximate to registration for the personal community charge in all cases. It seemed to me that this interpretation was confirmed by Amendment No. 135, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, which would remove the exemption from personal community charge liability for those resident in premises subject to the collective community charge. The only difference would be that the owner of the premises would be required to act as a kind of sub-registration officer in providing information about the residence of all his tenants.
There are a number of difficultities about this. In the first place, it is possible that some of those who are solely or mainly resident in premises in relation to which the collective community charge is payable may not have any kind of formal tenancy agreement. Such people would therefore in effect be exempted from making any payment towards the cost of the local authority services which they receive through the community charge system.
More fundamentally, however, I should remind the Committee that the collective community charge is intended to be applied to premises where residents are so transient that individual registration for the personal community charge would not be practicable. We can return to this again in more detail when we come to Clause 11. But the suggestion would require all tenants in residence to pay some portion of the collective community charge in relation to their tenancy.
The amendment is silent on how these payments would be collected. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that the levying authority would have to check through the registration officer on all the comings and goings of tenants and sub-tenants, calculate their liability, send them bills and collect the money. I should have thought that even the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, would agree
908
that this is something of a bureaucratic nightmare, never mind any other bureaucratic nightmares that he might feel exist. It would negate the whole principle of the collective community charge.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, suggested that residents in hostels are registered there for electoral purposes, so they should be resident there for the collective community charge. As I understand it, electoral registration depends on residence at a single date. I think this is rather different from the concept which is embodied in this part of the Bill of the continuous liability for the community charge.
As for the principle of accountability, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred, the principle applies to those resident in premises subject to the collective community charge. Through the collective community charge contribution they will make a payment for local authority services at the same level as the personal community charge and will therefore participate in the increase in local accountability which the Bill obviously brings. The noble Lord disagrees, as far as I can tell, that the principle of accountability is the sort of feature on which we ought to concentrate. We believe, on the contrary, that it is, and that is why I have stressed those points.
I think the amendments which are suggested here would in any case raise more problems than either of the noble Lords, Lord Mackie or Lord Kirkhill, would want and they would be wholly impractical. I hope, therefore, with the explanation of how we see that matter operating, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Grimond: I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to the Minister for having explained this part of the Bill. But I must confess that even after the explanation I find there are many outstanding questions. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, intends to do, but I should have thought that points have been raised which require further consideration by the Government.
The Government's own explanation raises all sorts of difficulties and demonstrates the illogicality and difficulty of construing this whole Bill with any fairness. There are one or two specific points. First, I did not hear the Minister give any answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who suggested that this subsection appears to be quite contrary to the whole principle behind the Bill; that is, the principle of personal responsibility. Neither did I hear him give any answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, as to the position of students. As I understood it, the Minister said that this should deal with transients, but I am not even clear that that is made plain in the Bill. If it is, I am not sure how this is to be done. There is the question, for instance, of people in old folks' homes and hostels and so forth. As far as I remember, most of these are on the register, but as my noble friend Lord Mackie has pointed out, apparently it would be left to the matron or someone to deal with their contribution under this Act.
The Minister may say that the suggestions made from this side of the Committee would be difficult to carry out. But I must confess that I consider the Bill

909
itself will be extremely difficult to carry out. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has said, it will put a very considerable and quite unjustified burden on lodging-house keepers. Therefore I hope that the Government will consider again the points made, because on their own showing it does not seem to me they have any answer to the point that this strikes at the root of their own argument for the Bill. They have not answered such points as were made about students and so forth which could be very important and, as far as I can see it, could be affected by this clause, even though that may not be intended.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may first apologise to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for not answering his point, which escaped me for the moment. Students will not be liable to the collective community charge; they can only be liable for the personal community charge. I hope that clears the noble Lord's mind and that he now understands the relevance of subsection (7)(b).
However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that this in any way runs contrary to our principles enuciated throughout the Bill or that this subsection is contrary to personal responsibility. I find that a rather difficult charge to accept. I think the noble Lord is seeking to raise rather more than this amendment and to return once more to the whole concept embodied in the Bill—accountability, which his noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has stressed, in moving the amendment, would again in some way he dented by this amendment.
Principles apart, we are faced with practicalities in this issue. The amendments which have been put forward would be thoroughly impractical; they would be clumsy and a nightmare to try to deal with. As I have said, the levying authority would have to go through a particularly protracted and complex business for checking the records and all the comings and goings of everybody concerned, tenants and subtenants. Then he would have to calculate the liability based upon what he thought those comings and goings were. Then the bills would. have to be sent out and the money collected. I can see nothing to suggest that that is a sensible way to proceed. I think it is far removed from the suggestion which the noble Lord seeks to make that in some way we are going against our own principles in not being prepared to accept this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, replies, having so far listened with very great care to what has been said on this subject I find my noble friend the Minister's stand entirely convincing. He has quite enough to take back, and on the grounds of practicality it does not really seem that this is yet another matter which ought to be considered.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I may intervene and make the point in answer that of course I agree that my amendment would be a nightmare for the assessor and the registration officer. But the Bill is transferring the nightmare to the poor lodging-house keeper. I am against the concept, of course, but I was
910
trying to point out to the Minister what he was doing. Later on we come to some further amendments in which we suggest that perhaps the poor lodging-house keeper might be recompensed. It is perfectly true that it was a nightmare, but then the whole Bill is a nightmare. The nightmare should not be suffered by the lodging-house keeper but by the people who are promoting the Bill.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: So far as the poor lodging-house keeper is concerned, there is such a thing as a pocket calculator.
Lord Kirkhill: In his courteous reply to the points which I put to him, the Minister said first of all that he was puzzled as to the reason why I had submitted the amendment, and rather later he said that the amendment itself was somewhat clumsy. To the second of those two propositions I may well agree, but the clumsy amendment could be refined in the fullness of time. As to his being puzzled over why I had submitted the amendment, by now he must have realised that I am opposed to the principle of the collective community charge. We shall discuss that point in great detail on Clause 11, as the Minister knows. Therefore it is necessary for me at this stage to put down this amendment because it forms part of the overall concept of the collective community charge, to which concept I most strenuously object.
Having said that, by leave, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 7, line 43, after ("persons") insert ("other than those mentioned in subsection (4) above").
The noble Earl said: This amendment corrects a technical flaw in the provisions for the registration of students. Clause 8(4) provides that students in full-time education should be deemed to be solely or mainly at their term-time address for the purposes of their personal community charge liability.
However, Clause 8(7)(b) exempts from personal community charge liability persons who are solely or mainly resident in premises in respect of which a collective community charge is payable. Therefore, if a student is resident in such premises during term-time he will not be liable for the personal community charge and the deeming provisions of Clause 8(4) will not apply to him. Like others resident in collective community charge premises, he will be liable instead to pay a collective community charge contribution under Clause 11(10) at the same level as a personal community charge.
However, if he moves back home during vacations, he will again become liable to the personal community charge because he will no longer be solely or mainly resident in collective community charge premises. But then, because he is a student, the deeming provisions of Clause 8(4) will apply and he will be considered as solely or mainly resident at his term-time address. Since his term-time address is subject to the collective charge, as I have explained, he will have exemption from the personal community charge liability. Therefore it could be argued that a student in those circumstances would not be required to pay either the

911
personal community charge or the collective community charge contribution during vacations.
That clearly would not be right and in order to break out of this circular position the amendment provides that students who are deemed to be resident at their term-time address under the provisions of Clause 8(4) should not be exempt from the personal community charge if they are resident in collective community charge premises. That will mean that all students will always be registered for the personal community charge at their term-time address, notwithstanding that that address may be premises in respect of which a collective community charge is payable.
At the same time, by taking students out of the exemption provided by Clause 8(7)(b), they are removed from the provisions of Clause 11(9)(a) on the calculation of the collective community charge multiplier and of Clause 11(10)(c) on liability for collective community charge contributions. They will therefore no longer be liable for a collective community charge contribution, nor will they be included in the calculation of the collective community charge multiplier. Their financial position will therefore be preserved and their landlord will not have to pay any element of collective community charge relating to their residence in his premises.
The only difference that the amendment will make in practice is that there will be no doubt that they will be liable to pay the personal community charge during vacations as well as during term-time. Therefore the amendment clarifies a detail of the provisions which otherwise would be open to doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I thought I understood this until I heard the explanation. If there was ever utter gibberish, it was the explanation of what appeared at one time to be simple. However, there is a reason for it; we can blame the hurry and haste of the draftsmanship.
What are we doing? We are defining the exceptions in relation to the personal community charge by reference to the collective community charge, and we have not yet had any definition or clarification of that. If we have an untidy debate, it stems from the draftsmanship and the way in which this measure has been laid out.
I think it is wrong to define an exception to the personal community charge by reference to the collective community charge when we have not had a debate on what is the collective community charge. That must have been a difficulty for the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Kirkhill, and I can say that it is a difficulty for every single one of us, because now not a soul understands it.
Baroness Seear: Now that we know that we are not to have an election on May 7th does the Minister agree that it would be rather a good idea to take the Bill back and have it carefully thought out and rewritten in plain English—or even in plain Scottish—so that some people have a chance to understand it?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The explanation given by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur a moment ago was wholly intelligible, wholly satisfactory and in fact
912
anticipated this amendment to which my noble friend has just spoken. It is unfortunate, but the speech of my noble friend, which I confess to me was wholly unintelligible, when it appears in Hansard will no doubt qualify for the golden bull for gobbledegook for 1987. But my noble friend Lord Glenarthur's simple explanation was intelligible.
Lord Renton: For those of us who perhaps do not have the subtlety of mind of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—and I think that there are some of us in that unhappy state—it might have been better if the various definitions that we have to apply as we go through the Bill had all been stated in the second or third clause. Then, those definitions being mastered, I think that the rest of the Bill would have become more simple.
I do not think that my noble friend should take the whole Bill back. I merely suggest that, if it is just a question of getting the drafting right while the substance is clear, it might be worth while considering placing the definitions of the various types of charge earlier than where we find them in the Bill. We find them dotted here and there and that is not helpful either to us as legislators or to the users of the statute in the years to come.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: One does not have to have a subtle mind to agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. It is all too obvious.
Lord Grimond: From this side of the Committee we also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I hope that the Government will take some notice of his remarks. The drafting of Bills has reached a standard which is practically unbelievable and quite unintelligible to anyone other than a whole time lawyer with a full legal library. At the same time, I should like to put up a gentle defence of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I was brought up in the time of no less a person than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with whom I was once in Chambers, to say that everyone in this country has the right to the defence of fog. It seems to me that he has been exercising that ancient British right of spreading fog on a standard which would win admiration throughout the Temple and no doubt Lincoln's Inn.
Behind all the fog, we might be able to get back to the essential point, which is a simple one. As I understand it, the result of this measure will be that students will be responsible in some way for paying some element of the charge during vacations, whether or not they are within the area of the authority. I want to get that right. Students will be levied by some means with a community charge even in the vacations and even though they are not resident in their halls of residence in the vacation. That is the purpose of the amendment behind all the fog; or am I wrong.
4 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may raise one practical point. Will students be given a certificate that they are full-time students? If not, how will the person responsible for collecting the community charge know that someone who is staying a night is a student and therefore does not pay the charge, or is not a student and therefore should pay the charge?
Lord Hughes: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has to be congratulated on having passed that hot potato on to his noble friend. When the noble Earl read the paper in front of him, did it read better to him than it did to the rest of us?
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this matter. There is no doubt some truth in what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, says when he refers to fog over the issue. I am reassured by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that, if one penetrates the fog, the matter is wholly intelligible. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked whether it be the case that when students are at home they definitely continue to be registered at their term-time address and are liable to the personal community charge rather than any other charge. I can reassure him that that is the case. In view of that explanation, I ask the Committee to consider accepting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 7, line 45, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: If paragraph (c) is included we will get into just as big a mess as ever. Here we have the definition by reference to non-domestic rates. We have already had this debate. This will put us in a complete fog again. Paragraph (c) states:
"persons whose sole or main residence is subject to non-domestic rates".
If it is subject to non-domestic rates, it is not on the register. That is what we discovered when we defined non-domestic rates. This would not be on the register because it would be on the valuation roll. Anybody whose sole or main residence is in the area of the levying authority has to pay the personal community charge. Here we are leaving such a person out if the residence is subject to non-domestic rates. I do not understand it.
I rely completely on the Minister of State once again to use his powers of obfuscation with regard to the draftsmanship. This is a provision that we should have been able to appreciate just at a glance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the Minister give us an example of this sort of person, which would help to clear my mind?
Lord Glenarthur: If it is a fog which is before the eyes of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, perhaps I can persuade him that it is only a mist and a fairly thin one, because there is a need for the category exemption covered by paragraph (c). There may be a few circumstances in which in the new system the sole or main residence of people remains subject to rating. This would apply—I hope that this may answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—to patients in hospital whose stay is so prolonged as to make the hospital their sole or main residence. Such people have little contact with the world outside. It is our policy that they should be exempt from the personal community charge. In the case of patients in. National Health Service hospitals, this would be achieved by exempting them as a
914
category of the people solely or mainly resident in Crown land who may be exempted by the power of prescription contained in Clause 28(2) of the Bill.
This mechanism will not, however, be available in relation to patients in private hospitals. In that case we intend that the provision of Clause 8(7)(c) should cover such people. We intend that staff in private hospitals should be subject to the personal community charge like other members of the community, but this will be achieved by prescribing their accommodation as domestic subjects under Clause 2(3)(b) of the Bill. We consider that it is fair and sensible that long-term patients in private hospitals should be treated in the same way as those in the National Health Service. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that that is only right. That is the purpose of paragraph (c).
Lord Ross of Marnock: If that is the purpose, why could it not have been said? It would be much easier to understand than what is said in the paragraph. In view of the explanation given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 138:
Page 7, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) persons who are in receipt of income support in the terms of section 20 of the Social Security Act 1986;
( ) persons who are in receipt of state pensions and who have no other regular source of income;
( ) persons who are employed in a Youth Training Scheme or a Manpower Services Commission Scheme and have no other source of income;
( ) persons who are in receipt of severe disablement allowance; ( ) such other categories of people as the Secretary of State may prescribe.").
The noble Lord said: I do not wish to move Amendment No. 138 because, as those Members of the Committee who were present will recall, when the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, moved Amendment No. 130. I said that, to facilitate the emphasis upon the amendment of the noble Lord, when we came to Amendment No. 138 I would do no more than draw it to the Minister's attention. As I gave that undertaking at an earlier stage in Committee, I fulfil it this afternoon.
[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 140A:
Page 7, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) Any exceptions which are granted under subsection (7) above which involve a reduction in the level of income which local authorities could have received from the personal community charge will be fully reimbursed by the Secretary of State making an appropriate compensatory payment direct to the levying authority.").
The noble Lord said: In Clause 8(7) we have been dealing with relieving people of the overall charge that the Government started out with; that is, that everyone had to pay the personal community charge. The more we exempt people from it, the lower the income to the levying authority. The income to the levying authority is thus reduced every time that we make an exemption. That applies to some that we

915
have not made but may contrive eventually to make. It applies to all those we have been discussing.
The lower the income from these charges, the higher will have to be the income coming from those who pay it. We are therefore talking about average figures of £200, £300, £400. The more we make exemptions, the more what has to be paid by other must be increased. There is no doubt that once this is in force the non-domestic rates will be looked after by limiting their increase to the cost of living. The same applies to government grant, which is controlled entirely by the Government. I suggest through the amendment that the income lost from exceptions laid down by statute or prescription should be made up by the Government directly, and not through the RSG, to the levying authority. That is only fair.
We can generously make exceptions, but someone else has to pay. The people who will have to pay will be those who are left to pay the personal community charge. There is an outcry about that at the moment. I suggest that this is an eminently sensible thing for the Government to do. After all, if the Government and the House agree to exceptions, the Government should agree to make up the cost of those exceptions and not leave other personal contributors to the new charge to bear the burden. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This amendment is intrinsically bound up and related to the question which my noble friend the Minister has been good enough to take back. It involves the principle of whether the Government will accept any further extension to the three categories of exemption provided under Clause 8(7), and, if so, what shall fall within the exemptions of Clause 8(7) in relation to this amendment and what should fall within the rebate principles under Clause 24, and whether such rebates should be granted up to 100 per cent. All those considerations are interrelated with regard to this amendment and the reimbursement.
Lord Hughes: I must apologise if what I am now asking was dealt with last week. Unfortunately last week I was suffering from a cough, and it would have been an even greater source of suffering to the Committee if I had been here. I followed my doctor's advice and stayed at home.
This may not necessarily be the best time to ask my question. But under the present system, which has been so much criticised, the one overwhelming advantage is the extent to which local authorities succeed in raising from ratepayers the amount of money which they expect to obtain. The percentage which is not covered is small. Different estimates have been made by different authorities, and some Members of the Committee, as to the extent to which the community charge would not be received by local authorities.
Estimates have varied from as low as 5 per cent. to as high a 20 per cent. At present when a local authority levies rates it can confidently expect that it will receive the enormous majority of what it expects to receive. In the beginning authorities working the new system may have difficulties. What do the Government expect local authorities to do? Do they expect them to make
916
an assumption of 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the charges to be received by them? Is it to be left entirely to local authorities to determine which percentage of non-collection they will expect, because the higher that percentage, the higher the community charge will be?
Do the Government intend to give any guidance to local authorities as to the percentage of non-collection which should be assumed in the early stages of this proceeding? If they intend to give such guidance, what percentage of non-collection do the Government have in mind? If an authority, for example, assumes that 5 per cent. will not be collected by it, and it turns out to be 15 per cent., obviously at the end of the year its budget will be in substantial deficit. What guidance, if any, will the Government give, or is to be left entirely to guesswork by the local authorities concerned?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: With great respect, the speech to which we have just listened has no direct bearing on the amendment. I think that the noble Lord accepts that. The amendment deals not with the failure of a local authority to collect money lawfully due to it but with the deliberate freeing of certain categories from making a contribution, and poses the question of who pays.
I shall take up one way in which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, expressed this point. He said that the Government should pay. He is well aware that the Government, as such, have no money. What he means, and what I think it is intellectually honest to say is that the taxpayer should pay. He is entitled to argue that the taxpayer should pay. I do not accept that view. Where exceptions in the new local taxation system are produced, the loss which that involves—he is right, it involves some—should be paid by fellow citizens in the area unless the local authority, taking account of that, reduces its expenditure.
It is a dangerous line to take and a dangerous precedent to suggest that if exceptions to a local tax are granted the national taxpayer should pay. Having said that about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I wish him many happy returns of the day and a prolonged and happy period of work on the Opposition Front Bench.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hughes: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did me an injustice when he said that what I said had nothing to do with the amendment. I wanted to tie the points together. I was raising a second case in which a local authority would be deprived of revenue. I hope that the noble Lord will at least do me the justice of assuming that I listened to what my noble friend said and that I knew what the purpose of his amendment was. My noble friend was drawing attention to the situation where a local authority would be deprived of possible revenue because of exemptions. He suggested a way in which that could be remedied. Whether the noble Lord agrees that it is a good way is beside the point. Obviously we have different views on that.
I was seeking to obtain information about the way in which a local authority could be helped to obtain the maximum revenue that it expected to obtain. If there is a remedy for that, it will be another way in which the

917
local authority will receive the full amount of money necessary to keep the community charge at a correct level. There is that aspect to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, obviously picked up, I admitted that this point could perhaps be more appropriately raised on another part of the Bill. That is possible, but as has been pointed out, there are so many points where we have to go from one part to another part of the Bill, that it seemed to me that if I could obtain a satisfactory answer to my question at this stage, I should know whether it would be necessary to table an amendment at a later stage.
If I receive an unsatisfactory answer, I shall know how to deal with the matter. If I am told by the Minister or by anyone else that the appropriate place to raise this point is on some other clause, I can then do so. From that point of view, I do not think I have been wasting the Committee's time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate the noble Lord's parliamentary agility in raising a point in which he is interested on this amendment. I was merely pointing out to him that if there is a problem here, and there may well be, it is not one which would be remedied even if the amendment were accepted.
Lord Glenarthur: The amendment has a number of technical deficiencies. For example, it would relate only to exceptions granted under Clause 8(7) and not to categories such as prisoners or long-term hospital patients who, in accordance with our stated intentions, will be exempted by other mechanisms. It is not entirely clear that the payment of the proposed compensation to the levying authority—that is to say, the regional or islands council—would feed through to the district council in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. But the objective is clear enough. I shall address myself to that.
At present, local authorities receive compensation for reliefs under the rating system in two ways. Reliefs for the disabled are the subject of a specific grant made by the Secretary of State under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Other reliefs—for example, the 50 per cent. relief for charities and the 100 per cent. relief for churches—are taken into account in the distribution of rate support grant.
Under the proposed future arrangements for revenue support grants it will be possible similarly to take account of reliefs from the community charge. The mechanism will have to be the subject of consultation in due course with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Where I take issue with the amendment primarily is in the proposition that there should be some form of specific compensatory payment. The approach followed under successive governments has been that general support for local authorities should be provided through the rate support grant mechanism. It seems sensible to continue this in relation to exemptions from the community charge.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, with respect, may have muddled this point in his own mind. Perhaps he did not hear the discussion to which we returned time and again last week about the question of shortfall and of the details that would have to follow from the
918
consultation in this case with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. On shortfall, I shall be very brief. It is not intended that guidance will he given. The Government are confident that many of the claims about shortfall have been extravagant. If the noble Lord will look at what I said last week in relation to amendments where this matter cropped up, he will see, I hope, why that, in my belief, is the case.
As to details of how account would be taken of exemptions in the distribution of revenue support grant, basically, exemptions present a reduction in the number of tax-paying units. The eventual mechanism will have to ensure that account is taken of this in the calculations so as to produce fair and reasonable results. However, I do not think that I can anticipate the detailed development which will need to be taken forward in consultation with CoSLA. It would therefore be wrong for me to say more at this stage. All I shall say is that I believe that the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, advocates flies in the face of what we have at present and the means of transferring rate support grant mechanism through to revenue support grant mechanism. I should have thought there was logic in that.
Lord Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. I shall certainly take the opportunity of reading what was said last week. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Ross can tell me whether I should look at the report of Monday, Tuesday or Thursday to save me ploughing through the lot; because it does not sound like the most interesting reading.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: Before the noble Lord rises, I wonder whether I can add one point to the felicitous remarks made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He was probably spared the shock that I received when I read in a national newspaper yesterday morning in black type in the middle of the page, "Remembering Willie Ross". I then read:
"The eighth lecture entitled 'William Ross, the Man and the Myth' was delivered on Friday by his outstanding pupil".
It was with great relief that I read those last words. I would merely say how pleased I am to see the noble Lord debating Scottish business.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This is all very surprising. The lecture took place last Friday in the Chapel Royal, Stirling. It referred to Pipe Major William Ross.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows quite well that when I said "government" I meant the taxpayer who is the source of all revenue. There is one point to which the noble Lord may be objecting. It is that the taxpayer providing the money would include the English and the Welsh whereas the burdens of this Bill do not at present fall on them. This applies purely, unwillingly, to Scotland. Is it right that fellow citizens of the community there should have this burden? I do not think so. They have not had the opportunity of deciding that they want it. The matter is decided by the general body of the electors as represented in another place and here—if one can say that they are represented here. It is right that it should fall nationally rather than individually.

