Sitting of 12 May 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  PRIVATE BILLS (SUSPENSION)
  Ordered,
  That—
  (1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which has originated in this House or has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session;
  (2) the Agent for the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceeding thereon shall give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than five o'clock on Thursday of their intention to suspend further proceeding thereon, or, if the Bill, having passed this House, is then pending in the House of Lords, of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session: provided that all fees due upon any such Bill up to that day be paid;
  (3) a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stage at which they have been suspended, shall be prepared by the Clerks in the Private Bill Office and printed;
  (4) every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament;
  (5) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session;
  (6) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the causes of Her Majesty's calling the Parliament have been declared thereunto;
  (7) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill has been read a second time before its suspension) to have been read a second time and—

  (i) if such Bill has been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the present Session, it shall stand so referred;

  (ii) if such Bill has been referred to an opposed Committee during the present Session and not reported by that Committee to the House, the Bill shall be committed and

  (a) all Petitions against the Bill which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session; and

  (b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

  (iii) if such Bill has been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it has been reported with Amendments in the present Session and has not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table: provided that if any New Clause has been added on consideration of a Bill as amended in a previous Session such Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table with that Clause;

  (iv) if such Bill has been read the third time before its suspension, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;

  (8) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought
  158
  from the House of Lords in the next Session and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House in the present Session;
  (9) when any Bill which has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House, is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the table of the House—

  (i) unless the Examiner has reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;

  (ii) if the Examiner has so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or. if it has been read a second time, it shall be read a second time and committed; but

  (iii) if the Bill has been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the present Session it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as have been made thereto by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

  (10) where a Bill has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and the period prescribed by paragraph (1) of Standing Order 171A relating to Private Business (Petitions against private bills) has not elapsed before Friday, any Petition presented during the present Session in pursuance of that Standing Order shall be void, and the period of time prescribed by that Standing Order shall apply to any Bill brought from the Lords in the next Session in pursuance of this Order;
  (11) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first second, and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
  (12) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (7) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which have not been withdrawn or have been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session;
  (13) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed hills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;
  (14) where any Standing Orders have been dispensed with in respect of any private Bill in the present Session or in the last Session, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;
  (15) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords upon which the proceedings have been suspended in that House shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill for the present Session shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the next Session.
  (16) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the present Session.
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  To he communicated to the Lords.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Job Club Programme
    Mr. Adleyasked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the job club programme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): Job clubs are a very effective means of helping longer term unemployed people back to work. Sixty per cent. of those who leave job clubs go into jobs, and 13 per cent. find places on the community programme, a training course or the enterprise allowance scheme. In order to build on this success we have recently expanded the number of job clubs to 1,000 and are opening a further 300 by September. This will enable around 175,000 people to enter job clubs this year.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and note, as usual, the sneering comments from the Opposition Front Bench. Will my hon. Friend accept from me that the job clubs in Christchurch and Ferndown in my constituency already fulfil a valuable role in bringing together people who want to find work and employers who are looking for staff? Will he please be encouraged to continue with the scheme and let the Government give it every possible consideration and support?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right. Job clubs are an excellent concept. The progress being made in Christchurch and Ferndown by the job clubs there augurs well for the future. I wish that Opposition Members had visited their local job clubs to see the good work that is being done. Perhaps they are at the job clubs already, because I suggest that after 11 June many will be using job clubs for real.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister explain why the Manpower Services Commission has been paying £37,000 a year to a luxury hotel in Bradford to house two temporary job clubs, when last week the MSC announced that it was going to withdraw a smaller amount of money from Fashion Services for the Disabled, which allows disabled people to play a more active part in the community, and that in December this year it will withdraw an even smaller amount of money from the Bradford Playspace scheme, which provides poor children with holidays that they would not otherwise receive and some activity for 40,000 poor children in Bradford? Will the Minister ask the chairman of the MSC to reverse those heartless decisions?
    Mr. Lee: I cannot comment on the project that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Job clubs are a very effective concept. The total cost of a job club is about £23,000 per annum and, given the success rate of getting people into jobs, it is extremely good value for money.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I confirm every word that my hon. Friend the Minister has said about the efficacy of job clubs. The one in my constituency, which we are very glad to have, has an immensely positive attitude. It is extremely well run and the atmosphere is very good. Many people go on to immediate employment, or very shortly thereafter get jobs.
    Mr. Lee: I am grateful to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). I have not visited the Lancaster job club, but I have seen 15 or 20 on my visits round the country. They are an excellent concept, and one finds that the individuals are motivated to look for work.
    Ms. Clare Short: The Minister is right that job clubs are popular, because they assist a very small minority of people and give them intensive help in obtaining a job. Does he not understand that, as the numbers of job clubs grow, the percentage of those getting jobs will fall, because the problem is not that people do not know how to look for jobs, but that there are not enough jobs available? Under this Government, since 1979 1·6 million jobs have been destroyed in the British economy. Is it not time for the Department of Employment to concentrate on developing jobs and solving unemployment, rather than developing schemes and ways of fiddling figures to create a camouflage over the jobs problem?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Lady talks about small numbers. I repeat that this year about 175,000 people will pass through job clubs. There is no indication that the numbers of those who go into employment are reducing. The 60 per cent. figure is a national average, and some job clubs have figures well above that.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have visited the Orpington job club and found it to be of inestimable value to the local unemployed, ending their sense of isolation and giving them practical help in the process of getting fresh jobs?
    Mr. Lee: Once again, I appreciate my hon. Friend's support in talking about his experience of the job club in his area.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Jack Thompsonasked the Paymaster General what is his latest estimate of the net loss of full-time jobs and net gain in part-time jobs since 1979.
    The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): We estimate that between June 1979 and December 1986 full-time employment in Great Britain decreased by 1,359,000 and part-time employment increased by 719,000. Since 1983, however, the total employed labour force has grown by 1,130,000.
    Mr. Thompson: Is it not a fact that, even now, full-time jobs throughout the country are disappearing? Yesterday, the written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) showed that in the northern region, for instance, in 1986, which is a comparable figure for any year from 1979, there were more than 19,000 redundancies. Does not the introduction and development of part-time jobs take away from the employee the rights of national insurance, unfair dismissal and wage protection?
    Mr. Clarke: No. The hon. Gentleman's first assertion is definitely not a fact. He quotes figures for redundancies, and, unfortunately, some redundancies are still occurring. However, the rate at which jobs are now being created is exceeding the rate at which jobs are being lost. We have a process of industrial change and industrial revival. I am glad to say that, given that unemployment has now been falling strongly for eight months, it has been falling most strongly in the northern region.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the work done by the action for jobs team is to be welcomed? Could he arrange a new date for the team to visit Bolton? When the team does come, will it persuade Bolton council to let common sense prevail and stop its boycott of the new job training scheme?
    Mr. Clarke: We find that the action for jobs programme is welcomed by those to whom it is presented, and I am delighted to say that when we present the full range of policies to local people up and down the country we get a much increased level of involvement from employers, local people and local authorities in helping us to deliver the schemes. I hope that the local authority abandons its ridiculous objection to the job training scheme. It is a pity that, in this pre-election mood, parts of the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress appear to be opposed to extending training to the unemployed. I trust that common sense will ultimately prevail.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Paymaster General accept—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Why is there such a sense of excitement about all this today?
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Paymaster General — [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This all takes a lot of time.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Paymaster General accept that his announcement that every two full-time jobs lost since 1979 have been replaced by one part-time job is a searing indictment of eight years of this Government, who were elected to reduce, not treble, unemployment, and a further example of the fraudulent claims of Tory election promises? Can he now tell the House whether he accepts the common assessment that if the policies continue we will see more reductions of full-time manufacturing jobs, to be replaced by more part-time, low-paid, low-skill, skivvy employment schemes?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not agree with that. The figures from 1979, of course, take account of the enormous job losses that took place in the recession of 1979, 1980 and 1981.
    Mr. Prescott: Which the Government created.
    Mr. Clarke: No. A combination of international conditions and the policies of the previous Labour Government were responsible for that. It is absurd for the Opposition to ignore the fact that there has been a steady increase in the number of jobs in the British economy, since 1983 in particular.
    Ms. Clare Short: Part-time, low-paid jobs.
    Mr. Clarke: It is not true that they are part-time and low-paid. Between June 1983 and December 1986 there has been an increase of more than 250,000 full-time jobs; the number of part-time jobs has increased by more than 400,000; and the number of self-employed positions has increased by nearly 500,000. The Opposition are trying hopelessly to distort the figures by going back to 1979 to deny the strong recovery.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the picture painted by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) of the north of England is completely out of kilter? Only today Nissan has
    162
    announced that it is taking on 300 additional workers, and the National Coal Board has announced, for the first time for many years, that it is to take on 500 apprentices in the coal industry. We need no lessons from any Opposition Member about how well we are doing in the north of England.
    Mr. Clarke: The Government are supporting that by putting money into the new northern development companies, setting up new urban development corporations, establishing new inner city task forces in the most depressed parts of the region and supporting a new spirit of enterprise and initiative, which is producing results in the northern region.

    Training Schemes (Liverpool)
    Mr. Altonasked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the success rate of training schemes in Liverpool.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): The Government spent over £26 million in 1986–87 on a wide range of training schemes in Liverpool to enable young people and adults to acquire the skills that they need to compete for jobs. Well over half of those leaving YTS between March and September 1986 entered work or further training. Sixty-six per cent. of those leaving the job training scheme between April and October 1986 entered work or further training, and 74 per cent. of people leaving training for enterprise courses in the period April to October 1986 entered work, 58 per cent. of them in a self-employed capacity.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Minister aware that a Liverpool university survey showed that one third of all school leavers on Merseyside failed to find a job and that 60 per cent., as the Minister said, entered training schemes? Is it not therefore important that the quality of those schemes is maintained? Does he agree that schemes like that run by the North Liverpool Music Resource Centre have brought training schemes into some disrepute? While I thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), who has helped to ensure the quality of that scheme and the prospects for the young people involved in it, does the Minister agree that it is important, if schemes are to be successful, that quality must be maintained and the people who run the schemes must be above the claims of disrepute that have been thrown around?
    Mr. Trippier: I agree that we are searching for quality in all our schemes, particularly YTS and JTS. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would start by referring to the figures that I gave in my substantive answer, although perhaps that is asking too much. However, I am sure he would agree that they are impressive. The percentage of those finding work, as a result of taking advantage of the schemes, is very high. There is no difference between the hon. Gentleman and the Government on the matter of quality.
    Mr. Squire: On the specific point about Liverpool, has my hon. Friend seen any sign of an increase in applications from ex-Militant Labour councillors for training places?
    Mr. Trippier: Certainly in my region, the north-west region, we have seen a considerable number of

    163
    applications from those Militants to be parliamentary candidates at the forthcoming election. We shall make hay of that come election day.

    Tourism
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Paymaster General what information he has on the amount of income that has been generated by tourism in the East Midlands tourist board area in each year since 1978.
    Mr. Trippier: In the East Midlands tourist board area, spending increased from £145 million in 1978 to over £375 million in 1985.
    A table giving full information has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Bruinvels: As Leicester currently has an underdeveloped potential as a major tourist area, it is not surprising that it still needs those grants. As I intend to be re-elected, may I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that Leicester receives the full status of a tourism development action programme area? That would bring additional jobs to the area and ensure that the 1·5 million jobs in the tourist industry would be increased, particularly in Leicester.
    Mr. Trippier: After all the hard work that he has done, I am quite certain that my hon. Friend will be re-elected. As we all know, he is a very assiduous and able advocate for his constituents.
    My hon. Friend asked about the tourist development action programme. It is for the English Tourist Board to decide, but I can tell him that it welcomes applications of that kind.
    Ms. Richardson: Is the Minister aware that women, including women in the east midlands, who represent two thirds of hotel and catering workers are being paid poverty wages? Full-time workers receive just over £80 a week and part-time workers receive £2·03 an hour. In view of the very high profits in the tourist industry—and we are not sorry about those profits—does the Minister agree that it is about time that some of those profits were directed towards the low-paid?
    Mr. Trippier: It is important that the hon. Lady is heard loud and clear not to be knocking the tourist industry or the jobs in it. That is the last thing that we want when we are trying to raise its status.
    The hon. Lady referred to low pay. That is precisely the reason why, when we were considering the Wages Bill, now an Act of Parliament, that we decided to retain wages council protection. She obviously welcomes that protection, as do many Conservative Members, for those aged 21 and over.

    Job Release Scheme
    Mr. Knoxasked the Paymaster General if he will make a further statement on the operation of the job release scheme.
    Mr. Lee: The job release scheme enables older workers to retire early with an allowance on the condition that their employers agree and replace them with people who are unemployed.
    At the end of March, 24,000 people were supported under job release.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that the job release scheme is one of the best schemes for alleviating the present unemployment, in that it does not involve commitments when we return to full employment? Does he further agree that not nearly enough people are involved in it and that it should be expanded?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right. It is an excellent scheme, and I am grateful for the constructive interest that he has taken in it. Expansion of the scheme would be expensive, but obviously all our schemes are under constant review.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that the job release scheme enjoys all-party support and is popular with employers and with those who participate in it? Can he explain why the Tory Government cut this scheme, and will he acknowledge, as his hon. Friend said, that the scheme should be increased and improved, not reduced?
    Mr. Lee: Over the years there have been a number of changes in the job release scheme and, if I remember correctly, some of them took place under the Labour Government. It is an excellent scheme, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman draws on the whole range of organisations that support it. As regards further expansion, as I have said, it is an expensive scheme; but I repeat that all these schemes are kept under review. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Harris: While agreeing that this is an excellent scheme, and hoping that Ministers in their review will look at the payments made to people who take advantage of it, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is some bitterness among people who have taken advantage of it, because payments have not increased in line with inflation? Will he please look again at this important point?
    Mr. Lee: We take that into account when we adjust the rates of allowance, and that is normally done annually. We also take into account the tax aspects, because some of the allowances are taxable whereas, others are tax free.

    Tourism (Job Creation)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Paymaster General how many jobs he estimates will be created by tourism in 1987; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Trippier: The Government do not produce forecasts of future employment levels, which depend on many factors. However, if present trends in tourism continue, I would expect to see further significant growth in employment in 1987.
    Mr. Eadie: Does the Minister agree that there would be more job creation in the tourist industry if the Government implemented the Select Committee's suggestion in its report of extending the tourist season? That could be done at low cost, or even negative cost. Does he further agree that the refusal to do this could only be interpreted as a sort of doctrinaire approach, because it would assist the regions in their job creation efforts?
    Mr. Trippier: I agree that it is important that we should do all that we can to extend the tourist season. In fact, we responded positively to that when the Select Committee report came out. The hon. Gentleman should be careful

    165
    not to quote too much from that report, because if we had implemented all it, recommendations, that would have been disadvantageous to Scotland.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have done a great deal to extend the season by encouraging especially business tourism and conference trade, and that the contribution of that to employment has been largely underestimated by Opposition Members? Does he share my hope that they will change their attitude in the next Parliament?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, one of the conditions that we have introduced alongside section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 is that those who apply for the grant should devise means whereby they can extend the tourist season.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that many extra jobs would be created in tourism in Wales if the Welsh Tourist Board was able to advertise itself directly overseas as its Scottish equivalent does? Does he agree also that the promotion of Wales overseas should not be left to the British Tourist Authority? Will he urge the Government to bring forward the necessary legislation to enable that to happen?
    Mr. Trippier: That would mean that Wales would get two bites at the cherry, because the principal job and responsibility of the British Tourist Authority is to bang the drum abroad and encourage inward tourism to the United Kingdom. The Welsh Tourist Board does have an opportunity from time to time to exhibit with the BTA at various exhibitions. I am certainly not averse to the hon. Lady's suggestion. However, I must point out to her that the principal responsibility for that must rest with the BTA.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: As my hon. Friend knows, the office of the East Midlands tourist board is in Lincoln, which is quite right, because Lincoln is the most historic and beautiful city in the region. Does he agree that, given imagination, professionalism and co-operation between the public sector and private enterprise, many thousands of jobs could be created by the proper development of the eastern tourist group of Cambridge, Peterborough, Lincoln, York and Durham, and that all of us should give our minds to developing that?
    Mr. Trippier: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said and agree with him completely that the headquarters of the East Midlands tourist board is in the right location. We are trying to encourage areas further north of Watford to make application under section 4, given the new policy, so that we can try to assist the dispersal of tourists away from London and the south-east.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister, who has some knowledge of the north-west region, will know that the north-west is developing tourism. Everyone will welcome jobs in that area. However, does he accept that that is only scratching at the surface of the 300,000 people who have been thrown out of work in the manufacturing sector and the 32 per cent. reduction in jobs in that sector since the Government came to power?
    Mr. Trippier: I love the back-handed compliment that the hon. Gentleman pays me by saying that I have some knowledge of the north-west. I was born, brought up and have lived there all my life. I dare say that I might know it better than he does.
    166
    On tourism, again I caution Opposition Members not to be so quick in rubbishing this industry. I cannot find another sector of the British economy that is showing such an increase in wealth and job creation. That should not be discouraged. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that in manufacturing, in which we are seeing an increase in profitability the like of which we have not seen for a long time, it is possible for many companies to take on 10 per cent. more work without taking on one more person. We must look to the sectors that will produce the jobs.
    Mr. Gale: Does my hon. Friend, agree that job creation in tourism owes a great deal to sensitive developments? Will he congratulate and further encourage the English Tourist Board in its efforts to promote environmentally acceptable and international standard projects?
    Mr. Trippier: Yes, I do. I am glad to have this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend, who has specialised in this since he was elected to this House, and I am sure that he will continue to specialise in it in the next Parliament.

    Northern Region
    Mr. Fallonasked the Paymaster General how many people found work in the northern region in the first quarter of 1987.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government have no means of knowing exactly how many people find work in any given period. But between 9 January and 6 March 1987, 23,600 people in the northern region were placed in jobs by jobcentres alone, and we estimate that jobcentres account for only about a quarter of all engagements.
    Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, before any electioneering starts, that more than 1 million people are in paid employment in the north-east, which is 29,000 more than in 1983, that self-employment has increased by 16,000 since then and that unemployment is falling fastest in the northern region?
    Mr. Clarke: I would happily confirm that, both before and during the election period which is upon us. I am glad to say that the position seems likely to be sustained, because the number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in the region has increased by 24 per cent. on a year ago and our jobcentres are placing 12 per cent. more people in jobs than they were a year ago.
    Mr. Mason: Surely what is important is how many of those who find work find real jobs with permanency, as distinct from those who are on short-term, part-time, trainee operations?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the bulk of them did. At present there is a growth in the total amount of employment and a corresponding decline in unemployment. There are people between jobs, but the fact is that more and more people are finding jobs in the north and the number of those out of work is steadily decreasing.
    Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me that we in Cumbria are not aided in our job creation prospects by the doom and gloom coming from Opposition Members from further south, such as. Liverpool and Manchester? In Cumbria, unemployment is falling and in my constituency it is below 10 per cent., business is booming, we are creating jobs and we could do without the whingeing from the Opposition parties.
    Mr. Clarke: I am sure that my hon. Friend could also add that the commitments of the Labour party, the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party to cut the Trident programme and stop our nuclear power programme pose the biggest threat to jobs in the northern region of any single policy of any party.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Dixonasked the Paymaster General what percentage of the total unemployed are aged 25 years or less; and what initiatives the Government are pursuing in order to provide full-time employment at average rates of pay for those affected.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On 8 January 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, 34·4 per cent. of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom were aged under 25 years. All of the employment, training and enterprise measures run by my Department and the Manpower Services Commission are part of the Government's strategy for encouraging enterprise and employment.
    Mr. Dixon: Does the Paymaster General agree with the MSC report that of the 200 job training scheme contracts signed at the beginning of May, only 20, or 10 per cent., were with colleges or local authorities in combination with colleges? Is he further aware that the National Audit Office, in a report on the MSC training strategy, said that colleges of further education were good value for money? Will he ensure that there is more public involvement in these job training schemes?
    Mr. Clarke: The new job training scheme is coming along well and we welcome the participation of further education colleges. One big problem is that some Labour-controlled councils are misguidedly refusing to allow further education colleges to take part, and I would be delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in asking them to change their policy.
    Mr. Spencer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that British trade unionists have something to learn from their counterparts in Western Europe, who have not priced young people out of jobs?
    Mr. Clarke: They certainly have. Although young people's pay in the United Kingdom is still high relative to adults' pay compared with the early 1970s, there has been some movement, so the relationship is rather more sensible. The recent fall in youth unemployment has followed from 1982, when youth wages dropped somewhat in relation to adult pay.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Paymaster General aware that youth unemployment is notably grievous in south Yorkshire, which has been transformed into a wasteland in recent years? Has he studied the latest report of the Child Poverty Action Group, which points out that high unemployment and low incomes have made the Yorkshire and Humberside region one of the poorest areas?
    Mr. Clarke: Again, fortunately, the position is improving, most particularly for youth employment. The number of unemployed people under the age of 25 fell by 80,000 last year and has decreased by 120,000 in the past two years. The level of youth unemployment in the United Kingdom is well below the European average and our
    168
    young people are starting to see the benefits of economic revival, partly because of our schemes, rather in advance of the rest of the population.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unemployment, whether in the west midlands or elsewhere, is too high? How is that allied with the fact that the Birmingham Evening Mail carries 20 pages of full-time jobs every Thursday and Friday? Does he agree with the West Midlands Industrial Development Association, which says that jobs in the west midlands are growing faster than anywhere in the country? How does that tally with Socialists trying to scare people about jobs?
    Mr. Clarke: We all accept, as my hon. Friend has said, that unemployment is too high and poses considerable stress and hardship for individuals. That is why we are so pleased to see the growing number of vacancies advertised in local newspapers and jobcentres and the growing number of jobs in the community, all of which is derided by the Opposition, who are extremely concerned.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister know that making comparisons with Europe in that sense fails to recognise that many more apprenticeship schemes have been formed in Europe than in this country? What will the Government do about encouraging apprenticeships in the manufacturing, engineering and building industries?
    Mr. Clarke: We do not have so many traditional apprenticeships as we used to have, but we are developing systems of training which are more akin to those in Western Europe, where one measures people's ability by the skill they can achieve, rather than the number of years they have served in a trade. Nowhere in Western Europe is there a training scheme as good as the YTS, and nowhere in Western Europe is youth unemployment coming down as rapidly as it is here.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that one of the Government's most successful initiatives is the creation of urban development corporations. My right hon. and learned Friend will not know that in Committee this morning the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) announced the Labour party's policy of abolishing them if, God forbid, that party was elected.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that was obviously an incautious slip on the part of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench—as he is now—as a member of the Opposition Whip's Office. We are waiting to hear from the Opposition which of our various schemes they would abolish. Would they abolish the JTS, the YTS or community programmes? What would they do about the measures which they have been deriding for the past year, which are now beginning to succeed?
    Mr. Sheerman: How the Paymaster General said what he has just said without blushing astounds most of us on the Opposition Benches. Almost 35 per cent. of the unemployed are aged under 25, which makes this the most exploited younger generation this century. We have a generation of people under 25 who, if they are not unemployed, are offered thin training schemes which do not lead to real skills, well-paid jobs or a secure future. The Government have offered rotten training, thin training, no skills and no jobs for this generation. The Labour

    169
    Government, who will be elected in a month, will produce jobs, quality training and a future for young people as never before.
    Mr. Clarke: We now have good quality YTS, which has reached the stage where no 16 or 17-year-old need be unemployed. We can guarantee them a place. The new job training schemes are aimed particularly at under-25s, in order to raise their skill levels and improve their prospects of employment. I wait to hear what the Labour party will say about those training schemes. The Labour party is encouraging the TUC to obstruct the schemes in the runup to the election. Will it abolish those schemes after the election?
    Mr. Watts: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the substantial success of the Slough job club—which I opened officially earlier today—in finding real jobs for the unemployed, including those under 25? Is he further aware that I have found very substantial resentment at the attempts of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to rubbish the success of job clubs?
    Mr. Clarke: We now have over 1,000 job clubs. Just under two out of three people who go to job clubs get jobs and more of them go into training and further education. It is a positive disgrace that some unemployed people are deterred from joining those job clubs by the ill-informed and hostile remarks of people such as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersely) and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench.

    YTS
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Paymaster General how many people are presently engaged in the YTS in Britain.
    Mr. Trippier: On 31 March 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, about 318,000 young people were in training on YTS in Great Britain.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Member recognise once and for all that youngsters who participate in a scheme finish up on the unemployment scrap heap? Will he also confirm that if, by some miracle, his party wins the general election—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hamilton: That is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that I have been given a standing ovation.
    Will the Minister now confirm that if, by some miracle, his party becomes the Government after the next election, one third of those youngsters will be coerced into the scheme, and, if they do not allow themselves to be coerced, there will be nothing further at the end of the road?
    Mr. Trippier: You see, Mr. Speaker, it does not matter what scheme we introduce for training, enterprise or self-employment in small businesses—Opposition Members seem to delight in knocking it. They do not want those schemes to succeed and until now they have not wanted unemployment to come down. I have news for the hon. Gentleman—it is.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the turnover of jobs among people under 25 is often rapid and that that provides considerable opportunities for promotion? Therefore, will he take steps to ensure that
    170
    young people on youth training schemes understand that if they take a job, even at a comparatively low wage, their chances of rising quickly to a much higher wage are good?
    Mr. Trippier: That is an important point. The differential between young people who are training, for instance, on YTS, and when they have completed that training—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have private conversations across the Chamber.
    Mr. Trippier:—and find their way into full-time employment is very important. But we start from the position that Britain lacks proper skills training, and we have met that need by introducing YTS.