919
There may be some areas where the burden will be heavier than others in relation to the exceptions. I can think of quite a number. If one takes all the university cities, the exceptions in relation to students will mean eventually that the students will pay 20 per cent. not the full personal charge. There are a fair number in Aberdeen, Glasgow, St. Andrews, Edinburgh and Stirling. I therefore think that my argument is justified in that respect.
My noble friend need not bother to look back in Hansard. We shall come back to this again. We have the question of the collection of the money and the ability of local authorities to collect it in full. When we had the garbled explanation about exceptions, I thought that this enabled us to leave out the persons in long-term hospitals. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, cannot have it both ways. He cannot keep the provision in one clause and omit it in another to suit his argument.
The noble Lord says, "Leave it to the rate support grant". I have a little experience of the rate support grant. One starts with the Government making an assessment and agreeing—telling—the local authority its relevant total expenditure. The Government then decide what percentage they will give. One of the difficulties over rates in Scotland is that the Government have reduced their share of relevant expenditure from 69 per cent. to 56.7 per cent. If the Government paid back to the local authorities what they have taken from them, we could have a rate-free year-and-a-half in Scotland. That is one of the reasons for the crisis in local government. It is not the loony Left but a loony Right government who were reducing their share of expenditure year after year until they landed in the panic of Perth that brought this Bill upon us.
I hope that the Government will reconsider this. I have been given an idea by my noble friend Lord Hughes. Perhaps, before the next stage of the Bill, we should consider all the matters together which are due to the local authority. By exemptions and other means a heavier burden than ever is being placed upon those who are to pay the personal community charge. In the meantime in the light of that and the support that I have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 140B:
Page 7, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) Special arrangements shall apply to persons who currently have their domestic rating liabilities incorporated as part of their emoluments, and any other persons who may be prescribed will be liable in 1989–90 for a payment of only 50 per cent of the personal community charge levied in their area or £100 whichever is the lesser figure; and the Secretary of State will compensate local authorities directly in full for the reduction in income from the personal community charge arising from the operation of such a system.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to special difficulties in relation to special people and suggests that:
"Special arrangements shall apply to persons who currently have their domestic rating liabilities incorporated as part of their emoluments".
920
Now, a problem arises because a personal charge will be placed on such people which is very much higher than they have to bear at the present time.
The first people to be involved are nurses. More and more nurses have to live in, particularly in the cities. One has only to think of London—where would nurses find accommodation which they can afford? Therefore, they become residents in a nurses' home where rates are not payable. The Government think that this situation is terribly unfair and the nurses should pay their share to the tune of £6 a week. If nurses were not living in nurses' homes they would be unable to pay what was demanded of them in other accommodation. This situation arises not only in London but also in university cities—for example, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee—where many nurses live because they work in the big hospitals there.
Bearing in mind that about 45 per cent. of our nurses live in, we can appreciate the burden which will be thrust upon them right away. This amendment is the least we can do in respect of that situation. Unfortunately, the arrangements last only for a year. At the next stage of the Bill I may change my mind as to whether that period is long enough, because it is a serious matter. I gather the Minister met one or two nurses in Glasgow yesterday. It was not his most pleasant experience, I understand.
Lord Glenarthur: They were charming.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Oh, of course, they were charming and I daresay the noble Lord was even more charming, but the nurses still have a resentment at the latest burden being placed upon them.
I saw a programme very late last night on television which concerned nurses going to California. They will be there for only a year but they were comparing the lot in California with the lot in hospitals here. This is a serious matter and we should not be placing further burdens upon nurses. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does not wish this burden placed upon the English and the Welsh at the moment, because many of these nurses will float down here, where the community charge will not be payable. In England they will have a much easier time financially than they have in Scotland. The business of Scotland going it alone on this matter and being plunged into the situation on its own is no laughing matter. It has serious implications which also affect nurses. At the present time nurses' allowance is taken into account when they pay their weekly board—which for some is very considerable indeed. I can assure the Committee that the charge for weekly board has been going up as well.
In so far as concerns the police, they receive approximately £26 a week in respect of rent and rates. Of course that will end because, if a policeman has a wife, there will be two community charges payable; namely £500. This was the nonsense that we heard the other day from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he spoke about a manual worker. He did not say whether or not the manual worker was living at home, in which case he pays no rates at all. He did not say whether the manual worker was married, in which case the amount would be double the charge he

921
suggested. The police might be living in a police cottage which is part office, part residence. However, this is usually for married policemen. They will be faced with additional burdens as well. At one time there was a suggestion made by the Government in order to avoid the turbulence and hardship of paying 100 per cent. right away when the new system started that only 60 per cent. would be payable then, and the rest would form a certain percentage of rates. However, that suggestion has now gone.
What about the situation of people in the Armed Forces, of which there are approximately 1,400 in Scotland? What about the situation of people in Ministry of Defence houses? At the present time people in the Armed Forces do not pay rates if they are in married quarters. A sum of money is paid direct to the local authority in lieu of rates. The same situation is true of Ministry of Defence people at the various establishments around Scotland. What will happen in those cases? Instead of paying reasonable rates in some places they will he paying £200 or £300 per year for every person in their family. I know there are difficulties concerning this matter, but we have not yet had an explanation. Is this to be another loss to the local authorities?
What about the situation of the Americans? They do not have votes here, but they occupy houses and have the benefit of our services. What will happen in this situation? I know that this is taking the matter rather wide of my amendment. However, these questions as to what the Government are going to do will have to be answered at some time, if only to enable me to table another amendment at Report stage covering the loss to the local authority, which should be made up by whoever places the Bill on the statute book.
Nurses, police, Ministry of Defence and other personnel are involved in this situation. What will happen to such people? Are they to be left to bear this burden, or are the Government going to do something to help them, at least in the first year? I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: We have already considered in some detail the position of some elements of what this amendment is connected with. This was done in connection with earlier amendments put down by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Polwarth, because of the connection with tied properties.
Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, this amendment takes a different and slightly wider tack, proposing simply that the personal community charge liabilities of those who live rate-free in tied houses should be reduced either by 50 per cent., or to a level of £100, whichever is the lesser figure. I listened with care to the noble Lord's explanation but I confess that I am still not fully clear of what lies behind the reasoning in the noble Lord's mind. For example, it is not clear to whom it applies: does it simply cover the rateable occupier of this sort of tied property, leaving his wife and adult children to find the full personal community charge on their own, or is it intended to extend to the whole household? If so, what is the justification for granting partial exemption for people in this position who will have to meet a personal
922
community charge liability for the first time, while those in exactly the same position and perhaps the same financial circumstances who do not have the benefit of living in a tied house will have no such exemption? To that extent I confess I find there is a certain illogicality in the amendment.
I hoped I had already made clear that the personal community charge is not directly connected to the occupation of a particular property and that there is no possible justification for special treatment for certain groups of employees or their families simply because they received some form of concession in relation to domestic rates in the past. As I have equally made clear at several points, rebates will be available for those on low incomes who would otherwise have difficulty in meeting their full personal community charge liability.
I suggest that it is much fairer that assistance should be made available in this way to all those who need it than that piecemeal exemptions should be granted, particularly if they are based on the over-complex system of exemptions, reliefs and tax concessions which has built up over the years within and around the system of domestic rates. To that extent, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, remains intent on reproducing many of the complexities of the rating system in the new arrangements while taking no account of the evident advantages of simplicity and fairness in the system which we propose.
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that, while he raises the valid point about nurses (and I am certainly aware, as he himself hinted, that points were raised yesterday to me in relation to the wider concept of nurses' remuneration, but it is not right for me to go down that road now), nurses generally pay an element of rates as part of the rent which they pay at present. Therefore, the community charge is not going to be a totally new burden upon them in the way he suggests.
As for the question of the Armed Forces—and the American forces are encompassed within this, because the bases which they occupy are used by the services in this country—the Bill imposes liability on all adults including the various groups which the noble Lord mentioned. We would expect them to be registered and they should be liable to pay in the way that the Bill sets out, which he seems to think is not made clear. I hope that when I say that the Bill imposes that liability on all adults he will understand that the Armed Forces will be liable in their quarters or wherever they live and that the group of people to which he referred will be encompassed by the Bill before us.
Sub-paragraph (b) of the amendment goes on to the question of compensation. I do not think I need detain the Committee with a discussion on that point because in part is is wrapped up in the same argument as the last amendment. To some extent I think it falls, in argument certainly, because of the views I put forward on sub-paragraph (a), and so I do not think there is much point in going into it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Training for nursing starts at the age of 17½ and lasts for about three years. Nurses have to live in. Can I tell them now that it is the Minister's advice to me to tell them to apply for a rebate?
Lord Glenarthur: I answered that point last week when the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, raised the matter. It may be that clarification is needed about the position of nurses and students. That is a matter which is encompassed within the question of students generally which I undertook to consider last week. I hope that that point is one which the noble Lord will accept.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister does not seem to have seen the point of the amendment. Perhaps I might be allowed to try to clarify it. There are certain people who are paid and supplied with a house in which they have to live; for example, ministers of religion, lighthouse keepers, police officers, prison officers and others. Those people are suddenly going to be told, "You and your wife have to pay a personal community charge". Does the Minister expect that all the negotiations for pay and other matters which are planned for Scotland from 1st April 1989 will be settled so that those people's pay will be readjusted to take account of the fact that, although previously they had been living in accommodation for which they did not pay rates, in the future they will have to pay this personal community charge?
There is also the problem of the soldier who may object to being posted to Scotland because he suddenly has to pay £250 a year more than his mates who are serving in England or Northern Ireland. There are difficulties there. It is no good just saying, "We have looked at the principle", and brushing all these matters aside. Apart from the nurses there may be others who decide that it is cheaper to do the same job living in England.
I should have thought it was quite clear to say, "persons who currently have their domestic rating liabilities incorporated as part of their emoluments"—that is, somebody like a prison officer who is paid to live in a prison house—"and any persons who may be prescribed". The Secretary of State can prescribe a wife or children of 18 in full-time education if he so wishes.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I found the Minister's answer on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, singularly unconvincing, as with the one before. It is not enough for the Minister to say that he is puzzled by what the noble Lord is getting at. I have found some of his replies either ingenuous or disingenuous; I am not quite sure which. In embarking on the absurd scheme of this Bill the Committee is entitled to know what kind of assessment of this problem the Government made before they embarked upon it. Surely it is the job of government to assess these kinds of problems and decide whether they form a barrier to going in a certain direction.
One can think of all kinds of people such as school janitors in Scotland. Perhaps I am out of date, but in my time there were always resident janitors to look after schools in Glasgow. Perhaps times have changed, but one can think of all kinds of people. Is the Minister able to give us the Government's assessment of this problem so that the Committee can reach a decision in this context before the Bill is through and add it to the other matters that we shall learn about the Bill so that
924
we can reach a conclusion as to whether it should be supported?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I had thought that the amendments which I moved last Thursday regarding tied houses and people who live in tied accommodation, where their contracts of employment entitled them to rent and rate free accommodation, would have covered these situations. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, told me then that the first amendment was unnecessary. As regards the second amendment, particularly concerning clergy, which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, mentioned, I withdrew that. The situation regarding the clergy is quite complicated. There are cases in which help is necessary and there are cases where it is not only totally unnecessary but where it would be quite wrong to give it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this amendment because I wish to come back to the question of the clergy in a different way at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has perhaps forgotten that we are trying here to make a change to reflect the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about accountability, and the fact that all kinds of people—whether they are nurses, members of the armed forces, prison officers or whatever—make some use of local authority services.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, referred to the services and to a figure in lieu of rates, or whatever, being passed over in bulk to local authorities to represent that kind of value. I believe I said last week that an element of that is taken into account in the rents that members of the armed forces pay for their accommodation. The same applies to nurses. When rent is paid, it includes an element—be it notional or not—to cover part of the amount that would otherwise be paid if rates were paid in full by those servicemen.
It is all very well for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to suggest that the position of employers and the question of pay negotiations should be wrapped up in this, and that people's financial circumstances should take account of the matter. That seems to me to be going very wide not only of this amendment but also of the Bill. People's financial circumstances can change for 101 reasons. It could be that someone who, until now, or at some point in the future, has been able to cope with the personal community charge may, because of changed circumstances which they could not foresee, find it not so easy to cope. Surely, the important point is that, if they end up in that position, there is a rebate scheme in Clause 24 which will take account of the circumstances.
I do not think that it would be practicable to try to make allowances in this Bill, and in this clause in particular, for the suggestions made by the parties opposite. I believe that we have set out a fair means of achieving what is proposed. Many of those whom it is suggested will be put in a difficult position are already contributing in support of rates through some mechanism or other, because at present their rents encompass some of that charge.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I should be delighted to withdraw the amendment on the special pleading if the Minister could tell me whether, as people are already paying through their rents, those rents will now be reduced? The noble Lord is a member of the Government. He is responsible for prison warders in Scotland—or the Government are responsible. The Minister says that people are already paying and that they are given the allowance in respect of rates. But they receive this new burden in respect of being mainly or solely resident in a place. They cannot be resident anywhere else. Most of the warders at Carstairs must live there because it is not exactly a place to which one could travel to work easily.
There is a problem here. But the unsympathetic way in which the Government have approached it is such that I am afraid I cannot withdraw the amendment. The Minister could have gone some way towards meeting us in respect of these matters. However, at the moment his treatment of these matters and the people concerned is most unhelpful. We shall need to force this to a Division.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before that happens, I should like to add a word. I certainly could not support the amendment because, among other things, it contains the provision that any loss to the local authority must be compensated by the taxpayer. We dealt with that matter on a previous amendment. On the other hand, I should not like to leave my noble friend with the feeling that I am at all happy with the position as it stands. I wonder whether he can give a little further consideration to the position of people in the national services. They may be posted from England to Scotland, or from Scotland to England. They will find in different local authority areas in Scotland that different levels of charge will run.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that it will be quite a shock for a soldier, for example, who is posted to one part of Scotland, then to another part, and eventually to England, to find that his posting, over which he has no control, will effect quite a substantial charge upon him by way of community charge. I do not think that my noble friend ought to overlook that entirely. I do not think that he does.
Whatever decision the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, takes about a Division, that is a matter for him. However, I wonder whether my noble friend can indicate a willingness to look at the point perhaps more narrowly than is suggested in the amendment, particularly in respect of those in national services, although there are others who are posted from one place to another with no possibility—apart from prejudicing their careers—of objecting. It seems to me that to plunge into this will cause a certain amount of hardship and to people whom I believe all Members of the Committee feel are important in our society. I am bound to say that I have not had quite sufficient reassurance—not as much as I should like to hear—about what the Government are considering in respect of them.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I find the words that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has addressed to the Minister convincing evidence—as convincing as anything we have heard from this side of the
926
House—for the view that in this context, as in many others in this Bill, the Government have got it wrong.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: As I understand it, my noble friend has said that these people will benefit under the rebate system. He has explained this again and again, and not only today. It does not seem such an insufferable problem. What the Minister said seems to be perfectly reasonable.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I believe that the noble Viscount is mistaken. I hope that a private in the army is not paid so little that he would benefit from the rebate system and I hope that anyone higher than a private would certainly be outside the scheme. However, someone posted from England to Scotland must pay £6 per week more in Scotland than in England, and that is the basic problem for the forces.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know how army allowances work. However, with the exception of agriculture, my understanding is that in respect of pay, a person receives a salary plus perhaps accommodation which is rent free, or accommodation which is rent and rate free, or accommodation which is rate free. No employer will ignore that fact in the salary part of pay. The accommodation element is taxable, except in the case of agriculture which we have already discussed.
It seems to me therefore that we are making very heavy weather of this matter. If people will not receive a rate-free house because there are no rates but will pay a community charge, employers will of course take account of that fact: they cannot fail to do so. It will be a normal part of negotiations for wages. I presume that in the case of the army there will be a system within the allowances which will allow for the differences. I do not understand why we are making such heavy weather of this matter.
Lord Hughes: Following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has said, is it the intention of the Government to indicate to employers that this is the way in which they wish the matter to be dealt with? The Minister has already said that discussions about alternatives to the rent or rate-free accommodation are going wide of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is saying that the obvious answer is that if a notional value of X pounds is placed on what is being given in the rate-free accommodation and he ceases to get it and has to pay, then X pounds should be added to the actual sum that is paid. Is that the Government's intention? It would appear that it was the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, but she has not yet reached the Front Bench.
5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am not saying that we should legislate for that. I am simply saying that when you fix somebody's pay as against the pay of somebody else, you take account of the fact that they have free accommodation. But if they suddenly do not have rate-free accommodation because there are not any rates, surely you would take account of that. It is reasonable. That is nothing to do with the Bill: it is just absolutely obvious. I should have thought that it was a false argument.
Lord Hughes: I did not suggest that we would legislate. What I asked was whether this was the sort of guidance that the Government would give to employers—that this is what they would expect them to do.
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, goes any further he might find it useful to study the remarks that I made in relation to Lady Saltoun's point when we were in Committee last week. I went into this in considerable depth, and I think I was able to satisfy the noble Lady. Therefore, I do not think that we can go back and debate at length again an issue that we debated at considerable length last time. We have a long way to go with this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will take my word that it is there in the Official Report. If he studies it he will find that it is possible to take account of that sort of thing.
My noble friend Lord Boyd- Carpenter referred particularly to the matter of the armed forces. I can understand his concern that a soldier, for example, could be posted from somewhere in England to somewhere in Scotland—and this is the burden of Lord Morton's point as well—and as a result could face an increased charge in one form or another, and that it would come out of his salary to meet this particular personal community charge.
This is essentially a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the question of forces' allowances. The noble Lord looks disturbed, but he has not even let me finish what I was going to say. What I was going to suggest to my noble friend was that since this raises an important matter which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence ought to consider in conjunction with those of us who are dealing with this Bill, I ought to take note of that point. I cannot give any commitment at this stage because I would need to study every detail of the armed forces' pay and conditions, which I simply could not do now. I hope that with the assurance that I shall do that and consult my right honourable friend, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will be satisfied, and that indeed the party opposite who moved this amendment will feel that I have at least gone some way towards the spirit of their concerns.
I do not think that I can necessarily go any further than that because it brings us against the whole principle of the Bill. But there may be important points—although I would need to confirm with my right honourable friend that that is the case—particularly in relation to the armed forces.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: May I suggest to the Minister that he could get the colonel to make a collective charge on his troops who are required to live in Scotland?
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think that that is a very helpful suggestion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Particularly as I did not give my noble friend notice on this point, I realise that he cannot commit his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. For my part I am satisfied with the assurance he has given that he will
928
consult his right honourable friend. It may be that he could suggest to his right honourable friend that just as members of the services serving in various countries overseas receive special overseas allowances in respect of expenses, by that analogy—if it does not offend Scottish Peers—there might be an allowance. Having heard my noble friend say that he will consult his right honourable friend, I am happy on the point.
Lord Glenarthur: That particular point is one of the points that was crossing my mind, and that is why I sensed that there may be some complexity in it, if not difficulty. I shall certainly undertake to do what I originally undertook to do.
Lord Grimond: Could the Minister make some response to another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy? She said that allowances of all sorts—and pay, as I understood it—in Scotland would take into account the effect of these charges. Would the Minister agree with that?
Lord Glenarthur: I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is accurately reflecting what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said.
Lord Grimond: I do not wish to have an argument across her body, so to speak, but assuming that the noble Baroness said something like that, have the Government any comment? Do they expect wages and allowances in Scotland to take into account these charges? While they look into the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, are they going to look at not only the services but other people whose salaries may be affected by this in Scotland?
Lord Glenarthur: I would have to study my noble friend Lady Carnegy's remarks in order to be able to respond fairly to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. Maybe I failed to pick up a nuance in my noble friend's remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, picked up. What I said in relation to the earlier amendments tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was, if my memory serves me right, that there would be nothing to prevent an employer taking account of that or any other matter when it came to making arrangements for an individual's pay, salary, or whatever.
So far as the other categories are concerned—and some have been indicated by noble Lords on the Labour Benches—I do not think that I can really go as far as all that. What I can do is look particularly at the question of the armed forces, because, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter says, it seems to raise a rather curious position if local overseas allowances, or something like that, had to apply within the context of the British Isles. That is something about which I shall have to consult my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence before I can go any further.
Lord Howie of Troon: Is it adequate to restrict this examination to the armed services? Surely the Civil Service comes into this, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, indicated. Then there is the question of Members of another House. Would it be appropriate for Scottish Members of another House to have some

929
allowance related to their rates as against English Members, or—as in the case of at least one or two Members I can think of—those Members for English constituencies who later become Members for Scottish constituencies? If such a change took place would the parliamentary allowances be adjusted to take that into account as well?
Lord Glenarthur: I think we are getting rather wide of the point. If anything, the noble Lord is making a case which goes very much against the case of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in raising the matter of the armed forces, or indeed the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. If the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, were to go any further down that road he would only make any possibility of seeing any way through this argument even less likely, because he points to so many complexities that perhaps the way we have it in the Bill is the best after all.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The whole thing is fascinating. I look forward to the day when the Scottish regiments coming back to Scotland will get an overseas allowance. This is the idea. As I said before, it is as easy as "JBC", and quite frankly that was not the greatest part of our argument in relation to the problems that arise from the armed forces, or MoD civil servants. There is that one as well.
I was concerned mainly about nurses and those other people like that who are going to have this burden placed upon them. In view of that, I am afraid that I must in this respect test the opinion of the Committee.
5.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 140B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 132.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ennals, L.

Airedale, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Amherst, E.

Ezra, L.

Ardwick, L.

Falkender, B.

Aylestone, L.

Falkland, V.

Banks, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Basnett, L.

Foot, L.

Beswick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Birk, B.

Galpern, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Blease, L.

Glenamara, L.

Blyton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Grey, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Grimond, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hampton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Heycock, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L

Hooson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Chitnis. L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Hunt, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L

Irving of Dartford, L.

930

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rochester, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Kagan, L.

Rugby, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Seear, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Serota, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stallard, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mountevans, L.

Underhill, L.

Mulley, L.

Walston, L.

Nicol, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Northfield, L.

White, B.

Oram, L.

Wigoder, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Willis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Langside, L.

Winstanley, L.

Rea, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allerton, L.

Harvington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hesketh, L.

Annan, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Arran, E.

Hood, V.

Auckland, L.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bellwin, L.

Ingrow, L.

Beloff, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Belstead, L.

Killearn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Broxbourne, L.

Knollys, V.

Burton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Layton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lindsay, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lothian, M.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Luke, L.

Chelwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

McFadzean, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Manton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Margadale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cox, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Craigavon, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cross, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Middleton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Milverton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Minto, E.

Derwent, L.

Morris, L.

Dundee, E.

Mottistone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elibank, L.

Moyne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Munster, E.

Erne, E.

Newall, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrier, L.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gainford, L.

Perth, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Polwarth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Portland, D.

Gorell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gormanston, V.

Reay, L.

Gray, L.

Reigate, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Haig, E.

Renwick, L.

931

Richardson, L.

Strange, B.

Romney, E.

Strathspey, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Swinton, E.

St. Davids, V.

Teviot, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Teynham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Sandford, L.

Trafford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trumpington, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Ullswater, V.

Sharples, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sherfield, L.

Vickers, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Somers, L.

Wolfson, L.

Stockton, E.

Young, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.19 p.m.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Determination of amount of personal community charge:]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 8, line 3, after ("prescribed") insert ("being not earlier than 3 months after the Secretary of State has announced the RSG settlement").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the timing of the prescription of the amount of the personal community charge. It is of course necessary that before the local authority can decide on its community charge level it has to know the amount of rate support grant or revenue support grant that it is to receive. The point about this is to have in the Bill the fact that the date must not be earlier than three months after the Secretary of State has announced the settlement, to give local authorities a reasonable time to determine the various pieces of arithmetic and so on that they have to work out. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: It may assist the Committee if I explain how we see the timetable for the announcement of revenue support grant and the determination by local authorities of their personal community charge working. At present local authorities are required to determine their rate by 5th March in each year, with the rates becoming payable, usually in 10 monthly instalments, as from May. The arrangements proposed by Schedule 2 for the payment of the personal community charge are rather different. We envisage that the standard arrangements will be for 12 monthly instalments to be paid, starting in April. If my memory serves me right, that is a point which would have satisfied my noble friend Lord Burton, because he raised it earlier on.
We will of course be able to debate the justification for this provision as a whole when we reach Schedule 2. Since instalments will be payable as from April rather than as from May, we expect that local authorities will have to determine their personal community charge rather earlier in the year than they have determined their rate up till now. In its turn this means that the Secretary of State's announcements on the levels of revenue support grant to be made available to authorities will be made rather earlier in the financial year than is at present the case. We do not, however, consider that it is necessary to allow for
932
a specific minimum period, and this might indeed represent an unhelpful loss of the flexibility which is at present enjoyed.
Perhaps I may explain, just to be helpful, how the RSG timetables operate at the moment. The Government's general aim is, and indeed will remain, to give authorities as much notice as possible of government decisions which affect their planning for the coming year. Thus in July last year, when my right honourable friend announced his plans for local authority expenditure and grant for 1987–88 by using July, he was in fact doing precisely that. At the very beginning of October, authorities were notified of their current expenditure guidelines, although of course there will no longer be guidelines under the new system. During October, there were discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the principles to be applied in grant distribution.
The Secretary of State issued detailed proposals for grant distribution at the beginning of December and these were discussed with the convention on 12th December. The RSG order was then laid just before Christmas. Thus authorities had ample notice of the expenditure which the Government considered they could incur and the grant they would receive. This gave them time to consider fully their rate for 1987–88 which had to be fixed to complete the circle by 5th March.
While it would therefore not be right for a formal minimum period to be included in the Bill, as proposed, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the procedures for announcement of decisions on revenue support grant, like those for rate support grant, will allow adequate time for local authorities to make their expenditure decisions. I do not think it would necessarily be helpful to remove the possible advantages of flexibility which would be the result if I accepted this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is a rather disappointing reply and to my mind it does not show a true appreciation of all that is involved here. You cannot judge what will happen here under this clause by what happens in relation to rate support grant. Rate support grant is usually announced towards the end of the year and I think that the English rate support grant announcement is a week or so before the Scottish one. After they know that, they can go forward to the planning.
But this time they have a register that has to be completed and there are appeals against that register. It will be very difficult for local authorities to make the date of 1st April with confidence that the whole procedure will be efficient. To give them time, I consider that the announcement will need to be at least three months earlier than the announcement of the rate support grant settlement.
I have taken part in about eight rate support grant settlements and they tend to be as predictable as the farmers' price review. They used to call the settlement the February price review and, from my experience, the announcement was usually about three or four months before that. The Government would be wise, from the point of view of administration, to give local authorities much earlier warning in this respect,

933
because it will be very difficult for them to be able to strike this personal community charge unless they are given plenty of warning about the rate support grant.
There are the Government's discussions in relation to total aggregate expenditure; there is another clause that is relevant which we have still to discuss; and then the authorities have to decide relevant expenditure, which is the expenditure that the Government will support. There used to be a very considerable number of specific grants. There are fewer of these now, but they could well be revived in relation to some of the things that the Government have said about non-domestic rates being limited to whatever is construed by the Government as the factor of the retail price index increase that authorities will be allowed. I should have thought that at least three months should be given by the Government.
It will not be easy for the Government. It will not be easy for the local authorities either, because they will have to argue with the Government about the relevant expenditure that the Government will meet and the lower that is the higher the personal community charge will be. I did not think up this grotesque scheme; it was the Government. They must face up to the difficulties over who will pay, what will pay and how they will divide up collective, community and standard charges. We have not even touched on the problem of the register.
It would be wise for the Government to give as much time as possible to the local authorities to do a reasonable job, because the last thing we want to see is chaos and the collapse of local government, which is one of the dangers of not getting this right. However, in view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 8, line 6, leave out ("(account having been taken of the moneys to be produced by the standard and collective community charges)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to the last few lines of subsection (2) of Clause 9, which reads,
"falls to be met out of their community charges, together with such additional sum as is, in their opinion, required".
We shall be glad to hear what the Government have in mind in respect of those words. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall respond to the noble Lord's suggestion of explaining how we envisage the procedures by which a local authority will determine the amount of its personal community charge. The amount to be covered by the community charges as a whole is, in accordance with Clause 7(2), the amount which is not already covered by other sources of local authority income. The amount to be met by the community charges must cover the budgeted expenditure of the local authority, including of course all expenditure at the margin in excess of assessed need. In order to make this calculation, we envisage that the local authority will divide the total amount which has to be raised by community charges by a number which will represent the number of units of community charge available to the local authority.
934
This number will be made up of three elements. First, it will cover the number of people liable to pay the personal community charge in the local authority's area. Secondly, it will include also the number of premises in respect of which the standard community charge is payable, multiplied by the standard community charge multiplier set by the authority in respect of Clause 10(7). Thirdly, it will include the sum of all the collective community charge multipliers for the premises in respect of which the collective community charge is payable under Clause 11.
Once this total figure is calculated, local authorities will have to take a view on what assumptions should be built into the system about any shortfall in actual collection. This is exactly the same kind of judgment as they have to make already in respect of rates. The final number thus arrived at will be divided into the total amount to be raised by the community charges to give the actual personal community charge figure for that authority.
This procedure is described in subsection (2) of Clause 9. The words,
"Account having been taken of the moneys to be produced by the standard and collective community charges".
Simply refer to the fact that the amount to be produced from these charges has to be included in the calculation of the personal community charge. The personal community charge is, however, the primary object of the calculation, and that is why the subsection is phrased in the way it is. I believe that with this amendment the noble Lord would remove an essential factor in the equation. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord realises what it would do and understands more clearly the purpose of the subsection.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I understand the substance of it perfectly well. The question is: which comes first? I gather that the personal community charge is last in the factor and the other charges, being the standard and collective charges, have not been discussed yet. That is one of the difficulties in relation to the Bill and the way in which it is drafted.
How on earth will local authorities obtain an accurate amount in relation to these charges? It is all very well for the Minister to say, as he did, that they must take account of those who are liable to pay. What the local authority is concerned about is not those who are liable to pay but those who will pay. That is a difficult matter. In fact, we will not even know until we are finished with the Bill whether there is going to be a collective charge. Many people will argue that the collective charge will be one of the most difficult things to estimate. The whole thing will be difficult to estimate.
I saw a report of a study which I believe was made by the Home Secretary and was published this week. It concerned those who do not register for their vote. Those who do not register for voting have nothing at stake except voting. When those who register become liable to pay anything up to £230, many of those who are liable will never appear on the register. Therefore, the money will not be forthcoming. That may be as many as 10 per cent. How on earth are the

935
Government expecting the local authorities to do that as one of the first items in those factors? It is very difficult.
I leave the thought with the Minister as to how he will make sense out of this morass of statistical nonsense which has been put down and called a Bill. It will be difficult indeed. However, if that is the only explanation we are to get, I do not see why we should waste any more time on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 8, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This is a similar point. The Bill says,
"account shall be taken by any means by which those expenses may otherwise be met or provided for".
What does that mean? If it means anything, I suppose that it means fees, and we shall find out whether people are going to pay for the benefits they will receive. I can understand some of them—for instance, young people who are going to be paying £230 a year—who will be making demands, as they will be entitled to. Local authorities have already been putting up the prices of admission to football pitches for young people who will not even pay for this. They will be putting up charges on golf courses and the rest of it. Perhaps the Government will be able to give them guidance about that sort of thing.
We all remember how guidelines started. They were what they seemed to mean. They finished up by being statutory and by saying, "You have to do as we tell you—or else". The Bill says:
"account shall be taken of any means by which those expenses may be met or provided for-.
Am I right in thinking that that is the purpose of that particular line and a half? I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing very mysterious about this subsection in Clause 9. It simply provides that, in determining the proportion of its estimated expenses mentioned in Clause 9(2) which are to be met from the income it will receive from community charges levied in its area, a local authority is to take account of any other means available to it for meeting those expenses. These other means will consist, in the main, of central government grants and non-domestic rates. But in addition local authorities also hold balances and receive income from the fees and charges they charge for certain services they provide. This is what is meant by the words,
"any means by which those expenses may otherwise be met or provided for".
A very similar provision already exists in relation to rates in Section 107 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
The only difference between the new system and the old—and I accept, or course, that it is a substantial difference—is that under the new system the community charges will become the balancing element in a local authority's budgeting, rather than rates. I hope that this explanation has served to clarify
936
the position and that the noble Lord can perhaps agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Yes. Time is going on and we have spent far too much time on the last group of amendments. Having satisfied myself as to what the Government intend by that and expressed the hope that the Government will not take powers or use some obscure clause, which we may come to later on in the Bill, to compel local authorities to put charges on museums, art galleries and the like in order to boost income, I gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Liability for and calculation of standard community charge:]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 8, line 22, leave out ("community") and insert ("property").
The noble Lord said: If I may, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 144, 151 to 159 and 161 to 163. We are now dealing with what is to be known as the standard community charge. That charge is a most extraordinary one in this Bill. The Bill sets out to say that everyone should be personally liable and that property taxes will be abolished in respect of domestic property. What is called the standard community charge is a property tax on property which may be a second home or which may be a variety of other things, such as district council housing which is unoccupied or Forestry Commission special housing.
As I read the clause, all of those authorities which have houses which for some reason are unoccupied—for example, to be done up—for more than three months will be responsible, as owners, for the standard community charge. That is an extraordinary proposition. However, that seems to be what the Bill says. No doubt we shall be told that that is not what the Bill means to say. However, that is my reading of the Bill at the moment.
This is quite clearly a property charge. It is nothing else. To take it shortly, for each domestic subject which is a second home, the fixing authority, by subsection (7), can fix the standard community charge multiplier at somewhere between one and up to two. Therefore, it does not matter whether 800 people or one person will be put into the house; there is the same charge. It is a property tax. It is certainly not a standard charge and it is not a community charge. I think that it would be much better to call it a standard property charge. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I find the argument of the noble Lord a little strange. We all agree that we are trying to move away from property tax so far as concerns rates. If this is the case I cannot see what is wrong with the wording as it stands. With second homes, cottages and so on a standard charge of one or two units of community charge seems a much more realistic way of dealing with them. If we are to go down the road of a property tax on second homes we might as well wrap up the whole thing and go back to rates.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Hear, hear!
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I see absolutely no logic in the view held by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, about this way of going about things. Obviously many people on the opposite side of the Committee wish to maintain rates. If that is the case, why do we have to pay more for putting in radiators, double glazing and so on? That is one of the disadvantages of a property tax and even some members of the Alliance seem to agree. I for one cannot go along with the idea of putting back property into the standard community charge.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Before the noble Lord sits down, he will not be aware, because he is a recent venturer to this establishment, that two or three years ago I moved exactly such an amendment in relation to central heating. The position is even worse than he suggested, because one accrues the burden of rates on one kind of central heating but not on another. I moved that they all be freed of rates but your Lordships turned that down.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am delighted to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, particularly on his birthday.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It is more logical to call it a property charge. I do not mind one way or the other, I suppose. However, it would be highly illogical and certainly would not meet the great question of accountability unless the Government were to reintroduce a second vote for a second house, in which case I suppose there would be some logic in it. Otherwise it is simply a straightforward property tax—much reduced, I must say, in many cases—and not a community charge at all.
Lord Glenarthur: Like my noble friend Lord Sanderson, I cannot accept that the standard community charge is a property tax. On the contrary, it is precisely what its name implies. The word "standard" means that it will be levied at a flat rate in each area, with no variation to reflect the circumstances of particular types of property. It will differ crucially from the present tax—domestic rates—which is a property tax with an astonishingly complex system surrounding it and one which takes account, or fails to take account, depending on one's point of view, of so many different factors about the circumstances of particular properties.
What we propose is a community charge, the other element in terminology, because it represents a contribution towards the cost of the services which the payer enjoys as part of the community. I accept that some of those services are provided actually or potentially in relation to property. I suppose that the fire service might be one example and perhaps part of the police service. But it is stretching the argument a little far to claim that the other local services which the standard charge payer enjoys are property based.
The key point is that these services—and I could have mentioned a whole list of them—can all be enjoyed by the owners of second homes and so they should make a contribution, just as residents in the area make a contribution through their own personal community charge.
938
I am not sure that we shall ever have a meeting of minds on the terminology. I have tried to explain why we believe the word "property" should not be used. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: We could go on all night saying on one side that it is a property tax and on the other that it is not a property tax. To me it is perfectly clear that it is a tax on property. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said that he could not understand why there was any objection to calling it a standard community charge.
It may occur to many Members of the Committee on this side—and I should have hoped also on the other side and on the Cross-Benches—that in the dispute about whether this is a property tax or a standard community charge there is a focusing on what is fundamentally objectionable about the Bill. The Government brought in a poll tax. If ever there was a poll tax, this is it. We have said it again and again. The Committee may laugh or become impatient about it, but this is what must be brought home to the people outside in the real world who will have to pay this poll tax, which is a very obnoxious and regressive form of tax.
Having called the poll tax a community charge the Government are trying to represent this in taxation terms as something quite respectable and frightfully up to date. It is a matter of cosmetics. The Government are trying to mislead people about the effect of this but they will not succeed. When they come on to deal with the difficult problem of the standard community charge—and it becomes even funnier when you come to the collective community charge, which really is an outrage—again they could not call it a property tax. They had to dress up a thinly disguised property tax and call it a standard community charge.
The Government may not be aware of this but the people of Scotland are laughing their heads off. It is said that the children in the streets of Glasgow are playing a game called "Ask me a riddle". The riddle is, when is a poll tax not a poll tax? The answer is, when it is a community charge. It is a shocking business altogether and that is the importance of these amendments.
Someone asked earlier, after looking at the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, whether this was just a matter of semantics; and someone else said, yes, it was. It is not; it goes right to the crux of this ghastly Bill.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: If the noble Lord will forgive me, at an earlier stage in our deliberations he talked about the poll being per skull. I thought that the standard community charge was on people and not on property.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Oh, no. I wonder whether the noble Lord will read the Bill. Clause 10(1) says:
"The standard community charge shall be payable in respect of p remises.".
That is why in this amendment we call it a property tax.
Lord Stallard: I want to support the amendment and the wording it suggests. It is my understanding—and I have listened to most of the debate—that the Government's reason for calling it a community charge was to bring about more accountability. They took away the poll tax tag and the property tax tag and they called it a community charge. People would be accountable to the community and therefore there would be some logic in calling it a community charge. That is what they said. In the case of the owners of second homes who might not even live in that community—I understand that there are 17,300 second homes in Scotland alone, of which the owners of 11,300 are not usually resident in Scotland—those people will have no accountability to the community and so the Government cannot use that argument for them. But they will have to pay for the property which is in that area. Therefore it is a property tax. There is no way they can wrap it up to make it anything except a property tax for that second home.
Lord Monkswell: In discussing this aspect, one of my concerns is the integrity of Parliament in regard to the community outside. If we persist in having in Bills proposals that are not in accord with reality the perception of the population outside this place will be to hold us in ridicule. They will either do that or say that Parliament is trying to hoodwink them. Neither of those two alternatives is very satisfactory for Parliament. Therefore, I hope that the Government will reconsider their whole attitude in regard to the nomenclature.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should have thought that a tax—to use a neutral word—which is payable under subection (4)(a) in respect of the ownership of premises is a property tax however it is measured, whether by value or by a multiplier. It is still a property tax. Nothing that the Minister said suggests to me that I am wrong about that. Therefore, this is a matter on which we should divide the Committee.
5.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 144) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Amherst, E.

Chitnis, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Attlee, E.

David, B.

Aylestone, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Barnett, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Basnett. L.

Ennals, L.

Beswick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Birk, B.

Ezra, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falkender, B.

Blease, L.

Falkland, V.

Blyton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Galpern, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Glenamara, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Eskan, L.

940

Grey, E.

Peston, L.

Grimond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rea, L.

Heycock, L.

Rhodes, L.

Hooson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hughes, L.

Rochester, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Russell, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Scrota, B.

Jeger, B.

Shannon, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Somers, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stallard, L.

Listowel, E.

Stedman, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Longford, E

Strabolgi, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

Monkswell, L.

Walston, L.

Morton of Shuna, L:

White, B.

Mountevans, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mulley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Willis, L.

Northfield, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Oram, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Haig, E.

Aldington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allerton, L.

Harvington, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Auckland, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Ingrow, L.

Blyth, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Killearn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Layton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindsay, E.

Burton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McFadzean, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Carnock, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon Avon, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Middleton, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Minto, E.

Cross, V.

Morris, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Derwent, L.

Pender, L.

Dundee, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Perth, E.

Elibank, L.

Polwarth, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Portland, D.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reay, L.

Gainford, L.

Reigate, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renwick, L.

Gray, L.

Romney, E.

Gray of Contin. L.

Rugby, L.

941

St. Aldwyn, E.

Teviot, L.

St. Davids, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy. Ly.

Trafford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sandford, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sharples, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vickers, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Stockton, E.

Windlesham, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wolfson, L.

Strange, B.

Young, B.

Swinton, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 8, leave out line 30.
The noble Lord said: On this occasion I have to speak also to Amendments Nos. 146 and 147. This extraordinary clause, which means that the largest castle pays the same rate or charge as the smallest cottage, becomes even more impossible to understand when one gets to the end of subsection (2). The clause applies to premises which,
"(b) are not subject to non-domestic rates; and
(c) are not the sole or main residence of any person".
So far so good. It obviously points to the fact that if you can arrange that your wife has the sole or main residence in the second home and you have the sole or main residence in the city home, that is the cheap way of doing it.
However, we then have the completely non-understandable line 30. In Clause 2 there is power to exclude from domestic subjects such classes as may be prescribed; there is also power to include such classes. I am not at all certain what is meant by the,
"class or classes of those premises as may be prescribed".
What are we talking about in line 30? The first factor we know is that they are not subject to non-domestic rates; so we are taking something totally out of any local taxation. Is that really what is meant? They are dwelling houses; they are not subject to non-domestic rates; they are to be prescribed so that they do not pay the standard community charge; and they are not the sole or main residence of anybody who pays a personal charge. What are we talking about?
In lines 31 and 32, dealt with in Amendment No. 146, the Bill says that the class or classes may be prescribed by reference to such factors as may be prescribed. This makes the muddle even more muddled; it is an Alice-in-Wonderland or Alicethrough-the-Looking-Glass type of Bill. It is quite incredibly difficult to work out what is happening. What is supposed to be meant?
It becomes even more difficult when one appreciates, as I think I do, that if you have a home which you use for a period in the year as your holiday home and which you also rent out, it may be classified as a second home for, say, the month of August, but becomes a commercial subject for the rest of the year. That is quite a normal situation in holiday areas like the west coast of Scotland. People own cottages or houses which they rent out and use as holiday homes.
942
It is far from clear what is meant by "the class or classes as may be prescribed", quite apart from the factors which are prescribed. I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has considered the possibility of houses being uninhabitable. I do not know if I am right about this, but I should have thought that this was what the prescription might be used for. I recall, when I was the Member of Parliament for the western district of Edinburgh, seeing many houses in the area of West Pilton which had been vandalised. Their windows were boarded up and I imagine that they were totally uninhabitable. The owner of these houses is now the Edinburgh District Council, and I should have thought that this would be a case for prescription.
One other possibility is probably a little far-fetched. Let us suppose that an individual had as a second home a flooded house in Bearsden, Glasgow, about which there is a certain amount of dispute at the moment as to whether rates should be paid under the present system. If houses were totally uninhabitable—and that is the ground on which the present owners are saying that they should not pay rates—is this not the sort of exception which might be covered by the prescription?
Lord Monkswell: Is the noble Lord proposing that we should now have a window tax involved with this Bill? That is the implication. He is saying that a house will become uninhabitable when the windows are knocked out and they are boarded up; therefore, it will not be liable for tax. That was exactly the result of the window tax. Surely, it is ridiculous.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I shall not try to answer the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston. I do not think it is up to me to explain what this Bill means. I am in as much of a fog as the noble Lord. I do not think that the prescription covers what he talked about because of what was said by Ministers in another place at the Committee stage. They said, if I followed their remarks rightly, that if somebody bought a house which was in a state of dilapidation and had two houses for a period while doing up the second one, that person would have to pay the standard community charge after the period of three months which is applicable in Clause 8. That is my understanding.
Certainly, I had not anticipated that it would involve uninhabitable houses. I have already pointed out that houses which existed in Pilton some years ago under a Tory local authority had to be boarded up because the authority could not spend the money to repair them. Those would be liable for the standard community charge.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I feel we are due an explanation and some examples from the Minister. Perhaps he could tell me, because I am a little puzzled, what will happen to people who own time shares in houses. Considerably more might be collected if the residents had to pay a standard community charge for each fortnight which they owned. They are considered to be proprietors. I would be very interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say about them.
Lord Glenarthur: I think perhaps I should start by saying, not for the first time, that the premises in relation to which the standard community charge is payable are dwelling houses which are not the sole or main residence of any person. That is the point from which we start. The clause provides, and these amendments would seek to delete, the possibility of prescription by the Secretary of State of a class or classes of premises in relation to which the standard community charge should not be payable. Under subsection (3) such prescription may be by reference to such factors as may be prescribed.
The intention of these exemption provisions, as my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston thought would be the case, is to allow the exemption from the standard community charge liability of uninhabitable property. Rates are seldom, if ever, charged on such properties at present and it does not seem right to require payment for local authority services in circumstances where this can have very little real meaning in relation, for instance, to a property which is derelict or which may be undergoing restoration. In order to achieve that, it is necessary that the prescription should not only be in relation to a class or classes of premises but that it should also be by reference to prescribed factors.
There is no ready-made definition of unhabitable property at present. Therefore we propose that the regulations should be framed by reference to factors which themselves will relate to the fact that the property is uninhabitable—for instance, its unsuitability for human habitation by reason of its physical condition. It is stretching the point beyond the bounds of credulity to accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, suggested, that it is akin to the imposition of a window tax or that anything of that kind is remotely connected with it.
The provisions that the amendments seek to delete are necessary. Before I draw to a conclusion perhaps I can explain to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in relation to the matter of timeshare property which he raised, that timeshare accommodation will remain within non-domestic rating as it is now; so the situation that he envisaged will not arise.
The suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that a person who is buying a house in a state of dilapidation should have to pay this charge, and the noble Lord referred to statements that have been made in another place. To the best of my knowledge those statements did not deal with the specific point concerning someone who is buying a dilapidated house. If the house were uninhabitable it would be exempt, as I have just explained; otherwise the charge would be payable after a three-month period of grace. So perhaps the two remarks were somehow not taken in context.
I shall study those points but I do not think that there has been any disparity between what has been said in another place and what has been said in this Chamber. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will accept that explanation. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Burton: I hope that my noble friend will look at this matter again before Report stage. The period of three months is far too short. For instance, during our
944
discussions on a previous clause, the position of army houses was raised. If a battalion moves away, a great many houses become empty in the district. Likewise, if one looks at the situation in Aberdeen when the oil industry collapsed, a lot of houses were thrown on the market then. Through no fault of the owners such houses can remain empty for much longer than three months.
Moreover, if any major repairs at all have to be undertaken, planning permission has to be obtained and I know that applications can often remain to be considered by a planning committee for three months before the repairs can even be started. I think that this matter needs looking into, and perhaps the period could be extended to six months. I hope that my noble friend will look at this point again before we reach Report stage.
Lord Gray: There is one small point that I should like to raise. I wonder what will happen to properties that are at present unfit for habitation and are awaiting repair or renovation. It is a process that often takes quite a long time to complete when it involves obtaining planning permission and putting in electricity supplies and so on. My reading of the Bill suggests that those properties are left in limbo.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think that that is the case. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Burton misunderstood me. I was referring not to uninhabited properties but to uninhabitable ones. I may not have made myself plain but certainly that was the burden of my remarks.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister said that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was entirely wrong. It seems to me that he was entirely right. We should remember the kind of situation that has happened recently in Aberdeen, about which we have all read. People there tried to sell their houses in order to move away but they had difficulty in selling them. They have a three-month period when they move away during the time that the house is empty but after that time they will have to pay the second charge, the standard community charge, unless the house is uninhabitable. What bigger incentive to render an empty house uninhabitable can there possibly be? That situation will arise in any number of cases.
It is not unknown for a house to be uninhabited for a period because of the employment situation or for some other reason. I am horrified to hear this suggestion, if indeed it is the suggestion. It will give rise to an incentive to destroy houses and render them uninhabitable. That is the effect of this suggestion.
Lord Glenarthur: With respect, that was never the suggestion that I made nor is it contained in the Bill. The noble Lord is misquoting part of my remarks. What I said was that this measure related to uninhabitable property. When it comes to prescribing or framing regulations, the question of physical condition and indeed the suitability of that property for human habitation, taken in its wider sense and revolving around the question of its physical condition, are the matters which would be taken into account. What has been set out in the Bill and what I have tried to describe meets the concern of the noble

945
Lord and I think that it would be wrong of him to suggest that we were embarking upon some exercise in support of a latter-day window tax. I do not have with me the details of the history or the relevance of the window tax but I think that even the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, feels that that is stretching the point.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps the Minister will clarify a point. I thought that the remarks of his noble friends related to taking more than three months to repair a house. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was referring to trying to sell a house when the owners had to move away in order to look for another job; and because the house was not sold the owner became liable to the charge after three months. That is the point that the Committee is trying to get over to the Minister.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: We appear to be introducing a rather large subject in a rather short Bill. I fear that the whole concept of uninhabitable property is a minefield for the Government. I should like to have some clarification about the kind of criteria that the Government would use to judge whether or not a property is uninhabitable. That is my first point.
In times gone by questions of whether a house had a roof on it and how many windows it had were the criteria for judgment of property. It is not completely erroneous to believe that those characteristics may not come into the Government's judgment. Secondly, having set out the criteria and judged a property to be uninhabitable, would the Government take the next step and prevent the habitation of such a property by human beings? That would open a whole can of worms, if I may put it like that. We need some clarification of the Government's thinking in this area.
Lord Glenarthur: What the noble Lord is asking me to do is to define in the Bill that which will be prescribed in the regulations. That is the whole point of having the regulations. I have given some examples of the kind of things that would be taken into account when it comes to considering unsuitability. Those criteria may concern physical conditions for human habitation; they may cover a number of other factors. It seems to me quite extraordinary to suggest, as has been suggested, that houses might be made uninhabitable so that in some way it would advantage people. Surely that would be wholly to the detriment of the person who is trying to sell the house. The noble Lord opposite referred to the case of property changing hands in Aberdeen, for example. I think that that is a rather bizarre suggestion. It would not be to the advantage of the person selling the house any more than it would be to the advantage of anybody who ultimately might buy it. I do not think that there is much mileage to be gained there.
The point is that it can be prescribed. The factors that will be taken into account include whether or not the property is suitable for human habitation, its physical condition and all that kind of thing. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable way forward.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I assure the Minister that at least historically there were plenty of cases where roofs were taken off houses in order to remove them from rating. If the Minister is not aware of that, he is not aware of a fairly significant part of Scottish history.
Lord Glenarthur: I am aware of it.
Lord Burton: I think that the noble Lord is being a little unkind to my noble friend on the Front Bench. That was done in the 1950s, which was before my noble friend's time.
Lord Morton of Shuna: He said that he was aware of it.
The trouble with the Bill, as has been stated on many occasions, is that we do not know what will be prescribed. We have one thing said at one time and maybe other things will come in. It would be fair enough to say in line 30:
"but not to uninhabitable houses, the criteria of which shall be prescribed".
At least then we would know what we are getting at. We do not know anything about:
"such class or classes of those premises as may be prescribed".
We have not yet had an answer for the situation that I have put—I should be obliged if we could have one—concerning someone who has a second house and rents it as a commercial proposition for certain months of the year, occupying it, say, for a fortnight of the year. Is that a non-domestic subject? Does it become a non-domestic subject for a certain period of the year, with the standard community charge for the rest?
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, raised this in a somewhat different form earlier. I endeavourd to write to him to explain it and set his mind at rest.
Where the assessor is of the opinion that the letting of a house constitutes a business, he will value the house accordingly. Where he is satisfied that the use is domestic, it will be treated on the same basis as other dwellinghouses that constitute the bulk of the domestic subject which would be deleted from valuation under Clause 2. I cannot see that there is a reason to believe that a holiday house which was otherwise a business could be made domestic if the family concerned lived in it for only a couple of weeks each year.
I repeat that where a house is genuinely domestic it would come out of rating. If it is used as a second home, having no registered resident, it would be subject to the standard charge, so the owners will have to make a contribution. I think that that addresses the point that the noble Lord is making.
I have to say again that what is set out in the Bill is simply explained by what I have just described; that uninhabitable property will be prescribed. That seems to me to be the important point, whether or not one goes back into the realms of history in regard to removing roofs for rating or, indeed, as far back as the window tax of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the Minister deal with the poor devil who has to move from Aberdeen and cannot sell his house in a three-month period? Would prescription apply in that case if he could not sell it for nine months, which must be quite common?
Lord Glenarthur: It is unlikely that in a three-month period a house would become uninhabitable if it had been wholly habitable before. Maybe I have misunderstood the noble Lord's point.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: If he cannot sell the house, although he is paying for two houses, is down in the South of England and has a job there, after three months apparently it becomes a second home and there is a community charge upon it. That appears to some of the Minister's noble friends and to me unfair.
Lord Glenarthur: I think that the answer to the noble Lord's question is no. If after three months the house had not been sold and was uninhabitable, then—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps the best thing is for me to study the noble Lord's remarks. If I can get an answer to him, I shall endeavour to do so. Perhaps I am being slow. Maybe I have misunderstood him and there is some gap.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The Minister does not understand the Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord says that I do not understand the Bill. He is making remarks himself about not understanding the Bill, but we all know that he is beginning to understand it in the light of some of the explanations that the Government have given.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Surely it is fairly obvious from the Bill that if a house is unoccupied and unfurnished—just the kind of house referred to in Aberdeen—and the people are forced to move away and take another house somewhere else, by definition it is treated as a second home. Some local authorities are concerned about this. The Minister appears to have clarified the position of empty local authority houses, but what about all the others that are empty? What about agricultural houses where tenant farmers are subject to certain restrictions in relation to reletting? This is the kind of house that has its roof removed and where even the level of rates is a bar to something being done.
The result is that the personal community charge is put on as the standard charge, and it will be even worse. I know that Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council is concerned about this. I do not think that its fears will be eased by what the noble Lord has said. I gather that this will be covered in regulations—"We don't know the class of house, but don't worry, it will be in the regulations". Then where will the factors be found?—"Oh, they will be in the regulations too".
This has got to the point of utter nonsense. We do not understand the clause at all. I find it very difficult to be patient with this kind of Bill. With the best will
948
in the world, we cannot say, "That applies to that". We are given bits and pieces of information by the Minister and even then he says, "This might apply, this could apply". It depends on what the Secretary of State says will be the class prescribed. It depends further on the Secretary of State saying, "Subject to certain factors". But we do not know the factors.
The Minister need not be surprised that we are amazed by this. I am not surprised that he is sometimes rather mystified. Think of the people who have to pay attention to this and have to read it, among whom are some Conservative local government authorities in Scotland. Many farmers in the Highlands have been using such houses and they will be concerned. Remember, it is the owner of the premises that are unoccupied and unfurnished who after three months will be responsible. Do not be surprised if there are increases in rents if the owners eventually get them leased out or rented—or are they just going to take off the roofs or break the windows, as my noble friend said?
Lord Kirkhill: I remind the Minister that he and I sometimes are together on the plane to Aberdeen—at any rate, whether we are or not, we both go to Aberdeen—and he will understand if I direct his attention to this thought. In Portlethen—and Bridge of Don is another example—for the reasons already explained, many of the comparatively new houses have been standing empty for periods of three, four, five or six months so that they are quickly vandalised and the gardens are quickly overgrown. They are not being sold, because when the newcomer arrives he buys a new Barratt that is being built in yet another dormitory suburb. That is the problem, and a real concern to those people who might be considered to own a second home, they having had to shift elsewhere to get employment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My noble friend Lord Burton asked whether the period could be extended from three to six months, which I think has been lost sight of in the argument. Perhaps the Minister would like to address his mind to this, if not today, at some future occasion.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hughes: The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, concentrated his remarks on uninhabitable properties and said that the prescription will make it clear that such properties will not be liable to the charge. However, most of our discussion has not been about uninhabitable houses; it has been about uninhabited and unfurnished houses. That is what happens when someone moves from one home to another and then finds that he cannot sell the house that he has vacated. The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that,
"Where premises are unoccupied and unfurnished, the charge is not to be payable for a period of up to three months".
The present practice is that at their discretion local authorities do not levy rates on unoccupied and unfurnished houses. Most authorities work on the basis that if they are aware that a property has been advertised for sale from time to time but has not found a purchaser, they continue to refrain from levying rates.