    Local Employer Networks
    Mr. Colvinasked the Paymaster General how many local employer networks are now in operation.
    Mr. Trippier: The response from employers, employer organisations and others to this important initiative has been encouraging. Contracts have been exchanged for the first six networks and a further 34 are expected to be in place by the end of June.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend add yet another to his list, because the Southampton chamber of commerce signed a contract for a local employer network with the MSC today? Will he acknowledge that the Government have done more than any previous Administration for training in Britain and that local employer networks enable that training to be targeted where skills are in greatest need? I hasten to add that neither I nor any of my parliamentary colleagues in Hampshire, save perhaps the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), intend to be a candidate for retraining following the general election on 11 June.
    Mr. Trippier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend will not be a candidate for retraining. I welcome what he has said and the fact that contracts have been exchanged. He has been extremely kind in complimenting local employer networks. What is happening in his area means that there will be a real local voice, expressed by industry, in education and training.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Ashdownasked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the trend in the number of employees in manufacturing.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The number of employees in manufacturing has been decreasing since 1966. At the same time, the number of self-employed people in manufacturing has been steadily increasing. The downward trend in employees in manufacturing has slowed markedly since 1983.
    Mr. Ashdown: How do those figures square with the fact that a thousand jobs were lost in manufacturing employment in February and, in the three-monthly average to that date, 9,000 were lost compared with 2,000 in the three months to November? Does the Minister not recognise that unless he puts the same kind of energy and resources into investing in manufacturing industry as he currently puts into manipulating the figures, any reduction in the figures will be cruelly deceptive?
    Mr. Clarke: That reduction of 1,000 is one of the smallest that we have had in manufacturing in any month for many years. Manufacturing output is up 15 per cent. since we hit the trough in 1981. Britain's productivity is up 33 per cent. since the previous election. Investment in manufacturing is rising. Our share of export markets is being held. But manufacturing is becoming more technologically advanced. If the hon. Gentleman were to visit, as I am sure he has, as I have, a computer-integrated manufacturing plant, he would see why jobs are not on the factory floor any more. The jobs are in design, marketing, sales and services, many of them serving our wealthier manufacturing industry. That is a pattern upon which we must expect to base policy for many years to come.

    EC (Employment Statistics)
    Mr. Sternasked the Paymaster General if he will place in the Official Report a table showing the percentage employment growth or reduction in each country of the EEC between 1986 and 1987 to date.
    Mr. Lee: The latest available information is for the fourth quarter of 1986. During the year to this quarter, the increase in civilian employment was 0·7 per cent. in the United Kingdom compared with 1·0 per cent. in the Federal Republic of Germany, 0·7 per cent. in Italy and 3·2 per cent. in Spain. I regret that figures for other Community countries are much less up to date.
    Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that unemployment in this country is now not only equal to the European Community average but is falling more quickly than in any other industrialised country in the world?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The United Kingdom has a higher percentage of its adult population in employment than any other EEC country except Denmark. Sixty five per cent. of our adult population are in work.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.
    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.
    Mr. Robertson: During the day, will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that this Parliament could have run until 9 June 1988? Is there not something arrogant and impertinent about the leader of a party brazenly talking about a fourth term when she has been panicked into an election more than a year early?
    The Prime Minister: I note that the hon. Gentleman fears to face the electorate.
    Mr. Leighasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the claim made in Moscow by the Labour
    172
    party foreign affairs spokesman that the Soviet leaders are praying for a Labour victory? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if that were true it would be the best possible advertisement for the Government's strong and consistent defence policy?
    The Prime Minister: A Labour Government who would unilaterally give up Britain's nuclear deterrent would no doubt be the answer to the Kremlin's prayers. I am bound to say, however, that I do not think that much praying goes on in the Kremlin. I believe that people there are probably very realistic and realise that after the election they will probably have to deal with a Conservative Government, who will be standing up for Britain's defences.
    Mr. Kinnock: During the election campaign, will the Prime Minister debate with me face to face on television?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I fear that such a debate would generate more hot air than light. [HON. MEMBERS: "Frit."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister says that she is proud of her record and that she is fighting on her record, so why will she not debate it face to face with me on television?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will find his own platform. I shall not give him one. I shall put across my record of achievements, this Government's record of achievements. We shall put positive policies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Frit."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very unseemly to use such a word.
    The Prime Minister:—in the way that all past Prime Ministers have recommended their policies to the electorate. I have done so twice and I shall do so a third time.
    Mr. Jackson: Thinking of recent settlements of the teachers' and nurses' pay disputes, may I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us what the implications would be for public sector workers of income policies along the lines advocated by the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: The last time the Oppostion were in government they introduced income policies. They are no part of our policies. They will always fail and they usually have a devastating effect, particularly on those who work in the public sector. Last time they had a damaging effect, especially on the pay of nurses.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Prime Minister recall the number of leaders of other countries—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Steel:—who in recent years have proclaimed themselves as leaders for life? As the right hon. Lady is now aiming for the end of the century, is this what the Leader of the House had in mind when he warned on Sunday against the arrogance that comes with power? Does she agree with him, or are his days now numbered as well?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that I have just asked for dissolution so that we may submit ourselves to the electorate.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Gloucestershire county council, now under alliance

    173
    domination, had a surplus this year of £4 million on its education budget, but rather than spend that money on books or on improving the schools, the alliance council decided to plunder that fund and spend the money on road improvements in the Cheltenham area? Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is absolutely despicable that the alliance councillors should plunder the education fund for motorists at the expense of the children?
    The Prime Minister: I note what my hon. Friend said, but I imagine that, like me, he is not surprised.
    Mr. Corbettasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Prime Minister know that unemployment in my constituency is the 28th worst in the country and has more than doubled to 24 per cent. during her time? Is this part of her Government's claimed success?
    The Prime Minister: Had we not pursued policies which have led to economic strength, to competitive industry and to large and expanding sunrise industries in the service sector, the prospects for unemployment would be infinitely worse than they are now. We have efficient manufacturing industry, excellent service industries, very good prospects for expansion and good prospects for the future.
    Mr. Crouch: On a serious note, may I say to my right hon. Friend how much my constituents and many others appreciated her presence in Canterbury cathedral last month on the occasion of the memorial service to those who died in the Herald of Free Enterprise? On that occasion I had the honour of sitting beside my right hon. Friend. I have not had that distinction in this place. If I were returning here next time, I would be very happy to sit behind my right hon. Friend on this side of the House.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the occasion to which he referred was one that united the House.
    Mr. Loydenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Loyden: When the Prime Minister prepares the list of successes that she will be parading round the country in the weeks that lie ahead, what place will be occupied by the doubling of unemployment, the increase in homelessness, the decline of the Health Service, the divided society—a more impoverished society, a society in which crime has risen—and the cases of drug-ridden cities? This has—been the evidence of eight years of Tory Government. Will she be telling the people exactly what that has meant to this country?
    The Prime Minister: I shall be telling them of the economic strength of Britain and the respect in which it is held, that under this Government the people have been able to produce economic growth for seven years, which has generated far more resources for the Health Service, and of a Government who have spread property ownership more widely than any previous Government. I shall point out the negative policies of the Opposition, so vividly set out by Mr. Kilroy-Silk in his book when he
    174
    "The militants and their ilk in Liverpool are the biggest deterrents to job creation on Merseyside that there have ever been."
    Mr. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish Conservatives are very much looking forward to seeing her in Perth on Friday? When she comes to Perth on Friday, will she confirm that it is the policy of the Conservative Government to serve the people and not be obsessed with the manipulation of power, as Liberals seem to be? Will she also tell the Scottish Conservatives that she has been meeting the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition across the Dispatch Box for four years and it still has not done him any good?
    The Prime Minister: I look forward to presenting our case in Perth, the case of a Government who have reduced the powers of Government by taking off many controls, liberated enterprise and reduced income tax, which has led to incentive and growth. I appreciate what my hon. Friend said in the latter part of his question.
    Mr. Tony Banksasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some time ago.
    Mr. Banks: Is the Prime Minister aware that since she has been in office two of the major growth industries within our inner city areas have been child prostitution and street crime? Is this what she meant by the restoration of Victorian values?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, this Government have tackled crime by increasing the numbers of police, where his party has held the numbers. We remember Wapping.
    Mr. Richard Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figures that have come in from those companies returned to the private sector have shown that profits have more than doubled? Is she also aware that the dividends and corporation tax from those companies almost equal the amount of money that was coming from them when they were under state control? In view of this double bonus, will my right hon. Friend, after 11 June, please return even more activities to the private sector, to the benefit of the taxpayer?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The industries that were nationalised by the Opposition and that have been privatised by us have done very much better since privatisation, not only in profits, therefore in contributing to tax and helping us to finance the Health Service and other things as well, but for the people who work in them. I noted a report in The Times today referring to the National Freight Corporation, which said;
    "An original £1 stake in NFC is now worth £46 and about 6,000 employees have holdings worth more than £12,000 each, with a sizeable number approaching £100,000."
    That is an opportunity for employees which the Opposition would love to deny to or take away from them.
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware of the marked increase in unemployment in Wales during the eight-year period in which she has been in office, which shows no

    175
    signs of receding? Does she appreciate that it will not be disguised, even by 19 changes in the unemployment statistics?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, unemployment in Wales has been going down and the standard of living has been going up—and, indeed, is higher than it has ever been. That is quite a tribute to the Government.
    Mr. Maclean: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this country ordinary parents, ordinary trade union members, ordinary ratepayers and ordinary taxpayers are praying for a Conservative victory?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. McWilliam: Given that the Prime Minister will accept that we in the north are looking forward to the election, will she tell the House why she, with her huge majority, has chosen 11 June as the election date? What has she to hide in the economic figures?
    The Prime Minister: It was the best day to choose, and most people are very pleased about it—except for those who are frightened to death of an election.

Clerk of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make. I have to inform the House that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the House :
"After forty years in the service of the House, of which fifteen have been spent at the Table, may I let you know formally of my wish to retire on my 65th birthday, 1 September next.
I count it a privilege to have held for the last four years the highest permanent position in the service of the House. To yourself as Speaker and to the other occupants of the Chair; to the Members of all parties in the twelve Parliaments I have known; and to the staff of the six Departments of the House, I tender my warmest thanks for the courtesy, kindness and consideration that has been shown me. Nor shall I quickly forget the warm welcome which, as a servant of this House, I have received from Members and officials of foreign and Commonwealth Parliaments.
For all that, and for much else in the unique experience of serving this House, I am, and will remain, most grateful."
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The House will have heard your announcement with a mixture of emotions, Mr. Speaker. In a few months' time, we shall see the departure of a distinguished servant of the House, and on that account the whole House will have heard your announcement with regret. However, in the new Parliament and before the summer recess we shall have a welcome opportunity to express our appreciation. In accordance with custom, therefore, I suggest that we defer our fuller comments for that later day.

Points of Order
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has given me notice of a point of order. I feel that he should raise it at the appropriate moment, when we come to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. Mark Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What opportunity will be provided for hon. Members who are not seeking re-election to bid their farewells to you—as has been the custom over a number of Parliaments—given the arrangements for Dissolution and Prorogation? There should be such an opportunity?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that there is to be no Dissolution ceremony. I hope to have a private opportunity of saying farewell to hon. Members who are my friends on both sides of the House, who will not have that formal opportunity to bid me farewell in the Chair.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I can take the hon. Gentleman's point of order. It concerns the selection of amendments, does it not?
Mr. Walker: It is with a view to asking for your assistance over the selection of amendments, Sir. You are aware that we are to debate the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. The following Act will make provision in Scotland for the recovery of proceeds. The long title of the Bill reads:
"An Act to make provision for Scotland as regards the recovery of the proceeds of drug trafficking; to make further provision as regards criminal justice in Scotland; and for connected purposes."
New clauses 1 and 2 that stand in my name are designed to create an offence, the offence being to acquire control of another company on the basis of an undertaking in an offer document that is not subsequently fulfilled. If the offence is confirmed, either by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or by inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of the company, the penalty would be the divestment of the company that had been thus acquired.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of my interest in what is commonly called the Guinness affair—that promises were made that Arthur Bell and Company would remain an autonomous company within the combined group, after Distillers had been acquired—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest, but what is his point of order for me?
Mr. Walker: Because I know that you are aware of the seriousness of this matter, Sir, I am asking you to reconsider your decision so that this important and vital matter, its related circumstances and the possible offences and penalties may be properly debated in a Bill that relates to Scottish affairs.
Mr. Speaker: This morning, I went very carefully into the selection of the amendments. I undertake to look again at the matter and at the appropriate time my decision will be announced. However, because I went into the matter with great care, I cannot hold out much hope to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take first the point of order of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
Mr. Campbell-Savours: When you reconsider these matters. Mr. Speaker, will you take on board the view of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who has made it quite clear that it never was his intention to apply penalties to the new clause that he tabled, but that has been rejected? I am informed that the rejection of the new clause was because of an absence of reference—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can know what was going on in my mind.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I say, then, that, apart from being in your mind, it may equally have been in the minds of the Clerks with whom you discussed these matters, who may well have informed the hon. Gentleman? It is on that basis that, with knowledge of these matters, I rise to make my case.
The new clause was referred to yesterday in questions to the Leader of the House. It provides hon. Members with the only opportunity to debate the Guinness affair on the Floor of the House of Commons prior to the general election. In so far as advice had been taken that this new clause was in order, we believed that it would have been selected. However, because of the selection process, Parliament has been denied the right to debate this highly important matter.
Mr. Speaker: I have said that I will look again at the matter; the hon. Gentleman must not bring further pressure to bear on me. Further to the earlier point of order, I call Mr. Faulds. Mr. Faulds. Mr. Faulds.
Mr. Alan Williams rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Faulds.
Mr. Faulds: Oh, Sir, how I welcome that long-overdue summons.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I had to call the hon. Gentleman four times.
Mr. Faulds: Some of us, Sir, who have been in this place for quite a long time are profoundly concerned at the suspension of the proper Prorogation procedures. We find this unsatisfactory, because it means, among a host of other implications that this ghastly Government, who are running in funk a year early, have suspended the proper way of closing the House, or a Parliament. In addition, it is a very discourteous introduction of a change. It means that most of us who would wish to bid you farewell, in the happy expectation of seeing you again, are prevented from doing so. There have been previous Speakers, notably your predecessor, to whom we were happy not to bid farewell—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us deal with the present, please.
Mr. Faulds: I was merely saying, that it would be more healthy for the whole happy tradition of the way in which the proceedings of the House are conducted if this very bad introduction of the suspension of the ordinary Prorogation procedures was not repeated on future occasions. Most of us—and I speak for the youngsters
180
who will disappear and for the old men who will he back—would like a reintroduction of the proper conduct of the House's abrogation at the end of a Parliament.
Mr. Speaker: I am well aware that 87 right hon. and hon. Members will not be standing again. Normally, we would have had a Dissolution ceremony and that would have given them and me the opportunity to bid each other farewell. I understand that that is not be the case on this occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]. Order. But I share the hon. Gentleman's hope that this will not become a precedent.
Mr. Williams: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful to you for saying that you will look at the matter again. If, as my hon. Friend suggested, a conflict of emphasis is involved, and the divestment is not the penalty that it was interpreted as being by the Table Office, it might help if your could indicate to us why it has been turned down so far, so that we can advise our hon. Friends on the further representations that they might make.
Mr. Speaker: Never in all our long history has the Chair given reasons for the selection or non-selection of amendments.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I apologise for not giving you notice of this point of order. The reason was that I had to see the Table Office before raising the matter with you. You will recall that I submitted an application for an Adjournment debate which was ruled out on the ground that there was no Minister directly responsible. The case concerned one of my constituents, Mr. Noel Frank Smith and had to do with the National Health Service. My point of order is that that case was directly connected with a Minister, and I saw no reason whatever why my Adjournment debate could not be accepted in the formal way. I wonder whether it would be possible for you to look at the matter further to ascertain whether that Minister has direct responsbility so that my constituent can have his case heard in the House as is the tradition.
Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. I shall look into it. Was the hon. Gentleman asking for a second or third Adjournment? The daily Adjournment debates for the week have already been announced.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not think that you should worry too much, Mr. Speaker, about not having a funny little procession at the end of this Parliament. As we have got rid of it this time, it would not be a bad idea to get it into "Erskine May" so that we do not have to repeat it in the future. I say that to counterbalance what some of my hon. Friends have said.
On the more important question about the new clause and Distillers, you said that you would have a fresh look at the matter on the basis of the representations from both sides of the House. I think that you ought to look at it in the knowledge that, notwithstanding all the advice that you get from the Clerks, there are occasions on which they get it wrong. I think that the matter of the new clause should be studied carefully, with a view not to going over the old ground but to trying to fathom out whether a piece of mistaken advice has been given so that we can debate this slimy takeover bid.
Mr. Speaker: I often receive, and am grateful for, the helpful advice of the hon. Gentleman. I certainly accept the advice that he has given me today. I will look at the matter again.
Mr. Ron Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and by my Member of Parliament my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Did the hon. Gentleman vote for the hon. Member for Bolsover?
Mr. Lewis: Yes, and I shall do so again.
Will you reconsider your decision, Mr. Speaker? You said that more than 80 hon. Members from both sides of the House were retiring. Your reply was no consolation to those of us who are retiring. I suggest that you give us an opportunity to thank you by bringing back this function.
Mr. SpeakerI share the hon. Member's concern. Unhappily the decision is not mine. If it had been mine, it would have been in accordance with what I think is the general feeling in the House and not with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Points of Order

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Bill, if the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Money Resolution come to by the House in relation to the Bill have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Maude.]
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the requirements of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall be dispensed with in respect of the Motion in the name of Mr. Norman Lamont relating to Estimates.—[Mr. Maude.]

Proper Representation of the People
3.45 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to disqualify from membership of Parliament people with pecuniary interests which are incompatible with proper representation of the people; and for related purposes.
In a few weeks, the people will have the opportunity to elect their parliamentary representatives. Irrespective of party political allegiance, I am sure that all are agreed that the people deserve parliamentary representatives who will put the interests of their constituents before their own selfish pecuniary interests. Unfortunately, the law of the land and the rules of the House do not place an absolute prohibition, or even a clearly defined limitation, on the outside interests that an hon. Member may have. Of course, there is the Register of Members' Interests, but registration on it seems to be purely voluntary, because the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has for years refused to comply with registration, yet he continues to sit in the House. I submit not only that registration should be made compulsory but that a mere declaration of interest is inadequate. After all, in local government, council members are expected to declare their interests when matters in which they have a vested interest come up for discussion or vote. Normally, those members would not take part in that discussion or vote. There is no parliamentary equivalent to that. There is nothing to stop Members of Parliament from voting to benefit their financial interests and there is no limit on the number of outside financial interests that they may have.
Recently, there was the much-publicised case of two Tory Members who had made multiple share applications in British Telecom. I do not want to dwell too much on that example, because I realise that it is embarrassing to the Conservative party. But it was a example of hon. Members making a financial gain for themselves or their relatives by using their parliamentary vote. Perhaps it was an extreme example, in that the hon. Members who were responsible appear to have broken the law, although it remains to be seen whether they will pay the penalty. There is no doubt, however, that they voted for the legislation to privatise British Telecom and, therefore, were able to take advantage of their vote in Parliament.
Apart from those two hon. Members, more than 100 hon. Members—91 of them Tories—bought British Telecom shares, and most voted for that legislation.
Shareholding is not the end of the story. More than 50 per cent. of Tory Back-Benchers—155 to be precise—and almost a quarter of alliance Members are company directors. Thirty Tory Members are directors of or consultants to companies that are involved in public relations, including the professional lobbying of Parliament.
Take the case of my own Member of Parliament. I used to have the privilege, or otherwise, of being one of my own constituents for a decade or so. The Boundary Commission came along just before the last general election, and changed the goal posts, so I find myself represented for the first time in my life by a Tory moonlighter, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).He has a company called Michael Forsyth Associates Ltd. which counts among its clients people intent on making profits from the privatisation of the National Health Service. The hon. Member, in his company's literature,

183
openly boasts about using his position as a Member of Parliament to introduce clients and prospective clients to Members, including Ministers, to influence governmental or parliamentary decision-making processes.
Lest anyone think that that is an exaggeration, I have with me, on headed notepaper of Michael Forsyth Associates Ltd., a recent annual review in which he refers to receptions, lunches and briefings for Members. The review states:
"John Patten MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, attended a CIC luncheon in January. As a result, it is understood that an internal department inquiry looked at problem district health authorities as outlined at that meeting."
I do not think that I am alone among the hon. Member's constituents in beginning to wonder where on earth his loyalties lie. No man can serve two masters. Constituents are entitled to expect their Member of Parliament to put their interests first before any pecuniary interests of his own. I will not dwell entirely on my own Member of Parliament, because he is not unique in having more than one job. Many hon. Members have more than one paid job, while at present about 4 million people do not have any job at all.
The register of interests discloses that the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) has 12 jobs, seven directorships and five consultancies. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has 10 directorships. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has over 40 directorships, including over 30 chairmanships. I do not know how they find the time to represent their constituents properly. Is it any wonder that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham is hardly ever here? Is it any wonder that the hon. Member for Stirling seems to find it very difficult to find time to hold a surgery in my home town of Bannockburn?
The Bill proposes a five-point statutory code of conduct. At present, there is a code of conduct for Ministers of the Crown. It is not statutory, but they are not allowed to be company directors, for example. The first provision seeks to extend that to all Members of Parliament, so that there will be a ban on Members of Parliament being company directors or having any paid link with professional parliamentary lobbyists.
The second provision is that there be a limit on the amount of outside income that Members of Parliament can earn. Most Members supplement their income in some way or another—for example, by writing the odd article for a newspaper, by a broadcast or whatever. Some Members donate their fees to their constituency party, or a charity. No doubt, especially during the next few weeks, most Members of Parliament would be prepared to appear on television for nothing.
In countries such as the United States of America it is interesting that legislation exists that limits the percentage of outside income that a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator may earn. I propose that
184
there be similar legislation in this country. Even if we limited the external income to 5 per cent. of parliamentary salary, that would enable Members to supplement their incomes by about £900 a year. If Conservative Members think that 5 per cent. is ridiculously small, they should remember that they recently patted themselves on the back for awarding a 5 per cent. salary increase to student nurses, claiming that it was a very generous increase indeed.
The third provision is to make the registration of all other financial interests mandatory. The fourth provision is that, if an hon. Member has an interest, when the matter is under discussion or vote, the hon. Member should not be allowed to speak or vote on that matter. The last provision is that the registration of interests should be extended to parliamentary candidates as well as sitting Members, so that all parliamentary candidates must declare their interests at the time of their nomination.
In a few weeks, the people of this country will have the opportunity yet again to elect their parliamentary representatives. They are entitled to know what interests various candidates have, and they are entitled to full-time representation of constituency interests in Parliament, without any possibility of conflict between the private pecuniary interests of an individual Member and the greater interests of the people we are elected to represent. After all, if Members of Parliament are allowed to use their position to line their pockets, parliamentary democracy will be the loser. Therefore, I ask the House to support my Bill unanimously.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Bob MeTaggart, Mr. David Marshall and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Proper Representation of the People
  PROPER REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  Mr. Dennis Canavan accordingly presented a Bill to disqualify from membership of Parliament people with pecuniary interests which are incompatible with proper representation of the people; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

  FINANCE BILL
  Ordered,
  That Standing Committee B be discharged from considering those Clauses and Schedules of the Finance Bill which it has not disposed of and that those provisions be committed to a Committee of the whole House; that the Chairman do now report to the House those Clauses and Schedules the consideration of which has been completed by that Committee; that any stage of the Bill may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the preceding stage, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill; and that, on being reported from the Committee of the whole House, the Bill, including those provisions reported from the Committee on 30th April and those reported from the Standing Committee this day, may be taken into consideration as amended without any Question being put.—[Mr. Maude.]

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  Considered in Committee
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair.]
  3.56 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
  That the order in which the remaining proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill are to be taken shall be Clause 37, Schedule 7, Clause 39, Clauses 41 to 44, Clause 46, Clauses 54 to 56, Clause 67, Clauses 138 to 146, Schedule 12, Clause 149, Schedule 14, Clause 150, Schedule 15, Clause 151, Clause 153, Schedule 16, Clause 154, Schedule 17, Clause 155, Schedule 18, Clause 156, Schedule 19, Clause 157, Schedule 20, Clauses 158 and 159, Clauses 161 to 163, Schedule 21, new Clauses, Clause 38, Clause 40, Clauses 47 to 53, Clauses 57 to 66, Clauses 68 to 137, Clause 148, Clause 152, Schedules 8 to 11, Schedule 13, Clause 164, Schedule 22 and new Schedules.
  It may be of help to the Committee if I explain the Government's position on the procedure motion and the clauses before us. We intend to proceed today with all the clauses up to clauses 161 to 163 and schedule 21. We shall not be moving the other clauses thereafter because we feel that those clauses will require further debate. However, I shall be moving clause 164 and schedule 22. Clause 164, as amended, will be the clause necessary to complete the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Finance Bill
    Clause 37

      TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATION TAX BY CERTAIN LONG-ESTABLISHED COMPANIES AND BUILDING SOCIETIES
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The purpose of the clause is to standardise the rules relating to the date at which corporation tax is payable. After a transitional period, corporation tax will, in all cases, be payable nine months after the end of the accounting period for which it is chargeable. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) knows, there have been a number of publicised cases with potential tax avoidance in this area and that is one reason why the change has been made.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 7 agreed to.

    Clause 39

      CLOSE COMPANIES: MEANING OF "ASSOCIATE"
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: The purpose of the clause is to amend the definition of "associate" that is used when determining whether someone has a material interest in a close company, and as it applies in the case where a trust
      186
      is involved. In practical terms, the proposed changes will affect two areas of tax only—the approved employee share scheme legislation and close company interest relief on loans taken out by employees to buy shares in their companies. The changes have been made principally in connection with the former Their effect is to relax the rules that determine eligibility to participate in an approved share scheme.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 41

      AUTHORISED UNIT TRUSTS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): This clause and the next three modify the tax treatment of the income and capital gains of unit trusts. They do not change the substance of the existing treatment. The purpose of the modifications is to take account of the new regime for unit trusts provided by the Financial Services Act 1986.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 42 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 46

      FILMS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: The clause is designed to improve the effectiveness of the business expansion scheme for film production companies. Film production is already a qualifying activity, but to meet the conditions a company must have engaged in film production throughout the three-year qualifying period. In future, a company will qualify if it is engaged throughout the period either in the production of films or in the distribution of films produced during the period. The change will apply to shares issued on or after 17 March. I hope that this change will be of assistance to the industry.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 54 to 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 67

      RETIREMENT RELIEF
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. MacGregor: Clause 67 increases the maximum amounts of retirement relief from £.100,000 to £125,000. The increase in the maximum amount is yet another example of the Government's continuing policies to assist small businesses and unquoted trading companies. In particular, the clause will provide encouragement for business men to plough back profits instead of investing for retirement by way of' other savings. We have increased the figure above indexation. The proposal will he a major help for entrepreneurs.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 138

      UNIT TRUSTS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: Clause 138 and the following seven clauses make minor and technical adjustments to the stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax provisions, including adjustments that are necessary to accord with definitions in the Financial Services Act 1986.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 139 to 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 12 agreed to.