949
The mistake which the Government are making is laying down a maximum period of three months. If they want to include three months, the least that they can do is to add, "or such longer period as the local authority may decide". Some authorities may be content to limit the period to three months. Others will follow their present practice, and rates will not be payable until the house is sold. I cannot understand why the three-month restriction has been included. I think it is at variance with the practice of almost every local authority at the moment.
Lord Glenarthur: It appears that the argument is boiling down to the question of time. My noble friend made a good point. The easiest way may be for me to take this matter away and to look at it to see whether we can make any more sense of the arguments about the time factor which have been put forward. My noble friend suggested that we should extend the time factor to cater for houses such as those in some parts of Aberdeenshire mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I am well aware of the difficulties that arise in places that have declined.
I hope that the Committee will agree that that is a sensible way to proceed. I cannot give a commitment as to how my consideration will go, but some valid points have clearly been made about timing and the inability of some people to effect a sale within that three-month period. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, suggested. I hope that the Committee will agree that is a sensible way to proceed.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wish to draw the Minister's attention to Amendment No. 115A which is aimed at that point and to which we shall come in about two pages. It aims to give the local authorities discretion over the three-month period. That may be a matter at which the Minister will also look. I hope that he will also look at the problem of someone who owns a house in one of the holiday areas such as the Mull of Kintyre on the west coast, who at times lets it, at times allows members of his family to use it, and at times uses it himself. It is difficult to decide whether that is to be liable to commercial or standard community charge. In the circumstances, I shall—
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I answer his point about Amendment No. 115A? The arguments on these amendments are bound up with one another. At this stage, the easiest thing may be to say that I take the spirit of the noble Lord's suggestion about Amendment No. 115A and the point that we have just discussed. I am prepared to take the matters away. I cannot give any firm undertakings, as I think the noble Lord will understand, but I understand the spirit with which he refers to the amendment and the points which have been made about the other amendments. I shall look at that as well.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In those circumstances, I shall continue my sentence and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call the next amendment, I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 147.
[Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 8, line 38, after ("more") insert ("and the owner has provided the registration officer with a copy of the lease and with the name and address of the tenant").
The noble Lord said: I think it is intended that I speak also to Amendments Nos. 149, 169 and 170. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 150, which seems to fit the same circumstances. Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 relate to,
"The person liable to pay the standard community charge"
and Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 relate to Clause 11 and the collective community charge. The principle is the same. The person liable to pay the charge shall be the owner unless the premises have been let for a continuous period of 12 months or more, or, if the premises have been sub-let, the sub-tenant. That is fine. That tells us who is liable, but no one is under any obligation to tell the keeper of the register.
These amendments make the owner liable unless he has told the registration officer the name and address of the tenant and given him a copy of the lease. The tenant is liable in the appropriate tenancy unless he has supplied the registration officer with the name of the sub-tenant and a copy of the lease. Without that, there would be total confusion. The liability has to be decided by the registration officer. As I see it, he has no power to be satisfied. He must see the lease to see that it fits within the Act, as it will then be, and that it is for 12 months or more. Amendments Nos. 148, 149, 169 and 170 help clarification so that everyone knows where they stand.
Amendment No. 150 again deals with the lease or sub-lease. Only someone who lives in an ivory tower can have been dealing with this point. One is liable for the community charge month by month, if not day by day. How can one backdate the transfer or liability from the owner to the tenant or from the tenant to the sub-tenant by an extension of the lease to take it over 12 months? That seems to me to be exotic. By Amendment No. 150 I seek to take out lines 43 and 44, which say:
"Renewals of a lease (or sub-lease) shall, for the purposes of this subsection, count towards its period".
If I rent a second home from an owner for six months, the owner is liable. If at the end of the six months he extends the lease for a further six months and a day, the lease becomes a 12-month lease, and I as tenant then become liable for the whole period. The Government cannot mean that. It is stupid. There may be an Alice in Wonderland or Alice Through the Looking Glass view about this, but it is extraordinary suddenly to say that by extending the lease the tenant becomes liable for some period for which someone else has been liable. Even St. Andrew's House could not have perpetrated that deliberately.
Lord Glenarthur: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna's Amendments Nos. 148, 149, 169 and 170, and in addition No. 150, perhaps I may start with Amendment No. 150. I hope I shall be able in part at least to point to certain improvements in paragraphs (b) and (c) which form the main point in his Amendments Nos. 148 and 149.
I listened to what the noble Lord said in support of Amendment No. 150. The Government's intention was quite straightforward. It was that the owner be liable for the standard community charge unless there is a tenant or sub-tenant with a lease or sub-lease of the premises which is for a continuing period of 12 months or more. In that case, the tenant or sub-tenant would be liable. The noble Lord is nodding and I think he agrees with me on that point.
I have to accept that lines 43 and 44 might have the effect of obscuring that relatively simple intention. If I were to accept that point, there would also be a need to look at subsection (4)(b) and (c) to make clear the point about the lease or sub-leases being for a continuous period of 12 months or more. That seemed to me to be the entire burden of the noble Lord's arguments. If that is the case then Clause 11(4) might also require to be similarly amended.
In short, I am happy to accept Amendment No. 150 but I shall need to come back with the other amendments to subsection (4)(b) and (c), and additionally Clause 11(4). I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Certainly. My point was not so much the continuity of the period but the fact that there is nothing in Clauses 4, 10 and 11 which gives any obligation for anybody to tell the registration officer. Obviously the registration officer is the person who has to know. I shall be very pleased to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 8, leave out lines 43 and 44.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna: As these amendments have already been dealt with perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I suggested that I do not move Amendments Nos. 151 to 159, including Amendment No. 155A, en bloc.
[Amendments Nos. 151 to 159 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call Amendment No. 160 I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 161.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 9, line 33, leave out from second ("to") to ("(and") in line 36 and insert—
("the product of—

(a) the number of days in that year for which the premises are let or sub-let to or, as the case may be,
952
permitted to be occupied by that other person (excluding any which fall within a period in respect of which the standard community charge is, under subsections (8) to (10) above, not payable); and

(b) the amount of the standard community charge payable in respect of the premises in respect of that year divided by the number of days in that year.").

The noble Earl said: This is simply a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes: The noble Earl has to be congratulated that this time he was handed an easier one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 161 to 163 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 10 as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: This has been an extraordinarily good debate. The Minister has been extremely reasonable. He has been convinced of the correctness of many of the points made. A man of his intelligence could not have failed to be so convinced. However, I must oppose the clause as a whole for a very simple reason. All round this Chamber people have said at Second Reading and at other times that they would be better off themselves with the community charge. Today one of my noble friends told me that with a house in London and a house in the country, when this Bill applies to England he will be a great deal better off—by several thousand pounds.
The regressive nature of the community tax, property tax—call it what you will—demands opposition. Quite simply, that is why I oppose this clause. It takes money from the poor and gives money to the rich. It must be bad.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I could simply say "ditto". It appears to me totally reprehensible that people with very large houses with very large estates, for which they require considerable local authority services, should be asked to pay exactly the same as people who have a small but-and-ben. It seems totally reprehensible and the most regressive part of a very regressive piece of legislation.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: What about those people who have very large houses but have no local authority services? There are many such houses in Scotland, especially in the Highlands. Those people also have to pay a great number of non-domestic rates.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Some of the places without services are places occupied by crofters who are working. They do not have to pay the standard community charge. Whether they are old-age pensioners, or whatever, they have to pay the personal charge. They receive no services in such places without roads on the western side of Harris or Lewis.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: They have a lot of other services, of course. I have one or two crofters and I am all for it. But they receive a tremendous grant for almost everything they buy themselves. I do not therefore think that they do too badly.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Everything that they buy in the outer islands or in the inner islands, or in most places in the Highlands, is considerably more expensive than in the cities. Your Lordships' House decided in the Judicial Committee that for that reason they were not entitled to any higher rate of DHSS benefit. In places such as Tyrie, or Coll, or Colonsay, they will be asked to pay exactly the same regional personal community charge as if they lived in an unflooded house in Bearsden. On this side of the Chamber we think that is totally unfair.
Lord Glenarthur: It seems to me that the arguments in dealing with Clause 10 fall into four different parts: a justification in principle for the standing community charge; the level of the charge; the liability for the charge; and the period of grace.
The Green Paper recognised that some domestic subjects such as second homes—which would be excluded from the valuation role and on which no rates would be payable—would not constitute the sole or main residence of any person. In order to replace the loss of rate revenue which would otherwise occur in such cases, the Green Paper therefore proposed a standard community charge to be levied in respect of the premises in question.
We have debated at some considerable length the details of these provisions including the question of whether the standard community charge is to be considered as a property tax. However, I remain convinced on the principle that I have already set out that it is not. In any case, it cannot seriously be questioned that the replacement of rates on second homes—in respect of which those liable to pay rates would now otherwise enjoy a windfall benefit—is entirely justified.
The Green Paper's proposal that the standard community charge should be set at a level of two units of personal community charge was based on the proposition that taken over the country as a whole, this would replace the rate revenue on the properties concerned which would otherwise be lost. However, in the course of consultation on the Green Paper, the point was made that the standard community charge at this level might lead to large increases in local tax bills in respect of some properties which at present bear low rates. That is why the clause provides that local authorities should have discretion to set the level of standard community charge at between one and two units of the personal community charge, and hence allow the level to reflect local authorities' views of how great a burden of local taxation should be borne by the owners or occupiers of these second homes and similar properties.
The provisions in subsection (4) that the long-term tenant or sub-tenant of premises to which the standard community charge applies should be liable for the charge, rather than the owner, are intended to ensure that the charge is readily recoverable from tenants who use property as a second home, as against those tenants with short holiday leases in circumstances where the owner may be resident abroad or otherwise difficult to pursue for payment of the charge. I am convinced that these arrangements are entirely practicable and that they will lead to efficient and economical collection of charge.
954
On the question of period of grace, I have already said that I would be prepared to look at the matter in so far as concerns the points raised by noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhill and Lord Hughes. I do not repeat that argument now, but in general I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that despite the fact I have agreed that I will look at and consider certain points of detail, the principle of Clause 10 is reasonable. It is a straightforward means of charging owners or tenants of second homes and similar property for the use they make of local authority services. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will see that in the round there is a benefit to be gained from it. I agree that there are certain points which have to be looked at in the light of the discussions we have had, but I certainly commend the clause as it stands to the Committee.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I am surprised that, in view of the pointed remarks made by my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, no one rose from the other side of the House to defend this clause. Of course, the essence of the clause, as it is put, is that this Government have an unfortunate tendency every now and then to throw money at the wrong people. I am not in favour of governments throwing money about at all, but if they must do it they should not throw the money at the wrong people.
Lord Burton: Surely the reason for the clause is that so many councillors, particularly in the urban areas, have been throwing away money and that is why we have had to change the system.
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 67.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Digby, L.

Allerton, L.

Dundee, E.

Arran, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Auckland, L.

Elibank, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Belstead, L.

Elton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gainford, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Burton, L.

Gray, L.

Butterworth, L.

Greenway, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnock, L.

Hesketh, L.

Chelwood, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hooper, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ingrow, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kimball, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

De La Warr, E.

Lawrence, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Layton, L.

Derwent, L.

Lindsay, E.

955

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Reigate, L.

Long, V.

Renton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Renwick, L.

Lyell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

McFadzean, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Sharples, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon Avon, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Strange, B.

Mersey, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Middleton, L.

Swinton, E.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Morris, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trafford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Munster, E.

Tryon, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Pender, L.

Vickers, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Polwarth, L.

Windlesham, L.

Portland, D.

Wolfson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Reay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Blackstone, B.

Monkswell, L.

Blease, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donoughue, L.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Rhodes, L.

Galpem, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Glenamara, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gregson, L.

Rugby, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Heycock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kagan, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Walston, L.

Listowel, E.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Longford, E.

Winstanley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winterbottom, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Ypres, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 10, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 11 [Liability for and calculation of collective community charge]:
7.2 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 163A:
Page 10, line 4, after ("premises") insert ("other than those used as refuge homes").
The noble Lord said: It would perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if we took Amendment No. 191 B with this.
This amendment is an attempt to exclude refuge homes from the collective community charge. It is likely that refuges will be liable for the collective community charge under Clause 11, but, as all such hostel staff will find, the responsibility of determining, notifying, collecting, recording and receipting the daily base community charge will be a time-consuming administrative nightmare. For the already overworked, understaffed voluntary groups that is an unpalatable and unacceptable burden.
If the Ministers opposite have visited any of those refuges in the course of their duties they will realise the incredible work that the people who operate them undertake and the great difficulties they have. Frequently addresses have to be changed in order that men will not be able to chase their wives. The addresses are often kept secret. There are a number of refuges in Glasgow, but now I do not know where any of them are. They are sometimes in local authority premises or in houses that the local authority has allocated, sometimes in large houses. I know that Glasgow University has given a house which was not going to be used for some time.
Women who are in fear of their lives and who fear for the health of their children run away from home and go to these refuges because they have been abused and physically assaulted by their husbands. The Scottish women's aid groups would like to have an administrative figure deducted from the community tax to allow them to pay for the considerable administrative duties that they will need to undertake if they become liable for the community charge.
It is difficult to determine the population of a refuge as it tends to fluctuate quite dramatically. Some women will stay for 24 hours only or perhaps a couple of days; others will stay for two or three weeks and others for two or three months. They may have children with them, so housing them is a problem, particularly if they are going to stay for any length of time. When an authority has severely limited housing stock or a bad policy for the homeless, women have sometimes been known to stay in a refuge for 12 to 18 months awaiting a house of their own where they can get away from the man who has been the cause of all the trouble in the first place.
The calculation of a meaningful multiplier for a 12-month period could be very difficult when some people stay for two or three days, some for two or three weeks and some for two or three months or even for a full 12 months. If the multiplier had to be amended weekly, this would provide much greater accuracy but at the expense of administrative inconvenience. In any case, I believe it has already prescribed by Clause 13(1). Guidance in the calculation of the multiplier for refuges is required. It is essential that erroneous calculation of the multiplier does not result in women's aid groups having to find special funds just to meet the difference between the amount of the community charge due and the amount collected. Therefore, I feel that this is a very special case.
This is a peculiar type of voluntary organisation. Almost everyone involved gives their help voluntarily, at great inconvenience to themselves, spending a lot of time in the houses. I hope that the Minister will find some way of accommodating this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: Although we have already considered the position of women living in women's refuges, or refuge homes as these amendments refer to them, during our discussion of Clause 2, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for introducing the matter again at this stage.
As a result of our previous discussions, the Committee will recall that I agreed to take away and reconsider the proposition that such homes should in all cases be retained in rating, with those of their residents who were solely or mainly resident there being thereby exempted from any personal community charge liability. What I now have to say is without prejudice to that reconsideration. However, it may be of assistance to the Committee if I set out our views on the precise amendments before us.
Amendment No. 163A would ensure that refuge homes were never made liable to the collective community charge. That is consistent with the proposition which has already been put forward that they should remain in rating. However, I am not clear that it would be wise at this stage to exclude the possibility of collective community charge treatment for those homes. It seems to me that in some cases at least they would fall within the main category of premises suitable for the collective community charge set out in Clause 11(2) (i), that they:
"are used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of persons most or all of whom reside there only for short periods".
If therefore such homes and their residents are to attract any form of community charge liability—and I repeat that what I am saying is without prejudice to our further consideration of the proposition that they should remain in rating—a collective community charge treatment would seem at least to be a viable option.
I understand that the concerns expressed by Scottish women's aid groups and others relate in part to the anonymity of those living in refuge homes. That anonymity could not be preserved if individual residents were registered and liable for the personal community charge, since their names would appear opposite the address in the publicly available part of the register. That would not be the case if they were treated as collective. I accept that in that case it might be possible for those seeking to trace women living in such homes to do so by identifying them from the appearance of the collective community charge multiplier on the public register.
However, I have mentioned that Amendment No. 226, tabled by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, provides a mechanism whereby that multiplier in prescribed cases should not appear on the public register. The use of that power of prescription would seem to meet the concern which has been voiced on that score.
Amendment No. 191B would require premises operated as refuge homes to be excluded entirely from the register. The implication of this would appear to be that no form of community charge liability would be recorded in relation to their residence. That is again in line with the proposition which we are considering: that they should remain in rating. However, I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, that even that solution may not meet in
958
full the concern which has been voiced about the anonymity of residents in homes of that kind. If they remained in rating they would be the only ordinary dwelling-houses which would continue to appear on the valuation roll. I submit that that might well make them just as conspicuous as collective community charge treatment, with the multiplier appearing on the register.
I therefore fully take the force of the concerns which have been expressed about refuge homes and their residents. We have already undertaken to consider their position again. However, it would be wrong for me to leave Members of the Committee with the impression that we see any single means of dealing with these homes under the new system as providing the solution to all the problems about which concern has been expressed. This is a difficult area and we shall consider it further. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Do I understand, first, that the Minister has agreed to take the position of people who go to the refuge homes (I recall that from a previous debate last week); secondly, that the Minister will also incorporate in his consideration the position of the homes as such as rateable properties; and that the whole matter of the status of refuge homes, as well as the status of the temporary occupants of refuge homes, will be considered and that the Minister will come back to us?
Lord Burton: I felt that what my noble friend said was encouraging. I have considerable sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I come across these refuges quite often because the people concerned come to our district council looking for money. They have considerable difficulty financing themselves and I think that we should be careful not to burden them with any additional finance.
On the other hand, they are an emergency refuge and we must be careful that people are not taken in on a long-term basis, as I know has happened on a number of occasions. Someone staying there for a long time is taking up the accommodation required for the emergency case. Therefore we must be careful not to exclude someone from the community charge, thinking that they are quite safe and can sit there for a long time Apart from that matter, I hope that my noble friend can look sympathetically at this amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: On the last occasion that the question of refuges was raised, I understood the Minister to say that the position of refuges operated by women's aid associations in particular would receive the most sympathetic consideration, and that we could expect something at a later stage in the Bill which quite clearly met the gravamen of their concerns. That was my clear understanding of what the Minister said on that occasion.
The Earl of Dundee: I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, on those points. We shall be

959
considering together all those matters with regard to refuges.
I should like to answer an earlier point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in regard to the calculation of the multiplier. The multiplier will reflect the numbers of people who are typically solely or mainly resident in women's refuges. We shall be meeting representatives of Scottish Women's Aid to discuss this with the other wider implications.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for the efforts that he has made in coming towards the object of these amendments. There probably will be difficulty in finding a typical occupancy rate. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I do not think that there is any great desire on the part of the women to stay in some of the refuges for very long. The real problem is that sometimes there are no local authority houses for them. If housing cannot be provided for them, it is difficult to get them to move on.
I should like to comment on the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and I continually return to this point. At some point there will need to be a register of property. The Minister said that the fact that premises had been omitted from a list would destroy its anonymity. That tends to suggest to me that it is contemplated that there will be a list, in order that an address can be omitted from it. That point goes all the way through the Bill, and perhaps it is a hobby-horse of mine. However, I am sure that at some point we shall need to have a register. I am grateful to the Minister for the efforts that he has made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 10, line 9, leave out ("sole or main").
The noble Lord said: I think that difficulties are created by the definition in respect of premises where the collective community charge shall be payable. Once again I emphasise that it states "premises" and not "persons", so in many ways that runs counter to the whole principle of personal responsibility that underlies the Bill. There are difficulties in respect of these kinds of premises.
The paragraph reads:
"are designated by the registration officer as premises which, in his opinion, are used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of persons most or all of whom reside there only for short periods".
I hardly call that a sole or main residence. We have not yet had a definition of "sole or main residence". Very often it is the kind of residence where, when people are in trouble in the courts and are asked for their address, they give it as "no fixed abode". That is very often what happens. They are only there for two or three nights. It is not their sole address; they may have half a dozen within two or three months, and certainly within a year or so. They float from one place to another. I am suggesting that we remove the words "sole or main".
I should like to include Amendment No. 164A. We may ease the situation, or even solve it, in respect of the problem that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, says he will look at in the cases of houses of refuge and of these women, if we leave out "sole or main" and leave out all after "persons", so that it would read:
"which, in his opinion, are used wholly or mainly as the residence of persons for whom individual registration is impracticable".
In addition I would add "or undesirable", and leave that to the decision of the electoral officer. That may be something that is quite wrong altogether, but I put it forward as a suggestion.
I am probing to see whether we could make some kind of change here that would be to advantage. In many cases it is impracticable for many of these people to fill in these kind of forms for a couple of days and then to be charged, and paid. The difficulties for those who are running these premises are almost impossible to catch up with. If at the same time they are in receipt of some kind of benefit and they want help, these charges are going to be available under later clauses and it is going to be almost impossible to track them down. It is going to be difficult.
If they go without paying this particular charge, it will be anybody's business. If it is only two or three nights, how much will it be? If they can get away with it they just will not pay for it, although it may be a matter for the efficiency of the owner of the premises. It is one of the difficulties that arise because of this, but I object to the words "sole" or "main" when really what they mean is "of no fixed abode". I beg to move.
Lord Gray: Not for the first time in our scrutiny of this Bill we are faced with a passage which requires a remarkable degree of mental agility on the part of the reader before it becomes comprehensible. I want to direct my remarks to Amendment No. 164 rather than to the two which I understand are linked with it. I am in some sympathy with Amendment No. 164 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. My interest is in the drafting of subsection (2) and the inclusion of the words "sole or main" in it.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur may be able to demonstrate that the words "sole or main" are essential. If he does so prove, I suggest that he invites the draftsman to move the word "used" in line 9 so that the passage we are complaining about would read:
"are wholly or mainly used as the sole or main residence".
Doing so might dilute the purity of the language a little, but it would make it immediately clear that "wholly or mainly" refers to premises and "sole or main" refers to persons.
Since I am making a wholly, mainly or solely drafting point I hope that it will not receive a wholly unfavourable response. I have not quite finished with the point, because it has tentacles which reach out into other parts of Clause 11 and even beyond that. The words "sole or main" actually enter Clause 11 by another gate.
Perhaps my noble friend would glance at Clause 26 on page 20. There he will find at the foot of the page an interpretation of "part residential subjects". The description "part or residential subjects" features in Clause 11 and is one of the categories of premises to which sub-paragraph (i) of subsection (2) of that

961
clause, which contains the words "sole or main", qualifies.
If my noble friend reads the interpretation of "part residential subjects" he will discover that it imports into Clause 11 the very words "sole or main" to which Amendment No. 164 draws our attention. In the interpretation, however, the words "sole or main" are qualified by the words "which are occupied partly". This appears to conflict with what is set out in Clause 11 where the qualification is "wholly or mainly".
If my noble friend, and any other noble Lord who has managed to follow me this far, will turn again to page 20—and I am still on the same point—he, and they, will find that the interpretation of "part residential subjects" includes the words "other than domestic subjects". Turning back again, I am afraid, to Clause 11 we find at line 5 the description:
"not subject to non-domestic rates".
Apart from jibbing at the use of "subject" in line 5 and "subjects" in line 6 in two entirely different senses, I am wondering why on earth the draftsman did not simply use the words "domestic subjects" at line 5 instead of,
"not subject to non-domestic rates".
If line 5 simply said "domestic subjects or" and then line 7 started with the word "but" instead of the word "and", I submit that it would make the clause a good deal clearer.
I am sorry I have to read this but I would lose myself if I did not. My consideration of why the draftsman employed the phrase,
"not subject to non-domestic rates",
here and in Clause 10—and, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in Clause 8—has led me to the conclusion that the sole reason was that, although there is an interpretation of the alternative, which is "domestic subjects" in Clause 6 and which refers only to Part I of the Bill, there is no interpretation of the phrase "domestic subjects" in Clause 26 which provides the interpretation for the remainder of the Bill.
That brings us back full circle to the discussion we had last week as to whether there ought to be two separate interpretation clauses in the one Bill. If my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has not managed to follow me on my tour of Clause 11(2) and Clause 26 I shall not be surprised. I found myself at risk of getting somewhat lost. However, I hope at least that he will ask the draftsman to study the Official Report and seriously to consider what I have said. I apologise for taking so long but there was no other way in which I could make points that I think are relevant to our scrutiny of this Bill.
Lord Kirkhill: If the Minister would not think this an arrogant remark on my part let me say to him that when I used to sit where he now does I always found, as did some of the draftsmen—perhaps not all of them—and most of the mandarins in the Scottish Office that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, was usually correct.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Since this is the first occasion on which we have dealt in detail with the question of the collective community charge I ought perhaps to start by describing in general terms how we envisage the operation of the collective community charge. The Green Paper proposed that in order to deal with the small numbers of people whose mode of life was so mobile as to make individual registration of the personal community charge impracticable, a collective community charge should be levied in respect of the premises in which such people live.
The essential criterion for the application of the collective community charge is therefore the transience of the residents of any particular premises. The premises will be designated by the registration officer and the charge will be payable by the owner or long-term tenant of the premises. That person will be registered in the community charges register as liable to pay the collective community charge and therefore will have a right of appeal against designation as part of his right of appeal against entry in the register under Clause 16(1)(a). The appeal will lie to the sheriff. This will provide redress for the person who considers that the registration officer has not made sufficient efforts to register individually the people living in his premises before designating them as suitable for collective community charge treatment.
Essentially, therefore, the charge is an alternative to the personal community charge for people who are very mobile and for that reason it must relate to sole or main residence of the people who live in the premises to which it applies. The first amendment of the noble Lord opposite would, as he says, delete the words "sole or main", thus making it possible for registration officers to designate further collective community charge premises which are not used as anyone's sole or main residence. While the main examples of premises in this category—hotels, guesthouses and that sort of thing—will normally remain in non-domestic rating, the amendment would nevertheless remove one of the main criteria on which registration officers would be required to designate premises for the collective community charge and could therefore lead to confusion.
As to the length of residence, the phrase "sole or main residence" will mean in general that the person has no other house, even if this position lasts only for a short time. It is of course conceivable that some premises which are liable for the collective community charge will have some residents who are not in fact solely or mainly resident on the premises but who are staying there temporarily while remaining registered for the personal community charge at their home addresses.
A liability for the collective community charge will depend on the collective community charge multiplier provided for by subsections (7) to (9) and the multiplier will reflect the number of people who are typically solely or mainly resident on the premises. Only those who are so resident will be required to pay to the landlord the collective community charge contribution provided for by subsections (10) to (16).