    Clause 149

      SECURITIES, OTHER BUSINESS PROPERTY AND AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: Clause 149 and schedule 14 provide for shares in a company dealt in on the unlisted securities market to be treated for inheritance tax purposes like shares in companies that have a full stock exchange listing. They also increase the rate of business relief for substantial minority holdings in unquoted companies. In addition, they introduce minor changes to the treatment of agricultural relief. I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 14 agreed to.
      Clause 150 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 15

      MAINTENANCE FUNDS FOR HISTORIC BUILDINGS ETC.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 151, line 6, at end add—
      '( ) If the value of the property when it becomes held on the trusts referred to in subsection (1)(b) above is lower than so much of the value transferred on the death of the person referred to in subsection (1)(a) as is attributable to the property, subsection (2) above shall apply to the property only to the extent of the lower value.'.
      The amendment proposes to insert a new subsection into new section 57A which provides an exemption from inheritance tax in respect of the charge arising from the death of a person who has an interest in possession in settled property if within a specified period of that death, the property is put into a heritage maintenance fund. Subsection (4) specifies a number of situations in which the new exemption is to be denied to prevent exploitation of the exemption. The new subsection covers a further situation where manipulation could otherwise occur.
      I want to explain the provision that is amended. Clause 50 and schedule 15 make two changes to the rules that provide exemption from inheritance tax from endowment property put into a trust known as a maintenance fund to support qualifying heritage property, commonly historic houses.
      First, there is an exemption from inheritance tax in respect of the charge arising on the death of a person who
      188
      has an interest in the possession in settled property if within a specified period of that death—generally two, but in some cases three years—the property is placed in a heritage maintenance fund.
      Secondly, consequential changes have been made to the rules governing tax changes when property entering a maintenance fund from an interest in possession trust leaves the maintenance fund for non-heritage purposes. The revised rules will apply irrespective of whether the property entered the maintenance fund from an interest in possession trust under the new facility or under the existing exemption facility. Changes are to take effect from Budget day. The purpose is to encourage more people to put heritage property into maintenance funds. That has been difficult to encourage in the past. I am sure that everyone will agree that that is a worthwhile objective.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.

    Clause 151

      ACCEPTANCE IN LIEU WAIVER OF INTEREST
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: Clause 151 inserts a new subsection into section 233 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. The new subsection allows property offered in lieu of inheritance tax to be accepted on terms providing that the tax will cease to carry interest from a date earlier than the date when the property is formally accepted if the acceptance of the property is based on its value at that earlier date.
      We very much hope that this clause will enable us to retain more works of art in this country and in our galleries. As hon. Members will be aware the acceptance-in-lieu system recently enabled us to acquire Constable's "Stratford Mill". I hope that the House will welcome the proposal as it has been welcomed by the art world in general.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 151 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 153

      NOMINATION OF DISPOSALS AND APPROPRIATIONS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: Clause 153 and schedule 16 provide for the establishment and operation of a crude oil nomination scheme for petroleum revenue tax. Under the scheme, a participator in an oilfield may nominate proposed sales at arm's length of crude oil that he has produced himself and proposed appropriations of transfer of such oil to associates for refining purposes. The nomination is to be made within two business days to the Revenue—in practice, the oil taxation office.
      As the House may know, the scheme has been introduced in response to developments in the oil market that have enabled participators to pick and choose with hindsight which of a range of contracts and prices should form the basis of their PRT liabilities. There is provision for modifications to be made to the scheme by regulation, thus enabling it to be adapted to meet any significant change in the market.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 153 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 16 agreed to.
      Clause 154 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 17 agreed to.
      Clause 155 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 18 agreed to.
      Clause 156 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 19

      RELIEF FOR RESEARCH EXPENDITURE
      Mr. Norman Lamont: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 162, line 12, after 'purpose', insert
      'which, subject to subsection (IA) below, are'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 51.
      Mr. Lamont: The new relief for oil-related research expenditure set out in schedule 19, specifically excludes expenditure on exploration and appraisal. It achieves this by excluding any expenditure for purposes specified in section 5A(2) of the Oil Taxation Act 1975, namely exploration and appraisal activities in the territorial sea and the continental shelf. It was also intended that the new relief should exclude onshore exploration and appraisal expenditure but, following the Finance Act 1975, onshore expenditure is no longer included in the section 5A(2) purposes. The two amendments therefore ensure that the objective of excluding all exploration and appraisal expenditure from the scope of the new relief is achieved, by deeming, for the purposes only of this provision, the territorial sea to include also the United Kingdom.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 51, in page 162, line 21, at end insert—
      `(1A) For the purposes only of subsection (1)(d) above, any reference in section 5A(2) of this Act to the territorial sea of the United Kingdom shall he taken to include a reference to the United Kingdom itself.'
      Schedule 19, as amended agreed to.
      Clause 157 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 20 agreed to.
      Clauses 158 and 159 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 161

      REGULATION OF FINANCIAL DEALINGS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Tim Smith: I have a question about clause No. 161. It seems that the definition of foreign currency in that clause excludes the ecu. Why is that?
      Mr. Ian Stewart: The ecu is not in itself a foreign currency.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 161 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 162 and 163 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 21 agreed to.
      Clause 38 disagreed to.
      Clause 40 disagreed to.
      Clauses 47 to 53 disagreed to.
      Clauses 57 to 66 disagreed to.
      Clauses 68 to 137 disagreed to.
      Clause 148 disagreed to.
      Clause 152 disagreed to.
      Schedules 8 to 11 disagreed to.
      Schedule 13 disagreed to.
      Clause 164 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 22

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 52, in page 176, line 28, at end insert—

      `1983 c. 28.

      The Finance Act 1983.

      Section 7(4).'

      No. 53, in page 177, leave out lines 14 to 18.
      No. 54, in page 177, leave out lines 32 and 33
      No. 55, in page 177, leave out lines 46 and 47
      No. 56, in page 177, leave out lines 56 and 57
      No. 57, in page 178, leave out lines 19 to 147.
      No. 58, in page 181, column 3, leave out lines 28 to 38.
      No. 59, in page 181, column 3, leave out lines 44 and 45.
      No. 60, in page 179, line 43, column 3, leave out `Sections 511 and' insert 'Section'.
      Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

    Clause 20

      CHARGE OF INCOME TAX FOR 1987–88
      4.15 pm
      Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I beg to move, To leave out Clause 20.
      Congratulations are in order on the way in which you conducted the Committee stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know how many words per minute you uttered, but I am sure that the speed exceeds most records and perhaps it should be checked for the "Guinness Book of Records".
      We went rather quickly through many technical or unexceptional clauses in the Finance Bill and it is not necessary for us to comment at length upon them. However, I should like to make one small point. In the final version of the Finance Bill, clause 58 was left out. That clause spoke about the Inland Revenue's response to Lloyd's of London and it caused Lloyd's underwriters severe anxieties because it looked as if the Inland Revenue would be more assiduously after them than before. One can only express regret—I shall leave it at that—that the clause was left out of the Bill.
      Over the last few weeks, I seem to have done endless reading on the Budget and the Finance Bill. A comment in an article in the New Statesman of 13 March seems to sum up the whole debate that preceded the Budget and the debate itself on the Finance Bill. The comment fits the Chancellor rather well. It says:
      "The art of the successful pickpocket lies in diverting the victim's attention at the right moment."
      In the run-up to the Budget and during the debate on the Finance Bill, the Chancellor and the Government conducted a successful propaganda operation and diverted the attention of the victims, many taxpayers, at the right moment.
      Far from the presentation in the Budget that most taxpayers would be better off as a result of that Budget and the changes in the Finance Bill, we know that that is not the case. Those on average and below-average incomes will find that the 2p off the standard rate of tax on or after 18

      191
      May, depending on their pay, will make virtually no difference to the proportion of their incomes taken in tax and national insurance contribution.
      Much as I hate to keep reminding the Financial Secretary of the extremely detailed and most useful answers to my written questions, I am afraid that I must do so. I received a written answer on 27 March, which occupied a number of pages from column 311 onwards and it makes the Government's position on tax and national insurance quite clear. The tables show for 1978 to 1987–88 the proportion of income taken in tax and national insurance contributions from those on half average earnings, currently £113 a week, from those on three quarters of average male earnings, that is to say £170 a week, and from those on average earnings. Most of those people have suffered a substantial increase in the tax take. That substantial increase ranges from about 4 per cent., but it is sometimes even higher.
      It is only when we move on towards the end of those pages of tables and look, for example, at a married man with two children who earns 700 per cent. of average male earnings—that is someone earning £1,500 a week this year—that we see that in 1978–79 the proportion of his income that was taken in tax and national insurance contributions was 58 per cent., but that it has now fallen to 48 per cent. That is a 10 per cent. fall, which is a huge drop for those whose incomes are well above average. However, the average taxpayer or someone on below average incomes is now paying more in income tax and national insurance contributions as a proportion of his gross earnings, in terms of the Financial Secretary's figures. I am sure that he read the parliamentary answer most carefully before he signed it and allowed it to go forward in his name.
      Mr. Ian Gow: Would not the hon. Lady's case have greater credibility if it were not for the fact that she is now seeking to remove clause 20 from the Finance Bill? If that clause is removed, she will injure still further those on average incomes whose champion she claims to be.
      Dr. McDonald: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been following the argument. The point is that even the changes proposed in the Finance Bill, which we are now finally considering and voting on, will make virtually no difference to the proportion of income taken in tax and national insurance contributions last year and this year.
      To help the hon. Gentleman, I shall give those figures. Before the changes in the Budget, or rather in the Finance Bill, a married man with two children who is on 50 per cent. of average earnings would find that 16·7 per cent. of his gross earnings were taken in tax and national insurance contributions. Assuming the changes that we are discussing, in this financial year 16·6 per cent. of his gross earnings would be taken in tax and national insurance contributions. Therefore in proportional terms, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, there is virtually no change.
      Sir William Clark: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Dr. McDonald: No, I would like to continue my argument. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to study the matter.
      Sir William Clark
      rose—
      Dr. McDonald: No, I shall not give way. I wish to continue. I have already made it perfectly clear that if one is talking about the proportion of earnings taken in income tax and national insurance contributions, the figures are all there.
      Sir William Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Apart from the percentages to which she has referred, has she not overlooked the fact that many millions of retired persons will benefit from the 2p drop in the standard rate of tax? National insurance contributions do not come into that calculation.
      Dr. McDonald: I was going to consider such matters, so I shall incorporate my answer to the hon. Gentleman into that. The question I was asked just now—
      Sir William Clark: Answer the question.
      Dr. McDonald: The hon. Gentleman should not be so impatient. The point that I was making was that withdrawing the 2p cut, or abandoning the changes that the Government have proposed, would make little difference to most earners who pay tax and national insurance contributions. If one makes those changes, and especially if one requires the higher rate taxpayer to make a fairer contribution to the Exchequer than he or she has been making during the past eight years, we shall use those resources, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well is our policy, to raise pensions by £8 a week for married pensioners and by £5 for single pensioners. We shall also ensure that a heating allowance of £5 per week is paid from December to the end of March to all pensioners on supplementary benefit.
      All that would be far more beneficial to the majority of pensioners than 2p off the standard rate of tax. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if I take as an example—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is completely out of touch with the way in which most people live. In my constituency, for example, 4,000 pensioners are on supplementary benefit, and a heating allowance during the winter months would be far more beneficial to them than 2p off the standard rate.
      Sir William Clark indicated dissent.
      Dr. McDonald: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand, I suggest that he goes away and does some homework on that matter.
      On tax, a Conservative Member mentioned from a sedentary position the increase in earnings after tax and national insurance. I should like to point out to Conservative Members that the poorest wage earners have seen only a 2·9 per cent. increase in their real earnings between April 1979 and April 1986. However, the top earners have seen a 21 per cent. increase in their post-tax earnings.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Where is the evidence and what is the average?
      Dr. McDonald: The evidence is the Treasury's own analysis. I think that the average is about 8 per cent. However, it is an extremely distorted average figure—[Interruption.] The average is certainly not 21 per cent. The Financial Secretary had better study the tables that are provided by the Treasury. Perhaps he simply put his name to them, or glanced at them without giving them any consideration. The increase is 21 per cent. for the top

      193
      earners and for the lowest earners it is 2·9 per cent. For the median of earnings—which is not quite the average—the increase is about 9 per cent. However, many people have seen only an extremely small increase in their real earnings. Furthermore. under the present Government, the top earners have increased their share of post-tax income from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent. Again, those are the Government's own figures.
      Mr. John Maples: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Dr. McDonald: No, I have given way two or three times already and I do not want to prolong this debate. I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman—
      Mr. Maples rose—
      Dr. McDonald: No, I shall not give way. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman all over again in case he does not understand the point. If one considers those earning anything from 700 per cent. to 2,000 per cent. of average male earnings, one finds a substantial drop in the proportion of tax and national insurance that is taken from their gross earnings.
      Mr. Maples rose—
      Dr. McDonald: No, I shall not give way. I have discussed the proportions and spelled out the tables. I suggest that before the election, the hon. Gentleman goes away and reads the appropriate columns from the Official Report of Friday 27 March. Perhaps then, unusually, the hon. Gentleman will tell his constituents the truth about taxation under the Tories. I can assure the House that Ministers and other Conservative Members most certainly do not.
      We have seen the direct tax burden increase on those on below average incomes, and we have also seen indirect taxation increase during the past eight years. Those taxes hit the poor disproportionately. Currently, the poorest 10 per cent. of households—those on just £3,500 a year—pay nearly one quarter of their incomes—23 per cent.—in indirect taxation. However, the richest 10 per cent.—those on more than £28,000 a year—pay only one sixth of their incomes—16 per cent.—in indirect taxes. The doubling of VAT that occurred under the previous Tory Government has hit the poorest households hardest, and it continues to place a heavy burden on them.
      Should we have the misfortune to have another Tory Government, we know that their hidden manifesto proposes to extend VAT on food, children's clothing and other items. It would not be the first time that the Chancellor has done that. He has already extended the base for VAT—for example, by charging it on take-away food. We know that that is what the Government have in mind and, indeed, that is a consequence of their commitment to the internal market of the EEC. Therefore, I am not surprised that the Prime Minister prevaricated on the issue in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party during Prime Minister's Question Time the other day.
      4.30 pm
      In the past eight years the tax system has been deliberately distorted to make those on average and below-average incomes pay for the tax cuts of the rich, whether through direct or indirect taxation. That is the truth of the matter. Every examination of what has occurred, and even the Government's answers to questions, show that to be
      194
      the case. This year's Finance Bill makes changes in inheritance tax which in a full year will cost £170 million, but the Government choose to boast about a special tax relief for the over-80s on which they can afford to squander all of £10 million. That shows clearly where the Government's priorities lie.
      We have tabled the amendment simply to give us another opportunity to attack the Government's record on taxation and to show the public the truth of the matter before polling day.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Dr. McDonald: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that I am replying.
      We have taken the opportunity of this debate to show the public that they have been paying from their pockets for the benefit of the few. The Government will squander billions of pounds, as they already have done, to benefit those on £1,000 or £2,000 a week, while those who have little more than that to live on a year are paying through the nose to line the pockets of the rich.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) has drawn the attention of the House to new clause 20 and I should like to make some brief remarks which point in entirely the opposite direction from those which she has just been making.
      The duty of the Treasury—it is one to which I hope the Treasury will return in coming weeks when the House returns after the election—is to provide the greatest possible stimulus to the economy by the adroit use of taxation reform. From the point of lightening the administration of the tax system the Government should also head towards extreme simplification of the tax system for its own sake. I should therefore like to repeat a recommendation which I made at an earlier stage in our discussion of this clause. We should be moving now towards a single rate of tax on all incomes. We should end the anomaly arising from the impact of national insurance on earned income which has the effect of providing a higher rate of tax on earned income than is normally charged on investment income.
      We must treat women as entirely separate persons for tax purposes in future. I should also particularly like to repeat my recommendation that we should end higher rate tax altogether. In this way the Government would be adding to the incentives of investors to take risks which would add enormously to the profitability of companies and to the activity of the economy. It would also serve quickly to increase the total yield of tax rather than the reverse. My recommendations, therefore, would lead to a situation in which everyone would gain and nobody would lose.
      Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: This short debate comes at an opportune time. First, I must comment on the curious way in which democracy sometimes operates in this House. The sight of the Treasury Bench defeating large sections of its own Bill is an amusing end to this Parliament. I only wish that we could dispatch Finance Bills and many other Bills as speedily as we have done this afternoon. It is a great pleasure to see Ministers defeating large sections of their Bill in order to dispatch the House to the country to fight the general election.
      If we in the alliance had been framing the Budget we would not have proceeded to make a 2p cut in income tax

      195
      at this time. For that reason we have consistently voted against it and will do so again today. Since the publication of the Red Book and the Chancellor's Budget statement we have reviewed all our public expenditure commitments and have published the outcome today. Hon. Members will no doubt obtain details of that extended review in due course.
      I shall say a few words about our expenditure commitments in the light of the amendment to delete the 2p cut in income tax. One of the most striking aspects of the Government's Budget forecasts and the Red Book was the scale of the fiscal adjustment and the amount of revenue available to the Chancellor in forthcoming years. It was much higher than had been anticipated by many, certainly until just before the Budget and even on the eve of the Budget. The Red Book showed that there were substantial forecast funds and we must take the Treasury at its word. The forecast was that the funds were in the region of £3 billion for 1988–89, £5 billion for 1989–90, £7 billion for 1990–91 and £9 billion for 1991–92.
      Our view, which we expressed during the Budget debates, is that any available funds should be devoted to helping those who have been hit hardest by the recession and to building up the long-term strength of the economy and industry. In our review we have sought to achieve those ends. For that reason we have proposed a package of almost £5 billion to help ensure that the long-term unemployed can obtain work. The long-term unemployed are the section of our community who have been hit hardest by the economic recession and we give them top priority in our expenditure proposals.
      We propose several tax cuts to give an incentive to employers to take on more labour, in particular by cutting employers' national insurance contributions in assisted areas, by providing tax incentives to encourage wider share ownership and more investment in industry, and by extending the Government's proposals for profit sharing which were included in the Finance Bill, but which the Government have dropped as a result of the general election. We would change the form of their profit-sharing proposals, but, as I said in our earlier debates on the Bill, we support the principle that the Government have outlined in the Bill.
      In addition, we believe that the funds available should be used to help those who are in dire poverty at the bottom end of the income scale, particularly families with children and the long-term unemployed. We propose a substantial increase in expenditure over the next five years to help them and to improve education, health, industry, overseas aid, the arts and the Home Office. Understandably, people will ask how we would finance that increase in expenditure. Our plans imply an increase of some £4 billion in borrowings over five years. Before hon. Members on the Conservative Benches start crowing too much about that, we would have borrowings at a lower percentage of gross domestic product than the Government have had for the majority of their term of office, so it would hardly be an excess of spending.
      The borrowings we suggest, compared either historically or with any other country in the Western world, would be a very modest increase. Those borrowings would be necessary to underpin the growth in industry and the economy and to build up the health and education
      196
      services, which people want to see improved and strengthened. That could be done without restoring the 2p cut in income tax proposed by the Government.
      Our proposals have been carefully costed and would be achievable over the coming five years. We would not reverse the 2p cut, but we believe that the Government were wrong to embark upon that road when over 3 million people are unemployed, waiting lists in hospitals are growing and schools do not have the equipment or resources to give children a proper education.
      Sir William Clark: The House is following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest, but neither I nor some of my colleagues can understand why, the hon. Gentleman having said that his party would not restore the cut, he voted against it.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: Our judgment is that the Government should not have embarked upon this road when many people are unemployed and the education and health services should be upgraded. In the light of the figures in the Red Book and the forecasts by Ministers, it is quite clear that we could achieve the objectives we have set without restoring the cut in income tax. One of the alliance's aims is to stop the sharp reverses in policy which have taken place, when one party has reversed the proposals of another party on taxation and other matters.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): As the Red Book was published on the day of the Budget, why did the hon. Gentleman vote against the tax cuts in March but decide in May that his view is different?
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: The Minister knows how long it takes the Government to go through their detailed expenditure proposals and come to a conclusion. No other party in opposition, including the Conservative party, has ever costed its proposals, had them reviewed by Coopers Lybrand and published the full figures, as the alliance has today, in order to make it clear to the country that at least one party in opposition provides a credible alternative to the Government and can carry out its pledges. That is clear from the proposals published today.
      We could have easily come back within 24 hours of the Budget statement and the publication of the Red Book and, off the top of our heads, made a decision about what we would do, but the alliance wanted to act responsibly and to review the expenditure proposals in the light of what the Government have done. We have completed that review and the findings have been published today. We can achieve our priorities and targets within the expenditure outlined in detail in the proposals and without restoring the 2p cut in income tax. We have no desire to increase the burden of income tax on people beyond what is necessary to achieve the targets we have set. It is credible and desirable that we should achieve both those objectives.
      For that reason I am sure that we will gain much support, because undoubtedly the country wants to see the education and health services improved and the jobless cared for. People do not want taxes to be raised more than is necessary. I hope that the vote tonight will be the last chapter of the Finance Bill proposals. We shall go into the election campaign with a fully costed programme which, I am sure, will gain the support of the electorate.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Gow: The speech of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) was characterised during its

      197
      closing moments by a claim that it was an example of the credibility of the Social Democratic party. I do not know what the fate of the hon. Member for Stockton, South will be when his speech is read in the Official Report tomorrow morning by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). but in so far as the hon. Gentleman may be an official Treasury spokesman for the Social Democratic party, that is not a position he is likely to hold should he be re-elected in the next Parliament.
      His speech was one of the most breathtaking speeches to which we have listened in the House. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong when I assert that he is an official Treasury spokesman for his party. If I have got that wrong, I will gladly give way. The hon. Gentleman said that he was opposed to the reduction of 2p in the pound income tax, but that, the proposal now being before the House, he will not vote against it. The characteristic courage of the Social Democratic party was shown in the hon. Gentleman's act of heroism in the closing stages of the Parliament when he led us to believe that he will abstain.
      No one from the Government wishes to misrepresent the Social Democratic party, and if I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman and he will take his courage in his hands and vote in favour of my right hon. Friends who sit on the Treasury Bench, I shall gladly give way. On the other hand, he may vote with his former colleagues in the Labour party. I fully understand that he has not yet been cured of the disease from which they still suffer, because he is wearing his red tie today and he was the supporter of a Government who borrowed where they dared not tax and printed when they could not borrow.
      The hon. Gentleman said that he proposes a mere £4 billion extra borrowing. The hon. Gentleman did not say, either to the Chief Secretary or to the Finance Secretary, what would be the effect upon interest rates of that extra borrowing. He did not tell the House, although he had the opportunity to do so, what would be the consequences for interest rates or extra Government expenditure because of the interest the Government would have to pay on their loans.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will remember that the late Lord Butler described the Liberal party as a band of visionary missionaries with neither vision nor mission. The hon. Gentleman has climbed into bed with the Liberals and I hope that he will make many more speeches before the House rises.
      Mr. MacGregor: I wish to oppose the Opposition's proposition that clause 20 should be deleted from the Bill, but before I do so I want to make one comment on a remark made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) about other parts of the Bill. I am sure that he would not feel that it would be right for the House to pass major pieces of legislation on important subjects for the Government without any scrutiny, and that is why we took the view that we did on those clauses today. But let me assure him that the Government propose to reintroduce all those provisions which have had to be left out of the shortened Finance Bill as early as possible in the next Parliament.
      When we debated the 2p reduction in income tax in the House less than two weeks ago, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) accused the Government of showing judgment
      "as mistaken as it is cynical"—[Official Report, 29 April 1987; Vol. 115, c. 332.]
      198
      in choosing to reduce income tax. It is his judgment and the judgment of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) which is mistaken, both in what the hon. Member for Dagenham said then and in choosing to highlight the clause again today. I can assure the Opposition that the clause could never be regarded as cynical. We have always stressed our determination to reduce the basic rate of income tax with a target of 25p in the pound. This move this year is entirely consistent with that—open, plain, right and popular, and not to be reversed, as the Labour party would do. Therefore, I am delighted that our major debate at this stage is on this clause. Nothing underlines the difference between the Conservatives and all other parties on tax policies more, and the country now has the opportunity to make the choice.
      Let me briefly restate why we believe that it is right to take action to reduce the basic rate of income tax. The basic rate of income tax is the marginal rate for about 95 per cent. of all taxpayers. Therefore, reducing the basic rate of tax directly improves the incentives for some 21 million taxpayers. It allows them to keep more of the rewards of their own efforts. It is good for incentives and motivation, and the British economy benefits. If those lower tax bills feed through into lower pay settlements, there will be a directly beneficial effect on employment.
      On the other hand, the Opposition's attitude is clear. They believe in high taxes for their own sake. They believe that allowing people to keep more of their own money is—they used this phrase in the previous debate—"givIng money away", not giving it back. The Opposition see the tax system as some great engine of social change, penalising those who aim to better themselves and their families. They do not recognise the language of incentives, effort or motivation. They recognise only the language of egalitarianism and interference. They are only happy when they are spending other people's money for them. They do not recognise the moral benefits to the family arid the practical benefits to the economy of enabling people to keep more of what they earn to spend as they consider right and appropriate.
      The extent to which we have won this ideological argument was demonstrated by the extraordinary attack on the Budget by the hon. Member for Dagenham in the previous debate on this clause, and the hon. Member for Thurrock was at it again today. True, the hon. Member for Dagenham did at times imply—as did the hon. Member for Thurrock—indeed, he stated, that the Opposition did not think that we were right to give priority to reducing income tax. But that was sotto voce. Those were the muted passages in both speeches.
      Dr. McDonald: The Chief Secretary cannot be allowed to get away with that sort of nonsense. He knows that it is nonsense. We have made our priorities clear inside and outside the House. We have made it clear that our priority is to raise child benefit and pensions, and, indeed, the tax burden on those on well above average incomes will be increased. That is only fair and we are looking for fairness. To suggest that there are no social priorities and no priorities for jobs is utter and complete nonsense and the Chief Secretary knows that.
      Mr. MacGregor: But the thrust of the hon. Lady's speech today, and that of the hon. Member for Dagenham the other week, was to accuse us of not having cut tax

      199
      enough. The hon. Lady was trying to say that we had not succeeded in cutting tax enough. Only sotto voce, and only when pressed, do they concede that they will raise taxes. The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that we are not just talking about taxes on, in her own words, the better-off. Her proposal today to restore the 2p tax cut means an increase in taxes on most people and certainly an increase on taxes on all taxpayers. Therefore, the thrust of the Opposition's onslaught is not that we are cutting taxes but that we have apparently not cut them enough. That is an almost unbelievable position for the Opposition to take, given their tax and spending policies.
      I can only assume that the Opposition are taking that position for one reason: to accuse us of not being successful enough yet in cutting income tax was, in their judgment, more likely to receive a better response from the country than to tell them what Labour would do. It is just about the most convoluted position for the Opposition to take up than I can imagine and it will fool no one.
      Let me face the charge head on. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have often made clear, we wish and intend to do more to cut income tax, which is in itself an acknowledgement that we have not yet done enough. That is in no small part due to our success in, and the priority that we have given to, reducing that other burden, the level of public borrowing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) referred. That was another inheritance from Labour that we had to tackle first.
      It is interesting to observe that, with current levels of Government expenditure, if we had had borrowing at today's prices at the same unsustainable rate as we had under Labour in 1975–76, there would be hardly any need for income tax. Under Labour today, we would have had all three much higher then they are now—Whigher spending, higher taxes and higher borrowing, and, of course, higher interest rates too.
      Mr. David Winnick: Why does the Minister not deal with the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) about the burden of indirect taxation, which has been substantially increased in eight years of Tory Government? Why does not he answer the point, repeatedly made, about what the Government would do, if re-elected, about those items which are at present not subject to VAT—children's clothing, food and so on? Is not it clear that any re-elected Tory Government are likely to take action that would mean that millions of people would suffer as a result of those items being subject to VAT?
      Mr. MacGregor: I was dealing with a separate point, but let me come to that directly. We have made our position on VAT clear on many occasions. The Opposition are making the most extraordinary charges in order to try to make their claims credible and they are failing.
      Let me quote from a letter from the hon. Member for Dagenham to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the other day:
      "It is common knowledge among higher levels of the Inland Revenue that a team of five senior officials from the Policy Division are working on the extension of VAT to goods currently exempt, including both food and children's clothes."
      200
      If the Opposition do not know that VAT is handled by Customs and Excise, not the Inland Revenue, it demonstrates how incredible their charge is.
      Let me come directly to the hon. Gentleman's other point on indirect taxes. What is also clear is that for a person whose real earnings—that is, after inflation—are the same as they were in 1978–79, which is a perfectly fair test to take, taxation today is much lower than it was at all income levels. For example, a married man on half average earnings in 1978–79, whose earnings have gone up in line with prices, would pay tax and national insurance contributions of 12·9 per cent. under our regime now, instead of the 16 per cent. that he paid in 1978–79. Because that is in real terms and includes prices, it takes account of VAT.
      But that is not all that matters. What is much more important—this is the point that the hon. Member for Thurrock is constantly missing—is the increase in earnings that people have been able to achieve under the Government. That is why the hon. Lady's figures were not relevant. The most telling comparison of all is—this is the real comparison, including the increase in earnings and the tax changes—that the real take-home pay of the man on average earnings has risen by 21·5 per cent. under this Government. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not know that, but that is the fact. That compares with the tiniest increase under the last Labour Government of 0·6 per cent. which is well under 1 per cent.
      5 pm
      Dr. McDonald: The figures that I used were the Treasury's own figures taken over the years 1979 to 1986. The 21 per cent. increase was for the highest decile only. The Treasury must make up its mind which are the true figures and which are the false figures. It is clear that the true figures are the ones that the Government find most uncomfortable.
      The right hon. Gentleman made his little joke about the collection of VAT, but he did not answer the question. If the EC Commissioners recommend imposition of VAT on food and other zero-rated items would a Conservative Government accept that recommendation? Yes or no?
      Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, the hon. Lady is quite wrong. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary replied to certain specific questions that she asked. The two sets of figures that I have put before the House are the relevant ones—the difference in tax burden for people whose real earnings have remained the same as they were under the Labour Government and, above all, the difference in real take-home pay. The 21·5 per cent. increase is in the real take-home pay of the person on average earnings.
      As for any recommendation that might come from the European Community, that is hypothetical because we do not know what the Commission will recommend so the hon. Lady's question is on a par with the ludicrous final question that the hon. Member for Dagenham put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
      The income tax cuts proposed by the Government will appear in pay packets from 17 May onwards. A married man with average earnings will be £3·87 per week better off and a married man on half average earnings will be £1·59 better off. Those increases in take-home pay will come into effect at the end of this week, but the hon. Members for Thurrock and for Stockton, South wish to

      201
      prevent that. A reversal of the Government's proposals would have two consequences. First, there would be chaos in companies. Many employers with computerised payrolls will already have run their monthly pay for May and many others will have calculated pay in advance on the basis of a 27p basic rate, so it would not be possible to ask them to reverse the tax cuts at this stage.
      Secondly, therefore, and much more important for the country, employees would receive the tax cuts only to have them clawed back. That is what the Labour party, the Liberal party and the SDP are saying. They intend to claw back the increases in pay resulting from the tax cut. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stockton, South cannot get away with this. He has been wriggling throughout proceedings on the Finance Bill about the position of the SDP and Liberal parties on clause 20 but he has said that he intends to vote against clause 20.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth indicated assent.
      Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. Plainly, if the SDP and Liberal parties succeeded in their intentions today, employees throughout the country would receive the tax cuts at the end of this week only to have them clawed back.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth indicated dissent.
      Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it all ways. If he votes against our proposal today he will be relying entirely on Conservative votes to ensure that the tax cuts appear in employees' pay packets. The consequence of a vote for the Opposition parties on 11 June would be not just a clawing back—that is, a 2p increase in income tax—but in the case of the Labour party much higher taxation to finance huge increases in public expenditure. The hon. Member for Dagenham has been no more successful than his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in stemming the torrent of commitments from his colleagues, so a vote for Labour is a vote for higher taxation and borrowing, leading yet again to the familiar spiral of high inflation and deteriorating economic performance which typified Labour economic management in the 1970s.
      As the speechof the hon. Member for Stockton, South has shown, the SDP and the Liberals want it all ways. The hon. Gentleman gave a most tortuous explanation in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark). There is a saying that even though a dog has four legs it cannot move in two directions at once. The hon. Gentleman has only two and he endeavours to move in two directions all the time, but the electorate will not be fooled.
      I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the Red Book and the fiscal adjustment in future years because, in so doing, he showed the strength of the economy built up by the Government. I remind the House, however, that those are forecasts and they will come about only with the continuation of our economic policies and our prudent management. To judge from what the hon. Member for Stockton, South has said, typically again the SDP and the Liberals are making huge spending promises without economic policies to produce the necessary growth. It is clear that they, too, are on the side of higher taxes and higher spending financed by higher borrowing when they are forced to come clean about it.
      202
      I agree with the Opposition in one respect at least. This proposal is the centrepiece of the 1987 Finance Bill and it continues our firm progress down the path towards lower taxes for all taxpayers. Next week, the effect of these reductions and the higher tax allowances will start to be felt in pay packets. The young married police constable will be £3·07 per week better off, the train driver £3·61 and the average manual worker in the water industry £355 better off. That is not a cynical pre-election bribe.
      Mr. McDonald: What is it then?
      Mr. MacGregor: We have made our tax objectives clear throughout. It is not a bribe. It is the dividend of eight years' prudent and sound economic management—the same prudent and sound economic management which allowed us to reduce borrowing to 1 per cent. of GDP and to increase our spending in priority areas by £4·75 billion this year.
      That is the prospectus on which we shall fight the election, not the fictions dreamed up in Walworth road and laced with recurring Labour nightmares about their period in office. Our prospectus has already redynamised the British economy after years of failure and it allows me to offer the House the following assertion which, as we have learnt from today's debate, no other party can offer. The next Conservative Government will seek to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 25p as soon as we prudently can. This clause is strong evidence of our ability to achieve that aim in the next Parliament and I urge the House to pass it today.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 253.

      Division No. 163]

      [5.08 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Alton, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Anderson, Donald

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Deakins, Eric

      Ashton, Joe

      Dewar, Donald

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dixon, Donald

      Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

      Dormand, Jack

      Barron, Kevin

      Dubs, Alfred

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Beith, A. J.

      Eadie, Alex

      Bell, Stuart

      Eastham, Ken

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fatchett, Derek

      Blair, Anthony

      Faulds, Andrew

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Boyes, Roland

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Flannery, Martin

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

      Foster, Derek

      Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Caborn, Richard

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Freud, Clement

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gould, Bryan

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Cartwright, John

      Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hardy, Peter

      Clarke, Thomas

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Coleman, Donald

      Haynes, Frank

      Conlan, Bernard

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Corbett, Robin

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Home Robertson, John

      Craigen, J. M.

      Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

      Crowther, Stan

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      203

      Howells, Geraint

      Radice, Giles

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Randall, Stuart

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Redmond, Martin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      John, Brynmor

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Robertson, George

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Rogers, Allan

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Lamond, James

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Litherland, Robert

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

      Loyden, Edward

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McCartney, Hugh

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKelvey, William

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

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

      McTaggart, Robert

      Soley, Clive

      McWilliam, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Madden, Max

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Martin, Michael

      Strang, Gavin

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Straw, Jack

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Taylor, Matthew

      Michie, William

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Tinn, James

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Wainwright, R.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Welsh, Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Nellist, David

      Wilson, Gordon

      O'Neill, Martin

      Winnick, David

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Woodall, Alec

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Parry, Robert

      Patchett, Terry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pike, Peter

      Mr. Ron Davies and Mr. Sean Hughes.

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Prescott, John

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Colvin, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Conway, Derek

      Amess, David

      Coombs, Simon

      Ancram, Michael

      Cope,John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cormack, Patrick

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Corrie, John

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Couchman, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Batiste, Spencer

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Benyon, William

      Dover, Den

      Best, Keith

      Durant, Tony

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dykes, Hugh

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Eggar, Tim

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Blackburn, John

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Favell, Anthony

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Fletcher, Sir Alexander

      Bright, Graham

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Browne, John

      Forth, Eric

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Franks, Cecil

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Butterfill, John

      Freeman, Roger

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Fry, Peter

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Chope, Christopher

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      204

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mather, Sir Carol

      Gow, Ian

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Greenway, Harry

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gregory, Conal

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon

      Merchant, Piers

      Ground, Patrick

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Grylls, Michael

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John S

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Moate, Roger

      Hannam, John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Harris, David

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Mudd, David

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Newton, Tony

      Hayes, J.

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hayward, Robert

      Norris, Steven

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Onslow, Cranley

      Heddle, John

      Osborn, Sir John

      Henderson, Barry

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hickmet, Richard

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Hicks, Robert

      Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Pawsey, James

      Hirst, Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Holt, Richard

      Pollock, Alexander

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Porter, Barry

      Howard, Michael

      Powley, John

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Price, Sir David

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Raffan, Keith

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jackson, Robert

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Renton, Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Jones, Robert (Herts W)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Key, Robert

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Knox, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lang, Ian

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Latham, Michael

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Shersby, Michael

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Silvester, Fred

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sims, Roger

      Lester, Jim

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lightbown, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lilley, Peter

      Speed, Keith

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Speller, Tony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Spencer, Derek

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Squire, Robin

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Steen, Anthony

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Stern, Michael

      Maclean, David John

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

      Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Madel, David

      Sumberg, David

      Major, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Maples, John

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Marland, Paul

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Marlow, Antony

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Thorne, Neil (llford S)

      205

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wheeler, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Whitfield, John

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Trotter, Neville

      Wolfson, Mark

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Wood, Timothy

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Woodcock, Michael

      Walden, George

      Yeo, Tim

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Waller, Gary

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Mr. Michael Portillo and Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Watts, John

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 34
      OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES
      Amendment made: in page 23, line 20, leave out clause 34.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
    Schedule 4

      EMPLOYEE SHARE SCHEMES, ETC.
      Amendment made: in page 124, line 10, leave out schedule 5.—[Mr. MacGrregor.]
      Bill read the Third time and passed.

  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have to advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected new clauses 1 and 2. Not moved.
  5.20 pm

  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
    Clause 2

      POSTPONED CONFISCATION ORDERS
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 35, leave out 'section 3(5)' and insert
      `subsection (5) of section 3'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5.
      Mr. Lang: Hon. Members who served on the Committee that considered the Bill will recall that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) were displeased by the use of the words "retransmittal" and "retransmit" in clauses 2 and 3. I admitted that I too found the words distasteful and undertook to consider whether the drafting could be improved without undermining the intention. This group of amendments is designed to remove the controversial words in clauses 2 and 3 and make minor consequential amendments. Hon. Members will see that the terminology employed in the amendments is "transmit". This probably does not go as far as the hon. Member for Garscadden would like, but, as I explained in Committee, "transmission" is the normal term for the handing over of proceedings from one court to another.
      I commend the amendments to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 2, in page 3, line 37, leave out
      `retransmittal of the case to'
      and insert
      'case is transmitted under that subsection by'.
      No. 3, in page 3, line 37, after 'Court', insert 'of Session'.—[Mr. Lang.]

    Clause 3

      ASSESSING THE PROCEEDS OF DRUG TRAFFICKING
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 29, after 'accord', insert
      ',or on the application of the prosecutor or of the person (or on their joint application),'
      In Committee the hon. Member for Monklands West (Mr. Clarke) moved an amendment to allow the prosecution or the defence to move for the High Court to remit a question of exceptional complexity to the Court of Sessions. I admitted that I saw force in the argument and undertook to look at the matter again. I have now done so and this amendment will give effect to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. If the amendment is agreed to by the House, in addition to the court so deciding, the prosecution or the defence, or both, will be able to move the court to remit where they perceive the point at issue as one that ought properly to be resolved by the Court of Session.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 4, line 31, leave out 'retransmit' and insert 'transmit'.

    Clause 11

      INHIBITION AND ARRESTMENT OF PROPERTY AFFECTED BY RESTRAINT ORDER OR BY INTERDICT UNDER SECTION 12
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 12, line 4, leave out 'such'.
      This is a drafting concession in response to remarks made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 12, line 39, after 'order', insert
      'or, in relation to that property, under section 12 of this Act'.
      This is a simple drafting amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 26

      COMPENSATION
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 21, line 19, at end insert:
      ',or by virtue of section 24A of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (recognition and enforcement in England and Wales of orders and functions under this Part of this Act)'.
      Clause 26 allows the Court of Session to order compensation to be paid where, inter alia, a person has suffered substantial loss or damage as a result of anything done in relation to various orders made by the Court of Session under the Bill, such as those for the restraint of assets or the realisation of property. However, new clause 13, which was added to the Bill in Committee, inserted a new section 24A into the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which allows orders made in Scotland to be enforced in England and Wales. It is therefore conceivable that someone could suffer a loss as a result of something done by the High Court in England and Wales. This amendment allows compensation to be ordered in such cases by adding section 24A of the 1986 Act to the list in clause 26.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 32

      ORDER IN COUNCIL AS REGARDS TAKING OF ACTION IN DESIGNATED COUNTRY
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 26, line 26, leave out 'enforcement of confiscation orders' and insert 'taking of action'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12.
      Mr. Lang: Hon. Members will recall that in Committee we inserted a new clause, now clause 32, dealing with the enforcement in a designated country of confiscation orders made by the High Court. However, following discussions that the Home Office has held with several countries, we now realise that the clause, as drafted, will not be sufficiently flexible to cater for the various types of
      208
      agreement that may be reached. This group of amendments effects the necessary changes to make the clause more flexible.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 26, line 27, after 'country', insert
      'in consequence of the making of a restraint order or of a confiscation order'.
      No. 11, in line 29, leave out 'of the enforcement of' and insert
      'arising out of action taken in that country with a view to satisfying'.
      No. 12, in line 30, leave out 'in that country'.—[Mr. Lang.]

    Clause 37

      INSOLVENCY PRACTITIONERS DEALING WITH PROPERTY SUBJECT TO RESTRAINT ORDER
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 31, line 26, after 'construction', insert
      'the reference in subsection (2)(a) of that section to a permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration shall be taken to include a reference to a trustee in a sequestration and'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 14.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These are simple technical amendments to Clause 37, which provides protection for insolvency practitioners to deal with property subject to a restraint order when they have reasonable grounds for believing that they are entitled to do so. These amendments simply make transitional provision to protect, respectively, trustees in sequestration and official receivers in bankruptcy proceedings commenced before the recent reforms in bankruptcy law in the 1985 Act and the Insolvency Act 1986 before these came into force.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 14, in page 31, line 29, leave out from 'manager' to 'the' in line 31 and insert 'of.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Clause 42

      OFFENCE OF PREJUDICING INVESTIGATION
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 36, line 2, leave out from beginning to "a" in line 5.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 15, in page 36, line 1, leave out from 'trafficking' to (a) in line 5, and Government amendment No. 21.
      Mr. Lang: I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gascadden (Mr. Dewar), in anticipation of his amendment, which is within this group, that we are able to accept the principle of his amendment. I hope that he will not take it to heart if I tell him that his amendment makes for unfortunate drafting. He does not have the same access to the services and advice of parliamentary draftsmen as I do, and I hope that he will agree that the two manuscript amendments in my right hon. and learned Friend's name will make for more effective drafting of the offence in clause 42, which does meet the point that he makes.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: Perhaps I could detain the House for just a moment. Obviously, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. This is a comparatively minor matter, but it is of some practical importance. We were talking here about an offence and when it should be possible to proceed—what the trigger point should be. I think that the amendments which we moved in Committee raised a perfectly sensible difficulty.
      5.30 pm
      I am grateful that the Minister has seen fit to meet that point with his manuscript amendments. There are many things that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and I might have said if the Minister has not been in such a reasonable frame of mind. That shows that there is reward for the virtuous. I hope that it concentrates the Minister's mind in the next few minutes. After that, I trust that his state of mind will be entirely irrelevant.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 21, in page 36, line 5, leave out "the investigation" and insert
      "an investigation into drug trafficking".—[Mr. Lang.]

    Clause 44

      OFFENCES RELATING TO CONTROLLED DRUGS FINES
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 37, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert
      `it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so may impose a fine but such a fine shall not be imposed if an order under section 1(1) of this Act is being made'.
      The amendment relates to a rather odd passage between the Under-Secretary and myself during the Committee stage. Hon. Members who were involved in earlier stages of the Bill will remember that we are putting on the statute book a very complicated series of provisions, which will allow the courts to impose a sentence of imprisonment in drug trafficking cases—probably substantial, and rightly so, given the current trend of legal opinion and sentencing policy. In addition, the Bill allows for forfeiture and confiscation based on the assumed profits of a course of drug trafficking on the part of the accused. It is a draconian power, by any standards. I must stress that, as it is an important part of my argument for amendment No. 16. It is assumed that any assets that have been acquired during the six years before the point at which the court is considering a confiscation order have been acquired illegally in the course of drug trafficking. That assumption must be rebutted if any assets are not to be potentially subject to the forfeiture order.
      It is against that main point of the Bill that we deal with what is now clause 44, which strikes me as an odd clause. It puts forward the possibility of offences relating to controlled drugs, and the imposition of fines for those offences. It has been proposed—and I put this to the Minister—that an individual might appear in the High Court, or certainly might be indicted, and, having been sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment, might then be subject to a confiscation order, and he or his family might be left with no assets of any kind. Moreover, clause 44 contains the assumption that the court may impose a further fine if it considers that appropriate.
      210
      It seems remarkable that someone who has suffered the major penalties that I have described should suddenly find himself the subject of a further fine. I consider it a strange proposal for two reasons.
      We have gone to great trouble to put on the statute book the confiscation and forfeiture provisions, and in doing so we have repealed the provisions for a fine which we put on the statute book only 18 months ago. We are doing that because it was said, or at least clearly implied, that the Government felt that a fine was not really an appropriate way of approaching the problem; if someone was going to prison, to add a punitive fine was something of a legal nonsense, and it would be much better to go for confiscation and forfeiture.
      On the whole, I sympathise with that argument, arid I have given it broad support. However, it seems a bit de trop then to turn round and, having substituted the machinery of confiscation and forfeiture, to reintroduce in clause 44—if not by the back door, at least by a side door—the principle of fines in cases involving drugs. I do not see the use of that—here I come to the specifics of the amendment—if we are also going to have a confiscation order.
      The Under-Secretary—I believe it was him; my memory is reasonably good—was very forthcoming, as he often is. Indeed, sometimes I think that he is too forthcoming for his own good. He shows a touch of naivety occasionally. He described to me exactly the reason why the Government want the clause on the statute book. I did not like that reason, which is why I put down my amendments and why I wish to pursue the matter in debate.
      The Under-Secretary said that I had misunderstood the position. Let me paraphrase, I hope fairly, what he said. He gave an example in which a person accused and finally convicted of drug trafficking was given a 10-year sentence. We were to assume that his assets were £200,000, that there was consideration of a confiscation order, but that when it came to the point, the presumption was rebutted for some portion of those assets. Let me repeat an example that I used in Committee. Suppose that the drug trafficker could prove that £20,000 of shares that he held in company X had come to him indirectly from the will of his old aunt Euphemia, whose reputation in relation to drug trafficking was beyond reproach. He had therefore clearly rebutted the presumption that all of his assets had come from drug trafficking, and the £20,000 could not therefore be the subject of a confiscation order.
      In such circumstances, the man would receive a 10-year prison sentence and £180,000 would be the subject of a confiscation order. However, his family would have saved from the wreck the £20,000, because they had been able to establish that it had nothing to do with his histDry of crime.
      The Minister said, I thought rather doubtfully. that it would be possible to put such people in a catch 22 by using clause 44 and fining them £20,000. Although the offender had managed to use that tightly-drawn loophole, rebut the presumption and save some money from the confiscation order, he could then be told, "Your endless ingenuity, my man, has done you no good. I hereby fine you £20,000." If that is the theory on which we are being invited to put this power on the statute book, it does not seem to me to do much for the legal system or the courts. The more that I have thought about the matter, the more I have come to the conclusion that it would be better to do without it.

      211
      I am not suggesting that clause 44 should go entirely. That might be going too far, and I am as anxious as anyone that the courts should have adequate powers to deal with cases involving controlled drugs. The effect of amendment No. 16—at least, I hope so; I am always a little nervous about my own drafting—would be to leave the courts, in cases relating to controlled drugs, with the power to impose fines. I feel that that is perfectly reasonable. However, it would be made clear that those fines could not be imposed when there had been a confiscation order under clause 1(1).
      This is not a wrecking amendment. If it were, it would not have been selected. It is not even an attempt to undermine the intentions of the Government. It is a perfectly reasonable amendment. I accept, and indeed support, the confiscation concept. I also think it right that, when there is no confiscation order, the courts should have the power to fine. However, I do not think that they should say, "We will get you with a gaol sentence and hit you with a confiscation order, and when you manage to avoid some of the consequences quite properly by using the legal machinery on the statute book, we will finally get you with a catch-all fine provision." That seems to be going too far. That is why I tabled amendment No. 16, and I hope that the Government will consider it favourably.
      The amendment would not in any way damage the power of the courts to deal properly and severely with drug offences. It merely makes it clear that the provisions and powers in clause 44 will not be available where a confiscation order has been imposed. There is the power to impose a fine under clause 1(1), but we object to the use of clause 44 and are attempting to strike at it in a way that I hope I have made reasonably clear
      Mr. Lang: Perhaps I was too forthcoming in our debate in Committee on what was then clause 41. I remember it well. Referring in Standing Committee to subsection (5), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said :
      "I have read that only three times, but re-reading it has only added to my confusion."
      The hon. Gentleman then asked for "a fairly lucid explanation", after which he said:
      "I must be getting tired and old."
      However, in the next column he said:
      "Yes, I now begin to see the intensity of the pursuit."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 28 April 1987; c. 136–38.]
      We have today covered much of the ground that was dealt with in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman has said nothing new to persuade me that we should remove the discretionary power of the High Court to impose a fine in addition to a compensation. order. I do not anticipate that this power will be used, except on rare occasions, but, as the considerations underlying the imposition of a confiscation order and a fine are quite distinct, there is no reason in principle why they should not be combined, if the High Court sees fit.
      A confiscation order is designed to remove the profits that the trafficker has gained from his illegal activities and to deprive him of assets that he should not have. A fine is, in general, a penalty that may be imposed as a punishment without reference to any profits made from the offence. Clause 1(3) ensures that if, exceptionally, the High Court decides to impose both a confiscation order and a fine, it
      212
      must take account of the provisions of the order in determining the amount of the fine. The general requirement, that fines must take account of the offender's means, also applies. There is, therefore, no danger that the offender will be asked to pay more than he can afford.
      Apart from removing the High Court's discretion to impose a fine as well as a confiscation order, if it sees fit, the amendment also removes the requirement to impose the profit-related fine on drug traffickers that was introduced by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. This provision came into force on 30 December of that year, and by September 1986 it had been used on seven occasions. It will remain useful as an alternative to a confiscation order in the case of those traffickers who have derived some profit from their crimes but who have no extensive history of trafficking.
      This special type of fine relates to the profits of crime, but only from the crime or crimes of which the offender was convicted. I expect the courts to continue to use such fines in appropriate cases.
      This amendment is technically defective. It fails to address the consequences for the general scheme of the Bill that would follow, if it were accepted. Clause 1(3) would become redundant if the House accepted the amendment, and it would be impossible to make sense of clause 44(2) that refers to paragraph (a), which the amendment would delete. Therefore, for technical reasons and for important reasons of principle, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Dewar: I am not surprised by the Minister's reply. He said that in Committee I said that I must be getting tired and old. It must have been what the Minister said that did it, including the arguments that he used then that have been rehearsed again briefly this afternoon. Did I understand the Minister to say that the power to fine under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 will remain on the statute book and that it will be available as an alternative to the power to confiscate?
      Mr. Lang: Section 193B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 that was inserted into that Act by section 39 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act is re-enacted by this clause.
      Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Minister. I see that the Minister's mind is made up, but his arguments are not convincing. He says cheerfully and with insouciance that the courts will impose a fine only when the accused is in a position to pay it. But the accused will be in prison if he has been convicted of a serious drugs offence, and his chances of being able to pay the fine, except in the circumstances that I have described, in which some assets have been left, despite the confiscation order, will be very few. We are piling penalty on penalty, and it does nothing for the system of which this House is the guardian.
      5.45 pm
      I am not content to let the matter rest there, but at this stage I have no other practical option. We shall be interested to see how useful the courts find these powers. If my suspicions are justified, they will turn out to be lumber in the basement of Scotland's statutes, to which reference will seldom be made. That argument will be settled by experience. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 54
      DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
      Amendment made: No. 17, in page 50, line 27, leave out `above'.—[Mr. Lang.]
    Schedule 1
      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 67, line 35, at end insert—
      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

        `The Contempt of Court Act 1981 (c. 49) …
        (1) In section 15 (penalties for contempt of court in Scottish proceedings) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        "(6) For the purposes of section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (release on licence of prisoners serving determinate sentences) a penalty of a period of imprisonment imposed for contempt of court shall be treated as a sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of that Act."
        (2) Section 15, as amended, shall have effect as regards any penalty imposed before as well as after the coming into force of this paragraph.'.
        In a sense, this is a victory by default for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The amendment meets the point that I anticipated that he would have spoken to in Committee on his amendment, but out of courtesy, in view of the shortness of time on that occasion, he did not move it. It is a technical amendment, but it is necessary to correct an anomaly in the present law in relation to Scotland alone, whereby prisoners are excluded from review or from grant of licence for early release on parole if they are serving a single sentence of imprisonment for contempt of court, or a sentence of imprisonment for contempt of court that is consecutive to an ordinary sentence of imprisonment. The amendment returns this aspect of the operation of the parole scheme to that which was originally intended and brings the law
        214
        of Scotland into line with the current position in England and Wales. I believe that the amendment will meet with all-party support and I commend it to the House.
        Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Minister. It is a sensible amendment. The amendment that was not reached in Committee, for a variety of practical reasons, was well-founded. As he has introduced a small reform that will improve the working of the parole system, I intend to provide the Minister with a number of excellent suggestions, backed by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and a very large number of other people on the Parole Board for Scotland, that would greatly improve the working of the parole system. However, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to do that now. Therefore I promise the Minister that either from that side of the House or, if we are not fortunate enough to form the next Government, in other circumstances, we shall pursue those suggestions. For the small improvement that has been tendered, I am prepared to thank the Minister, even though my thanks are somewhat muted.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Lang.]
        Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that earlier this afternoon Mr. Speaker kindly said that he would look again at the selection of amendments. I have not heard from him, but I imagine that he has advised you about whether he has reviewed the selection.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): At the commencement of consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill I announced to the House that Mr. Speaker had selected the new clauses. I recall calling the hon. Gentleman's name, but he was not in his place when we began our proceedings on consideration.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Family Law Reform Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Family Law Reform Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      POWERS OF COURT TO MAKE ORDERS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CHILDREN OF PERSONS COHABITING OR A CHILD OF EITHER OF THEM
      `(1) Where on an application for an order under this section the court is satisfied that the respondent has used, or threatened to use, violence against the person of a child of either the applicant, respondent, or both of them and that it is necessary for the protection of any such child that an order should be made under this subsection, the court may make the following order, that is to say an order that the respondent shall not use, or threaten to use, violence against the person of a child of either party to the application, or both of them.
      (2) Where on an application for an order under this section the court considers that it is essential that the application should be heard without delay, the court may hear the application notwithstanding—

      (a) that the court does not include both a man and a woman,

      (b) that any member of the court is not a member of a domestic court panel, or

      (c) that the proceedings on the application are not separated from the hearing and determination of proceedings which are not domestic proceedings.