963
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray for raising these quite complex drafting points. He suggested that the reference to premises which are not subject to non-domestic rates in Clause 11(2) (a) might be replaced, if I have understood him correctly, by a reference to "domestic subjects". It is the case that "domestic subjects" are taken off the valuation roll under Part I of the Bill and will not be subject to non-domestic rates. However, although I will give further consideration to that point, I do not think it would be appropriate to refer to "domestic subjects" in Clause 11(2) (a). In 10 or 15 years' time it will be far easier to determine whether premises are not as a matter of fact subject to non-domestic rates than it will be to determine whether they would have fallen within the definition of "domestic subjects" under Clause 2(3).
My noble friend also asked whether it would be clearer if Clause 11(2) (b) (i) referred to premises which are "wholly or mainly" used rather than used "mainly or wholly", if I have correctly understood the burden of his argument, as the sole or main residence of persons. I do not see any real or material distinction between the two formulations. There are those who may prefer the present wording of the Bill because the adverbs follow the verbs rather than appearing between the auxiliary and the main verb. I have to say to the noble Lord that this approach is also followed in other Acts. I can refer my noble friend, for example, to Section 32(5) of the Capital Allowance Act 1968, which refers to "vehicles provided" and goes on to say, "wholly or mainly" for a particular purpose.
My noble friend has raised some important points and I will certainly study them. With the complex explanation which he gave, I do not think he would necessarily expect me to answer his points too quickly off the cuff: but I will certainly do what I can to see that those points are taken care of, together with the question of the two separate clauses under the two separate parts of the Bill in relation to the definitions contained there, interpretation being the theme. I hope, with those explanations, that my noble friend is at least content that I shall look at this matter again. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, appreciates a little more fully the effect of his amendment on this part of the Bill.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Yes, I do; and I waste no more time. I ask leave to withdraw that amendment. As to the next one, it is far too important to withdraw and therefore I shall not move it. I would ask leave to withdraw No. 164, and I shall not move No. 164A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: Your Lordships' Committee may feel that this is a convenient moment to break our proceedings and return to the subject at twenty-five minutes to nine. If so, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill
7.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1 [Extension of the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner]:
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 17, leave out sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii)
The noble and learned Lord said: This clause is the most fundamental part of this Bill, the part which gives effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, 1983–84, on non-departmental public bodies and to the response of the Government to those recommendations, whereby it was agreed on all sides that the functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which up to this time extend to the maladministration of government bodies, should be extended to include a number of what are these days called quangos; in other words, non-departmental public bodies.
There is no difference of view about that. The difference which manifested itself in the other place, and which indeed has manifested itself throughout the history of the consideration of this matter, was what the limits should be as to the bodies which would fall within the extension. One can see very clearly, reading from parts of the report of the Select Committee, that there were considerable differences of view.
Paragraph 6 of the Select Committee's report states that the distinguished former civil servant Sir Leo Pliatzky, who gave evidence,
"spoke of 'bodies which have a role in the process of Government in the United Kingdom but which are not Government Departments or part of a Government Department'."
The Select Committee commented that the,
"bodies in this class are numerous and heterogeneous. The amount of public money they spend varies from little or nothing to millions of pounds per year."
In paragraph 12, adopting the approach of Sir Leo Pliatzky, the Select Committee noted that he had suggested,
"in respect at least of the largest, most expensive bodies, that they should all be brought within PCA jurisdiction unless it could be shown that there were good reasons for not doing so. The CSD suggested function as a criterion".
The Parliamentary Commissioner himself, then Sir Cecil Clothier,
"suggested a selective approach and gave us in oral evidence a short list of the bodies over which he felt it would be suitable that he should have jurisdiction. Most of them were grant-giving bodies, though a few were involved in licensing".
In the course of his evidence, he drew attention to the fact that sometimes a complaint was brought to

965
him which at first sight appeared to lie against a government department, but when the initial investigation was entered into it showed that, in fact, it lay against a non-departmental body. He said that in some of those cases there was prima facie evidence of maladministration which he would like to investigate, but he could not, and cannot for the moment, do so because his powers do not extend that far. So we had various criteria put forward. In the other House the matter was discussed in the context of Schedule 2 to the Bill, which sets out those bodies that the Bill suggests should now be subject to investigation—government departments and others.
This amendment tackles the problem in a somewhat different way which is very much more akin to the suggestion of Sir Leo Pliatzky. It accepts a number of limitations, such as the limitation that the body concerned should be established by virtue of the prerogative, by an Act of Parliament, by an order or in some other statutory way. It accepts the limitations which are set out in subsection (5) of Clause 1, which are perfectly proper. However, what it does—and this is the vital matter—is as follows.
The Bill as it stands provides the limitation that the body concerned should be one at least half of whose revenues derive directly from money provided by Parliament or some other statutory charge, and that it should be one which is wholly or partly constituted by appointment made by the Crown or a government department.
It is not easy to see why those limitations should be imposed and, in particular, the limitation with regard to the revenues. The limitation that at least half of the revenues is to be derived from Parliament is bound to create anomalies between one body and another, and indeed in the same body from one year to another, and I am not altogether sure how that difficulty will be resolved.
The basis of that restriction is not too clear. It may lie—and I raised this point on Second Reading—in the concept that, if a body is supported by public funds, then it is open to a Member of Parliament to complain to a Minister to bring the matter before the other House or this House, and so parliamentary control can be expressed. But the Select Committee itself drew attention to the fact that we have reached a stage where the very authority of the Parliamentary Commissioner is normally sufficient. They say in paragraph 16:
"The experience of the Health Service Commissioner suggests that compliance can be achieved without any direct sanction, the authority of the Commissioner and the displeasure of Parliament, expressed in the first instance through this Committee, having always proved sufficient to secure the suggested remedy."
This could be done just as well in circumstances where the body concerned does not have at least half of its revenues deriving from public funds.
There are, of course, other procedures that would be open, but the reality of the matter, in our view, is that the prestige of the Parliamentary Commissioner after 20 years is such that bodies which are charged by him with maladministration and causing injustice are extremely unlikely to refuse to give a remedy, whether they he government departments or non-departmental public bodies. To deprive the citizen of a remedy against bodies of that kind, because the remedy cannot
966
be a 100 per cent. remedy, seems to be an illogical step and not to go in the direction in which this Bill quite properly seeks to go, which is to ensure as far as possible that the citizen has a remedy against all forms of maladministration causing injustice to the citizen.
The amendment has been expressed as it has so that, although the criteria, if the amendment were accepted, would be criteria which could govern the second schedule, in the sense that one could immediately add to the second schedule new bodies that fell within the revised criteria, it would not be necessary to do that because the Government could say, "We accept the new, more limited criteria as from now and we will consider what bodies are appropriate". In the words of Sir Leo Pliatzky, they could all be brought within the jurisdiction unless it could be shown that there were good reasons for not doing so.
So it would be for the Government to look at the bodies which qualified, as it were, after the amendment had been carried and decide for the future—one by one, if you like—which bodies should be brought within the operation of the Commissioner. I hope that the Government will take the view that that is a reasonable way of dealing with the matter and will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: This was indeed a matter which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to at Second Reading and, if I may say so, I think that the difficulty that the Government see with the amendment which the noble and learned Lord has put forward is this. When the 1967 Act was passed, the Parliamentary Commissioner was appointed to carry out responsibilities on behalf of Members of another place to protect the individual against maladministration by the state. As the White Paper then said, he was seen as developing and reinforcing existing constitutional rights of the individuals.
In the present Bill, it is fair to say that we are still effectively dealing with the regulation of relations between the individual and the apparatus of the state, where a body has been authorised, either directly by statute or by administrative decision, to carry out responsibilities which directly affect individuals. In such cases, accountability through Ministers to Parliament is normally retained through ultimate ministerial responsibility for the funding and appointment of members to the bodies, and these are the factors reflected in the criteria in the Bill which the amendment would delete.
In case the Committee feels that I am being too immovable on this matter and that I have not listened to the argument of the noble and learned Lord, perhaps I may go on to make the point that I think that this amendment would have a very difficult result. As I see it, it would bring within potential jurisdiction any corporation or body with any public element, however remote, in its establishment, regardless of whether it affects individuals or the nature of any such relationship.
For example, I have in mind that the amendment would cover all bodies set up by statute, including, incidentally, the commissioner himself; all local and health authorities; and, as I read it, every body

967
established by Royal Charter, however remote from dealings with the ordinary public. For example, it would affect the Royal Ballet, the English Speaking Union, the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, trade associations, livery companies and professional bodies. I am therefore saying that although I have listened to the argument of the noble and learned Lord I think that the amendment goes too far.
The noble and learned Lord ended with a persuasive point when he said that in effect we should keep the schedule as it is but use the amendment for the future. May I put that in a different way to the noble and learned Lord? I should obviously like to keep the schedule as it is. However, in resisting the amendment, for the reasons which I have given, perhaps I may say that if the noble and learned Lord or any other noble Lords can think of individual candidates for listing which our present criteria seemed to omit, then if any noble Lords taking part in the Committee stage put them to the Government before the next stage of the Bill, we shall be glad to look further at individual cases. However, so far as the general principle is concerned, although I realise that the noble and learned Lord feels that we are being restrictive, I feel that this amendment goes too far.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble and learned Lord responds, may I ask the Minister to elaborate further? Am I to understand that if noble Lords can think of bodies which ought to be included on the merits of their own case, a means will be found of amending the schedule? Surely we should not make amendments to the schedule without first deleting the sub-paragraphs referred to in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I should have been more explicit. I am saying that if the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has in mind a body which should be regarded as part of the apparatus of government but whose impact on the individual is such that it is a proper candidate to be in the Bill, we should be very glad to look at it. Where I hoped I made myself clear was in saying that when one has a body which is clearly not part of the apparatus of government, then I feel that such a body is not a suitable candidate. I have to be downright on that point on behalf of the Government.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: I am grateful to the Minister for a clear exposition of the position of the Government on that matter. So far as the latter part of his remarks is concerned, he was clearly seized of a point that the amendments do not force the Government to include any body. We should have to have an Order in Council that Parliament supported.
All the amendment seeks to do is to remove restrictions on the Government and Parliament for the future. In other words, those bodies, which the noble Lord may have objected to quite properly, such as the English Speaking Union, would not be forced to be included. The Government would simply not include them, although they could technically do so if the amendment were carried. They would not be forced to do so because it would be a matter for the Minister to bring forward an order and to say that certain bodies
968
should be included. It would then be a matter for Parliament to decide whether or not to include them. I find it difficult to see why either Parliament or the Government would in any way be handicapped by accepting the amendment.
So far as concerns the other part of the noble Lord's remarks, I can see that the mere deletion of subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) might have consequences or be capable of having consequences which I have not fully worked out. I am only to happy to accept the considerations which the Government have given to possible consequences of the amendment being accepted. I should have thought, however, that the Government logically should follow that part of the noble Lord's speech by saying that they will look at it themselves and see whether they can work out a formula which is not as restrictive as the formula in the Bill, which would cut out automatically certain bodies, so that even if the Minister and Parliament wished to include them they could not be included without a new primary piece of legislation.
They might look at the matter and see whether they can produce a compromise formula which does not go quite so far as that suggested in the amendment but which at least meets the spirit of the evidence before the Select Committee, which I have detailed in moving the amendment. I shall be very happy if the Minister is prepared to consider that. In any event, I shall not seek to divide the Committee at this time of night on this matter. I have ventilated it and I hope that it will be considered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of 1967 Act.
.—The 1967 Act shall be amended as follows—

(a) in section 5(I)(a) after the word "Commons" there shall be inserted "or House of Lords";

(b) in section 5(1)(b) for the words "that House" there shall be substituted "one of those Houses";

(c) in section 6(3) after the word "Commons" there shall be inserted "or House of Lords"; and

(d) in section 10(5)(b) after the word "Commons" there shall be inserted "or House of Lords".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment takes the form of a new clause which seeks to amend the 1967 Act in a variety of ways which may look complicated and which it would be tedious to go through at this hour. However, the aim of the amendment is very simple and direct, and I shall explain that aim.
As noble Lords may recollect, the Act of 1967 provides that complaints of maladministration from which it is believed that an injustice may have arisen must be put to the parliamentary commissioner via a Member of the House of Commons. The Act does not specify which Member of the House of Commons must be approached and it does not for a moment have to be a citizen's own Member of the House of Commons. Nor does it have to be the Member of the House of Commons who sits for the area of the country which is affected by the particular decision about which the citizen is aggrieved.
It is a fact that on many occasions a citizen's own Member has perhaps refused or declined to transmit a

969
complaint to the parliamentary commissioner and he has sought the help of another Member in putting the case. The parliamentary commissioner has then been able to look at the case. There are many such cases. The Act therefore does not provide that the citizen's own Member of Parliament or one directly concerned in the matter should be approached.
The problem is that there is no provision for such complaints to be put to the parliamentary commissioner on behalf of a citizen by a Member of this Chamber. Frankly, that seems unreasonable. Many noble Lords are in very close contact with many ordinary citizens and with voluntary bodies and other organisations up and down the country. They often deal with matters of injustice and often the attention of noble Lords is drawn to a particular case. Individuals may often feel that they have a case which the parliamentary commissioner should look at, because it may be that there has been maladministration and that the parliamentary commissioner may be able to recommend a remedy. If any of us in this Chamber receive such complaints, we must then suggest to the individual that he or we approach his Member of Parliament in the House of Commons—although we in this Chamber are also Members of Parliament and I should have thought that that should be recognised. I should have thought that we could extend the Bill in this way.
This matter has cropped up many times at Question Time and support has been given by members of all parties to the idea of extending the provision to Peers. I fully accept that were we all to be tied to what we happened to say at Question Time on a particular day the whole party structure in your Lordships' House might well suffer cataclysmic effects. We say different things from time to time. I merely make the point that the idea of giving Members of the House of Lords the power that Members of the House of Commons have to pass cases where they deem it is proper to the parliamentary commissioner has had support in your Lordships' House from members of all parties.
It may be argued that once one does that many more cases will go to the commissioner. I do not think that that is true. Noble Lords are just as capable of deciding what is an appropriate case to be looked at by the parliamentary commissioner as a Member of the House of Commons. As Members of the Committee are aware, the commissioner himself has many other protections whereby he can decline to look at a case. For example, the complainant must have exhausted his remedies through the law; the case must fall within the various categories prescribed in the Bill; the event complained of must have happened within a certain time limit; it must have happened within the United Kingdom; and there are various other conditions. Noble Lords are just as able as Members of another place to advise complaining citizens about that point. I should have thought that they could assist in the matter.
This is a simple amendment. It seeks merely to allow Members of your Lordships' House to pass cases, where they believe it is justified to pass such cases, to the parliamentary commissioner. I should have thought that the Government might accept the amendment. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Auckland: I hope that the Committee will take note of what the noble Lord has said. There is the obvious objection that your Lordships' House is not an elected Chamber and that therefore complaints going to the commissioner could come from a body of people who are not in any way elected. It may well be that this would have to be done through your Lordships' House through the local Member of Parliament concerned.
I say this because I had an example when I initiated a debate in your Lordships' House on the National Health Service some years ago. I received a number of letters regarding the pay of physiotherapists. One was from the father of a young physiotherapist from the New Forest. I referred the matter to my noble cousin, as he now is, who was then the honourable Member for Bournemouth, West. I received a rocket from the father for doing so because it was a confidential matter, so he said. I made the point that I had to refer it through the elected Member because of the procedure.
The point is that your Lordships' House is now a much more professional House. We work full time. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, receives much correspondence particularly on matters connected with the health service, and as an ordinary Back-Bencher I do so similarly. There is some substance in the noble Lord's amendment that the commissioners should be able to receive deputations or complaints through your Lordships' House, bearing in mind that it is a very different House from what it was 20 years ago. We are receiving far more correspondence now not only on health matters but on others. With the increased responsibilities of this noble House we should be able to make our voice heard and I think that the country as a whole would benefit. Whether the amendment is adequately drafted is another matter, but I think that the substance deserves serious consideration.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made a persuasive case and my noble friend Lord Auckland has supported him. I think it is right just to bear in mind that the Select Committee took the view, which was accepted by the Government, that procedures for referral of complaints against non-departmental public bodies should be the same as for complaints against government departments. The Select Committee made no recommendation that procedures for referral should be widened to include Members of this House.
Why is this so? Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made the point that sometimes it would be very desirable for a Member of this House to be the recipient of a complaint. Indeed, I yield to no one in my recognition of the fact that there are most certainly occasions (and I have no doubt that these days they have become more frequent) when Members of this House receive approaches of various kinds from members of the public. As I explained at Second Reading an ad hoc arrangement exists under which the parliamentary commissioner, with the agreement of a complainant, can forward a directly submitted complaint to an

971
appropriate Member of another place so that the matter can be pursued further.
Very few complaints are referred to the commissioner by Members of this House. When they are, the commissioner notifies the noble Lord in question and the complainant of the procedures for referral laid down under the 1967 Act and suggests that the complaint should be made through an appropriate Member of Parliament. There is a procedure whereby Members of your Lordships' House can be involved if they have received the complaint.
Why am I being difficult on behalf of the Government about this? It is because I think that there is a matter of principle here. The procedure for referring through a Member of the House of Commons in part recognises the unique relationship which exists between a Member of another place and a constituent. This relationship ensures that referral of a complaint to the commissioner by a Member of another place is a right which is available to everyone in the country. Although it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, that there are occasions when individuals may approach their Member of Parliament and find that in the end they need to put their complaint through another Member of the other House, nonetheless that matter of principle was in the mind of the Select Committee which did not make the recommendation being made by the noble Lord. That is in the mind of the Government and it is basically for that reason of principle that I feel I must resist the amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his careful, thoughtful and considered reply. However, I am bound to say to him that I do not regard it as altogether satisfactory. He has explained that there is a procedure whereby this hurdle can be overcome. There is a procedure only because the hurdle exists. The noble Lord explained the procedure. An aggrieved person writes to a Member of your Lordships' House and that Member decides that it is a case where clearly there has been maladministration and that the most simple remedy for this person is to take the matter to the parliamentary commissioner. If he then sends the case himself to the parliamentary commissioner, there is a procedure, because the parliamentary commissioner has to write back and say that he is very sorry but he is not allowed to take complaints direct from a Member of the House of Lords, only from a Member of the House of Commons. Then, having informed the Member of that, he perhaps writes to a Member of the House of Commons to suggest that he puts the case. Of course there is a procedure. The procedure has been devised by time because of the existence of this constraint. My argument is that the constraint need not necessarily exist.
We have a parallel in a sense. Normally there is a presumption that a complaint to the local commissioner for administration should be put through a councillor. However, there is a provision in the Act whereby the local commissioner has the discretionary power to look at a complaint which is referred directly to him if he considers, in the circumstances, that it is understandable that the
972
complaint has been referred directly to him. Indeed, the complaint could be about the councillor to whom the person might have been expected to put the complaint.
Therefore, if we can have an exception in relation to the local commissioner, why do we need to have this particular constraint here? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, has an amendment to remove those constraints and allow complaints to go direct to the commissioner from individual complainants. It would not be appropriate for me to discuss that now but I can see that one of the arguments against it would be that it might open the floodgates. That does not mean I accept that argument, but it is an argument that might be advanced against it. However, my amendment does not open any floodgates. It merely recognises what is increasingly recognised in Britain today—that we have two Houses of Parliament. It is often forgotten. I am not suggesting that our Chamber is constituted in the way that everyone wishes. But most of us believe that a second Chamber is necessary and that without one we would be in grave difficulties. A second Chamber is a safety check for society and for the constitution in general. It perhaps prevents the pendulum swinging too wildly. Most of us accept that a second Chamber of government is a necessity and a valuable safeguard.
We have taken great pains recently to persuade the public to understand that there are two Houses of Parliament. We have taken certain steps in this House to help people to understand how this House of Parliament actually works. With the television experiment—it is no longer an experiment; it is reality—there is increasing understanding throughout the whole community of the way in which this House works. There is also increasing understanding of the fact that there are noble Lords in all parties in this Chamber whose own personal experience and knowledge are valuable. Many individual citizens seek the help of those noble Lords. If they seek their help on certain matters, why should they not be permitted to seek their help on this matter? If the noble Lord decides that the appropriate remedy for a complainant is through the parliamentary commissioner, why should he not have the power to do that?
I listened carefully to the noble Lord's reply. I understood it, but it appeared that the Minister justified the existence of this constraint merely by explaining that there was a procedure to dodge it. It would be much better to remove the constraint altogether. I do not intend to press this amendment at the moment but I believe that there are noble Lords in this Committee who would support me if I were to return to the matter at another stage of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 3:
Insert the following new clause:
("Widening of sources of complaint.
After the passing of this Act the Commissioner may exercise his power to investigate under section 5 of the 1967 Act (Matters subject to investigation) where a written complaint has been made to him by a member of the public; and if the complaint has not been made to a member of the House of Commons and has not been referred to the Commissioner by a member of that House the

973
Commissioner shall inform such member of that House as he thinks appropriate that he intends to investigate the complaint; and sections 6(3) and 10(1) of the 1967 Act shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Listening to the debate on the previous amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I became more than ever convinced that my amendment is sensible. It embraces much of what the noble Lord said because under my amendment it would be open to a Member of this House to bring to the attention of the parliamentary commissioner complaints made to that Member.
However, my amendment goes further. It would formally ratify the procedure to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred by allowing a citizen to make his complaint direct to the parliamentary commissioner. The parliamentary commissioner would then be empowered—I emphasise "empowered'—to accept the complaint if he thought fit; in other words, if the floodgates were not opened up and he thought there was merit in the complaint. But he would be required by the statute to do that which in practice he does already, or nearly so. He would have to inform a Member of Parliament. It would not necessarily be the Member for the constituency of the complainant—though that would be the normal procedure—but a Member of the other place "as he thinks appropriate". There, I have borrowed the words that appear in Section 10(1) of the existing 1967 Act which requires the parliamentary commissioner to make a report to the Member who referred the complaint or, if he is no longer a Member of that House, to such Member of that House as the commissioner thinks appropriate and inform him. In that, I have followed the words of the existing statute. The difference between the procedure in this amendment and the present procedure in practice is the difference between seeking permission and informing.
The Government may well take the view, as I do, that there is no real distinction between the two. I simply cannot see a Member of Parliament who is asked by the commissioner whether he will agree to the commissioner accepting a complaint direct saying, "No, I do not give my consent." Of course he will give his consent. In the rare circumstances where for some reason—perhaps a personal reason connected with the identity of a complainant—the Member of Parliament for his constituency says, "No, I do not give my consent" there are, as we know, over 600 other Members of Parliament whom the commissioner is able to approach and say, "Will you please forward this complaint to me", or, in the case of the amendment, such Members or any one of them can be informed by the commissioner. Therefore, in practice we are not attempting anything very much in this amendment.
In replying to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, the Minister suggested that it was a matter of principle that these complaints should go through a Member of Parliament. I do not know whether that is the view of the Select Committee, or whose view it is, but I do not believe that it is the reason why the provision was made in 1967 requiring
974
the complaint to be made in the first instance through a Member of Parliament or any Member of Parliament. I mentioned on Second Reading that I took part in the debates on the Bill as it went through the other place and the argument which was always put forward for that restriction was that in this country, at the beginning of the new system of the ombudsman—and the parliamentary commissioner was the first of the various commissioners that were established—nobody knew whether or not the floodgates would open and the intercession of a Member of Parliament was to avoid, as far as possible, that happening.
It is interesting that when we came to the health service commissioner—who is today the same person as the parliamentary commissioner but dealing with health service matters and not with maladministration by government departments—Parliament did not think it necessary to impose such a restraint, and that restraint does not apply. A citizen can go direct to the health service commissioner, who, as I said, is the same man as the parliamentary commissioner, but he still cannot go direct to the very same man in his capacity as parliamentary commissioner. I confess that I do not follow what basic principle is involved in that distinction.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has already referred to the position of the local commissioners. Therefore, even though the Select Committee did not come forward with this proposal—understandably, and no doubt having in mind the certain jealousy of the House it represents—I hope that the Government will take the view that it is a very small change from the practical change which was, in effect, forced upon the parliamentary commissioner by the fact that so many people wrote direct to him and he felt that it was absurd to reply saying, "I cannot deal with this until you go through a Member of Parliament". Therefore, he put the matters to Members of Parliament himself. It is a very small change and it seems to me it would be unnecessarily rigid for the Government to refuse to accept it. I very much hope that this time they will accept. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: It is absolutely true, as the noble and learned Lord says, that in practice this amendment would do little more than formalise the current ad hoc arrangements for handling complaints from the general public submitted to the commissioner. The current arrangements seem to work satisfactorily, but perhaps that is rather a lame answer to a very well, characteristically expertly presented case.
Perhaps I may draw one or two other points to my aid in resisting the amendment since, for a reason which I shall come to finally, I feel it needs to be resisted. The first of the supplementary reasons which I would call to my aid is that the Select Committee took the view when it reviewed access to the commissioner in 1978 that direct access would be of no great benefit to the public. I know that is some time ago. The noble Lord said "Look at the health service" but, when one comes to look at the health service, the citizen cannot go direct the the health service commissioner. With respect, the complaint must go first to the local health authority for consideration. As the noble and learned Lord well knows, the situation