      (3) Where on an application for an order under this section the court is satisfied that there is imminent danger of physical injury to a child of the applicant, respondent, or both of them, the court may make an order under subsection (1) above notwithstanding—

      (a) that the summons has not been served on the respondent or has not been served on the respondent within a reasonable time before the hearing of the application, or

      (b) that the summons requires the respondent to appear at some other time or place, and any order made by virtue of this section and in section 17 of this Act referred to as an "expedited order".

      (4) The power of the court to make, by virtue of subsection (3) above, an expedited order under subsection (2) above may be exercised by a single justice.
      (5) An expedited order shall not take effect until the date on which notice of the making of the order is served on the respondent in such manner as may be prescribed or, if the court specifies a later date as the date on which the order is to take effect, that later date, and an expedited order shall cease to have effect on whichever of the following dates occurs first, that is to say—

      (a) the date of the expiration of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the making of the order; or

      (b) the date of the commencement of the hearing, in accordance with the provisions of part II of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, of the application for an order under this section.

      (6) An order under this section may be made subject to such exceptions or conditions as may be specified in the order and, subject in the case of an expedited order to subsection (8) above, may be made for such terms as may be so specified.
      (7) The court in making an order under subsection (1) above may include provision that the respondent shall not incite or assist any other person to use, or threaten to use, violence against the person of a child or either or both of them.'—[Mr. Sims.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.51 pm
      Mr. Roger Sims: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 2—
      Supplementary provisions with respect to orders under section ( Powers of court to make orders for the protection of the children of persons cohabiting or a child of either of them)—
      'A magistrates' court shall, on an application made by either the man or the woman in question, have power by order to vary or revoke any order made under section (Powers of court to make orders for the protection of the children of persons cohabiting or a child of either of them) of this Act.
      (2) Rules may be made for the purpose of giving effect to the provision of section (Powers of court to make orders for the protection of the children of persons cohabiting or a child of either of them) of this Act.
      (3) The expiry by virtue of subsection (5) of section (Powers of court to make orders for the protection of the children of persons cohabiting or a child of either of them) of this Act of an expedited order shall not prejudice the making of a further expedited order under that section.'.
      New clause 3—Powers of arrest for a breach of an order under Section ( Powers of court to make orders for the protection of the children of persons cohabiting or a child of either of them)—
      (1)`Where a magistrates' court makes an order under section ( ) of this Act which provides that the respondent shall not use violence against a child of the applicant, respondent, or of both of them, the court may, if it is satisfied that the respondent has physically injured the child as aforesaid and considers that he is likely to do so again, attach a power of arrest to the order.
      (2) Where by virtue of subsection (1) above a power of arrest is attached to an order, a constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable cause for suspecting of being in breach of any such provision of the order as is mentioned in subsection (1) above by reason of that person's use of violence.
      (3) Where a power of arrest is attached to an order under subsection (1) above and the respondent is arrested under subsection (2) above—

      (a) he shall be brought before a justice of the peace within a period of 24 hours beginning at the time of his arrest, and

      (b) the justice of the peace before whom he is brought may remand him. In reckoning for the purposes of this subsection any period of 24 hours, no account shall be taken of Christmas Day, Good Friday, or any Sunday.

      (4) Where a court has made an order under section 16 of this Act but has not attached to the order a power of arrest under subsection (1) above then, if at any time the applicant for that order considers that the other party to the marriage in question has disobeyed the order, he may apply for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of that other party to a justice of the peace for the commission area in which either party to the marriage ordinarily resides; but a justice of the peace shall not issue a warrant on such an application unless—

      (a) the application is substantiated on oath, and

      (b) the justice has reasonable grounds fo believing that the other party to the marriage has disobeyed that order.

      (5) The magistrates' court before whom any person is brought by virtue of a warrant issued under subsection (4) above may remand him.'.
      Mr. Sims: I am conscious of the pressures of time and I shall speak briefly.
      Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in my place in the Chamber when the debate on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill began. I am astonished that I did not hear your remarks. The first thing that I heard was the Minister's name being called.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman—I hope that I do not have to repeat it—that I drew to the attention of the House the fact that Mr. Speaker had reconsidered and had selected the new

      217
      clauses. I called the hon. Gentleman's name. He was neither within my sight, nor did he respond. We cannot go back now.
      Mr. Sims: The brevity of my remarks in support of the new clause indicates that there is special business in the House and does not detract from the importance of the proposal.
      The House will be aware that, under the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978, a woman who is suffering violence or whose children are suffering violence can apply to the court for a protection order, provided that the man causing the violence is her husband and that the children are a product of their marriage. No such facility is available to a co-habitee in respect of herself or her children. If a man inflicts violence upon a woman with whom he is living, and upon their children, that woman is unable to apply to the courts simply because the couple are not married and the children are illegitimate.
      It seems to me that the Bill provides us with an appropriate occasion on which to remedy that defect. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be aware that the Justices Clerks Society and the Magistrates Association wrote to the Lord Chancellor's Department suggesting that illegitimate children should receive the same protection as the children of a married couple and that this Bill provides the ideal opportunity to ensure that that happens in future. I understand that the Lord Chancellor's Department suggested that the Bill was not the appropriate vehicle for the introduction of the facility, because such a provision would fall outside the long title of the Bill. Indeed, the House may recall that in Committee I tabled a new clause to deal with the matter which was ruled out of order. I therefore discussed the matter with the Justices Clerks Society which produced the present new clauses. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that they meet the objections as they are confined to the children of co-habitees and do not refer to the co-habitees themselves. They thus appear to fall within the long title of the Bill.
      I very much hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate my point—that this would be a valuable extension of the law to offer protection to illegitimate children. After all, the object of the Bill is to remove most of the disadvantages that illegitimate children suffer at present. Despite my short speech and the pressures of business, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will feel able to accept the new clauses.
      Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). It is unfortunate that, owing to the circumstances in which we are to deal with the Bill, it cannot be given more careful consideration. In particular, we shall not be allowed the opportunity to say that clause 27 should not have been included. It is an abomination, and in including it, we shall be legislating a lie. That ought to be said before the Bill is passed.
      Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I, too, very much regret the inclusion of clause 27. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I understand that he intends to alter some of the more obnoxious aspects of the Bill and that he may be tabling manuscript amendments to do that. We thank him for that, but we still do not like clause 27.
      Dame Jill Knight: My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is well aware of the grave concern felt by many people in the House and outside that page 1 of the Bill, makes it clear that the principle of clause 1, and, indeed, the general principle of the Bill should be:
      "Parents not being married to have no effect in law on relationships."
      To most of us in the House, that principle is not tenable. The principle of marriage deserves every support because it is under attack from every quarter. Unless we can sustain marriage and keep good family relationships, the whole of our society is bound to suffer. I know my right hon. and learned Friend, and feel sure that those words are not his. Surely, anyone outside the House would be concerned to learn that Parliament was considering introducing legislation to the effect that marriage should have no effect in law on relationships. I beg my right hon. and learned Friend—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The fault may be mine, but I find it difficult to understand the relevance of the hon. Lady's remarks to the new clause.
      Dame Jill Knight: If I am out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall certainly not repeat my remarks later. I took my cue from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and perhaps I was wrong to do so.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady has beaten me to the punch. Has she concluded her remarks?
      Dame Jill Knight: I was about to conclude by suggesting to my right hon. and learned Friend that he take note of what has been said and, indeed, that he take action on it.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I, too, shall be protective of the time of the House.
      The subject dealt with in the new clause was discussed on Second Reading but not in Committee, where the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) were not called for debate. While I think that it is perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman to bring these matters before the House again, I believe—and I suspect that this may be the Government's view—that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for the change that he suggests. As promised, I considered the matter carefully after Second Reading and concluded that the arguments advanced by the Solicitor-General on Second Reading were essentially sound.
      I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that the Bill is a vehicle to give illegitimate children legal protection equal to that now enjoyed by legitimate children. But it is not true to imply—I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows this—that such youngsters now have no remedy in English law. There is a remedy, and the amendments are concerned with the question of precisely where that remedy lies. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, I do not feel that this is the right way to deal with the matter.
      If I may try your patience for a second, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) was being a little naughty when she said that the words
      "Parents not being married to have no effect in law on relationships."
      embodied the principle of the Bill.
      Dame Jill Knight: It is in the Bill.
      Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady made the point that the Bill says that. As was patiently explained in Committee, that is said in the margin note which does not form part of the law of the land. Unfortunately, the margin note is in shorthand, which does not convey the Bill's real intent. It is not true to suggest that the Bill is intended to undermine the institution of marriage. It is unthinkable that the Solicitor-General would bring forward a Bill to undermine the institution of marriage. I cannot conceive of such a thing, and the hon. Member for Edgbaston is naughty to suggest it.
      6 pm
      Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman has just said that this is an inaccurate description of the Bill. Surely, if it is inaccurate, we should put the matter right and make the position clear. I am merely saying that that is what the Bill says as a general principle and, like the hon. Gentleman, I feel that that cannot be right. I am not trying to be naughty. I can be a lot naughtier to much greater effect. I am merely suggesting that it might be wise to straighten this out.
      Mr. Brown: I am sure that the hon. Lady and I can agree that the margin note is clumsy.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for giving us the opportunity to consider the issues raised in the new clauses put forward by the Justices Clerks Society with, I think, the support of the Magistrates Association. It would not have been possible to listen to what my hon. Friend had to say without feeling sympathy for the object that he sought to serve—to secure for illegitimate children the same protection by way of intervention by court order, if necessary taken speedily and summarily, that is available under existing legislation to legitimate children.
      The new clauses seek to amend the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978. That Act was based on a Law Commission report in which, rightly or wrongly, the view was taken that the new jurisdiction proposed for magistrates courts should be limited to married couples. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst knows, the main content of the Bill is concerned with the implementation of the Law Commission's recommendations contained in two reports dealing with illegitimacy that have been produced in recent years.
      I have to say—rather reluctantly, I must confess—that it is the Government's view that it would be better that the Law Commission should be involved in any exercise entailing substantial amendment to the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act. My hon. Friend's suggestion will be put to the Law Commission's family law team, which intends to review this aspect of the law in the near future. I can offer that hope and reassurance. I ask the House to resist these new clauses on the ground that to make the suggested change at this stage would be premature and at odds with the majority of the Bill's provisions, which are the result of careful consultation.
      The Law Commission's recommendations have been made as a result of extensive consultation with organisations and people with special interests. No such
      220
      consultation has been carried out on the proposals in the new clauses. I think that it might be wise to do so. I doubt that I would accede to the advice that I have received if I did not know that the matter will be immediately referred to the family law team and that it intends at an early stage in the near future to review it. I fear that I have to advise the House not to accept the new clauses.
      Since the new clauses bear on the Bill's scope, it would be sad if I were not able to respond to the observations of my hon. Friends the members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). I shall deal first with the description of the provisions in clause 1. In Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Edgbaston and for Lancaster made clear their anxiety that no provisions should go forth from the House that might be seen to cast doubt on or to devalue the importance attached to the institution of marriage. Of course, in that regard, there is nothing between my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who introduced the Bill, myself, any Conservative Member and any other hon. Member.
      The principle contained in clause 1 is simple. There shall be a new rule of construction—the presumption of illegitimacy when construing a relationship between any two people—the father or the mother—is to be irrelevant. We are talking about the consequences in law of the fact that there has been an illegitimate birth. That is expressed in clause 1, which states:
      "unless the contrary intention appears"
      relationships are to be construed without regard to the marital status of the parents at the time of the child's birth. That lawyer's language is necessary to pave the way for the Bill's main provisions which are designed to relieve illegitimate children from the sins—if one likes to put it that way—of their fathers or their mothers. The Law Commission took the view after careful consideration, and it is the Government's view, that, whatever one may think about the rights and wrongs of engendering children whose birth will be illegitimate, it is wrong to take it out on the children, in the sense that they are subjected throughout their lives to handicaps imposed by law.
      I understand that the margin note—
      "Parents not being married to have no effect in law on relationships."—
      can create the impression about which my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston is so naturally and properly anxious. I agree that not everyone who sees the margin note is likely to read the clause and not everyone who reads the clause is likely, on a first reading, to understand it. I offer this reassurance: I am prepared to give an undertaking that, when the Bill is printed as an Act, that shoulder note and, with it, the corresponding entry in the index relating to clause 1 will be deleted and the words "general principle" alone will be substituted. That will show that clause 1 contains the general principle of the Bill.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston for having drawn our attention to this matter. It strikes a chord. Perhaps we should have seen it earlier. With her accurate eye for this kind of thing, my hon. Friend has done the House a service. If she is content with that, perhaps we can proceed. The question is whether we intend to continue taking out on illegitimate children the circumstances of their birth. The whole thrust of this part of the Bill is that we will not do so.

      221
      I should like to say something about clause 27, which has been raised. Whatever view one may take and whatever view Parliament may take in future about whether, and if so in what circumstances, artificial insemination by whatever means may be permitted in law—no doubt, we shall take those decisions after consultation has been completed on the Warnock committee's report—the clause simply says that any child who is the result of a birth that is the result of artificial insemination by donor shall not carry for the rest of his or her life the handicap in law of illegitimacy but shall be treated for all purposes in law as the child of the mother and the child of her husband, provided that the husband has consented. That is all that it does. It says nothing about the circumstances under which AID may be permitted in future. In those circumstances I hope that the House will consider that it would be an omission had a Bill dealing with the consequences of illegitimacy said nothing at this stage. Much remains to be debated about the rest of the Warnock report, but that is the purpose of including this provision.
      Dame Jill Knight: Is it not the case at the moment that any child born to a couple who are married to each other is automatically assumed, perhaps sometimes wrongly, to be the child of that couple at law? It was our understanding that the position at law now is exactly what clause 27 will bring into law; therefore, it puzzles us why it is in the Bill.
      The Solicitor-General: Whether a child is a legitimate child or an illegitimate child is a matter of law. It is a matter of status conferred by law. The entry in a birth certificate is evidence but is not conclusive evidence of which status is appropriate. One of the matters that I fully understand causes anxiety to certain hon. Members is that clause 27 has the consequence that an entry in a birth certificate shall not reveal the scientific facts. The other side to that aspect is that a birth certificate at present contains only that which Parliament has said it shall contain. In other words, the column headed "Father" in a birth certificate is intended to provide a space for the entry of that person who, by the definition that Parliament has imposed, constitutes the father. If clause 27 is enacted, that definition will be enlarged. I do not believe that this is really at the head and forefront of what we have to decide.
      Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. and learned Friend confirming that henceforth, on a birth certificate, it will be possible for the name of the man who is the husband of the child's mother to be entered as the father, which may be untrue, and that therefore, we might be legislating for a lie?
      The Solicitor-General: I do confirm that. However, I do not confirm the consequences that my hon. Friend says will follow, because what will be entered in the birth certificate in those circumstances will be consistent with
      222
      what Parliament has authorised to be entered. As a matter of practice, it is well recognised that, in many cases where a child has been born as a result of artificial insemination by donor, the child's name is entered in the birth certificate as the child of the mother who gave birth. That is a matter of practice. Nor is it possible in most cases for that to he detected. Where the medical advice to couples who are infertile has been to continue to have sexual intercourse with each other after artificial insemination by donor has taken place, it will not he possible to determine from which father the conception has taken place.
      My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that, if "father" is interpreted as meaning the father in wedlock of a child, there will be some deception, I suppose one could say. However, we have to look at whether there is some irregularity at law. If Parliament has so defined "father" in the context of a birth certificate, all that will be entered is the name of the person that Parliament has ordained shall be entered. I respectfully say that this should not be at the forefront of the argument. The argument centres around whether artificial insemination by donor should be permitted at law and, if so, under what circumstances. As to that major issue, Parliament will have the opportunity to express its view at a later stage, as I have already indicated. The clause merely says that if and when there is birth as a result of AID, the resulting child—and after all, it is the child we ought to have regard for primarily—shall not carry the handicap of being illegitimate in the eye of the law.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Sims: I shall not yield to the temptation to react to all the points that have arisen as a result of the wide-ranging debate on my new clause, save to say that I made my own views on clause 27 clear in Committee and that I in no way resile from them. I am naturally disappointed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General does not feel able to accept the new clauses but I am grateful for his helpful and sympathetic comments. In the light of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      6.16 pm
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have carefully considered the Bill in Standing Committee and again today and I believe that I would be wearying the House if I were to do more than formally move its Third Reading.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Local Government Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Local Government Bill
    Clause 2

      POWER TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR PRIVATELY LET HOUSING ACCOMMODATION
      6.17 pm
      The Minister for Local Government (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 17, leave out clause 2.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 2, 5, 16 and 19.
      Dr. Boyson: There was a short delay before I moved the amendment because I was transfixed with new clause 1, which I believe has been withdrawn. That threw me into temporary confusion. I assure the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that I had no intention of confusing anybody, particularly as I have written a special limerick for the anniversary of Edward Lear's birthday in 1812, which was not a good year for Napoleon. I was ready to read my limerick but, lo and behold, the clause has been withdrawn. If possible I will try to fit in reading it on Third Reading as I would not like to deprive the House of hearing it. It is in good heart and I am sure will be critically enjoyed by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) who has just resumed his seat on the Labour Front Bench. I trust that he is better and that the debate will not worsen his health in any way but will bring about his revival.
      In the circumstances, the Government have decided not to proceed with the housing provisions of the Bill in the present Session of Parliament. The first three amendments delete those provisions, and the other two are consequential. However, we intend to reintroduce in the new Parliament the provisions in clause 2 to give local housing authorities an explicit new power to give financial assistance in connection with the provision of privately let housing. We also intend to reintroduce the provisions in clauses 3 and 4 that require the Secretary of State's consent for the exercise of this or any other power by local housing authorities or county councils to provide financial assistance or a gratuitous benefit in this connection, except in the circumstances set out in clause 3. The need for consent will be made retrospective to 6 February this year as it was in the present Bill. The new Bill will, like this Bill, also provide that any transaction entered into after 5 February in contravention of the requirement for the Secretary of State's consent will be void.
      Meanwhile, we intend to continue to issue general consents and special consents for individual projects submitted to us where appropriate. These consents will be issued as if the new Bill were in force. We shall ensure that general and special consents already issued continue in force. My Department will be writing to all the authorities affected drawing their attention to this announcement to prevent any further misunderstanding.
      Mr. Jack Straw: I certainly do not wish to deprive the Minister of the opportunity of letting the House and the country hear his doggerel. I have had a preview of it and although it might not make its way into
      224
      "Palgrave's Golden Treasury", I hope that the good people of Brent and elsewhere are entertained by it in the dog hours of this Parliament.
      We do not oppose the amendments that the Minister has moved. Whether the clauses are resurrected depends upon the outcome of a contest on 11 June. It is not our view that in government we would resurrect the clauses. In any event, it would be conducive to poor administration if the clauses were introduced in their present form because we showed in Committee that the scheme of controls is, in principle, so draconian that a whole string of general and specific consents would be required to make it remotely operable. While the officials, who will not have much to do in the next three and half weeks, are preparing the briefs for incoming Ministers, they may wish to consider how, as an exercise in good government, the powers could be improved.
      The statement by the Minister that this Administration in its closing weeks will continue to operate as if the Bill had been passed, is touching on the arrogance with which we shall charge the Conservative party during the election and it does not make for good administration. We also pointed out in Committee that, although the Government had said that the powers under clauses 2, 3 and 4 had been introduced ostensibly to provide new powers for local authorities, their effect was actually to secure new controls on local authorities and to undermine the imaginative scheme for new housing that Sheffield and other authorities had pioneered.
      I believe that we are dealing with amendments that delete clause 7:
      "Land held by public bodies."
      That deletion is welcome.
      Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I should like to be part and parcel of the obsequiousness on certain sections of the Bill and to make the point that at least on this occasion I arrived, although a little late, in time to take part. On the previous occasion when the three of us—the Minister, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and myself—were supposed to be performing in another place—not down the corridor, but somewhere else altogether—thanks to British Airways I arrived 20 seconds too late, having been up from 4·45 am. Therefore, I am glad to be here. I am interested in the doggerel that we may hear. I recall a recent cartoon in the New Statesman where a sign on a house door said, "Beware of the Doggerel". I hope that that does not apply to us.
      On the matter of the housing provisions, I ask the Minister to address himself to one point. If those sections of the Bill are to disappear, how will he stand up to a legal challenge in the weeks ahead for those local authorities that may wish to drive through those provisions? By the very nature of the powers that the Minister is trying to take under that section, he assumes that there are local authorities whose attitude to those financial measures about housing are not those of the Government and which may wish to take advantage of that gap. If there is to be no statute dealing with that at this time, I fail to see how the Government can maintain the 6 February retrospective date in the face of legal challenges that might come. I hope that the Minister will address himself to that.
      On the early clauses about creative accounting, the Minister knows that my party has certain difficulties with the text. Nevertheless, it is accepted that something has to be done about those authorities that have gone to

      225
      extremes. Therefore, it seems a pretty fair bargain that we opt out of the housing clauses but leave the early clauses in. Therefore, we raise no objection to what has been proposed today.
      Dr. Boyson: The early clauses—clause 1 and schedule 1—validate a decision made by the Government last July about which we said we would legislate. I believe that midnight on 22 July 1986 was the date. We took action in February for another line of action we wished to take and we said that we would put that into law. We did not state when we would do that; we just said that we would. The date of 22 July is now validated in the Bill and we wish to put it on record that, because of the pressure of time and the constraints of other activities of which we are all aware—the political marathon on which we are now entering—we cannot put the other date into law in this Bill. However, we are putting it on record that we stand by what we said. I am advised by our lawyers that that is perfectly legitimate.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3
      CONSENT REQUIRED FOR PROVISION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 3, line 6, leave out clause 3.—[Dr. Boyson.]
    Clause 4
      CONSENTS UNDER SECTION 3
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 4, line 43, leave out clause 4.—[Dr. Boyson.]
    Clause 7

      LAND HELD BY PUBLIC BODIES
      Dr. Boyson: I beg to move amendment No. 15 in page 7, line 34, leave out clause 7.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 17 and 18.
      Dr. Boyson: These provisions are also the victims of the circumstancess to which I referred casually earlier. The House has a great deal of business to attend to this week and I shall not delay it with improvements to the land register system, important though such improvements undoubtedly are in the long run. However, I put it on record that we shall reintroduce provisions along these lines in the new Parliament.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have been waiting for a chance to discuss this for a long time. I am certainly not going to delay the House, but I want to put something on record. This clause raised my hopes that at long last something was going to be done about a problem that my constituents have faced for a long time; the problem of gipsies. The gipsies that concern my constituents in the area south of the river in Leeds—I live there—are not real gipsies. They have a lot of money and one sees the television sets and cars without taxation that they have.
      The Government responded quickly about a year ago when down in the south of England the television cameras
      226
      discovered the problem in a different respect. I remember saying in the House then that we had had that problem for 25 years. However, people are not really concerned about the so-called inner-city areas south of the river in Leeds. People do not write to the papers in the same way. There is a problem as to who owns the land and I receive telephone calls when I am in London asking what is going to be done about it.
      The officer at Leeds city council who attends to such matters is an overworked man. He does what he can. However, on the day before polling day last week, 30 caravans came into my area. An argument then raged over who owned the land. When the Government introduced this amendment as a response to the southern problem, at least there would be a speedy way of learning who owned the land. It is now very difficult for my constituents and me to learn to whom the land belongs. It might take us a week and a visit to the High Court to find out.
      6.30 pm
      I raise this matter for the record and I know that the problem affects Manchester. Some of my hon. Friends have spoken to me today and told me that the problem affects other parts of the country. Down in Hunslet—which has been part of my constituency for 24 years—and in Holbeck which is now in Leeds, Central, but was in my constituency and is where I live, the problem is obvious. We must do something about it. We must do something about the smell and the articles that are left when these people leave. I believe that the Minister is aware of the problem. He will be aware of what happened in Fryent way, which I believe is in his constituency. Indeed, I used to know that area very well. The problem there caused a rumpus. However, if the people in Fryent way could see what we have to put up with, the rumpus would have been 50 times louder.
      South Leeds has put up with enough. When the Leeds corporation decided that the camping sites had to be spread around the city, there was a terrible outcry. It is all very well for the south of the river to have the lot. As I have said, the River Aire is about the size of the Rhine and the Vistula put together when it comes to getting something done. Very few middle-class people live south of the river. Therefore, it is all very well for the camps to be on the south of the river, as long as the camps are not on their doorsteps.
      I have made this intervention to make a point. We can play games about which party will be in power after the election. However, whatever party is in power, I will chase this matter. We have had this problem to my knowledge for 25 years. We must do something about it. We must assist the real gipsies and the real Romanies. However, south of the river we have endured enough of the others, who frighten old ladies, knock on doors, rob and do not pay taxes. The whole of the city of Leeds must bear the burden. Indeed, the whole of the country must bear this burden.
      I want an answer on this point. I have spoken to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. We must do something about this problem. In a way, I am glad that the outcry in Leeds came from up north of the river. A consultation document proposed that new gipsy encampments should be sited in that area. My goodness, that proposal shifted them. If they had had half the trouble up north of the river that we have had south of the river over