975
in the health service is a little different from the complaints coming to the parliamentary commissioner, in the sense that the complaints coming through the hospital service go to the commissioner eventually. The family practitioner service is in a rather different position.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I accept that. But surely the Minister would agree with me that the best practice, at any rate in relation to a complaint against a government department or one of the new bodies which will be added to the list is for the complaint to go first of all in exactly the same way to that body for a reply. It is only if the reply is unsatisfactory in the normal way that a complaint is then made to the parliamentary commissioner. In the same way as if the reply from the body complained about is unsatisfactory, the complaint goes to the health service commissioner direct.
Lord Belstead: With respect, I am not entirely sure I agree. That is why I added the last few words that the position in the health service as far as the health service commissioner is concerned is rather different from the position as far as the parliamentary commissioner is concerned. The parliamentary commissioner covers a very, very much wider area.
The noble and learned Lord has also called in aid the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, about the local commissioner. I hope noble Lords will not think I am being evasive when I say that I am well aware of the Widdicombe recommendation, but we must wait for the Government response on Widdicombe, which it is for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to give.
Not only should decisions on Widdicombe not necessarily be considered to be a precedent for the parliamentary commissioner, but one needs to bear in mind that, in geographical terms, the position of the individual citizen vis á vis local government is rather different from that of the individual vis á vis a government department. Geographically the individual citizen stands much closer to local government: he can go and talk to them, even if he is preparing a complaint, whereas the individual citizen may be hundreds of miles away from a government department.
In addition, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, there is a defect here, in that the amendment does not contain a provision for the parliamentary commissoner to consult the complainant before referring the complaint to another place. That could be put right if the Government were accepting the amendment.
I come to the final point, and I fear we do not agree on this. I think this is a matter of principle, I hesitate to say this, as the noble and learned Lord was present in another place and took a leading part when the legislation was going through another place and I was not present. I only know this at second hand, but my understanding is that Parliament took the view that it was right that the individual citizen should be able to avail himself or herself of a right which everyone in the country has—that if the individual citizen feels he has
976
a complaint of maladministration against a government department he can, as the 1967 Act provides, go to his Member of Parliament, because everybody has a Member of Parliament. I feel the Government would not wish in this Bill to breach that principle.
It is because of that final reason that I am so resistant to what is otherwise a very reasonable amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I recollect the debates in another place on this matter in which I also took part. We were worried at that time about the floodgate fear—the fear that a flood of applications would come in from the individual citizen and that MPs might resent it and feel that they would be bypassed. However in practice what has been the experience of countries like New Zealand which have allowed direct access, as I believe to be the case, from the citizen to the ombudsman? We drew a great deal on the experience of New Zealand when we evolved this concept of the ombudsman, so I am not asserting that it has worked very well, but, if the Minister had any information on that, it might be of value and of great interest. Has there been such an indication that there would be a flood, if the citizen were to write directly to the ombudsman or approach him directly, I wonder? I doubt it very much.
I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Silkin has rendered a service in opening this issue and it would be interesting to hear of the experience in other countries. I am bound to say, very cautiously, that as between one MP and another there is a good deal of difference. There is a certain reluctance of some constituents, so I am told, to make an approach through the Member of Parliament when an intelligent constituent with a grievance can perfectly well put it forward himself by direct approach. However, I may be treading on very dangerous ground in advancing that argument.
I think this deserves to be looked at again, particularly in the light of experience in other countries of similar standards of democracy, education and good public practice.
Lord Winstanley: I have no wish to prolong the discussion but from this Bench I should like to confirm every word which the noble and learned Lord has said regarding the debates and discussions in 1967, in which I too took part. I am absolutely certain that the considerations which led another place at that time to take this decision are no longer valid. It was taken because of the fears of what might happen rather than what has actually happened and because of feelings about the rights of MPs. The fear was that as a Member one was suddenly going to be bypassed. I believe the objections to this procedure advanced at that time are certainly not valid now and would not be advanced now were the Bill to be brought in in a new situation.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his intervention and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who put three points to me. The first was: are the Government really saying that the floodgates would be opened? As I understood the noble and learned Lord, that was a fear in the mind of the Government as they were legislating

977
in 1967 and it was one of the reasons—although there was also the reason of principle, as I understand it—why this matter was confined to complaints through Members of another place. I have received no advice that it is believed that the floodgates would be opened. On the other hand, as I understand it, we have no evidence that the current arrangements operate other than satisfactorily, nor do we have evidence—except the eloquent evidence of this evening—that there is great pressure for change from the general public so far as that is concerned.
The second question that the noble and learned Lord put to me concerned what happens in other countries and in particular New Zealand. I have to admit that I do not have that information with me this evening. It occurs to me that the population of New Zealand is a little different from the population of this country. Therefore I think that it is fair for me to argue that the effects of a direct complaints system in New Zealand would be rather different in New Zealand than they would be here. If the noble and learned Lord will allow me, I shall try to obtain more information and write to both him and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on this point before the next stage of the Bill.
That leads me to the third point that was made by the noble and learned Lord. He said that frankly there was a thought in the minds of those legislating, and maybe of Members in another place generally when the original Bill was passing through Parliament, that this was the preserve of Members in another place. I confess that the Government feel that. I must be honest and admit that I should be very hesitant indeed about wanting to urge within the Government that in this Chamber we should make such a change to the parent legislation. Perhaps the Committee will think that I should not say that and that it is not right for me to do so; nevertheless I am hesitant on that point.
I hope that the Committee will allow me to write about the situation in New Zealand, and I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: I listened with very great care to the Minister's remarks. I hope he will forgive me when I say that of all the points that he made the last was the only one that I found had any great force in it and the question of whether we might be thought to be trespassing on the preserves of a Chamber which at the moment has a monopoly rather exercised my mind before I put down this amendment. Certainly that is so after the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, withdrew his amendment.
If I withdraw my amendment at this stage, as I intend to do, without prejudice to the future, I cannot help feeling that it may perhaps give an opportunity to the Government to consult the Select Committee on whether it has any strong views of the kind suggested by the Minister. Indeed, the parliamentary commissioner himself may have a view—I have a fairly strong recollection that his predecessor did—about the question of the intercession of a Member of Parliament. It becomes a little unreal at times.
978
When I was in the other place from time to time I received letters from people who were not my constituents saying, "I should be very grateful if you would take this matter up with the parliamentary commissioner". I would write back and say, "You are not my constituent. Why don't you take it to your own Member of Parliament?" Back would come the reply: "I have been to him before but I don't trust him", or "He has a different political persuasion than I have and I do not want to go through him", and so on. That is why, when the Bill was passed into law, it did not state "the complainant's Member of Parliament"; it simply said "a Member of Parliament". There are over 600 of them and any one of them can be invited to take up the matter.
Having said that, I agree with the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones about other jurisdictions. I may be quite wrong, but I believe that we are the only country that has the ombudsman system with the fence or sieve of the Member of Parliament; but that matter can be looked at and reviewed by those who advise the Minister. If it is so, and I appreciate that this concerns different countries and different people, at least it is some evidence that the principle on which the Minister rests is not considered to be a principle elsewhere and also that the flood has not made it necessary for such a filter to be introduced.
I think that this point is perhaps the most important matter that we shall be discussing and I am sure that it will be given very careful attention before the next stage of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Delegation of Parliamentary Commissioner's functions to officers.
At the end of section 3(2) of the 1967 Act (which provides that any function of the Commissioner under the Act may be performed by any officer of the Commissioner authorised for that purpose by the Commissioner) there shall be added the words "or may be performed by any officer so authorized—

(a) of the Health Service Commissioner for England;

(b) of the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland; or

(c) of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales".").

The noble Lord said: When the original legislation establishing the health service commissioners was passed, there was a provision that a health service commissioner could authorise not only his own officers but those of any other health service commissioner or the parliamentary commissioner to act on his behalf, thus allowing the most effective use of the total staff. For example, if a joint investigation were required into a complaint which turned out to relate to both jurisdictions, it might be sensible for the same staff to work on both aspects of the complaint.
We believe that the Bill provides a useful opportunity to introduce the parallel provision by allowing the commissioner, when he considers it appropriate, to delegate authority to staff on the health service side to carry out PCA functions. I beg to move.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: I am very sorry but I am not sure whether the Minister is moving Amendment No. 4 separately from the others?
Lord Belstead: I was there moving Amendment No. 4.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation and disclosure of information.
.—(1) In section 11 of the 1967 Act (provision for secrecy of information), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) Where the Commissioner also holds office as a Health Service Commissioner and a person initiates a complaint to him in his capacity as such a Commissioner which relates partly to a matter with respect to which that person has previously initiated a complaint under this Act, or subsequently initiates such a complaint, information obtained by the Commissioner or his officers in the course of or for the purposes of investigating the complaint under this Act may be disclosed for the purposes of his carrying out his functions in relation to the other complaint.".
(2) The following section shall be inserted after that section—

"Consultations between Parliamentary Commissioner and Health Service Commissioners.

11A.—(1) Where, at any stage in the course of conducting an investigation under this Act, the Commissioner forms the opinion that the complaint relates partly to a matter within the jurisdiction of the Health Service Commissioner for England, Wales or Scotland, he shall—

(a) unless he also holds office as that Commissioner, consult about the complaint with him; and

(b) if he considers it necessary, inform the person initiating the complaint under this Act of the steps necessary to initiate a complaint under Part V of the National Health Service Act 1977 (Health Service Commissioner for England and for Wales) or, as the case may be, Part VI of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 (Health Service Commissioner for Scotland).

(2) Where by virtue of subsection (1) above the Commissioner consults with the Health Service Commissioner in relation to a complaint under this Act, he may consult him about any matter relating to the complaint, including—

(a) the conduct 'of any investigation into the complaint; and

(b) the form, content and publication of any report of the results of such an investigation.

(3) Nothing in section 11(2) of this Act shall apply in relation to the disclosure of information by the Commissioner or any of his officers in the course of consultations held in accordance with this section.".

(3) In section 118 of the 1977 Act (consultations between Health Service Commissioners and Local Commissioners)—
(a) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Where, at any stage in the course of conducting an investigation under this Part of this Act, the Commissioner conducting the investigation forms the opinion that the complaint relates partly to a matter which could be subject of an investigation under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, he shall—

(a) unless he also holds office as the Parliamentary Commissioner, consult about the complaint with the Parliamentary Commissioner, and

(b) if he considers it necessary, inform the person initiating the complaint under this Part of this Act of the steps necessary to initiate a complaint under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

980
(1B) Where, at any stage in the course of conducting an investigation under this Part of this Act, the Commissioner conducting the investigation forms the opinion that the complaint relates partly to a matter within the jurisdiction of another Health Service Commissioner (whether under this Part of this Act or under Part VI of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978), he shall—

(a) unless he also holds office as that other Health Service Commissioner, consult about the complaint with him; and

(b)if he considers it necessary, inform the person initiating the complaint under this Part of this Act of the steps necessary to initiate a complaint to the other Health Service Commissioner."; and

(c) in subsection (2), for the words from the beginning to "any", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "Where a Commissioner consults with another Commissioner in accordance with this section the consultations may extend to".

(4) In Schedule 13 to that Act (provisions as to investigations by Health Service Commissioner for England and for Wales), the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 16—
" 16A.—(1) Where the Commissioner also holds office as a relevant commissioner and a person initiates a complaint to him in his capacity as such a commissioner which relates partly to a matter with respect to which that person has previously initiated a compliant to him in his capacity as the Commissioner, or subsequently initiates such a complaint, information obtained by the Commissioner or his officers in the course of or for the purposes of the investigation under Part V of this Act may be disclosed for the purposes of his carrying out his functions in relation to the other complaint.
(2) In this paragraph "relevant commissioner"—

(a) in relation to the Health Service Commissioner for England, means the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Health Service Commissioner for Wales and the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland; and

(b) in relation to the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, means the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Health Service Commissioner for England and the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland.".

(5) The following section shall be inserted after section 95 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978—

"Consulting other Commissioners.

95A.—(1) Where, at any stage in the course of conducting in investigation under this Part, the Commissioner forms the opinion that the complaint relates partly to a matter which could be the subject of an investigation under—(a) the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967; or

(b) Part V of the National Health Service Act 1977,

he shall, if he considers it necessary, inform the person initiating the complaint of the steps necessary to initiate a complaint under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 or, as the case may be, Part V of the National Health Service Act 1977.

(2) In the circumstances described in subsection (1), the Commissioner shall consult the Parliamentary Commissioner or the Health Service Commissioner for England or for Wales, as appropriate, about the complaint (unless he also holds office as that other Commissioner) and such consultation may extend to any matter relating to the complaint, including—

(a) the conduct of any investigation into the complaint; and

(b) the form, content and publication of any report of the results of such an investigation; and the application by section 95 of section 11(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 shall not extend to the disclosure of information by the Commissioner or any of his officers in the course of such consultations.

(3) Where the Commissioner also holds office as any of the other Commissioners mentioned in subsection (2) and a person initiates a complaint to

The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to fulfil an undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place, which I repeated in this Chamber, that some provision should be made for consultation and exchanges between the parliamentary commissioner and the health service commissioners if the offices were not all held by a single person, as they are at present. Perhaps I may stress that the Government do not have in mind that there should be a change to the present plan of having the same man responsible but are simply bringing this measure forward as what they believe to be a prudent procedure. The only trouble is that the prudent procedure has turned into an immensely long amendment.
Very briefly the amendment has the following effect. Subsections (2), (3) and (5) so far as Section 95A, subsections (1) and (2) are concerned, provide for consultation and the exchange of information between commissioners where offices are held separately, and they deal in turn with the parliamentary commissioner, the Health Service Commissioners for England and Wales and the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland. Each subsection provides that if the relevant commissioner receives a complaint that seems to him to involve the responsibilities of another commissioner, he should consult the other commissioner about the complaint and if necessary inform the complainant of the possibility of making a second linked complaint. The commissioners would then be able to co-operate over the further conduct of the investigation, and that is provided for as well.
There is a little more to it than that. There are the remaining subsections, subsections (1) and (4) and Section 95A(3) in subsection (5), which relate to the present use of information when the different offices of commissioner are held, as they are, by a single person. I hope that I do not need to spell out the effect of these subsections. They simply have very much the same effect as regards the exchange of information when that situation occurs. This is all contained in what is an exceedingly long amendment, for which I must apologise, and which I now beg to move.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 5, Amendment No 6:
In subsection (1), in the inserted subsection (2A), line 8, after ("may") insert ("with the consent of that person").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, it may be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 together. They all raise the same point. I begin by echoing what the Minister said and express my regret that what seemed to be in the other place and earlier here a very simple matter should apparently take three pages of the statute book to give effect to it. It is unfortunate. I never like to hold
982
myself out as being better at parliamentary drafting than the parliamentary draftsmen, but one wonders whether it could not have been reduced to simpler language.
The amendments are intended not to raise some great point of principle, because in a sense that has already been given away in earlier legislation as between the health service commissioner and the local commissioner, but to query whether it is right that information deriving from a complaint taken by the commissioner, in one capacity the health service commissioner, should, as it were, be passed to the second gentleman or a different gentleman, if it should happen to be so, investigating a different complaint in a different capacity. On the face of it, that seems to be going against the rules of privacy to which all governments in recent times have given effect.
The sort of case that one has in mind is a complaint made to the health service commissioner as a result of which he discovers that at some previous time the complainant had been a psychiatric patient. This may affect the mind of the same gentleman acting as parliamentary commissioner dealing with some other complaint of the complainant as to the reality of a complaint that he makes. Is that right? That is the point that I put to the Government rather than dogmatically asserting one view or another.
It does not look as though the particular point has been considered before. At any rate, it did not come up in the debates in the other place or in the reports at which we are looking for the purposes of the Bill. I wonder whether it has been considered; if so, whether any view has been taken about it or whether, as would be perfectly natural—I would not complain—it has simply been overlooked. If it has been considered, no doubt the Minister will give a view about it. If it has not been considered, no doubt he will look at it between now and the next stage.
Lord Belstead: The amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, refer to the case where the commissioner is, as he is at present, holding all the positions in the person of one man. The government amendments make clear that the commissioner not only can hold information jointly in carrying out his offices but may also use it. I say that only because I rather slurred over the effect of the last part of our amendments.
The noble and learned Lord is saying to the Government: but have the Government thought of the fact that some confidentiality is needed so far as the complainant is concerned? If I may say so, there are three matters here. First, the complainant will have lodged both complaints with the commissioner, will presumably be anxious to see them pursued and can be presumed to be willing to be wanting to co-operate fully to ensure this. That of course does not prove the matter. What the noble and learned Lord has said remains to some extent open.
In answer to the main thrust of the noble and learned Lord's remarks, I stress that we are not discussing open publication here. The noble and learned Lord will recall that the disclosure of the information is only to those directly involved and to the extent necessary to carry forward the investigation.

983
Indeed, the commissioner's reports are well vetted before publication to avoid publication of sensitive material or identification of the complainant. Thirdly, however, with respect, I know that administrative convenience is never a good argument, but this would unnecessarily complicate the process of investigation. It would require the commissioner to seek the consent of the complainant at a number of stages in the investigation as new information becomes available.
That is another, though subsidiary, reason why with respect I think that the amendment—though I well understand why the noble and learned Lord has brought it forward—is unnecessary.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am concerned about the element of difficulty in added time that would be involved in what my noble and learned friend proposes; namely, the requirement of consent in this odd situation where, almost inevitably, the rule for the protection of privacy is being overruled by virtue of the same man performing different functions. I wonder whether the suggestion of requiring consent would complicate matters unnecessarily, ultimately possibly to the detriment of the person complaining. Perhaps that might be thought about.
Lord Belstead: I shall look at what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said on the matter before we come to the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: I am grateful for that. I have done what I intended. In consideration of what the Minister has said—that this will be looked at in general before the next stage, although I understand of course that he gives no undertaking—I feel that my duty has been done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment to Amendment No. 5.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, as amendments to Amendment No. 5, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 5 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Reports by Health Service Commissioners: further provision]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: First, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and to the Committee for my inability to be present at Second Reading. I was unavoidably detained elsewhere. Had I been present, I should have made a speech indicating my desire to increase the powers of the health service commissioner to investigate complaints regarding clinical judgment.
It seems to me that Clause 3 is the only clause that deals with a slight extension of the powers of the health service commissioner. As I was not present at Second Reading, I did not feel I could table an amendment in Committee, but I propose to do so on Report. I felt that it was correct that I should so inform the Minister. I do not of course expect an answer today; neither do I object that Clause 3 stand part.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me warning of her intention to table an amendment regarding clinical judgment. I am aware that this matter was debated at some length in another place, and I was interested that it was not to be debated here. My interest has been met with clarification because it clearly will be debated, and the noble Baroness has kindly so warned me. I will endeavour on behalf of the Government to be ready to reply on that occasion.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill
8.50 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 11.
[Amendments Nos. 164A to 170 not moved.]
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 170ZA:
Page 10, line 33, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) The collective community charge due to a local authority in respect of any premises in respect of any financial year shall be the precise sum collected in respect of the collective community charge received by the owner of premises in respect of which the collective charge is payable, less any management fee prescribed.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 170ZA with which it may be convenient to consider Amendments Nos. 170A, 170B, 170C, 174A and 174B.
Lord Glenarthur: Will the noble and learned Lord repeat the grouping that he gave so that I do not get into a muddle? There may have been a slight change.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I hope that I am not in error. According to my grouping, it is Amendments Nos. 170ZA, 170A, 170B, 170C, 174A and 174B.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. There has been a certain amount of paper flying around and I wanted to ensure that I was dealing with the right bit.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I am conscious of the paper myself. The idea behind this group of amendments derives from the view of those of us on these Benches that the collective community multiplier is unworkable and unfair as currently defined. The effect of the amendment would be to move away from the idea of the multiplier. The logic behind the amendment is that if landlords are obliged to keep a detailed record of the amounts received by them in collective community charge contributions from residents, they should merely pay that precise amount to the levying authority.
The multiplier reflects a broad brush approach which may well lead to one of two situations, or perhaps both. Some landlords may lose money

985
because their occupancy rate is lower than the multiplier assumes, and some landlords may profit from contributions by residents if their multiplier is too low. As how frequently the multiplier is to be reviewed by the registration officer is not specified, it is unlikely that unscrupulous landlords would draw the registration officer's attention to the fact that their multiplier is too low. We present these amendments against that background.
The Committee will see that Amendment No. 174 provides:
"The person liable under this section to pay a collective community charge in respect of any premises shall be entitled to a management fee amounting to four per cent. (or such other proportion as may be prescribed) of the collective community charge contributions collected in respect of these premises.".
I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I think that the noble and learned Lord referred to Amendment No. 174, which I do not think is included in this group. I think that he meant to refer to Amendment No. 174A. Amendment No. 174 is in the names of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock and myself. I did not understand it to be in this group. If the noble and learned Lord was speaking to Amendment No. 174 and not No. 174A, I shall continue my argument in favour of Amendment No. 174, but I hope not at this stage.
Lord Wilson of Langside: According to the grouping which I have, it includes Amendment No. 174A.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble and learned Lord mentioned Amendment No. 174, which is why I got to my feet. If it is not in the group, I shall sit down again quickly.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: In that case I shall rise. I shall speak to the group mentioned by my noble and learned friend. I shall not repeat it. I would not object to this tax if it were called a tax. It is a sales tax. I am sorry to pain the Minister, but it is extraordinarily annoying to call it a community charge. It is probably true that transient people passing through an area taking advantage of services should pay tax, but this is a straight sales tax levied on boarding-house keepers and others who have transient people staying with them and from whom they make a living. It has nothing to do with accountability, which is the Bill's great central theme.
The charge has some virtue as a sales tax which is collected from people who would not otherwise pay anything towards the services they use, but accountability there is none and fairness there is little. It will place a tremendous burden on the chap who keeps an establishment. We have already spoken about that. We tabled an amendment saying that he should receive a payment of 4 per cent. That may even encourage him to collect more, because there will be great trouble collecting this tax. It is complex. It is unfair as a community charge but not as a sales tax.
We have tabled this group of amendments to draw attention to the way the tax is misnamed, to the way it places an unfair burden on the people who must
986
collect it and because it has nothing to do with accountability or making people face up to the need to control the expenditure of their local authority. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendments. I do not suggest that they are all perfect but they express a point of view which needs to be expressed and understood.
9 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I think I indicated earlier the basic purpose of the collective community charge. It may help if I go further and explain the purpose of the multiplier. In dealing with this fairly broad group of amendments, it may be helpful if I give a general explanation of how it works. I shall try to keep it as short as I can.
The multiplier aims to reflect the typical occupancy rate of the premises when multiplied by the level of the personal community charge payable in the area to provide income to the local authority broadly equivalent to what it would have received if it had been possible to register all the residents individually and charge them the personal community charge.
Subsection (7), which would be deleted by Amendment No. 170A, provides that if the collective community charge multiplier changes in the course of the financial year, it shall be assumed that the new multiplier shall remain in effect until the end of that financial year. The purpose of this provision is simply to allow for the calculation and billing of the collective community charge. In many cases the multiplier will change in the course of a financial year as the person liable for the charge agrees with the registration officer that it should go up or down to reflect the changes in the number of people generally resident in the premises.
In order that bills may be issued and schedules of instalments established, however, it is necessary to make an assumption both at the beginning of the year and when the collective community charge multiplier is changed that the multiplier (or, as the case may be, the new multiplier) will remain in force for the remainder of the year. I could give an instance but I hope that I may be able to develop the theme a little further and come back if the noble Lord would like an example.
Subsection (8) of the clause simply provides that the collective community charge multiplier is a number to be determined by the registration officer. This is qualified by subsection (9) which sets out the criteria on which the registration officer will determine the multiplier in any given case. The main element in his determination will be the number of people who are solely or mainly resident in the premises and who would, but for the exemption provided for by Clause 8(7)(b), be liable to pay personal community charge. This means, for instance, that people under the age of 18 are not taken into account in the calculation of the collective community charge multiplier. The effect of the calculation will be to produce broadly the same revenue from those living in the premises as would be produced if those liable for the personal community charge were registered for it.
Subsection (9) also provides that in determining the collective community charge multiplier the