      227
      the years, something would have been done. We cannot take action on a narrow political basis. We must take action in recognition of the real problem.
      I know Fryent way and the outcry that was created there. I can offer the Minister a solution to the problem. All the senior officers on local authorities, the permanent under-secretary at the Department of the Environment and the deputy secretaries should be made to live in the areas where these problems occur. At the same time, the architects who built some of the houses should be pulled out of goal—where I would have put them a long time ago—and made to live in those areas. My goodness, if that happened they would shift fast enough.
      In my final five or six years-plus in this House of Commons, I will be talking about gipsies every day until something is done about the problem. I hope that the Minister will give me a sweet little response even in advance of the election.
      Mr. Walter Harrison: As usual, I tried to discover whether I would be in order. I was given advice from my hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches, from hon. Members on Conservative Benches, from the Chair and from behind the Chair. In my last few days before my retirement from this House, I thought that I would go out with a clean bill of health. I decided to consult all my hon. Friends on how to approach this subject. The advice that I was given was to go for an Adjournment debate on my subject. However, when I went to Mr. Speaker's Office, I discovered that I had to go through a procedure that I had been through before. I was suddenly told that the Minister responsible would not play on the Adjournment. So I thought that the best thing to do was to find another approach. Sure enough, I found a solution. After all the advice, I discovered that I could get in in the debate on Government amendment No. 15, despite the advice of some of my hon. Friends.
      The amendment applies to clause 7 entitled:
      "Land held by public bodies."
      The Local Government Act 1974 created many problems and made many mistakes. It produced local government reorganisation and we have had headaches ever since the 1974 Act was passed. When I had an opportunity to speak about the matter several years later, I stressed that the problem was compounded in 1983. I stressed that the Opposition did not compound the problem. Rather, the Government of the day, who began the mistakes, compounded them. We now end up with the child that the Government conceived, nurtured and developed through local government reorganisation and that child, I believe, is called the metropolitan county council. The Conservative Government conceived those councils, nurtured them and developed them until they were 10 years old and then they strangled them and got rid of them. The Conservatives created the problems in 1974 and 10 years later they strangled the product of those problems.
      By strangling the metropolitan county councils, the Government removed a level of representation that the Government had constructed. In doing so, they imposed liabilities on several district councils that those councils had not expected to encounter. What happened? Responsibilities fell on those district councils that those councils had not envisaged when they were set up in 1974. The councils were confronted with those responsibilities.
      228
      The metropolitan county councils were selected for abolition while other county councils remained. When it suited the Government they did not get rid of the councils, but when things were going against them they abolished them. So, after abolition, the Government decided to carry out a marvellous privatisation job. Everyone will know that I have tabled early-day motions on this point. I have had consultations with Ministers, I have met residuary body chairmen and I have been like a ping-pong ball going from one side to the other. I was told that it was not the responsibility of the residuary body and then that it was not the Minister's responsibility. I have 152 signatures to my motion—and that figure may have increased today—and only one opponent. I have been through that process and only five minutes ago I spoke to the Minister responsible for removing land, accommodation and a beautiful building in Wakefield about which I am very concerned,
      I will fight for that site after I leave the House. Like an old Yorkshire terrier, I will not let go. I may not be a Member of Parliament, but I will be there. Even if I cannot send a direct letter in a pre-paid envelope, my message will come via another method. It will work on the triangle. I will not let go until county hall belongs to the people who owned it in 1898.
      I believe that there is a ten-minute job on this debate and I have always been peculiar on time. However, I want to refer to comments made about county hall. I have this calendar.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Can we see the picture?
      Mr. Harrison: Yes, isn't it beautiful? However, the Under-Secretary of State should see the picture of the entrepreneurs. That is a much better picture. The notes attached to the picture state that the site could he sold as a hotel. That is a beautiful picture. I shall pass it round as the Minister is so interested. On the front page it says:
      "The present County Hall was built as headquarters of the former West Riding County Council and was opened in 1898. It was used by that council until local government reorganisation in 1974."
      It does not say that that was a mistake. It goes on:
      "Since 1974 it has been used as the headquarters of the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council. County Hall was built to the winning design of James Gibson and Samuel Russell, architects, of Gray's Inn Square, London. In their own description the architects describe the style as free English style."
      What a marvellous description. What is free about the Government selling it to private enterprise? It goes on to say that it has
      "distinctly English detail. The interior building was finished to such high standard and some of the internal fittings such as the letters of the committee room doors, the elaborate light fittings and switches and some of the plaster work is in the style of art nouveau fashionable at that time."
      That is a good description for someone like me from Yorkshire. It goes on:
      "Some of the corridors have dados of green and yellow tiles featuring the West Riding County Council in motion. At the top of the main staircase there are murals in the classic European tradition. There is also much ornamental work symbolising the dates and functions of the former authority, and heraldic work embracing the towns and boroughs of the old West Riding."
      The name West Riding has been taken from us and the Government are now taking this West Riding building. That is an imposition on the people of the West Riding.

      229
      I decided to look up details of what I could say about Wakefield. The date of this quotation is 1841, before the county hall was built. It says about the area in which county hall is built:
      "On an eminence `tis built as each visitor knows, Where the mercantile Calder's expansive stream flows, Its streets are well cornered, lengthy spaces and wide, And its buildings are of true architectural pride."
      That was written 60 years before the county hall was built.
      "The birds sweetly chant their melodious strain,
      To traverse the beautiful walks we have found
      And enjoy the rich prospects that ere may be found."
      That was written by a chap called Thomas Brown and I agree with it. The Minister's mate cannot turn up, because he is fighting for his seat. He told me that he could not be here until the Adjournment.
      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in the debate. I hope that the Government will look again at county hall and at the land there and conduct a proper appraisal for the benefit of the ratepayers in west Yorkshire.
      Mr. Straw: On clause 7 about land held by public bodies, we have heard two speeches about areas in Yorkshire. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) may recall that he was the first Member of Parliament with whom I had active contact when I was a student at Leeds university. I know his great city well and I know how, in a sense, it is socially divided between north and south. I share his great concern about the impact of so-called gipsies upon the communities south of the river. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the points made by my right hon. Friend.
      6.45 pm
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) made what I suppose may be his valedictory speech in the House. I share his anger about one of the many consequences of the abolition of the metropolitan councils. That abolition desecrated the temples of democracy, the principal county halls of the great counties, including London and west Yorkshire.
      I know the county hall in Wakefield. It was built for the operation of local democracy, not to serve Mammon but to serve a higher idea and ideal.The whole country is offended by the idea that that building, which reflected the self-confidence of the west riding at the time that it was built and demonstrated the area's ability to govern itself without too much reference to Whitehall, should now be sold for a mess of pottage to the highest bidder. If this Government are re-elected the hall will never again be used for its proper purpose.
      Not even this Government would seek to sell off our cathedrals or abbeys, although I dare say that they will come close to it if they are re-elected. However, they are only too happy to strip away the powers of local people. There is no better or more tangible example of the way that they are doing that than the forced sales of county halls. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield is correct when he says that he will not let this one go—even if he is not in this House.
      As my right hon. Friend has made his valedictory speech in the House, it is appropriate for me to record the debt of gratitude that all my right hon. and hon. Friends owe to our right hon. Friend for his unique contribution in helping to maintain the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. That Government governed well without,
      230
      for some time, any visible means of support. They managed to pull off that magical trick not least because of the activities of my right hon. Friend. It is fortunate that there is a 30-year rule, because I have heard about parts of the role played by my right hon. Friend. The stories defy the imagination and perhaps should best be left under wraps. Suffice it to say that he maintained a majority for the Government for over five years. That is to his lasting credit.
      I hope that in the spirit of goodwill in which we have approached this Bill the Minister will take the chance now to announce that he will reprieve county hall.
      Dr. Boyson: The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) rightly took the opportunity presented by these clauses and amendments to bring to the attention of the House the problems that obviously exist on the south side of Leeds and from which his constituents are suffering. I do not have knowledge of that area, but if the right hon. Gentleman would speak or write to me I shall be delighted to see what can be done to help.
      For a while the right hon. Gentleman lived near to me. The Fryent way area is in my constituency. It has suffered terrible destruction and there has been uproar. The problems have occurred south of the river in Leeds and north of the river in Brent. I am aware of the problems that arise, and before or after the general election I should like to write or speak to the right hon. Gentleman to see what can be done.
      I have considerable sympathy with one of his points, that the people who made the decisions should live in those areas. That applies to many of the tower blocks in London, including those in my constituency. One rarely sees the architects who get the prizes for that sort of thing living on the 17th floor and trying to get a lift that works, either to take them down or to enable their aged parents to get up. It would be a good thing if not only the people who built them but the people who gave permission for them to be built and the people in architectural magazines who give them the prizes, knew the old saying about the toad knowing where the harrow cuts. That would give them experience of what the people who live there have to suffer.
      I know the strength of feeling of the right hon. Member for Wakefield and his loyalty to his county and to Wakefield, which he has served for so long at borough and county level, and now in Parliament. Indeed, I know the county hall there. In fact, I knew it when Sir Alec Clegg was the chief educational officer in Yorkshire. He will be known to all right hon. and hon. Members. Although he and I were on different wings of the educational spectrum at that time—[Interruption.] I must not divert or be misled by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), otherwise we shall be discussing the future of Blackburn Rovers again. At least Burnley football club has now saved itself, and the prayers of all Lancastrians here were answered by the saving goal in the Birmingham match last Saturday—[Interruption.] Yes, if they had 14,000 every time they would be back in the first division and leading the League.
      Mr. Roland Boyes: If the power of the Minister's prayer will save Burnley, will he save Sunderland on Thursday?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not give me such unpleasant thoughts.
      Dr. Boyson: It is probably fitting to raise that matter, because I believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker are, like myself, a Methodist lay preacher, so this is the right time for the hon. Gentleman to bring this to the attention of the Chair, as well as myself as the Minister at the Dispatch Box.
      Returning to Yorkshire, I was paying tribute to the late Sir Alec Clegg. On the educational spectrum, he was a discovery method man, when I wanted traditional education, and at his request I regularly put my case on Saturday mornings to the head teachers of Yorkshire's primary and secondary schools.
      I also know Lancashire county hall well. I did years of research there during school holidays, when I was researching Lancashire's economic history.
      The right hon. Member for Wakefield has seen myself and my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) and has written to us about the Wakefield county hall in the West Riding. The residuary body has put that splendid building up for sale. Incidentally I especially enjoyed the poem by Thomas Brown which the right hon. Gentleman read to the House.
      Wakefield has put in a bid for that building but no decision has yet been made about it. When the right hon. Gentleman saw my hon. Friend and me about this matter he brought to our attention the fact that it is not only the sale that is important; the way in which the building is maintained is important also. We have passed that fact on to the residuary body. Obviously, the matter is not a temporary one because the building is the pride of the area and whoever takes on the building must be able to maintain it. It would be a disaster if such a unique building were destroyed.
      I appreciate the strength of feeling shown by the right hon. Member for Wakefield on this matter. He has always been courteous to me, even to a Lancastrian from the other side of the Pennines. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, local government servants have served his father, myself, and indeed the right hon. Gentleman. I can say no more about that now, but I shall pass on everything that he has said this evening.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) is of Wakefield and I am of Leeds and, in a sense, ne'er the twain shall meet, but we are both part of Yorkshire.
      I visited police headquarters the other day. I ask the Minister to consider that a great deal of money could be saved for the police department. I believe that this point has been made before. However, as someone with an interest in the police, I know that step would save money. Perhaps that means that the Treasury will consider it with greater interest and sympathy than it would otherwise do.
      Dr. Boyson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We are aware of that matter and it has been passed on. There is a police need and one cannot say more than that there will be serious consideration which could be influential on that decision.
      I end by saying to the right hon. Member for Wakefield that this is probably the last time that I shall reply to him in this House. I should like to pay tribute to him for his long service, and not necessarily only for keeping the Labour party in government between 1974 and 1979 which, towards the end, was a great achievement. Nobody
      232
      can say that the right hon. Gentleman is not a character who knows and speaks his own mind. I say "character" in the best sense of that word. If the House became merely a collection of men who—I do not mention Whips here because there can be characters among Whips as well; in fact, at least one of my hon. Friends has been a Whip and is still a character, after leaving the Whips' Office, just as he was before—but if the House became a collection of individuals who simply said yes and no when told to do so, and who did not come here to represent the feelings of the people among whom they have been born, this place would be worse than it is. Therefore, on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should like to pay a genuine tribute to the right hon. Member for Wakefield, whom we shall miss.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7
      LAND HELD BY PUBLIC BODIES.
      Amendment made: No. 15, in page 7, line 34, leave out Clause 7.—[Dr. Boyson.]
    Clause 8
      FINANCE
      Amendment made: No. 16, in page 7, line 43, leave out Clause 8.—[Dr. Boyson.]
    Schedule 1

      AMENDMENTS OF PART VIII OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND ACT 1980
      Dr. Boyson: I beg to move Government amendment No. 7, in page 9, leave out lines 21 to 26.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we shall take Government amendment No. 10.
      Dr. Boyson: It gives me considerable pleasure to move this amendment because when the Bill was in Committee, there was good feeling, as there was on Second Reading. I said then that we would look most carefully at the two amendments that had been tabled by the Opposition to see whether we could absorb the intention behind them so that they could become part of the Bill and, indeed, strengthen it.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) proposed an amendment to section 80A(1), which was offered as a direct and honest attempt to improve the drafting of the Bill. I appreciated the fact that those amendments were either probing or improving amendments throughout. I have examined their proposals carefully—and they were genuine proposals in which there was no Trojan horse. They were simply attempts to improve the Bill. Therefore, I am happy to bring that amendment forward myself and to commend it to the House. Indeed, so good is the amendment that I should like the House to accept a similar change in the wording of section 80(1) to ensure that the two provisions remain on all fours with one another.
      Mr. Straw: Indeed, there is no Trojan horse in this amendment, which started life as amendment No. 3 in

      233
      Committee on 12 March. This part of the Bill is so technical and obtuse that if there had been a Trojan horse, none of us would have spotted it.
      We are grateful to the Minister for taking account of the points that we made and are glad that he has brought forward the amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Dr. Boyson: I beg to move Government amendment No. 8, in page 12, line 15, leave out 'In section 78(1)(a)' and insert
      '(1) In subsection (1)(a) of section 78'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we shall take Government amendments Nos. 9 and 11.
      Dr. Boyson: If one can go forward in the same spirit of co-operation, I should like to move this amendment. In Committee, the Opposition put forward a two-part amendment and I should like to commend both elements of it to the House, although I promised previously to consider only one. Therefore, I am happy to spell out that directions may be amended or revoked, and that a direction-making power carries with it a power to amend or revoke. It will do no harm to spell that out as was requested by the Opposition.
      On reflection, I have concluded that Opposition Members were right to suggest also that in an area as technical as valuation, prior consultation would be desirable. Therefore, I invite the House to accept an amendment to that effect.
      7 pm
      Mr. Straw: As the Minister has made clear, this matter was raised in Committee on what was amendment No. 34, and debated on 17 March. Again, we are grateful to the Minister for looking carefully at what we sought to say and for introducing the amendments in this way.
      Obviously, consultation is of great importance to local authorities and their representative associations. The powers contained in clause I are potentially wide-ranging in effect. They deal with deferred and advance purchase schemes, of which much has been written in the press. We acknowledge that within the scheme in the Bill the regulation is bound to be technical and complex, but precisely because of that it is important that, wherever possible, local authorities should have the opportunity to he consulted about regulations before they are introduced.
      Last July the Secretary of State announced his intention to take powers to regulate advance and deferred purchase schemes by legislation on or after midnight, 22 July 1986. Local authorities have been acting as if that was law, prudently taking account of the prospect of legislation. Although we had serious reservations about the operation of clause 1, given that authorities have already acted as if it were law, we believe it would add to uncertainty if we sought at this stage to block clause 1 and its attendant effects.
      We are glad that, as a consequence of discussions yesterday, we have been able to improve the way in which the Bill will operate for local authorities.
      Dr. Boyson: With the leave of the House I shall reply. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred to clause 1, which is linked with schedule 1 on which we had conversation yesterday. As this afternoon we have had poetry by Thomas Brown from the right hon. Member for
      234
      Wakefield (Mr. Harrison), in reply I must quote my doggerel, particularly as today is Edward Lear's birthday and I have the "Oxford Book of Light Verse" with me:
      There once was a doctor of Brent,
      Who said: "Some Councils have spent
      Far too much. If alas
      This amendment should pass,
      We should all have great cause to lament."
      I offer that to the House in the spirit in which we conducted our proceedings in Committee.
      Mr. Straw: With the leave of the House I shall reply. I should make it clear that that piece of doggerel was prepared for an amendment which, in the event, we did not move. I think that the Minister would be upset if the House took its advice on the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 9, in page 12, line 20, at end insert—
      '(2) Subsection (2) of that section (power to vary or revoke directions) shall be omitted.'.
      No. 10, in page 12, leave out lines 39 to 43.
      No. 11, in page 13, line 50, at end insert—
      '6. In section 85 of that Act (supplementary provisions for Part VIII), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
      "(1A) Before giving any direction under section 80(6A) or 80A(5) above the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of authorities as appear to him to be concerned and any authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.
      (1B) Any power of the Secretary of State to give directions under this Part of this Act shall include power to vary or revoke a direction given in exercise of that power.".'.—[Dr. Boyson.]

    Schedule 2
      LAND HELD BY PUBLIC BODIES
      Amendment made: No. 17, in page 14, line 1, leave out schedule 2.—[Dr. Boyson.]

    Title
    Amendments made: No. 18, in title, line 1, leave out 'Parts VIII and X' and insert 'Part VIII'.
    No. 19, in line 2, leave out
    'to authorize and regulate the provision of financial assistance by local authorities for certain housing purposes'.—[Dr. Boyson.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    7.3 pm
    Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for bringing to the attention of the House the fact that my doggerel was linked with an amendment that was withdrawn. I would hate to have torpedoed the Bill at the last moment. Gratuitous humour is always somewhat dangerous and I am grateful for his help.
    Clause 1 and schedule 1 of the Bill, as amended, contain provisions to prevent authorities using advance and deferred purchase schemes to avoid the Government's capital expenditure controls and store up major financial liabilities for the future.
    I announced in Committee details of the exemptions from the provisions in the Bill. All authorities in England and Wales will be able to use deferred purchase schemes to finance one project each, up to £3 million in cost,

    235
    beginning in any one period of five consecutive years. We shall make the necessary regulations as soon as possible after Parliament reassembles.
    In addition, all authorities will be able to continue to carry out their "building under licence" and "improvement under licence" housing schemes. Without this exemption, a number of housing projects were likely to be prevented or at least delayed in the period before Royal Assent. For this reason, we decided that the exemption should be backdated to 23 July 1986, the date on which these provisions of the Bill come into effect.
    The remainder of the Bill deals with education pooling. First, there is a technical amendment to the provision which allows for an adjustment between England and Wales. Then we have a provision to allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to recalculate allocations from the advanced further education pool for 1981–82 in the manner originally intended. These provisions are uncontroversial and have the agreement of the local authority associations and of all parties in the House.
    This is a short Bill, and it gives me pleasure to commend it to the House.
    7.5 pm
    Mr. Straw: In early October last year, the Secretary of State for the Environment made a speech at the Conservative party conference which was the only one that failed to achieve a standing ovation.
    Mr. Steve Norris: So did I.
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) also made a speech which failed to achieve a standing ovation. I did not know that he had much in common with the Secretary of State, but I am glad that he at least has that in common. [Interruption.] Perhaps he is talking about the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bristol, West."]—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). Those two certainly received standing ovations, but I was talking about their boss, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr.
    236
    Ridley), who failed to receive a standing ovation. I remember because I had the painful pleasure of listening to his every word on television—something that I shall not repeat next year.
    In that speech the Secretary of State promised to introduce a mountainous local government Bill which would privatise almost every local authority service; introduce major provisions to outlaw contract compliance even in respect of ensuring fair wages and equal opportunities for women and ethnic minorities; strengthen the powers of the local government ombudsman; and do everything mentioned in this Bill.
    Nine months later the mountainous Bill has turned out to be a little pimple. Even the heart of the Bill has now been removed, apart from clause 1. The Bill left Committee on 2 April. If the Government had had any confidence or faith in it, it could have passed through this House before Easter and through the other place in the condition in which it left Committee. It is now a truncated measure.
    The Minister was right to say that we supported clauses 5 and 6 which dealt with the arcane aspect of the operation of the further education pool. All of us have at least discovered that there is a rolling process to cap the pool—a further sign of the way in which the Department of Education and Science murders the English language in its regulation of the education system.
    I have already put on record our attitude to clause 1. The Secretary of State referred to his hope that Harrogate would not go the same way as Haringey on deferred purchase schemes. Our research shows that the reverse is true; that Haringey has a long way to go before it reaches the indebtedness that Harrogate has achieved in building various conference centres. Its assets to debt ratio, which the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, with his banking background, tells me is a good indicator, is far more unsatisfactorily geared than Haringey's.
    We acknowledge that, for the reasons I have spelt out, not the least of which is to remove uncertainty, it is better that clause 1 should be on the statute book than not.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Diplomatic and Consular Premises Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill concerns the acquisition and disposal of diplomatic premises in the United Kingdom. It would meet four separate needs. First, it would prevent missions from setting up offices in sensitive parts of the capital; for example, near the Palace of Westminster or the royal palaces in the Mall area. Secondly, the Bill would deal with the problem of empty former diplomatic premises by acquiring title to them and then selling them. Thirdly, the Bill would allow diplomatic status to be removed from premises which are being misused. Fourthly, the Bill would allow the Government to retaliate in kind if an overseas Government insisted that we move from existing premises or withheld consent for the acquisition of new premises.
  Those powers would bring the United Kingdom into line with the laws and practices of many other countries, including the United States of America. The Government regard the powers in the Bill as being fully consistent with their obligations under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. The Government consider that the Bill is a modest but useful measure. I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: I have no wish to delay consideration of the Bill or the House's progress on other more contentious issues. The Opposition will give a fair wind to the Bill, none of whose provisions are of any contention. The Bill will tidy up a grey area and, in that sense, it is useful and should be welcomed. I refer only to the situation that may arise if England and Wales were to impose the poll tax according to the model proposed for Scotland. The provisions of the Vienna convention mean that diplomatic premises do not attract normal rates or local taxes, but notional payments are made by the Government on behalf of the diplomatic premises in lieu of rates. Many newspaper headlines over the years have referred to the failure of Governments to pay their rates.
  The question may arise, if the poll tax were introduced in England and Wales, as to what amount would be paid
  238
  by embassies. Would the amount be levied on the total number of diplomats accredited to the mission? Would all diplomatic premises attract the poll tax in an equal quantity? Would the missions be reduced by proportionate amounts so as to avoid increased taxation by the Government on their behalf? Have these matters, such as those in the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, been left indeterminate for the bureaucratic jungle and a nightmare to catch up with after the event?
  Mr. Eggar: I appreciate the support of the lion. Member for Hamilton (Mr. George Robertson) for the Bill which, as he said, is a modest but important step in the right direction towards clearing up a grey area. I am delighted that the hon. Member has turned his mind to problems which may occur after the election. The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not honest about the prospects of his party winning a majority in the coming election. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Scottish Bill which, we hope, will pass through the House in the next two days and which provides for the continued application of rates to office premises; therefore, consular premises will continue to be assessed for rates. However, diplomatic missions will pay only that element of the rates from which they are deemed to derive benefit under a net-back systetn. The question of what will happen when the poll tax is introduced is, of course, one for further consideration.
  Question put and agree to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd].
  Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [this day].

  Diplomatic and Consular Premises Bill

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PREMISES BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved.
    That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred under that Act by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PREMISES BILL
    Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment, read the Third time and passed.
  Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [Lords]
  Consideration of Lords amendments to Commons amendments.
  Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      ENTERTAINMENT LICENCES: REMOVAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in line 1, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 3.
      7.18 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the amendment to the Commons amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this amendment we will consider Lords amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Neil Thorne: I should be grateful for the assistance of my hon. Friend on three points. First, should there not be an "or" at the end of the last line of the amendment, so that it will read correctly? Secondly, is the removal of the Theatre Royal in the Haymarket intended to be temporary? Thirdly, would this mean that the Theatre Royal would be in the same position as a private club, which my hon. Friend will remember are in a special category? I have in mind, for example, the Queensway ice rink which does not have to have adequate provision for first aid facilities, particularly for the St. John Ambulance Brigade and others to carry out their important tasks, because the people who attend those places are considered to be in a separate class, unlike employees and the general public. Can my hon. Friend give me guidance on those three points?
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has raised three points. As to "or", I do not know, but I hope that he is wrong. As to whether it is temporary, that depends on the Government's legislative programme in the next Parliament or thereafter, but clearly there is an anomaly and I am against anomalies. As regards private clubs, the law is highly complex, as it is for the Theatre Royal, Haymarket which comes into a group of premises which are covered by such extraordinary things as licence of the Crown and letters patent, so I shall not give a comprehensive or even considered reply to my hon. Friend from the Dispatch Box today. However, he has raised an important and interesting point, about which I shall write to him.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.