987
registration officer should have regard to such other factors as may be prescribed. The factors to be prescribed will in due course be the subject of consultation with registration officers and other interested bodies. We envisage, however, that such factors as likely fluctuations in the number of people solely or mainly in the residence and the difficulty of collection of the collective community charge contributions may be prescribed as considerations to be taken into account in the calculation of the multiplier.
In place of this clear and precise procedure for the assessment of liability, these amendments propose a system whereby the amount of collective community charge due would depend entirely on the word of the person due to pay it, subject only to checking from a record which would not be difficult to falsify. That would leave scope for large-scale evasion of the collective community charge by unscrupulous landlords. I do not think that that can be fair to the local authority, to the residents who would be required to pay the collective community charge contributions, or indeed to community charge payers as a whole. The provisions that we propose make for certainty as to the collective community charge liability due in respect of any premises as opposed to the inevitable uncertainty which would arise if these amendments were accepted.
If a management fee were to be provided for, as Amendment No. 174A proposes, it would be more appropriate for it to be expressed as a deduction from the collective community charge liability of the landlord. We consider that it is reasonable that landlords should be allowed some consideration for the work that they will have to undertake in collecting collective community charge contributions. To that extent I am sympathetic to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord in principle. But we consider that a better mechanism for achieving this would be to build into the calculation of the collective community charge multiplier an element taking account of that consideration. We shall therefore consider this matter carefully in the course of discussions about the factors which should be prescribed under Clause 11(9)(b). I consider, however, that the basic mechanism of the collective community charge multiplier is flexible and sound. I hope, with that detailed explanation of what the multiplier is, the noble Lord will feel that some explanation has been helpful and that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the noble Lord clear my mind? Does he mean that there will be a fixed charge on the establishment based on the capacity of the establishment, or that he would calculate on the numbers there? I have not been sure on this point.
Lord Glenarthur: I ought to have the answer to a technical question such as this at my fingertips. That may be a point on which I shall have to elucidate the noble Lord. Perhaps I ought to study this question. I may well mislead the noble Lord if I were to answer him directly. I fear that I may be giving him inaccurate information.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We are including in this group Amendment No. 170Z13—which is in the
988
names of myself and my colleagues—and also Amendments Nos. 170AA and 174B. We have to face up to the difficulties for the owner of the establishment which contains these people who are to be subject to the strange procedure of being there for two or three nights and having to pay an amount which we do not yet know. The calculation is to be made in this case by the registration officer without much guidance from the Government by prescription. The registration officer is the man who makes the decision about what the multiplier is to be. That is a difficult decision, especially when one considers the changes that take place.
In Amendment No. 170ZB I suggest that the liability calculation will be restricted to the amount collected. This point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. However, we go a little further and say that any amount that was expected but was not received will be made good by the Secretary of State making an appropriate grant payment to the relevant local authority.
Regarding Amendment No. 170AA, if we wish to keep the situation up to date and as accurate as possible, the register has to be kept up to date. At page 10, line 40, we suggest a new sub-paragraph which reads:
"The collective community multiplier specified in relation to any premises in the register shall be subject to a monthly reassessment by the registration officer".
This is necessary because the registration officer could be widely wrong either to the advantage or disadvantage of the owner of the premsies. That situation requires looking at and something needs to be done.
Amendment No. 174B states:
"The person liable under this section to pay a collective community charge in respect of any premises shall be entitled to receive a central government grant equivalent to the administrative expenses incurred in collecting the community charge contribution from persons resident".
There is no doubt that this is a very easy way to collect taxes, to say "you will do it". It is one thing for someone to do it personally—and there will be some questions about that matter—but to ask someone to become an unpaid tax collector is too much.
Before we finish with the Bill, which will be some time yet, I should like the Minister to give his views more clearly in respect of the percentage of the calculations and work that has to be done by the person responsible for the payment of the collective community charge to the levying authority. Then we will have an idea whether or not he is being reasonably fair to the people concerned.
We cannot spend too much time discussing these matters at this time of night and at this stage of the Bill. When I consider the time which was lost earlier before we were able to start, and the time that was taken up by the interruption by other legislation, no doubt the Scots will get the blame for keeping the Chamber up. It has nothing to do with us at all. There were two introductions and then another Bill which went way beyond the time expected. I am emphasising that as usual we are silent, efficient, and as brief as we possibly can be.
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble Lord sits down—
Lord Ross of Marnock: I have not even sat down, but if the noble Lord wishes to intervene then I shall be delighted to sit down for a minute.
Lord Glenarthur: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I know he is keen to hear some answers to the points which he raised concerning Amendments Nos. 170ZB and 170AA. Perhaps I may say, without repeating the explanation which I have given concerning the question of the basic purpose of the collective community charge multiplier, that Amendment No. 170ZB is similar to Amendment 170ZA with the difference that the Secretary of State has to make good any shortfall between the sum collected by the owner of premises subject to the collective community charge, and what is described as the invoiced liability.
I have already explained, although maybe not entirely to the noble Lord's satisfaction, why the procedure for assessing liability as set out in the Bill is to be preferred, and the disadvantages inherent in relying on the word of the landlord in regard to the number of residents, and why I must resist this amendment as well as the earlier one.
Amendment No. 170AA runs counter to the specific provisions in Clause 15(1)(b), which states:
"no amendment of the collective community charge multiplier in respect of any premises shall be made or take effect until three months, or such other period as may be prescribed after the date when the current entry in the register is made or takes effect".
It is recognised that there may well be a need to adjust the multiplier from time to time to take account of changes in occupancy rates or in accommodation available. There is also need to guard against persons liable for the collective community charge making unreasonably frequent requests for changes to the multiplier and thereby wasting the registration officer's time. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that as far as concerns monthly reassessment of the multiplier, I believe that is unnecessary because the setting of the multiplier is subject to appeal under Clause 16. In many cases the multiplier will not significantly change and it would be unduly onerous to require the frequent reassessment for which the noble Lord asks.
As for guidance from the Government to try to help pave the way for such a situation, I think the factors to be used in calculating the multiplier, and the fact that they are to be prescribed by the Secretary of State, will help because we intend that there will be full consultation with the interested parties concerned before the regulations are made. Perhaps I may end by clarifying a point which I was unable to clear with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on the point he raised concerning the last amendment and say that actual use for residential periods is the criterion which he was concerned about.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I thought that the Minister was just interrupting me. May I say to him that if the Secretary of State had to pay £2.40 for every "prescription" that is in this Bill, to which he refers sometimes two or three times within a single paragraph, I think we should be pretty well off and he
990
would be able to reduce the community charge very considerably.
I listened to what the Minister said. I did not learn very much and certainly did not agree with many of the things he said about preferring this and preferring that. He did not quite say why he preferred it, although I know he did; otherwise it would not be in the Bill at all. But I shall not press my amendments at this stage.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I am not sure that the Minister has convinced me that certainty, in the context of these amendments, will be achieved by the provisions of the Bill as they stand, but I am most grateful to him for the very careful and detailed reply which he has presented to the Committee. I will not say that I shall read it with pleasure because I get less and less pleasure out of reading anything to do with this Bill, but I shall certainly read it with interest and come back on these matters only if I think there is no escape from doing so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 170ZB, 170A, 170AA, 170E and 170C not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 171:
Page II, line 15, leave out (", apart from this subsection,")
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer also to Amendment No. 172 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock.
My Amendment No. 171 seeks to improve the drafting of subsection (10) paragraph (b) by removing the words "apart from this subsection". These words imply that subsection (10) creates a form of liability for the collective community charge. That is not the case, and, since the words are not essential, it is preferable that they should be removed. However, it is necessary to retain the provision of subsection (10)(b) that a person who is liable for the collective community charge itself should not also be liable for a collective community charge contribution.
Amendment No. 172 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, would delete that provision and replace it by something rather different aimed at ensuring that someone who was liable to pay the personal community charge should not find himself in the position of being liable to pay also a contribution towards the collective community charge. However, I should point out to the noble Lord that the present paragraph (c) of subsection (10) has precisely that effect. In case there were any doubt on this point, any overpayment made in these circumstances where misunderstanding had arisen would be repayable under subsection (16) of the clause. It is therefore impossible for one person to be liable to pay both a personal community charge and a contribution towards the collective community charge in respect of the same period.
These provisions provide a satisfactory protection for those who may find themselves in difficulty in this respect. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept my amendment and that, with that explanation, he will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 172.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is giving a hostage to fortune when a Minister says it is impossible to do something under this Bill. Anything can happen under this Bill, and I dare say somebody will find himself down to pay twice. The Minister's confidence in the system which has been worked out and which has caused us some headaches today is rather misplaced. I thought he was going to accept my amendment when I saw that he was leaving out the words "apart from this subsection", as was I, but I then went on to say something much more constructive which I knew would not do at all. However, I shall not argue with him at this time today.
I think my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna has something to say. Depending on what that is, I shall make up my mind as to whether I continue with my amendment or defer to the noble Lord.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I was going to ask this. How does the person in charge of the collective community establishment know whether somebody is liable to pay a personal community charge? Is it just because some character turns up and says, "I have been thrown out of the house by my spouse. I need a bed for the night. I am registered to pay a personal community charge and therefore I do not need to pay my collective community charge contribution for the night"? Alternatively, is somebody to give him a certificate showing that he is registered for the personal community charge somewhere in Scotland; or is the housekeeper of the establishment to keep a register of the whole of Scotland showing who is liable to pay a personal community charge and where? How is one to know whether somebody who turns up at night for a bed at somewhere such as the Great Eastern Hotel in Glasgow is liable to pay a personal community charge or has paid it?
Lord Glenarthur: Presumably the answer lies in the fact that the appropriate register will contain details of the person's previous address. If someone turns up for a very short period in the way that the noble Lord suggests, that will be taken account of because it will be possible to trace it through the address given and see what that place was. That is a way of verifying it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble Lord's answer implies that everybody in charge of a homeless persons' establishment has a complete register of people who pay the personal charge throughout Scotland. It also implies that at 10, 11 or 12 o'clock at night he has the ability to check whether somebody, who may not be totally sober at the time he turns up for a bed, is giving the right address and whether he has paid the personal community charge before he knows whether he is liable to charge him that night for his 365th personal community charge. It seems to me to be a ludicrous system, and I do not understand how it is supposed to work.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think I can go much further than to say that the individual paying the personal community charge will presumably have a receipt. The noble Lord must not interrupt me, as he looks as though he is about to do, before I have explained what it is he has asked me to explain. He will
992
have a receipt, and if he is wrongly charged he has a right to reclaim that amount under subsection (16). It seems to me that both those conditions (subsection (16) and the fact that he will have that receipt) are designed to protect the individual concerned in the way that the noble Lord is suggesting should be done by another means.
Lord Morton of Shuna: With all respect, will the Minister look at subsection (16)? It reads:
"A person to whom there has been paid".
That is not the person who has wrongly paid a collective community charge. That is the recipient of it; the landlord. He has a duty to repay that sum. I was going to ask, when we come to consider this clause, how the poor landlord will be able to trace half of the wanderers who move about the countryside and may or may not carry with them their receipts for their personal community charge.
This is a new concept. I do not carry with me my receipt for rates. I must learn the habit, but so must the whole of Scotland apparently in case we suddenly become homeless because of a fire in the house, or whatever, and go into one of these establishments and have to satisfy the keeper that we have paid our personal community charge. How are we to do that? Do we have a tag around our neck which is stamped by the local authority? This illustrates the complete stupidity of the whole scheme as regards people who go in and out of such establishments.
Subsection (16) is absolutely weird. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister has any conception of what these establishments are like. How do you trace some of the people who choose to wander about the countryside and say, "I am terribly sorry, but on the 23rd March I took a collective community charge off you and I have to give it you back"? How do you find him? There is some element of idiocy at large in working this out. It is completely unworkable.
Lord Glenarthur: I hear what the noble Lord says. The landlord can consult the public register. That is the first point. Nor need this particular matter—the noble Lord is always very ready to hear half an argument, or half an answer, without hearing the whole thing. Perhaps if he bore with me for a moment or two—I will come back to the general point in a moment—he would understand that it is not necessary for this sort of issue, which I understand he is concerned about, to be sorted out immediately someone arrives at the collective community charge premises. Indeed that seems to me to be largely the purpose of subsection (16) which the noble Lord writes off as not being relevant.
I accept that a system which is new, and which many people need to understand, will not be achieved necessarily overnight. I shall certainly note the noble Lord's points and the concerns he raises. No doubt he will study what I have said in the same way that I shall study what he has said. If we both do that, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: In this case I have a certain sympathy with the Minister. If the floater or drifter goes along and does not have his little bit of paper, he

993
will be charged the community charge, and either the community will gain or the landlord will gain. I should have thought that very soon any chap who was drifting around these places, if he has paid the community charge, will carry his little bit of paper. In this case, in this miserable one little instance, the Minister may be right and they would actually carry the receipt around with them.
Lord Glenarthur: I think it is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Morton, to decide whether it is a miserable little issue or not. It is not a matter for me.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think we can solve this quite easily. We are going into the Recess on Thursday. It is quite a lengthy Recess. There are plenty of Salvation Army hostels in Glasgow. The Government will be able to talk to the people there, to the owner of the place, and go to some of the other places. The Great Eastern was mentioned. The Great Eastern Hotel in Glasgow is still open. Quite a number of Americans have turned up at the Great Eastern Hotel not realising that it was a model lodging house.
We take it that the Minister will report back to us at the next stage of the Bill just how simple all this is going to be and how people carry around these receipts. These drifters will probably carry their American Express receipts, because they will pay for this. How much is it per night? It will amount to 50p, or something or other. You do not take risks carrying too much money around certain places, and they will probably pay by American Express. This will show how easy it is in that respect. I am sure that one of the Ministers of the Scottish Office will undertake the duty to go there.
The Minister had his turn and went to see the nurses yesterday. So somebody can go to the model lodging house and these establishments next week and duly report back to us how easy it is going to be to do all this kind of thing about registering people, seeing the receipts, and how they are able to do this without a register. I do not know who is going to have this complete register. We shall come to registers later. That is going to be another interesting part of the proceedings. I find it difficult to understand, knowing something about these places. Many of these places had voters so you discovered what they were like and how people moved around. Therefore one realises how unrealistic an awful lot of this is in respect of the collective charge.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 172 not moved]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 11, line 18, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 26 and insert (", for each day of his residence in the premises, pay to the person liable under this section for that collective community charge an amount equal to the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) below divided by the number in paragraph (b) below—
(a) the amount in this paragraph is—

(i) the sum of the personal community charges determined in respect of that year by each local authority; or

994

(ii) (in the case of an islands council) the amount of the personal community charge determined in respect of that year by the local authority in the area of which the premises are situated;

b) the number of days in that year, (and such a payment is referred to in this section as a "collective community charge contribution".)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 160 on Clause 10, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 12, line 7, at end insert ("if the person to whom that sum is due claims repayment within three months of the payment.").
The noble Lord said: I understand noble Lords opposite are very keen that I should move this amendment, and I shall do so. It is another attempt to help the Government over their difficulties on this matter. Dealing with the wanderers, it seems impossible that these poor landlords should have to hunt about Scotland or elsewhere to find them and repay them their 50p, or whatever they have paid overnight. The amendment that I am moving would add at the end the words:
"if the person to whom that sum is due claims repayment within three months of the payment".
I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not always intend to indicate that what the noble Lord is suggesting in his amendments is not beyond the realms of possibility and that perhaps every single corner he turns to in the Bill is not one which we could look at. I can say that I am happy to accept the principle of the amendment. I also have to say to him that I am a little concerned that the drafting may not make it exactly clear that it is the person to whom repayment of the sum is due who must claim repayment within three months of the date of payment. If the noble Lord is happy to take it away on the understanding that Y accept the point he makes, I would hope to be able to come forward with something on these lines later.
Lord Morton of Shuna: On the understanding that my English is going to be improved by the Government, that is something I shall look forward to seeing. I thought it was fairly clear that what I meant was that the person to whom the repayment was due had to claim it back within three months. If that is not clear, I shall be delighted to see how the Government in six lines can make it clearer. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies on that further point, I wonder whether I may point out that a limitation period of three months for the establishment of a civil action is a very short period indeed. When my noble friend is looking further at this matter will he bear in mind that much longer periods of limitation for the claiming of money are acknowledged by the law generally?
Lord Glenarthur: I shall certainly bear my noble friend's point in mind. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morton, I sincerely hope that six lines will not be necessary to encompass what he believes is required.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If I have not sat down by begging leave to withdraw this amendment, if I may I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we are dealing with, so to speak, one night's community charge, which is one three-hundred-and-sixty-fifth of, say, £250. The landlord, if that is the right word, will have paid that at some point to the local authority—probably monthly. There is a good deal of bookkeeping involved. If at the end of three years, which is the normal limit of civil liability, there is a liability to repay, I should have thought it could become far too complicated. However, I again beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: I am not suggesting that the normal limitation period of three years would be appropriate in these circumstances. What I am saying is that a period of three months appears to be disproportionately short in the particular circumstances which arise here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 174A and 174B not moved.]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12[Community Charges Registration Officer]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 12, line 9, leave out ("Community Charges").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly simple amendment and it may be for the convenience of the Committee to take with it Amendments Nos. 177, 181 and 184A. The purpose of the amendment is to give flexibility to a local authority in order that it may itself decide whom to appoint as community charges registration officer. Certain authorities may wish the registration and collection functions to be controlled by the same official—for example, the director of finance—so that there is potential for a speedier and more effective flow of information to improve the follow-up of arrears. As I said, it is a fairly simple amendment and I hope that the Minister will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope the noble Lord will understand that it is important that the registration officer should have, and should be seen to have, a considerable degree of independence from the local authority. He will be responsible for establishing and keeping up to date the register which will be the basis of the new system, and it must be clear that he should be able to do so in terms of the general duty set out in subsection (4)—which I think we shall discuss on the next group of amendments—without any suggestion that the local authority should be able to interfere with his exercise of that duty.
Against that background, a number of very strong arguments point towards the designation of the
996
assessor as registration officer for community charges purposes. The assessor is already statutorily responsible for drawing up the valuation roll. His appointment as community charges registration officer therefore recognises the importance of the relationship between the valuation roll and the new register. In establishing the basis for the new system, the twin tasks of identifying domestic subjects and part residential subjects in the valuation roll and registering those resident in them or otherwise liable to pay one of the community charges must go hand in hand if the system is to operate satisfactorily. It is therefore only common sense that the assessor, who will in any case have responsibility for the first of these functions, should also have responsibility for the second.
The appointment of the assessor as community charges registration officer ensures automatically that the degree of independence from the local authority already enjoyed by the assessor will be carried over, as is necessary, to the appointment of the community charges registration officer. A further argument for the appointment of the assessor is that, although he is not statutorily required to be so, he is at present in all cases the electoral registration officer for the area and will have registration expertise, albeit, as we shall see later, of a rather different kind from that which will be required for operating the rolling community charges register. All these arguments point to the conclusion that it is right in principle and sensible in practice to give the functions of community charges registration officer to the assessor.
I turn now to Amendment No. 184A, which would delete the provision whereby a regional or islands council is required to secure the provision of sufficient staff, accommodation and other resources to enable the registration officer to perform his functions under the Bill. It is quite clear that that provision is an essential matter to go hand in hand with the establishment of the independent post of community charges registration officer, as I have described it. To accept this amendment would not be in the interests of the connection between those two roles. I hope that with that speedy explanation of what is entailed the noble Lord will feel somewhat reassured and able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I have only one point to make. We had a very interesting discussion on Clause 11. The registration officer is mentioned three times in that clause. He is given certain powers. He has to determine in respect of premises whether or not they are collective premises. Having given him those powers we then proceed to appoint him. He is not mentioned before. Suddenly in Clause 12 it says,
"There shall be a Community Charges Registration Officer".
It is nice to know that in Clause 12, when we have been talking about him in Clause 11 without any definition. It is a haywire and, as we might say in Scotland, a Highland way of doing things. I am thinking of the broken-down computer under which they are labouring in the Highlands according to the noble Lord, Lord Burton. Having talked about the officer and given him duties in Clause 11, it is nonsensical then to say, "We had better appoint him".
Lord Glenarthur: I do not wish to prolong the discussion. However, if the noble Lord looks at Clause 26 under "Interpretation" he will see that where it refers to registration officer in Clause 11 it:
"means a Community Charges Registration Officer within the meaning of section 12".
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is even better.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think that that is too complicated. I accept that it might not be as simple as having a separate interpretation clause for Clause 11. However, that takes us back to the whole interpretation argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Gray, today and last week.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Then we had better include an instruction saying, "To understand this Bill in respect of the registration officer, begin at the end and not at the beginning". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 12, line 9, leave out ("Community Charges") and insert ("Local Taxation").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Perhaps it would be for the benefit of the Committee also to discuss Amendments Nos. 178 to 180, 183 and 185. The effect of the amendment would be to establish a national registration office in Scotland financed by central government. I see difficulties with this amendment and I am not all that enthusiastic. However, the Law Society of Scotland in asking that the amendment be put forward raised a number of points which I believe are worth looking at in considering how we can get round the problem.
It has been suggested that if there is no central appeal procedure, sheriff courts can then decide appeals against registration decisions. The possibility of parallel actions and conflicting decisions could easily arise. There might be a situation in which an individual was found by two separate sheriff courts to be resident in two different regions and thus liable to pay dual community charges. For example, a family in Glasgow or Edinburgh could have a house in Dumfriesshire or in the Border region and could decide, on the basis of what the community charge was likely to be, where it was most advantageous to claim a main residence. If such a matter went to a sheriff court in Dumfries, a decision might be made that the main residence was there; on the other hand, an appeal to a sheriff court in the Lothians or Strathclyde might result in a decision that the main residence was there.
I do not like the idea of a central register. However, how does one solve a problem such as this? The problem of dual registration would not arise if there
998
was a central register. While I believe that there are political objections to the amendment, I wonder what other practical system the Minister can suggest. Under the system of the single register, the registrar would make the decision as to where an individual's sole or main residence was. Many things about it worry me but it highlights a problem that could arise if the different houses were in two distinct regions. There must be many people in mid-Scotland who have houses in the Highlands. It could be difficult to decide which was their pied-à-terre and which was their main residence. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The community charge is of course a form of local taxation, like domestic rates, although it will be much more visibly linked with the level of local services provided. It is natural therefore to assume that all arrangements for its collection ought to be locally based and the arguments for not doing so would have to be very compelling indeed before centralised arrangements could be considered a viable alternative. I have not heard such arguments put forward in an acceptable way.
In whatever way a single registration officer for the whole of Scotland carried out his duties, there would be little doubt that he would be seen as operating a national registration system. I do not think that I need dwell on this point. I shall only say that there is absolutely no need for such a system in order to run the community charge system efficiently, and the Bill does not provide for one. To do so, and to do what the noble Lord suggests, would really go well beyond the necessary scope of our proposals.
As to the concern that there may be an element of double registration, I can only say to the noble Lord that the appeal system in Clause 16(3) provides for just that kind of problem—for appeals in these circumstances to be heard by a single sheriff. I should have thought that that is the way to deal with the problem. As a matter of principle, I would expect local authorities themselves to wish to see the work to establish that base being done locally as well.
The arguments are quite straightforward. I hope the noble Lord will accept that what he is proposing would neither be practicable nor sensible.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: This was a probing amendment. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 177 to 181 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 12, line 19, after ("perform") insert ("adequately").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment and will, I am sure, commend itself to the Government, who are determined to make this organisation efficient, and so on.
We have now appointed the electoral registration officer, who is also the assessor—the valuer—to the position of registration officer for the community charges. Now we are asking the regional and islands councils to appoint an additional number of deputy registration officers as they consider necessary to enable the registration officer to perform his functions. I suggest that the provision should read,
"to enable the registration officer to perform adequately his functions".
This is a reasonable amendment because he can perform his functions well or otherwise. It may depend on how many deputies are appointed. I am waiting for someone from the other side of the Committee to get up and ask how much will be paid because of all this extra work and how many extra staff will be involved. We seek an assurance that it will not be called excessive expenditure. There will be additional expenditure and no doubt it will be construed as excessive.
So far as I can see, there is nothing that limits the regional or islands councils, who are the levying authorities, from going a dinger on this one! They do not even need the permission of the Secretary of State. They are given the power to do it. They are not even asked to conform to something laid down by the Treasury. My concern is that their remit shall not be just to perform their function but to perform their function adequately; and that will relate to the number of staff they appoint. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I listened with interest to the noble Lord's explanation of Amendment No. 182. The noble Lord may feel that, as Amendment No. 184 is connected with this amendment under the grouping list that was agreed, it may be relevant to speak to it. If he feels otherwise, I can shorten my remarks.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is not only relevant, but I am referring to the strange drafting. It is otiose. Having appointed a man and told him what is his function, we have the words:
"The registration officer shall prepare, maintain and keep up-to-date the register for his registration area"—
I think we all knew that—
"so that it is as comprehensive as possible."
What do those words mean? We can do without them. Therefore, if the noble Lord the Minister wishes to do so he can take the two amendments together. I shall not lose any sleep so long as he accepts them.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think I can necessarily go that far. What I hope to do is simply to shorten our consideration by taking the two amendments in the way I thought had been agreed; but perhaps that was somehow missed out.
1000
When I first read Amendment No. 182 it occurred to me that there are two possible interpretations of the word "adequately" in this context. There is the obvious interpretation that the intention is that the regional or islands council should provide a sufficient number of deputes to allow the registration officer to carry out properly his duty of keeping the register as comprehensive as possible. However, since the noble Lord's Amendment No. 184 would take away the duty of keeping the register as comprehensive as possible—and this is why I brought up this point—I was forced to conclude that "adequately" was intended to bear the meaning of achieving a tolerable standard of performance but some way short of excellence.
As I said, Amendment No. 184 would alter the general duty in Clause 12(3) on the registration officer to prepare, maintain and keep up-to-date the register so that the register is at all times as comprehensive as possible. That duty is necessary in the interests of the local authority and its residents to ensure that as many persons as possible who are solely or mainly resident in the local authority's area are registered. It also ensures that as many as possible of the addresses of properties in respect of which liability for the standard or collective community charges arise are also entered on the register.
The need for, and the benefit of, this provision is clear. The greater the numbers registered, the wider will be the spread of those who will be liable for the charges; and the less will be the amounts of the individual charges determined by the local authority and payable by the local authority residents, or in respect of the services provided to property within the local authority area.
The specific requirement which this amendment seeks to remove is that registers be kept at all times in as comprehensive as possible a state. This requirement recognises the reality of the situation that there will always be cases which escape registration so the nature of the duty on the registration officer is not unreasonably onerous. These words are necessary also as clear guidance to the registration officer, in addition to that contained in Clause 17(1) as to the ultimate objective of his duties in relation to the register.
I must confess that there is perhaps just a little irony in these amendments, because the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and his noble friends and indeed those on the Alliance Benches have forecast that the proposals for registration will prove very difficult to operate in practice. It appears to me that these amendments may be designed to fulfil that prophecy by encouraging the registration officer not to try very hard to keep the register up-to-date.
Anyway, with the explanation which I have given, I hope the noble Lord will see that it is essential for the words under discussion to remain in subsection (4) and that it is undesirable for the word "adequately" to be inserted in subsection (3). I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burton: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I do not want to cause difficulties to my noble friend but with due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, we have one Highland