  Housing (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  7.20 pm
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a consolidation measure which consolidates certain enactments relating to housing in Scotland and incorporates amendments to give effect to certain recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. Apart from those amendments the Bill makes no change in the existing law.
  The Bill has been considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation of Bills, and it will be recollected that its proceedings were reported to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). The Joint Committee said that there was no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendments; read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Housing (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    Resolved,
    That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) (No. 2) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  Terms and Conditions of Employment
  7.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): I beg to move,
  That the draft Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (Renewal) (Great Britain) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6 May, be approved.
  This is the sixth occasion on which the House has been asked to extend the powers of the Employment Subsidies Act 1978 which are due to expire on 30 June 1987. The order extends the provisions for a further 18 months, which is the maximum length permitted by the Act.
  Three schemes are currently operated under the Act—the young workers scheme, the new workers scheme and jobshare, formerly the job splitting scheme. However, the young workers scheme closed for applications on 31 March 1986 and it is expected that all payments due to employers under this scheme will have ceased by 30 June 1987 when this order expires. The new workers scheme, which is a replacement for, and a development of, the young workers scheme, was announced by the Chancellor in his Budget statement on 18 March 1986 and commenced on 1 April that year.
  If this order is not approved, my Department will be unable to accept new applications under the new workers scheme or jobshare after 30 June 1987.
  The new workers scheme has two important and related aims—to encourage more job opportunities for under-21-year-olds at realistic rates of pay, and to complement YTS. We believe that young inexperienced people will continue to be at a disadvantage in securing jobs if their pay is not only consistent with that paid to a more experienced, older worker, but moreover represents an inordinate progression from YTS training allowances.
  By encouraging employers to pay realistic rates of pay to young people we can contribute to the reduction of labour costs and so help employers to improve their competitiveness. In this way, employers will be better able to expand their businesses and create more job opportunities for both young and older workers.
  For jobs starting on or after 1 June this year, the new scheme conditions announced on 6 May will apply. The scheme will only be open to 18, 19 and 20-year-olds who are in their first year of employment. In addition, the wage ceiling for 18 and 19-year-olds will be raised by £5 to £60 gross a week. The wage ceiling for 20-year-olds will remain at £65 gross a week. Proof of YTS completion will no longer be necessary and we believe that this will remove what was a major source of discontent to users in the first year of the scheme.
  Where all the conditions of the scheme are met. Employers will continue to receive £15 a week for up to 52 weeks in respect of every full-time permanent job supported. We anticipate that these important changes will encourage employers who are already using the scheme to use it again, and those who have previously been unable or unwilling to take advantage of the scheme to look at it afresh. In this financial year we hope to support well over 25,000 jobs for young people under the scheme.
  The job splitting scheme was introduced in January 1983 to help employers provide part-time job opportunities for unemployed people by encouraging more flexible working arrangements. From 1 April 1987 the scheme was relaunched by me in Manchester as jobshare
  242
  and some changes were made to the eligibility rules and to the grant given to employers. Those changes were announced to the House on 6 April 1987.
  Jobshare allows employers to create new part-time jobs by three methods. First, it divides an existing full-time job, in addition to the holder of the full-time job being split. Those eligible to be recruited are people claiming at unemployment benefit office, under notice of redundancy or leaving a particular Government scheme but who have not been employed since. The second method is to create two new part-time jobs. Eligibility in this case is confined to people leaving particular Government schemes who have not been employed since. The third and final method is to combine regular overtime hours of up to 10 employees to create a new part-job. Those who can be recruited under this method are the same as for the first method that I have described.
  Under the job-splitting scheme, the Department of Employment provided a grant of £840 to meet an employer's administrative and training costs. The Department has increased this grant to £1,000 for those employers participating in jobshare. The grant is paid in three instalments—£500 when the application is approved, £200 at the end of 26 weeks and £300 at the end of the year.
  We continue to believe that jobshare can provide a number of potential long-term benefits to participants. For example, higher productivity, particularly in areas of routine work, more flexible use of working time, improved job satisfaction, lower staff turnover and absences, and cover for off-the-job training. It encourages employers to devise more flexible working patterns through a better utilisation of manpower, greater efficiency and improved competitiveness, thereby helping to reduce unemployment. It also offers employers an opportunity to build up a pool of trained labour to meet the future expansion of their companies.
  The advantages of jobshare for individuals will, of course vary according to their circumstances. Not everyone necessarily wants a full-time job and this scheme provides scope to tailor part-time jobs to an individual's needs.
  Although a job splitting scheme ran for over four years, its take-up was limited and only about 250 people were on the scheme at any one time. Recent research showed a lack of awareness amongst employers about the scheme. It is hoped that the changes that have been made under jobshare, combined with increased marketing, will achieve more positive results. My Department expects to approve 1,000 application under jobshare this year.
  I commend the Order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (Renewal) (Great Britain) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

  Terms and Conditions of Employment

    PARLIAMENTARY AND OTHER PENSIONS BILL
    Resolved,
    That Standing Committee A be discharged from considering the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
    Committee tomorrow.

    CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [Lords]
    Resolved,
    That Standing Committee D be discharged from considering those provisions of the Consumer Protection Bill [Lords] which have not been considered by that Committee and that those provisions be committed to a Committee of the whole House, and that the Chairman do now report to the House those provisions of the Bill, the consideration of which has been completed by that Committee, and that on being reported from the Committee of the whole House, the Bill, including those provisions reported from the Standing Committee, may be taken into consideration as amended without any Question being put.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
    Committee tomorrow.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Resolved,
    That, in respect of the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [Lords], Notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
    Resolved,
    That, at tomorrow's sitting, the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply to proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill as if the Second Reading of the Bill stood as first Order of the day.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

    ESTIMATES
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £59,571,457,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1988, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 192, 227, 238 and 369.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Ian Stewart and Mr. Peter Brooke.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
    Mr. Norman Lamont accordingly presented a Bill to supply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 1988 to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

  Youth Unemployment (Rother Valley)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I am pleased that Members on both Front Benches have got through the business and reached the important matter of my Adjournment debate.
  As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, well know, the Rother Valley constituency is in the heartland of south Yorkshire—a once thriving industrial region which helped to create the wealth of this nation but which has not reaped the benefits of that wealth, as is plain to see when one looks around the area today. Most of the constituency is in the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area, which has one of the highest levels of unemployment in Britain and where more than 45 per cent. of those out of work have been jobless for more than a year.
  Of the three parliamentary constituencies in the Rotherham metropolitan borough, Rother Valley has the lowest percentage recorded unemployment, but when one considers the percentage share of youth unemployment in each of the seven wards a grim picture is painted of the lives of many young people. In Thurcroft and Whiston ward, 33·1 per cent. of the unemployed are under the age of 25. In St. John's ward, the figure is 33·4 per cent., in Anston and Woodsetts and in Brinsworth, Catcliffe and Treeton it is 33·6 per cent., in Maltby 33·8 per cent., in Kiveton Park 35·3 per cent. and in Aston, Orgreave and Ulley 35·6 per cent. There is a total of 2,149 registered unemployed under the age of 25. In January this year, the total number of unemployed in the constituency was 6,297, of whom 43·5 per cent. were long-term unemployed, so 2,756 people had not had a job for more than 12 months. As youth unemployment accounts for a good 30 per cent. of the total, it is clear that many hundreds of young people have not had a job for a considerable time.
  Those figures include only registered unemployed. They do not include the many hundreds of young people on youth training schemes and community programmes within the borough.
  The main reason for the high levels of unemployment is the rundown in the regional and local economies. The 1981 census listed the Rother Valley constituency in the top 50 with the highest level of manufacturing industry, but many small manufacturers have been hit by the worsening state of the economy in the past eight years. Compared with 1978–79, manufacturing investment in the region is down by £190 million. It is clear that the local economy has suffered greatly when this is combined with high interest rates, the fall in manufacturing output and increased manufactured imports, and companies have not been able to take on young people as trainees or apprentices in what was regarded as the normal way in the 1960s and 1970s.
  Two of the region's largest industries—steel and coal—which were once a major source of job opportunities for young people, have also suffered catastrophic reductions. Since 1979, two coal mines in the constituency have closed and thousands of jobs have been lost in neighbouring mines as a direct result of Government policy towards the coal industry.
  Sad to say, only yesterday a further 200 job losses were announced at Treeton colliery in my constituency which

  245
  is to be reduced to a single face colliery. That means not just the loss of 200 jobs but the loss of 200 future job opportunities for young people. There has also been a massive reduction in the Sheffield and Rotherham steel making and engineering works in the past 10 years. That has greatly affected the job opportunities for young people. I remember that when I came out of secondary modern school in 1962 I was offered a craft apprenticeship with the National Coal Board or a job in the steel works. There are no such opportunities for any of the young people now.
  The Government's response has not been to seek to arrest the decline. Instead, regional aid has been cut so that there was £37·4 million less in 1985–86 than in 1978–79. With that amount of money being taken away from the region, we have not been able to create or hold job opportunities for young people.
  There has. however, been some investment in the constituency. There has been massive investment in Maltby colliery as a result of the Labour Government's "Plan for Coal" which was agreed in 1976, but there are fewer people working there now than when I was employed there before the 1983 general election. It is all very well to say that millions, or even billions, of pounds have been pumped into the coal industry in capital investment, but in terms of job creation the result may be negative rather than positive.
  Nearly half the people working at Maltby colliery have transferred from neighbouring collieries which have closed. In the past four years, not one young person has been taken on at the mine, although at one time it played a major role in employing young people in the area and one went there only if there were no other jobs in the local economy. Indeed, it was the lack of opportunities for young people that created the 1984–85 miners' strike, but the Government failed to listen, and by shutting their ears to what the mining communities were saying they allowed the situation to get worse.
  The Government's answer to the high level of unemployment among young people has been the introduction of training schemes—initially the youth opportunities programme, then the youth training scheme and now the job training scheme—but the majority of young people remain unemployed after going through these schemes. The latest available Manpower Services Commission figures show that of those finishing or leaving youth training schemes in the Rotherham area between April 1985 and April 1986, only 17·9 per cent. found jobs with the employer with whom they had trained, despite the Government's initial assurances that the proportion would be far higher, 14 per cent. found jobs with other employers and 3·8 per cent. found part-time jobs. A further 7·8 per cent. went on to other youth training schemes, 2·7 per cent. went on to full-time education courses and 47·5 per cent. became unemployed. The Government have failed to face the fact that jobs once held by permanent employees are being carried out by a succession of young people on Government training schemes while permanent jobs for young people disappear.
  Training schemes are not the answer to the problems of young people in Rother Valley in finding work. Schemes may be the answer for some young people, but they are an obstruction for others. In many parts of my constituency jobs being done by young people on Government training schemes were done five years ago by
  246
  16, 17 and 18-year-olds. People should not say that training schemes are there for work experience. They are stopping people getting jobs in my constituency.
  While some young people in the constituency are taking part in good youth training courses run by charities like Community Industry and by the local authorities, there is no way in which they can compete with the skilled people who are being made redundant. It is often forgotten that when there are redundancies many experienced people are thrown on the dole queues. In the borough of Rotherham itself, for every job vacancy there are 68 people in the dole queue to take it up and many more not registered who are also looking for work.
  The majority of young people in my constituency have been the victims of the Government's cynical economic experiment, which has failed both nationally and regionally. It is no good Ministers at the Dispatch Box or Tory Members talking about efficiency and making people stand on their own two feet. What chance does a 16-year-old school leaver from a family that is already disadvantaged because of unemployment have of ever being able to stand on his or her own two feet in such circumstances as I have described in many households in my constituency?
  Last July, over 2,800 young people aged 16 left schools in Rotherham borough; 89 per cent. of them did not have a proper job. In other words, in July of last year over 2,400 young people were unemployed straight from school. Most of them are on training schemes although a few have got jobs. When we consider the hundreds of young people at comprehensive schools throughout the constituency who will be eligible to leave at 16 and who will be coming on to the dole queues and training schemes in July of this year, we see that the problem is getting worse.
  The Government cannot claim that this has come as a surprise. Yet in the eight years during which we have watched the problem develop, the Government have not attempted to find a solution. They should have made an education allowance to 16-year-old students in comprehensive schools to enable them to benefit from further education without feeling that they were a burden on already disadvantaged families. My experience of my surgeries and of my postbag is that people are resentful of the fact that no education allowance is made to help their children get further education. As a consequence, children leave school at 16 to look for money from supplementary benefit or from training schemes. The Government have singularly failed to prevent young people going on the dole queue or into training schemes by not providing an education allowance.
  On 11 June, thousands of young people will be voting for the first time. The few whose families have benefited from the tax cuts made by the Government over the last seven years will no doubt support Tory candidates. I am not so sure about those whose time has been wasted on the dole queues. I hope that the voices of that majority of young men and women will be heard rejecting the Government's policies, which have left many areas like my constituency with a gaping hole instead of opportunities for young people to get jobs and lead normal lives. Because they cannot find work, many young people cannot get married and lead the sort of life that most people in these communities have lived for generations.
  The Government have failed to do anything to stop the growing tide of youth unemployment in my area and in the surrounding regions. I hope that on 11 June people will

  247
  decide that no longer will they have a Government who are prepared to let young people waste their lives as is happening in Rother Valley.
  7.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on his success in securing this debate and on providing an opportunity for us to discuss youth employment. I have listened carefully to what he has said. I think I can start my reply by making three points on which I hope we will be in a fair measure of agreement.
  First, I fully accept that the hon. Gentleman's constituency lies in an area which faces problems of industries in historic decline—like mining and steel—which make the task of adjusting to new world market conditions more intractable and painful than in many other areas. The overall unemployment count in the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area of 22,929 and the rate of unemployment at 21·9 per cent. put that beyond debate.
  Secondly, unemployment hits young people—new-comers to the labour market—particularly hard and it must therefore continue to be the highest priority to improve their prospects of jobs.
  Thirdly, while youth unemployment has its features which require a specific response, the job prospects of young people are very much influenced by wider economic developments and Government measures. Young people will therefore benefit from the progress we are making in creating the conditions for faster economic growth and from the new jobs which are being created.
  I shall return to these wider matters if time allows, but I should first like to say a little about changes in the levels of youth unemployment. My main point is that nationally there is a clearly marked downward trend. In January 1986 there were 187,000 claimants aged under 18; this year there are 25,000 fewer. Over the three years to January 1987, if we look at total unemployed young people aged under 25, there is a reduction of 127,000, from 1,259,700 to 1,132,700.
  Of those unemployed young people aged under 25 there has been a fall of over 80,000 in the past year to January and over 120,000 in the last two years. The unemployment rate for the under-25s is now 18 per cent.—lower than the EC average of 21 per cent., and much lower than Italy at 35 per cent. or France at 24 per cent.
  These encouraging trends, I have to say, are not so clearly established in the Rother Valley area. But there is some progress. In the Rotherham travel-to-work area the number of unemployed people aged 18 and under fell by over 400 between January 1986 and January 1987, and in the wider region of Yorkshire and Humberside there were about 8,000 fewer unemployed people aged under 25 in this year compared with last. I very much hope these changes point to further improvement.
  Further progress depends not on the Government alone, but the Government have their part to play. They have to continue particularly with their investment in young people, both to improve their employment prospects and to provide a skilled work force for the future of our industry.
  248
  I would like now to outline some of the specific measures we operate for our young people. At school level, it is the aim of the technical and vocational education initiative to prepare young people for the world of work by increasing the relevance and practical content of the curriculum, developing motivation, initiative, and problem-solving skills, providing work experience, and establishing links with local employers.
  As hon. Members know, TVEI began on a pilot basis in 1983 and experience of the pilots was so encouraging in terms of the enthusiasm of teachers, parents and children alike, that we took the decision last year to extend the scheme into a national initiative, from which all 14 to 18-year-olds in maintained schools will be able to benefit. We shall be spending some £900 million on the national scheme over the next 10 years.
  TVEI is, of course, voluntary, and Rotherham was one of the tiny minority of mainly Labour-controlled local education authorities which opted not to take part in the pilot phase. I am glad to say that it has now submitted a proposal for a three-year preparatory phase with a view to subsequent participation in a full extension. I hope for a successful conclusion of discussions so that TVEI will begin in Rotherham in September 1987 and the local authority will be able to take up the £5·25 million offered to enhance the education of its children.
  A large and growing proportion of our young people are now being helped by YTS. A third of a million young people are now currently training on YTS; without YTS many of them would be unemployed. YTS is playing a central role in helping young people to gain skills, work experience and qualifications which increase their self-confidence as young adults and give them a better chance of employment. By giving young people the opportunity to train in the particular skills that are needed today—in new technology, for example—YTS is helping to bridge the skills gap which has bedevilled our industry for so long; and in helping industry to gain the skilled and enterprising young people it needs, we are helping industry to thrive and to create the jobs of the future.
  Every 16 and 17-year-old unemployed school-leaver is now guaranteed a place on a YTS scheme. This means that no one under 18 need remain unemployed. This is an outstanding achievement of which the Government and providers of training can be proud. The Government are demonstrating their commitment to youth training by spending £1,000 million a year on YTS. Employers have been prepared to make a substantial and growing financial contribution because they recognise the benefits that YTS brings.
  Nationally, about 60 per cent. of YTS trainees find employment soon after leaving, and many stay on with the same firm as regular employees. But there are bound to be regional variations in the picture, depending on the buoyancy of local labour markets.
  The employment pattern in Rother Valley is obviously very difficult and this is reflected in below-average numbers of trainees finding work, although their situation is showing signs of improvement. The introduction of the new two-year YTS programme last year means that the young people of Rother Valley are now enjoying a longer period of high quality training with more practical work experience and off-the-job training. I have every hope that these substantial imrovements in the YTS training programme will result in a significant increase in the number of YTS trainees who move directly into work.

  249
  If young people are to take advantage of the opportunities on offer, they need realistic and well-informed careers guidance. The work of the local authority's careers service is crucial in all this. The careers service plays a central role in YTS recruitment: eight in ten recruits enter via the careers service. The Government fully recognise its role and the extra burdens which high levels of youth unemployment have placed on its staff. We will be continuing to support directly over 1,000 posts in local authority services. The careers service in Rotherham will benefit by 11 posts—close to a third of its total complement.
  Our range of employment and training measures continues beyond YTS to provide help to young people seeking to improve their job prospects.
  The new workers scheme is there to assist job seekers under 21 by providing financial assistance to employers who engage young people at rates of pay which reflect their relative inexperience. In the Rotherham-Sheffield area, 765 people were benefiting at the end of March.
  The community programme also provides participants with improved employment prospects, at the same time yielding direct and tangible benefits to the community. Places in the Rother Valley are organised in part by the Sheffield and district area office and in part by the Derby area office of the Manpower Services Commission. The Rotherham and district share of provision in the Sheffield area totals some 3,370 places; 3,029 places were filled at the end of April this year. Some 65 per cent. of entrants are under 25.
  For those young people who suffer lengthier unemployment, measures are in place to provide them with motivation and skills to compete effectively for jobs as the economy grows. Earlier this year we announced that we were stepping up the restart programme to include people unemployed over six months and to provide further interviews at six-monthly intervals. We also announced an extension of the new job training scheme with the aim of giving nearly a quarter of a million people a year a better chance to compete for the increasing number of job vacancies through quality training lasting an average of six months.
  Under restart arrangements in the Rotherham-Sheffield area some 28,346 people had been interviewed and 89 per cent. of those had been made a positive offer; 1,924 had entered restart courses and 107 had been accepted for job start allowances.
  Job clubs have been extremely successful in helping the unemployed. There are 16 job clubs in the Rotherham-Sheffield area. Some 368 people have been participants and 180 have gone into jobs, while a further 48 have gone into the community programme.
  We are also actively encouraging enterprise and self-employment. Since 1979 the number of self-employed people in the United Kingdom has risen from 1·9 million to over 2·6 million—an increase of 37 per cent. About one in nine of the labour force is now self-employed.
  The self-employed option is therefore one which needs to be held out to young people. Of course, only a few will be equipped and ready to start work on a self-employed basis, but it would be a denial of the enterprise in our young people not to alert them to the opportunities.
  Through the enterprise allowance scheme and in many other ways we are ready to foster an enterprise culture.
  250
  The EAS has been very successful. In the Rotherham-Sheffield area close to 4,000 people have entered the scheme since August 1983, and at the end of April this year 1,376 were currently benefiting from the allowance.
  The director of Rotherham enterprise agency reports a high level of interest in business start-up among young unemployed people. He estimates that approaching 50 per cent. of all his clients fall into the 18 to 25 age group.
  There is a small business club affiliated to the enterprise agency with a core membership of 40 with at least 20 members who are 25 or under. The agency also has three workshops in different parts of the borough offering small starter units to small business. At each location approximately 40 per cent. of the tenants are young business people in this same age group. The view of the director is that more young people would seriously consider self-employment as an option if similar work space was more readily available.
  The South Yorkshire regional co-ordinator of the newly formed Prince's Youth Business Trust—the PYBT—shares this view about the level of interest in business among young people. During the first three months of operation eight out of a total of 85 bursary applications received from young people have had Rotherham postal addresses.
  It is not, of course, much use having a full range of employment, training and enterprise measures if they are not properly marketed so that those who are eligible for and in need of help are fully aware of what is available. Through our "Action for Jobs" campaign, therefore, we have made every effort to bring the schemes to the notice of those who might benefit by participating or by providing opportunities. The campaign has been extremely successful: over 5 million people have picked up copies of the booklet "Action for Jobs", which gives an easy-to-read guide to over 30 programmes available to help people to get work. This is an excellent programme.
  Assistance to economic development in the Rother Valley is not, of course, a matter solely for my Department, and considerable help is being given from elsewhere. Since 1979, under regional selective assistance arrangements, some £8,379,000 has been made available to Rotherham and a further £12,780,000 has been provided to the Rotherham development area since 1984. Rotherham enterprise zone, which opened in 1983, has successfully attracted 74 firms employing about 2,000 people.
  Traditional industries have, I agree, been contracting, but other sources of employment are available. I have already referred to jobs created in the enterprise zone. Other jobs are being created. A multi-million-pound development at Park Gate, Rotherham, is under way and scheduled to create several thousand job opportunities in the near future. A new store in Dinnington for Leo's Supermarkets will shortly provide 300 jobs.
  Now that there are five jobs in services for every two in manufacturing it is especially encouraging to see the creation of new opportunities in the service sector in the hon. Member's constituency. It is also encouraging to report that the number of vacancies notified in the year ending March 1987 to Rother Valley jobcentres was some 17 per cent. up on the previous year and that a comparison on the same basis shows placings up 14 per cent. The stock of unfilled vacancies was up to 364, as against 217 a year earlier, which is a 68 per cent. increase.

  251
  In a short debate such as this it is difficult to describe fully all that is being done to help young people in the Rother Valley. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman is clear that this Government are as concerned as he is to ensure worthwhile opportunities for young people in Rother Valley.
  I have described what our particular measures are doing and will continue to do to help. Young people now have opportunities for training, way beyond those of earlier generations. These, together with the progress that we are making in creating a climate for new jobs, in economic growth and in defeating inflation, provide their best guarantee of better job prospects.

  Green Belt
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I wish at once to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government for coming in to reply to this debate. I know that, as this Adjournment debate deals with the green belt and its importance to Hertfordshire, my hon. Friend will be most sympathetic, because in his constituency a piece of green land would be defended with the same vehemence and enthusiasm as the Alamo has been defended against marauding Mexicans. I like to think that my hon. Friend will give a sympathetic response to the requests that I shall be putting forward concerning the green belt of Hertfordshire.
  This is, of course, in some ways a rerun of the debate in December 1985, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) replied. At that time I had in the Chamber with me my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), and I am very glad to see here my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who I know is another champion of the green belt. I have to point out to the Minister that only a couple of months ago there was another Adjournment debate in the House on the green belt in Hertfordshire. That was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones).
  I want to make it absolutely clear and to emphasise that in Hertfordshire every single Member of Parliament is desperately concerned about, and supportive of, the green belt and the need for it to be maintained. When I last spoke on this subject I touched on the county structure plan and made various remarks such as that, of the 1,072 individual responses received in connection with the structure plan, only 50 indicated a desire for development taking place. All the rest wanted Hertfordshire to remain the pleasant green county that it is at present. I must confess that there is concern that the county structure plan currently before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will open the doors for further development, and a further covering of concrete for the county of Hertfordshire.
  In the past, the Government have been most supportive. When the green belt has been under attack and appeals have been lodged, they have supported each of the local authorities that have, one by one, defended it against the proposals. My own area of south-west Hertfordshire is now under attack. The M25, a very busy motorway, runs through the middle of it. To the north-east, we have the town of Watford, a growing vigorous area. One or two industrial centres have been set up, notably in Croxley park. That has brought much industrial activity into the area. We also have a train service which, despite the criticisms that are made of London Regional Transport and British Rail, is very efficient, and transports literally tens of thousands of commuters down to the City every day. It is a very popular area. However, with that popularity comes pressure.
  Just to the north of my area is the "golden triangle", which is currently subject to a proposal for development which, again, will cover it in concrete. While it will be several months before the planning appeal is heard in February 1988, I should nevertheless like to register with my hon. Friend the Minister the concern felt throughout

  253
  the county that that stretch of land between St. Albans and Watford may be allowed to fall into the hands of the developers.
  The original circular on the green belt made the position very clear. It said that it was there to check the growth of a large built-up area. From my point of view, that is very important. Several towns and villages in my area are separated from each other only by a thin strip of green land. If that thin strip were allowed to be "logically" developed, we should find that the growing tide of concrete and asphalt coming up from London would flow on remorselessly, and we should no longer know where Hertfordshire began and London ended.
  The other purpose mentioned in the original circular was to preserve the special character of a town. I feel that a village in my constituency, the village of Bovingdon, is under attack. It is a pleasant village with a small infrastructure, which certainly cannot accommodate additional properties. Yet the structure plan suggests that it should be the recipient of a settlement. I believe that "settlements' are merely a means of getting around the present barriers and protections provided by the green belt. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind that, while "settlement" sounds all very well in theory—as though a pioneering experiment will be taking place—it merely means the destruction of a typical piece of Hertfordshire by the planners.
  When I attended a meeting in the village hall just over a year ago, the room was packed, and everyone there was violently against the idea of Bovingdon being destroyed. I hope that that message is clear, and that it is received not only by my hon. Friend the Minister but by his Department. I know that it will be faithfully transmitted when the opportunity comes.
  I am sure that the answer to our housing problems—and there are such problems—is not to expand London or to cover everything with concrete, but to concentrate on some of the problems of our inner cities, and to try to rebuild and modernise areas that have been allowed to go to rack and ruin. There is a natural temptation to turn away from the difficulties of inner-city areas, and to take the so-called softer, green target of Hertfordshire as the answer to our problems. However, I know from experience that merely releasing a few parcels of land will not bring down property prices in Hertfordshire. Although some people say that we should relax the planning regulations a little and be more flexible in our approach, the only way to bring about a sizeable or even a modest reduction in land prices — and therefore property prices — in Hertfordshire is to release vast tracts of land, literally flooding the market and, in doing so, destroying the environment.
  Let me draw my remarks to a close by making an impassioned appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to go to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and tell him that the structure plan before him must be tailored to the needs of Hertfordshire, so that we may preserve our green belt and we do not destroy our villages. In that way, I am sure that we shall create an environment that we can hand on to our children and grandchildren, and of which we can be proud.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for listening to the debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on initiating it.
  The green belt in the Hertford and Bishop's Stortford area is being considered by the Department of the Environment under the revised county structure plan procedure. I believe that, as my hon. Friend has said, the plan is now in the red box of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It contains a recommendation, or agreement, that a green belt be put around the sown of Bishop's Stortford.
  I know that that has been refused by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the past, and considerable resistance has been shown to putting a green belt around every town and making it extend further and further north into the county of Hertfordshire. But Bishop's Stortford has suffered the deprivations of the agreement by the Department to permit the expansion of Stansted airport. Mercifully, it will take only 8 million passengers per annum in the initial phase; it will not be the very large airport that was initially envisaged. Within three months of the decision having been taken, applications had been made to build houses in the Bishop's Stortford area. If they had been accepted, they would have doubled the size of the town. Some of the major construction companies applied for permission to build 15,000 houses in Bishop'S Stortford. They have an organisation that is constantly lobbying the Department, because they need permission to build houses to satisfy the housing demand. My right hon. Friend has to strike a balance between those pressures and the need to preserve the environment.
  The county structure plan does exactly that. I urge my hon. Friend to approve the county structure plan before the election. If, however, he does not agree with the county's recommendations, I ask him to postpone his decision until after the election, when proper discussions can be held with him. His intererests are now focused on Brent, North, which I expect him to win for the Conservative party, rather than on the green belt around Bishop's Stortford.
  The issue is extremely important in my constituency and in Hertfordshire generally. All that my hon. Friend has to do is to agree to the county's proposals. If he did so, we should congratulate him. I believe that he has the interests of Hertfordshire at heart because he listened to Hertfordshire's pleas when it was being murdered last October by the proposed rate support grant settlement. He took our representations seriously, saw the injustice of the proposals and modified them. He did not remove entirely the penalties on Hertfordshire, but he reduced from £16 million to £10 million the amount of money that had been taken away from Hertfordshire. That represented a sensible balance with which we could live.
  The county structure plan provides a sensible balance. We are against wholesale development in Hertfordshire, but the electorate in my constituency has expanded in the last five years from 67,000 to 76,000. My constituents do not therefore adopt a curmudgeonly attitude to development. Nevertheless, the constituency needs the instruments with which to control development sensibly and to pay proper regard to the environment.