1001
problem. I understand that there is a large house in Inverness, in and out of which flit a fairly large number of "winos". I gather it would be extremely difficult to keep the register up-to-date and that they would virtually require a registration officer of their own.
Lord Glenarthur: In response to my noble friend, I should say that it is all very well to produce particular instances of places in Inverness or anywhere else. If the noble Lord feels that there is a problem in a particular locality, that is something which he could take up with the registration officer. If he wanted to raise it with me, I should be happy to look at it but I cannot answer that point at the moment.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I should like to make a totally unhelpful remark at this time of night. So often in the statutes we have words which are subject to wide dispute. What is reasonable and what is not reasonable is so often disputed that I would say with total assurance that what we on this side of the Committee, my noble friend or any of his successors, consider to be adequate, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will almost certainly consider to be totally inadequate.
Lord Underhill: Before my noble friend Lord Ross tell us what he proposes to do with his amendment, in the light of what the Minister has said—although it may not be wise for some noble Lords—I think reference ought to be made to the English newspaper, the Guardian and a report that it carried on Friday, 3rd April. Reference was made briefly this afternoon to the Home Office survey on the register of electors. Bearing in mind that the register of electors is supposed to be a thorough-going register of people voting, we find that newspaper stating prominently:
"Inadequate funding blamed, as one in six youths face loss of general election rights".
My noble friend Lord Ross asked who would fund the work in connection with registration and the study which was commissioned by the Home Office. I have no doubt that the same features will be found in Scotland as in the Home Office report. For, according to a new study commissioned by the Home Office, 2½million people are likely to be denied the vote at the next general election because they have been left off the electoral register. The article goes on to say that a further 2.6 million who have died or moved house will be wrongly included. That is 5 million.
In the light of this, as regards a register to deal with payment of community charges, there is surely something in what my noble friend has said about funding and also about having a full staff to enable the work to be done adequately.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not really think it would be right to debate the question of funding which the noble
1002
Lord raises in relation to an article in the Guardian which I confess I have not seen. The article refers to a different register, albeit one which I freely confess I have used as a vehicle for explaining the work of the registration officer and responding to points which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has made in relation to this amendment.
On Amendment No. 182 and the question of "adequately," I find this a very difficult concept, for the reasons I have given. I hope the noble Lord will study what I have said when he sees Hansard.
On the question of Amendment No. 184, I must confess that I find the noble Lord's argument much more telling. If he feels that this is something particularly which ought to be looked at again, I am perfectly prepared to do that. I cannot undertake to look at Amendment No. 182 but I should be prepared to consider Amendment No. 184.
10 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I did not intend these amendments to be taken together, because they concern different points. In the first case the amendment refers to appointment of additional assistants to enable the registrar to do his job. He will not appoint the staff; it is the council who does that. I think that it is not just to enable him to perform his job but to perform it adequately. If the Minister does not like the word "adequate" I can think of many others.
When we come to the other point, after having all this rubbish about subsections (1), (2) and (3), we come to subsection (4) and what I thought ought to have been the first duty of the registrar; namely:
"The registration officer shall prepare, maintain and keep up-to-date the register".
If we trust this man and he is appointed to do a job, must we add:
"so that it is as comprehensive as possible"?
I do not think that those words add anything to the sense. The man is appointed to do the job; he is told to do the job and then he is asked to go and do it as well as he can. Those words that I have quoted do not mean anything and they ought to be deleted. I hope that they will be deleted. That was my only intention in respect of that amendment.
As for standards, it may well be that I shall never be satisfied with the standards that I receive from a Scottish Office in which the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, features, or even the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. My standards are a little higher than that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 183 to 185 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Community Charges Register]:
[Amendment No. 186 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("natural").
The noble Lord said: I know that the question has been asked before and indeed I myself have asked it. Do we need this word "natural"? I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Before embarking upon a reply which I fear will be almost but not quite as short as the speech of the noble Lord who has moved the amendment, I think that he may be expecting the Committee to deal with the amendment together with Amendments Nos. 188, 189 and 190.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I did not.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord says that he did not. However, that was an agreed grouping, unless it has been changed. Perhaps I may take Amendment No. 187 as it stands and refer to those other amendments as well. They will change or delete the provision whereby the register is to include the date of birth of each natural person registered in it. It may help if I explain the reason for this provision, which was inserted by means of a government amendment in the course of the Report stage of the Bill in another place.
First of all, it is necessary to restrict the provision to natural persons for the simple, technical reason that if it were not made clear it might be thought that the intention was to include corporate persons such as companies in the provision. The names of companies and indeed local authorities will appear on the register since in some cases they will be the owners who are liable for the standard or collective community charges. However, in relation to corporate persons the concept of date of birth is obviously meaningless and it would not be right to leave any doubt as to what the provision meant by omitting the word "natural", which makes it clear that the persons in question are individual human beings.
I could embark upon a further explanation about the provision generally and I could go into further detail on the other amendments, but I hope that with that explanation of why we had to add it in another place, the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Lord Ross of Marnock: At this moment I should not seek to encourage the Minister to make another long, extensive speech. The Minister should quit when he is winning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("his date of birth").
The noble Lord said: The question of date of birth has caused considerable concern in terms of what questions will be asked for the register. Certain people are worried about the date of birth going on to a register which may be open to the implications raised in respect of an earlier amendment; that is, that this would be readily available to anyone who went, say, into a Salvation Army home or the Great Eastern Hotel in Glasgow. This could be quite dangerous if it were made available to anyone who liked to look up the ages of people.
I am increasingly troubled about the availability of lists of people and of computers to churn them out. One joins an organisation and then discovers that one's address, with the addresses of all the other
1004
members of the organisation, has been sold to certain agencies. One then starts getting through the letter-box all sorts of unwanted invitations to do this, that and the other. We have therefore to be chary about new lists of people and new registers. The inclusion of ages causes considerable concern in that an individual can look up a register and discover, for example, an old person living at home aged 80.
Why the person's age is required for entry I do not know. All one needs is the fact that a person is 18 or over. I do not know whether sufficient attention has been paid to this. Many people are afraid to reveal their age. We in this place and those in another place have only to lift a newspaper and we are told our age when we are trying to forget it. There can also be a measure of falsification of age by certain people. If people give the wrong date of birth, they will be subject to penalties in this case. Have all these matters been thought out?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has a point. For a good many ladies who are middle-aged or even less to have their ages revealed would be distressing. There are ladies who are in a position to conceal their age and who take great trouble to do so. I do not see that it is necessary for ages to be revealed in this instance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am sure that this is right. Oscar Wilde, as Members of the Committee will know, said that a woman who would reveal her age would reveal anything.
Lord Morton of Shuna: From his previous ministerial responsibility, the Minister may recollect the habit of police statements in England giving the date of birth of people if they are under 21 but if they are 21 or over they just say "over 21". I should have thought that or something similar is the answer.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that I can reassure the Committee. By way of preface I should say that it was after considering the views of the Rating and Valuation Association's rating forum that we undertook to include this point. I think that the burden of the remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, let alone Oscar Wilde, relate to dates of birth being available to the public. I should make it clear that we do not propose that dates of birth should be included in the part of the register that is made available for public inspection. That could lead to the type of embarrassment about which we have heard.
As provided in Clause 20, dates of birth will be made available only to registration officers and local authorities which need the information for registration purposes or for levying or collecting the community charge. The availability of dates of birth will greatly assist the smooth operation of the registration system. They will not be available to the public in the way that the Committee may have feared. I hope that with that the noble Lord will feel reassured.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not think that that is enough. Dates of birth will be made available to local authorities. I presume that everyone in the local

1005
authority—council members, officers and the rest—can go and see them. Suppose someone is 65. What good will that do with regard to this Bill? I can understand the need to know that someone is over 18. But the age does not matter at any other point unless something is coming along about which we know nothing; perhaps that everyone over the age of 70 will not pay the charge. I shall not do any special pleading on my behalf and say that everyone over 75 or 76 should not pay the charge. It is not good enough to say that the date of birth will not be made public and then say that it will be shown to the levying authority. Why?
Lord Glenarthur: I shall answer the noble Lord since he asks me.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I trust that the noble Lord will answer when I sit down, in keeping with the rules of this place. I shall be glad to sit down.
Lord Glenarthur: I am trying to assist the noble Lord. I endeavoured to answer the point about privacy which he, supported by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, rightly and understandably makes about those who do not want their age to be disclosed. As I said to the noble Lord, there is a point in this. It was raised by the rating forum. There is also another point. It was pointed out that to assist in the identification of individuals it would be desirable for the register to record in all cases the date of birth of people who are liable to pay any of the community charges. In the simplest example it would allow people at an address who shared the same name to be clearly distinguished. For example, there may be, and there probably will be, three John Smiths—father, son and grandson—liable for the personal community charge at a single address. For billing and collection purposes it would have to be clear which was which.
More generally, however, the inclusion of dates of birth on the register will be useful when an individual's identity has to be checked when he moves from one local authority area to another, or it would be difficult for the registration officer in the new area to be sure that the John Smith who was recorded as having arrived in his area on a particular date was the same John Smith who had left another area on the same date. In checking with his opposite number from the local authority from which the individual had come, he would have to have some further form of identification or he could not be sure that the person who was claiming to have arrived in the new area on a certain date had not been resident there and liable for the community charge for some considerable time beforehand. If, however, dates of birth are available it will be much easier for such checking to be carried out.
Notwithstanding the point about privacy, which I entirely take, as I hope I have made clear, all we are trying to do is to help local authority practitioners, which judging by the burden of the noble Lord's remarks earlier this afternoon is something that he is only too keen to do.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In the electoral register we can have any number of John Smiths. We should be
1006
quite pleased to have as many as possible considering the right honourable Member in another place. However, in the electoral register we do not have dates of birth except for people who attain the age of 18 during the year of the register. Why is it necessary in this case if it is quite easy to identify who is voting?
Lord Burton: Anyone who has canvassed in the Highlands will know that it would be easier if the dates of birth were there. I have been to houses where there are three or four John Macdonalds next door to each other. I believe that the same can apply to Anne Macdonalds. I cannot see why the noble Lord opposite is making such a fuss about this quite simple matter. It would be much easier; the registration office has said that it would be easier.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I thought that it was only horses that one identified by their teeth. It is ludicrous to think that people should be identified by their age. One can have three John Macdonalds in the same village all of the same age. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has a point here.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not know whether I am right but I suspect that I may be. Perhaps one may compare this with a driving licence, for example, although it may not be an exactly similar point. The code number which appears is simply a number in relation to a date of birth, which may apply to an individual whom the noble Lord opposite feels ought not to have the date of birth exposed, but is a kind of cryptographic means of transmitting the same date for the purposes of checking the register. I should have thought that there was nothing harmful in that. It does not compromise the concerns which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has expressed on this point. I should have thought that it was entirely helpful. That seems to me to be very much the burden of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Burton, who seems to have some experience of meeting this problem.
Lord Wilson of Langside: If this debate is not going to come to an end soon, perhaps there should be a provision that if one has a conscientious objection to disclosing one's age one does not disclose it. Then we could have a tribunal—to add to the bureaucracy—to certify whether the objections were conscientious or not.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We have all had this difficulty in respect of two names which are similar, or the same, in a particular household. But I remember an election in Wales where there were about four candidates all with the same name. Believe it or not the electors were evidently very much more far seeing than the officers who are to be appointed to this job—at a very big salary—because they managed to understand the situation without any debate.
I still think that there is concern about the age being shown. This provision is aimed at ease of administration. The question arose in respect of driving licences. The dates are on driving licences but in code. I think I am right in suggesting that.
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Ross of Marnock: And they are not available to anyone else. Another helpful point was raised in respect of the electoral registration officer. He has been appointed because he has some experience of this kind. On the electoral register there is a number. If people are going to report that someone has moved south of the Border or elsewhere that number will be sufficient. In this case it may be that there will be no numbers. But I believe that it will be discovered later that there ought to be a number for ease of issuing these notices that are going out to people. The simplest way of all is to put a number in respect of all the various people who are on the register as paying these community charges.
I hope that the Minister will have another look at the matter. Now that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, has looked at his driving licence and managed to discard all the strange marks on it telling him that he cannot drive because of some driving misdemeanour and put it away carefully in his pocket, maybe we shall return to this question. I am sure there is sufficient ingenuity among the people who are discussing this at the present time to enable us to see our way around it. We do not need to include a person's age. However, if the Minister is adamant we shall leave the matter for consideration at another time, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before calling Amendment No. 191, I have to inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 191A.
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 191A:
Page 13, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) No regulation shall be made under subsection (1)(f) of this section unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I can be brief. I believe that there should be careful control over the information to be included in the community charge register. I cannot see that any information other than that already mentioned in Clause 13(1) will be at all necessary. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is important that a person's privacy is not invaded any more than is absolutely essential—a point which has been touched upon earlier. For that simple but very important reason and one which does not need elaboration, I beg to move the amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: The matters to appear in the entries in the register are confined to those considered necessary so that the register will provide a sufficient basis for the effective collection of the community charge. Amendment No. 191A, which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, concerns power to prescribe these details. We shall shortly be consulting assessors and other interested parties about the exact requirements. But there is nothing particularly complex or difficult about them. Therefore, there is no good reason why these regulations, alone of the regulations to be made under the Bill, should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In the
1008
light of that explanation, I wonder whether the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: It is now 25 minutes past ten. The Committee has had a long session today and I am not going to begin a serious argument now. However, I give the Government due warning that I intend to return to this very important matter at a later stage of the Bill.
I could discuss at great length Clause 13 and the various paragraphs in subsection (1)—(a) to (0—which pertain to that clause. I cannot imagine what on earth more anyone would want to know about a person's individual position. I feel strongly about this matter and give due warning that I am totally dissatisfied with the reply. I intend to return to it at a more appropriate time and at a different stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 191B to 193 not moved.]
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 13, line 14, leave out ("(which need not be documentary form) as may be prescribed") and insert ("as to facilitate reasonable access by any person liable to pay the community charge")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment we should like to know what is meant by the words:
"which need not be documentary form".
This information will be on tablets of stone; it will be fed into a computer. What form will it take? It is very important that the register is accessible, readable and understandable, and I await the explanation of the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: It appears to me that this amendment rests on a misunderstanding. The form of the register has no direct connection with the question of access to it by persons liable to pay a community charge. The inspection of a register is dealt with in some detail in Clause 20. Nor is the access affected by whether the register is kept in documentary form or on computer. The provisions of Clause 20, which we shall be able to discuss in due course, apply in either case. Therefore I do not think that what the noble Lord is trying to do here would improve the terms of subsection (3). I hope that he will accept that and be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I gather from the result of my probe that it will either be in documentary form or on the computer. I trust that people will know how to extract the information from the computer. I presume it will be in documentary form when the printout is produced. With that comment, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 194A not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 194B:
Page 13, line 24, leave out from ("register") to end of line 25 and insert ("no later than 31st August 1988, at which date the register will come into force").
The noble Lord said: This is quite important because when we get to the point of fixing dates and

1009
times we have to bear in mind that the register is to come into force on 1st April. One must remember that this concerns the Scottish Office. Earlier today we heard about the difficulties, so we really should put down a time for the work and preparation of this register to be completed.
Although my amendment uses the words "will come into force" I am not sure that that is exactly the right phrase because the register does not really come into force until 1st April. That is therefore a point which will need to be taken up at another time, but I am suggesting that it should say "no later than 31st August 1988" because 1st April 1989 is the starting date. To assist local authorities who have to introduce this and work on the sums of money which are available, we should have it in force by about 31st August.
Anybody who knows anything about rate support grant and the work that has to be done between the Government and the Scottish Office knows it will be necessary to advise by several months the timetable in respect of the rate support grant negotiations. A local authority must know what is coming in before it can even begin in the early part of the year to lay down what is to be the personal community charge and what is to be the collective community charge. There is also the work to be done on non-domestic rating, which continues. It is going to be very difficult. It is not good enough just to say "prepare the register by such date as may be prescribed as the date of coming into force of the register". That is the purpose of the amendment, and I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I have sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, about the need to be working towards a particular date, but this amendment would set a firm date of 31st August 1988 rather than a date to be prescribed as the date for the coming into force of the register. I am reluctant to embody in the Bill a firm date by which the register should come into force. The Bill provides that this date should be prescribed. It may indeed be prescribed as 31st August 1988, but as we see things at present that might be a little early. I should prefer to leave open the actual date until we have had further consultations with the Scottish Assessors' Association and other interested bodies so that we can be sure that the date chosen will be the correct and practicable one.
I appreciate of course that it is desirable that the date should be known as soon as possible. We have already met the Scottish Assessors' Association of preliminary discussions on the timetable for the preparation of the registers, and I had hoped that agreement could be reached and the necessary regulations on this point laid very soon after the enactment of the Bill. In view of the general explanation, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would consider withdrawing his amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I can understand that the Government like to have a free hand. However, it will be troublesome from the point of view of the assessors—we now call them registration officers—unless they are given some information
1010
about when they can expect to commence this work. It depends entirely on when the Government give us a date. It is all very well for them to say that it will be soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I think that they could give some prior information as regards that matter. It is not clear whether they will be able to commence it even then.
Whether we like it or not, we know—I always knew—that there could not be a general election in May because the Government have to pass this Bill. If they are so determined, they could not hold a general election in May and give the notice required. I do not know whether or not they will be able to hold a general election in June because this Bill must go back to another place. As I understand the matter, proceedings on House of Lords' amendments in another place are not covered by the guillotine Motion which was passed earlier, unless, of course, they pass another Motion—and nothing would surprise me in respect of this matter.
What happens next? Whether it is June or October, a general election means work for the man in charge, the community charge registration officer, who in Scotland is also the electoral registration officer. Therefore he will have his hands full drawing up that register and sending out correspondence in respect of it. It will not be easy. He will have to be pushed if the local authority is to get the statistics it will require to make decisions in respect of standard charge and collective charge. It will also have to consider non-domestic rates. Somebody will have to be a slave-driver if the Government are to stick to their original date of 1st April 1989. I think that they will come to regret that. We have tried hard, and will probably try harder when we come to the next stage of the Bill, to give them some flexibility and leeway in respect of this.
In view of the explanation given by the Minister, however, I shall not proceed with the amendment tonight. When they are looking at this matter, though, will they look at the accuracy of the words "come into force"? I doubt if the Bill can come into force before 1st April 1989. The registers can be drawn up, but whether the legislation can be construed as "in force" simply because it is completed is worth looking at from the point of view of accuracy in relation to statute. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 195A:
Page 13, line 29, after ("notice") insert ("in plain language")
The noble Lord said: I speak to Amendment No. 195A, and linked with it is Amendment No. 201. I am concerned that the Government are proposing that everyone should be liable to pay something towards the community charge and that, as a consequence of that, many people will be brought into liability having no past experience of such circumstance in this particular area of their lives. I therefore consider it important that any statutory notices which are sent to a person entered in the community charges register, or affected by an amendment of the register, should be in plain language so that they are made aware of their rights and obligations in relation to the Act.
Indeed, the Law Society of Scotland pointed out in its observations to the Scottish Office consultation paper, at paragraph 12, that if the sheriff courts are to decide appeals about registration decisions the possibility of parallel actions and conflicting decisions will arise. For example, there does not seem to be anything to stop an appellant appealing to all the registration areas in which he is registered. The Law Society took the view that there should be an independent tribunal set up to deal with appeals and to determine disputes. I do not feel able to take a view on that, but I certainly think that this is further evidence of how badly the Bill is drafted. That point has been made much of in recent hours.
Quite clearly the possibility of multiple appeals has not even been considered, nor has the effect of the decision of a sheriff on other registration areas. But be that as it may, I suggest that any notice which is drafted in plain rather than otiose language can only be of help to all concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I should not like to delay the Committee at this late hour, but I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, says. We are dealing with a large number of people—I think the figure is 3.85 million—and there are a lot of people who will not understand some of the forms that come across their table. I instance the new Home Office directive on the form you have to fill in for postal votes. It is not exactly an improvement on the old one, in my view. It just shows what can happen when some departments get hold of an idea and they go on and on and produce the most incredible forms in the end.
If this whole system is going to succeed I do not know whether "in plain language" is the right wording for it, but I very much applaud Lord Kirkhill's sense in that people who are going to be reading forms of this sort for the first time ought to understand in plain language what they are about.
Lord Gray: This amendment raises a valid point for the reasons that have already been given. I notice that Clause 14(2) provides for two prescriptions. I hope that in addition to the other points we have mentioned the Government will be careful to try to ensure that throughout Scotland the forms are the same.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly take on board my noble friend's last point. Certainly what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, wants to achieve is laudable. I am the first to agree with that. But where I hope he and indeed my noble friend Lord Sanderson will feel reassured is that we want to achieve precisely what the noble Lord is looking for but in prescribing the form of the notice.
As Clause 14(2) makes clear, there is certain basic information to be included in the notice. The first matter is the effect of the entry in the register, which is, broadly speaking, that the individual will be liable to pay the community charge from 1st April 1989 and may expect to receive a bill in due course. The second element calls for an explanation of the rights of appeal under Clause 16, and the third relates to the requirement under Clause 18(2) to notify changes.
1012
We envisage that the power to prescribe the form of notice will be used to require a sufficiently clear statement on all these matters, together with other important details such as where appeals should be made and in what form, and how notification of changes should be made. There will have to be consultations about the prescribed form to ensure that the layout and contents are compatible with local authorities' computer and printing systems. But I assure the Committee that it will certainly be our objective to ensure that the end product is clear and comprehensible, "in plain language", as the noble Lord would have it, in the terms of the amendment.
I completely understand what my noble friend Lord Sanderson meant when he referred to the notice about postal votes. I had to read it more than once myself; but I hope that what we shall achieve here meets through the form of the prescription the aims put forward. I hope that is of some reassurance.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think we should be reasonably assured of what we are going to get; but I should like to know what the plainer language is going to be. One thing we must not do is to have this suddenly thrust upon people so that they ask, "What's this?". We should be starting fairly early after the Bill is passed to let people know what is coming to them. Even though it is in the middle of an election period, I think you have to take time to let people know the present that is coming to them of the benefits of paying these charges—particularly the 18 year-olds. Since they are not paying any rates, the sooner they are told that the Government think that they should all pay equally about £250 a year the better. They can be told "Don't worry: it is subject to certain rebates if you haven't got the money and you will not get it all but you'll get some".
The one thing I would lay down is that we keep the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, away from this. He will finish up giving them the impression that they are all going to get £250. The way he massages the unemployment figures, if he takes charge of the advertising and the publicising of this charge it will be very, very wrong. I do not know how my noble friend feels about that.
Lord Kirkhill: I accept that the Minister has given me something of an assurance. I should have been more pleased had he felt able to accept my amendment, because it is clearly drafted and has significant impact in its language. He will have noticed what some of his noble friends have said. I for my part will study carefully his remarks. I do not say that I shall not return to this point, but I shall at least consider seriously what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 195B not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Amendment of register:]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 13, line 39, leave out ("years") and insert ("months").
The noble Lord said: We are giving the power to the registration officer to amend the register at any time, and then we say,
"amendments may be made with retrospective, immediate or prospective effect".
Nothing could be more comprehensive than that. It goes on:
"except that—
(a) the maximum period for which an amendment can be made with retrospective effect is three years".
This is becoming just as good as the Inland Revenue. This is a bit much, especially when we are starting away with it for the first year: indeed the retrospective effect could obviously be only one year.
The decision to amend the register in this way might mean that somebody is liable to pay three years' personal community charge if he has been omitted from the register for some reason or other. Three months is a more reasonable period. After all, if a mistake has been made, it may well be that the staff has not been adequate. In common sense, we should eliminate the retrospective effect of three years and make the period three months. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: It may help if I explain the purpose of subsection (1) of Clause 15. In the normal case, we would expect that the length of the retrospective or prospective period will be no more than a few days. Circumstances will, however, arise from time to time in which someone has been resident in a local authority's area for some time without having been registered. In terms of Clause 18(1), such a person will be required in that case to notify the registration officer of his arrival within one month. There is no specific sanction for late notification, but in that case the community charge will become payable with interest, and if the period before the registration officer is notified is of more than three months a surcharge becomes payable.
We will have the opportunity to debate these provisions in detail when we consider Amendments Nos. 220–224, relating to Clause 18. At this stage, I need only say that it is right that the registration officer should be able to make entries with retrospective effect for an appreciable period, since there will undoubtedly be cases in which people attempt to ensure that their names are not included on the register.
The point was, however, made during the Committee stage in another place that an entirely open-ended retrospective period might be considered to be unnecessary and possibly unjust, if, for instance, someone's name had been left off the register for an extended period because of a mistake by the registration officer. Clause 15(1)(a) was therefore inserted into the Bill at Report stage in another place. This restricts the maximum retrospective period to three years. I must say, however, that the period of three months suggested by this amendment would be quite inadequate. It would encourage those moving into an area to seek to avoid registration in the knowledge that when their names were registered (as a result of the registration officer receiving information through a subsequent canvass or by other means) their
1014
liability for arrears of personal community charge would in practice be limited to three months. On the other hand, the Bill's provision of three years is a reasonable maximum. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not think that is at all a reasonable compromise. There is a very considerable difference between three years and three months. It must be borne in mind that the Act will come into force on 1st April 1989, and it will be three years after that before there can be what is, admittedly, the maximum figure, which is far too high. I hope that the Government will look at this again to see whether or not they can reduce the maximum. Common sense should make them do it, especially in relation to the likelihood of someone paying the maximum fine for a three years' lapse of community charge. Maybe we shall return to this at another time. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: The next amendment is Amendment No. 197. I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 198.
[Amendments Nos. 197 to 199A not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("not")
The noble Lord said: This is an interesting point.
The Bill states:
"The registration officer shall not be obliged to consult the person registered or to be registered before making any amendment".
I suggest that we leave out the word "not" and in a further amendment I suggest changing the word "but" to "and". I think that reasonable. It is not world-shattering. But it is an interesting matter from the point of view of personal freedom in that something is being done which may affect someone retrospectively over three years. Therefore, I think we should get rid of the word "not". I believe that the person registered or to be registered should be consulted. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: As I see it, the burden of the amendment would make it incumbent upon the registration officer to consult the person registered or to be registered before he made any amendment to the register. Amendment No. 200 would achieve this by the simple expedient of deleting the word "not" from the provision in subsection (5) of Clause 15 that the registration officer shall not be obliged to consult the person registered or to be registered, and would make a consequential grammatical change. I shall study the point made by the noble Lord to see whether there is merit in the change in grammar suggested. However, we should be tangling ourselves in knots.
In many cases an amendment would be made as a result of information received by the registration officer from the person to whom the entry relates in accordance with the duty placed on that person to notify the registration officer of his liability under

1015
Clause 18(1) or to notify changes in his registration details under Clause 18(2). In those circumstances the person would be fully aware of the fact that an amendment is to be made before it is made. I therefore do not think that the amendment is necessary in the first place. Nevertheless, I shall study it and if I can see merit in it, I shall return to it myself. However, I do not believe that it is necessary, and I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be moderately satisfied.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I hope that the Minister will study the point. The very fact that the wording is included in the Bill will encourage the registration officer not to consult the person involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, it may mean a back-payment of an enormous amount of money, and I think that the word "not" should come out and it should be an obligation to consult the person before an amendment is made which may seriously affect him. I trust that the Minister will consider the matter seriously.
Lord Ross of Marnock: If the Minister does not want to get tied in knots, here is a knot he can get rid of, in view of the fact that he will spend the whole of the Easter Recess looking at these matters again. Let us not forget that when people such as the Government Chief Whip and others are having a nice easy time, we shall have to prepare for the next stage of this Bill which must take place the day after we come back. He is a hard, hard man; he is the hammer of the Scots and we shall not forget it! I hope that the Minister will study the amendment. Five minutes may lead him to the conclusion that the word "not" should be removed and the word "but" should be changed to "and". However, in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 201 and 201A not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: The Committee may feel that we have reached a suitable moment at which to break. If so, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Aberystwyth Harbour Bill
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

National Provident Institution Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.

  RADIOCAESIUM IN FOOD: EC CONTROLS
  RADIOCAESIUM IN FOOD: EC CONTROLS
  INTERMEDIATE TREATMENT
  INTERMEDIATE TREATMENT
  CANNON GROUP: SALE OF FILM LIBRARY
  CANNON GROUP: SALE OF FILM LIBRARY
  SPEECH BY JUDGE ARGYLE
  SPEECH BY JUDGE ARGYLE
  SAMPSON'S REPORT
  SAMPSON'S REPORT
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  SELECTIVE EMBARKATION CONTROLS
  SELECTIVE EMBARKATION CONTROLS