  255
  The county structure plan provides for a certain amount of development in designated areas and it reflects the development that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment asked us to accommodate within Hertfordshire. However, development must be controlled; we must ensure that environmental issues are looked after. I ask my hon. Friend to take the county structure plan out of the Box of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and tell him that all he has to do is to sign it and issue it. I hope that he will do that in the next 24 hours.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: The debate is taking place at only two hours' notice, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on taking this opportunity to raise the green belt issue, which is so important to our constituents. Concern about the green belt is felt not only in Hertfordshire but also in west and south-west London. My constituents in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons and Whitton greatly cherish the green belt that successive Governments have upheld, but none more so than this Government, who, since 1979, have doubled the quantity of green belt in the United Kingdom, and even added to it around London. The green belt acreage now equals that of the Principality of Wales.
  There is particular concern in my constituency about land that belongs to the Thames water authority. It lies to the west of Hampton village and contains two disused reservoirs. It borders Hanworth, in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) and also Kempton and Sunbury in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins). On several occasions, all of us have expressed concern to Ministers in the Department of the Environment.
  Never in all my experience have I met as much strength of feeling about an environmental issue as I have met about this one. There have been 750 letters of objection to the proposed theme park on the site. I chaired two public meetings, one in July and one in September 1986, each of which was attended by between 500 and 600 people. At the end of July 1986 I presented a petition to the House that contained 2,200 signatures. An Adjournment debate was also held on this question on 14 November 1986. The concern continues. This development would create an immense increase in traffic, pollution of the atmosphere and, above all, loss of open land that de facto, though not officially, is green belt land.
  The London borough of Hounslow, where most of the land is situated, intends to declare in its west area plan that this is green belt land. That plan was the subject of a public inquiry in February. I gave evidence to it and supported, as a Conservative Member of Parliament, the Labour-controlled local authority of Hounslow. The area is used by those who live on all sides of it for walking and sport and for the enjoyment of the grass, trees and wildlife. Once again I support the proposal that it should become green belt land.
  When the Government consider the inspector's report on the west area plan of the London borough of Hounslow, I hope that they will declare that it is to be a green belt area. I cannot ask my hon. Friend the Minister
  256
  to make a decision now. I am perfectly well aware that he is unable to do so until he has studied the inspector's report. However, I ask him merely to assure me that he has taken note of my points and that they will not be overlooked when the inspector's report is considered. I hope that he will declare that this is a green belt area, as that should pave the way for the refusal of the monstrous application on which a public inquiry is to be held next October.
  8.18 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I endorse all that has been said about the importance of the green belt. I represent a constituency in south-west London where there is enormous pressure for the development of available land. My constituency has the fourth lowest level of unemployment in the country, with the result that there is great pressure for housing and other forms of development. Inevitably, planning decisions require the judgment of Solomon.
  We greatly welcome the presence of the green belt, but we are deeply concerned about those areas that lie just outside the designated green belt. My constituents are very concerned about the fact that decisions have been overturned on appeal against the recommendations of the local planning committee. According to the recent district council results, the Conservatives have been returned in the same numbers as previously. The borough council has a solid Conservative majority, which demonstrates the confidence of local people that decisions on sensitive matters are well taken.
  I know that the people of Surrey, South-West would also want me to convey to my hon. Friend the Minister the fact that they warmly welcome the initiatives that are being taken to encourage inner-city developments. Inevitably, where green field sites are available — especially in attractive areas — they will be the developers' first choice. However, it is welcome news that 45 per cent. of new development last year took place on re-used land. That is extremely encouraging. Those of us who have spent time in inner-city areas will know how important it is to revive them and to encourage people to develop sites there rather than eroding the vital green lungs around London.
  In a previous Adjournment debate I raised the matter of Stockstone quarry, and I would ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the difficulties there seriously. What is happening is an abuse of natural justice and a misuse of our planning controls. On the basis of a 1952 planning consent, attempts have been made to use the quarry as the site for dumping massive amounts of waste from the London area. The contractors, A and J Bull, are now appealing against the conditions set out by the county council. I have written to my hon. Friend asking him to consider this matter, because it involves grave questions of principle and precedent for other green belt areas.
  Like my hon. Friends, I welcome the extension of green belt land. As Conservatives, we are particularly concerned with the conservation of our environment. In this, the year of the environment, there is a strong feeling among my constituents that the green belt plays a vital part in our quality of life. I appreciate this opportunity to join my hon. Friends and to represent the views of my constituents.
  8.21 pm
  The Minister for Local Government (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I am delighted to have the opportunity to reply

  257
  to the debate. I think that all the minor details will be better looked at at leisure because of the importance of the issues.
  I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), in whose constituency I have been privileged to speak. I must not refer to his family as being in the Gallery, but I believe that somewhere they are listening to the debate. Having talked to my hon. Friend many times, I know of his intense interest in green belt policy. He has often talked about the beauties of the Bury district and the revival, from time to time, of its football team. We have talked, too, about the beauty of the Rossendale valley, from which I come. Part of that valley, which is now a green belt area, was destroyed by the industrial revolution, but attempts are now being made to revive it. I know of my hon. Friend's wisdom on this matter and have often talked to him about the green belt in his constituency, in my constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on introducing the subject of green belt policy. As we have found this evening, there is continuing concern about pressures for the development and the future of the green belt. As we are heading for a general election, I welcome the opportunity to set out clearly the Government's policy and position on the green belt.
  Green belt policy in England has been one of the most successful and popular of our planning policies. Unlike some others, it has not been affected by changes of fashion or even by fluctuations in economic and social forces. The pressures for development around our cities have increased steadily since the war and made it all the more important to preserve a belt of open countryside around them, and by resisting development in the green belts we shall be helping to redirect investment back into the inner cities, where it is most needed.
  I am grateful for the strong support of my hon. Friends for the way in which this Government have protected our green belts. It is worth reminding the House that the area of approved green belts referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) in his impressive speech has more than doubled since 1979. I am sure that you would agree with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you were allowed to speak, that that is an astounding success of the Government which should be known by everyone the length and breadth of the country. On recent measurements, the green belt now covers 4·5 million acres—an area almost equivalent to the size of Wales. Approved green belts now cover something like 14 per cent. of England.
  I also remind the House of the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 2 April this year, which will be known to many hon. Members here tonight. That reply showed that the area of approved green belts has increased from about 1·8 million acres in 1979 to 4·5 million acres. It provided details for each of the 15 green belts in England.
  For example, London's approved green belt has increased in size from approximately 750,000 acres to 1·2 million acres. That for the west midlands area has also increased. I have no doubt that our green belt policy was instrumental in the revival of Toryism that we saw there last week. The people of the west midlands saw that we wanted not only to revive industry but that we wanted
  258
  people to look out from their houses and towns on the green belts surrounding them. The good and prosperous life is part of our party's philosophy. The same is happening in towns such as Nottingham, Derby and Stoke-on-Trent.
  Our planning system is based upon the principle that each case must be considered on its merits. This applies in green belts as elsewhere but inside a green belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. The policy on controlling development in the green belt, which was first set out in its present form in 1955, is that approval should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings or for the change of use of exising buildings other than for a very limited range of purposes. Those are agriculture and forestry, sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in extensive grounds and other uses appropriate to such areas.
  I shall deal with the specific matters raised by my hon. Friends. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West for raising the matter. I think that I first met my hon. Friend in Workington in 1979. I spoke on the first day of the election campaign. My hon. Friend fought a hard fight in that constituency. The tide was heavily against him there, and we were all delighted when, after losing that seat, he stood for and won Hertfordshire, South-West. We are delighted with all that he is doing for the green belt in that area, and I assure him that I shall put his message across to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and come back to him on the details.
  This is almost a naval debate. We have two Royal Navy ties present. My hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), and for Twickenham are both Royal Navy. Had I known, as chairman of the British Legion in north-west London, I too would have worn my naval tie. The only thing is that it has no green in it, and would therefore not have been as fitting as it might be to a debate on green belt policy.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I join my colleagues, in that I represent the Royal Naval School at Haselmere.
  Dr. Boyson: That just shows the calibre of hon. Members who are linked with the Royal Navy. It is astonishing that, of the small number of hon. Members present, there is such great representation of the Royal Navy. The green waves and the green belt go together. We have stopped building for the open seas, apart from oil rigs which have been useful to this country, but we are building in our preservation of the green belts.
  Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency includes a greater length of the bank of the River Thames than is within the entire area of Greater London?
  Dr. Boyson: I must confess that I was not aware of that, but I shall be aware of it from now on. I shall ensure that that fact becomes known to one and all, particularly all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford was a schoolmaster—we share an interest in that—and for a time was the director of the Aberdovey Outward Bound school. Outward Bound courses make the right use of the green belt, bringing up children with a knowledge of it. I am grateful for the tributes that my hon. Friend paid to me and to others—if I may say so in this frank debate, they were justified—for the help that we

  259
  gave with the rate support grant. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's popularity in his constituency. The fact that 9,000 people have hurried into that constituency in a few years is a walking tribute—or should I say running tribute, after the marathon at the weekend—to my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend asked some questions about the green belt. I shall ensure that Ministers in the Department of the Environment, which I am privileged to serve, are aware of everything that he said. Undoubtedly, they will get in touch with those responsible in his area about the green belt proposals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, who is also from the Royal Navy, is noted for music and, occasionally, skiing, at which he is sometimes successful, although he has fallen down, but that happens to all of us. The fact that he carries on is a tribute to his standing in all ways. For a long time, my hon. Friend has been one of Britain's greatest exponents of green belts. His constituents and those of all my hon. Friends should be grateful for their work. I trust that they are worthy of the hon. Members who represent them and defend their interests.
  I was delighted to hear of the good borough results last week in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). Undoubtedly, they were a tribute to her efforts and defence of the green belt in that area.
  260
  It is impressive at this stage of this Parliament, when many of us would like to get away to our constituencies, that, instead, we are considering the much more important issue of the preservation of the green belt. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is shown by the number of Conservative Back Benchers who wished to put across messages and who have thought about this matter—although some did not speak—and by the empty Opposition green Benches. If people have to decide at an early election, as I am told they will, how they should vote, they need only look from the Strangers Gallery—I must not look to see how many people are here or involve them in the debate—at the crowded Conservative Benches and the empty Opposition Benches. They will know that the Conservative party is concerned above all to preserve Britain's standards in every way, including its geography, green belt, prosperity and moral standards.
  There is no doubt that if the people note that, the Conservative party's triumph in the general election will surpass even the great triumph of the 1983 election. It will be something of the past compared with the great future. There is no doubt that, because people know that Conservative Members stand for the green belt, they will flock to the polls to support them. We look forward to that day in four weeks' time when we see the Conservative green Benches in the House populated even more than the Opposition green Benches.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Nine o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  National Insurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, further to his reply dated 13 March, Offical Report, column 330, concerning the cost of a reduction in the employee's contribution to national insurance, whether he will provide an estimate for the cost in 1987–88 together with an estimate of the effect on the revenue by extending the proposed scheme to the earnings of the self-employed in classes 2 and 4, and of removing the upper limit on such contributions.

  Mr. Major
  I assume that the first part of the hon. Member's question refers to a cut of five percentage points in the standard rate of employers' national insurance contributions. This, together with the lower rates paid in respect of the lower paid falling in proportion, would reduce the full year yield of employers' contributions by £8·3 billion in 1987–88.

  A cut of five percentage points in the rate of class 4 national insurance contributions. to 1·3 per cent. would reduce the full-year yield of class 4 contributions by £320 million in 1987–88.

  Removing the upper profits limit for class 4 national insurance contributions (currently £15,340) would increase the full-year yield of class 4 contributions by £240 million in 1987–88.

  Hospital Hostels
  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the seminars for National Health Service planners about provision of hospital hostels which he intended to arrange early in 1987 have now been held; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is intended that there will be about five seminars in different parts of the country and arrangements are currently in hand to set these up. The objective of the seminars is to spread knowledge of the best ways of providing long-term in-patient care for those people chronically disabled by mental illness, whilst avoiding the institutional environment of traditional long-stay wards.

  AIDS
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received calling for compensation to be paid to patients who contract AIDS from blood supplied by the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department has not received any representations regarding compensaton for patients who may have contracted AIDS following transfusion of whole blood. The risk of human immunodeficiency virus 116
  infection from whole blood has always been very small and since October 1985 has been reduced to minimal proportions by the introduction of screening for all blood donations.

  Details of the numbers of representations for compensation for those infected with HIV from blood products, were given in my reply to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) on 19 March at column 626.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what training is made available to port medical officers to enable them to diagnose AIDS sufferers.

  Mr. Newton
  All port medical inspectors are fully qualified and experienced medical practitioners. Their professional qualifications are sufficient to enable them to assess the health of persons referred by immigration officers to them for medical examination, and to make the appropriate recommendation.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give his most recent projections of the numbers of people (a) who will be suffering from AIDS and (b) who will be carrying the HIV virus for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Newton
  The communicable disease surveillance centre, which collects information about persons suffering from AIDS, has predicted that the number of new cases of AIDS will be 1,300 in 1987 and 3,000 in 1988. As yet there are insufficient data for reliable forecasts beyond 1988 to be made.

  Forecasts of the numbers of persons infected with the human immunodeficiency virus have not been made. The numbers currently infected in the United Kingdom are estimated to be about 40,000.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give his most recent estimate of the average total cost (a) to the National Health Service and (b) to local authority social services of caring for and treating a person suffering from AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not available. The best estimate of the average total hospital in-patient cost of caring for a person with AIDS is £17,600 from diagnosis to death.

  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when his Department first became aware that supplies of Factor VIII were contaminated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I assume that my hon. Friend is concerned with the transmission of the AIDS virus. Evidence emerged from the United States of America in 1982 that haemophiliacs were contracting AIDS and although the mechanism of infection was not known, it was presumed that it had been transmitted through the use of blood products such as Factor VIII.

  It was not until October 1984 that experimental work showed that the human immunodeficiency virus in Factor VIII could be inactivated by heat treatment. Following this discovery manufacturers took steps to increase supplies of heat treated Factor VIII. All Factor VIII now used by haemophiliacs in this country is heat treated.

  The new Blood Products Laboratory at Elstree was officially opened last month. Substantial production is expected from this facility later this year, building up to self-sufficiency in early 1989.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claims regarding attendance allowance are awaiting determination resulting from the recent Court of Appeal decision regarding the interpretation of continual supervision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  Some 6,000 cases are awaiting determination because they may be affected by the recent Court of Appeal judgment. The attendance allowance board expects soon to issue guidelines to its delegated doctors on the application of the judgment, which will enable decisions to be given in these cases.

  Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Welwyn Garden City
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) between what dates the Essendon ward of Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City has been closed;

  (2) between what dates the Ayot ward of Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City has been closed;

  (3) how many admissions to the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City have been cancelled due to the closure of the Ayot ward;

  (4) how many urgent admissions have been made to neighbouring hospitals due to the closure of the Ayot ward at Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City.

  Mrs Currie
  The provision of services at Queen Elizabeth II hospital, Welwyn Garden City, is a matter for the East Hertfordshire health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the health authority for detailed information about Ayot and Essendon wards.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make funds available to the North West Thames regional health authority to ensure that East Hertfordshire health authority is given adequate resources to open the Essendon ward at the Queen Elizabeth 11 hospital in Welwyn Garden City.

  Mrs. Currie
  The allocation of resources to East Hertfordshire health authority is a matter for the North West Thames regional health authority.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the closure of the Essendon ward at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) on 12 February at column 341. Since that date we have received correspondence specifically referring to the closure of the Essendon ward at Queen Elizabeth II hospital, Welwyn Garden City, from my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones); and from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy).

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City has closed to all but emergencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  For details of the latest position on routine admissions, the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the East Hertfordshire health authority.

  Dental Rates Study Group
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will deposit in the Library paper DRSG 86/16 by the dental rates study group.

  Mrs. Currie
  Numbered papers in the DRSG series are not normally placed in the Library but are made available on request after the conclusion of the group's work each year. However, as requested by the hon. Member, I have arranged for a copy of DRSG 86/16 to be placed in the Library.

  Disabled People (Library Facilities)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what representations he has received from the Cassette Library for the Blind and Handicapped concerning the provisions of library facilities for people unable to read; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assistance is provided by his Department towards the Cassette Library for the Blind and Handicapped; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he is satisfied that local authorities are fulfilling their duty under section 2(1)(b) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to make arrangements for library services for people with disabilities, in particular for books on cassette for people unable to read; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  It is for local authorities to satisfy themselves as to what is necessary to meet the needs of individual disabled people under section 2(1)(b) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

  The cassette library of recorded books (CALIBRE) received grants under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 from 1976 to March 1987. Although further requests and representations have been made, when the last grant was awarded it was made clear then that no commitment could be given to further funding.

  Disabled People
  Mr. O'Brien
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 26 March, Official Report, column 260, whether he has now received the report from Wakefield district council relating to telephone attachments and rentals; and if he will publish the figures in the Official Report.

  Mr. Major
  For the year ending 31 March 1986, Wakefield district council social services department provided no telephone attachments, but funded 924 rentals.

  Claims (Processing)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give details of the average time taken to process claims at Social Security offices in Chorlton, Rusholme and Sale for the most recent period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lyell
  The average time taken to process claims to social security benefits is shown in the table. Figures, in days, are for the four weeks ending 7 April 1987:
  119

  Chorlton

  Rusholme

  Sale

  Supplementary Benefit

  8

  6

  4

  Sickness/Invalidity Benefit

  7

  9

  14

  Maternity Allowance

  9

  7

  11

  Retirement Pension

  63

  33

  41

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the monthly waiting list for the North West regional health authority from 1974 to the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member all the information he seeks in precisely the form requested. The information available centrally is given in the table. Over this period the number of in-patient cases treated increased by 27·6 per cent. from 483,978 to 617,628. For the rest of the information he seeks, the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the North Western regional health authority.

  Number of cases on in-patient waiting list at 30 June1, 31 December, 31 March, 30 September, North Western region

  Month

  Year

  Number

  June

  1974

  59,475

  December

  1974

  60,236

  June

  1975

  59,311

  September

  1975

  58,168

  December

  1975

  68,503

  March

  1976

  68,149

  September

  1976

  66,893

  December

  1976

  67,930

  March

  1977

  66,366

  September

  1977

  64,560

  December

  1977

  65,639

  March

  1978

  63,532

  September

  1978

  63,123

  December

  1978

  66,069

  March

  1979

  77,368

  September

  1979

  71,948

  December

  1979

  70,192

  March

  1980

  68,976

  September

  1980

  65,513

  December

  1980

  62,997

  March

  1981

  62,394

  September

  1981

  60,252

  December

  1981

  59,752

  March

  1982

  61,357

  September

  1982

  69,697

  December

  1982

  68,767

  March

  1983

  64,853

  September

  1983

  62,525

  December

  1983

  60,745

  March

  1984

  59,289

  September

  1984

  59,417

  December

  1984

  59,031

  March

  1985

  58,600

  September

  1985

  58,465

  December

  1985

  56,927

  March

  1986

  60,242

  September

  1986

  61,143

  1 Statistical return discontinued 1976.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the rate of decline in the real purchasing power of the pension for a married couple between the date of implementation of the increase in 1975 and the date when the 1976 increase took effect; and what was the rate of decline in the real purchasing power of the
  120
  pension for a married couple between the date of the implementation of the increase in 1985 and the date when the 1986 increase took effect.

  Mr. Major
  By the date of the November 1976 pension uprating, the real value of the November 1975 pension rate for a married couple had fallen by 15 per cent. By the date of the July 1986 uprating, the real value of the November 1985 pension uprating had fallen by 1·7 per cent.

  Diabetics (Syringes)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when disposable syringes for diabetics are to be made available on National Health Service prescription; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We hope to make an announcement on this shortly.

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Health Authority (Contracting Out)
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will call for an investigation into the contracting out of work by the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority to Gisburne park hospital using resources provided to reduce waiting lists; and if he will make a statement on the part played in the negotiations by the senior officer of the authority who subsequently took an appointment with the Gisburne park hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  Two projects have been agreed which will remove 255 patients from waiting lists at a cost of £195,746. No senior officer involved in the contracting out of this work has taken up employment with the Gisburne park hospital. If the hon. Member has concerns about these arrangements he should raise these with the chairman of the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority.

  Post-Medical Officers (Health Controls)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Service if he will list the diseases which may be used by port medical officers as grounds for restricting entry into Britain.

  Mr. Newton
  The conditions which, in certain circumstances, could justify a medical inspector recommending to an immigration officer that the admission to Britain of a person referred to him was undesirable include:—

  (i) mental disorder which might cause a breach of public order, or threaten the safety of the public;

  (ii) drug dependence;

  (iii) diseases which endanger the health of persons in this country;

  (iv) other medical or physical conditions which may require medical treatment or affect the person's ability to support himself or his relatives.

  All cases are considered on their merits. Special provisions applicable to European Community nationals are listed in the annex to European Community directive 64/21, a copy of which is being placed in the Library.

  Nurses
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what steps he is taking to encourage

  121
  qualified nurses not working in nursing to take up employment in the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he is taking to encourage an increase in the number of men entering the nursing profession; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The recent pay increases for nurses ranging from 5 per cent. to 12·7 per cent. are largest for qualified staff and reflect the need to recruit and retain staff in these grades. Health authorities, which are responsible for recruitment, have been asked to increase male recruitment, organise "Back to Nursing" campaigns, including refresher training courses and to give more opportunities for flexible working arrangements, part-time working and job sharing.

  Other current central activities which have implications for recruitment and retention of qualified nursing staff include a joint DHSS/NHS working group on equal opportunities for women. In particular, it is expected that it will make recommendations for management of the career break. The management and staff sides of the Nursing and Midwifery Staff Negotiating Council are reviewing the nursing clinical grading structure. The council's aim is to develop a structure which is appropriate to current and future needs. Once the council has agreed a new grading structure, it will be for the review body to recommend appropriate pay levels. The Department also produces material for local recruitment campaigns and is currently reviewing its national nurse "image" advertising (which already features the work of male nurses) with a view to emphasising the opportunities for qualified staff to return to nursing.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what representations he has received from nurses about nurses' pay and conditions since the announcement on 23 April of the Government's response to the 1987 recommendations of the Review Body for Nurses and Midwives Remuneration; and if he will make a statement about nursing shortages (a) in London, (b) in the South-East Thames region, and (c) in other parts of the United Kindom;

  (2) when the National Health Service Management Board steering group will report on its study of nursing services in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Elderly People (Home Help and Day Care Services)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards requiring elderly people in receipt of supplementary benefit to pay charges for local authority home help and day care services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is for the individual local authorities to decide on the charging arrangements for domiciliary and day care services. We would expect authorities to take account of both the costs of services and the financial position of those using them (whether in receipt of supplementary benefit or not) in determining charges. Under section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, where a user of the services satisfies the authority that his means are 122
  insufficient to meet its charges he shall not be required to pay more than it appears to the authority reasonably practicable for him to pay.

  Health Care (Inequalities)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking aimed specifically at reducing social inequalities in health and health care delivery.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 10 April at columns 506–507.

  Economic Deflators
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing figures for the gross domestic product deflator, and for the National Health Service pay and prices deflator for each year since 1974, and figures for the cumulative difference between those two deflators as at each year from a 1974 base.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of diabetics who died from kidney failure during each of the most recent five years for which he has figures; and if he will make a statement about the availability of kidney transplants for diabetics within the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  Reliable information is not available on the number of diabetics who die from kidney failure.

  The renal transplant programme as a whole is currently constrained by a shortage of donor kidneys. A working party under the chairmanship of Sir Raymond Hoffenberg, President of the Royal College of Physicians, is currently examining ways of increasing the availability of organs, and we expect to receive its advice during the summer. The suitability of a patient for transplantation is a matter for the clinician concerned.

  NHS (Staff Shortages)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about recruitment, retention and shortages of (a) hospital pharmacists, (b) laboratory staff, (c) secretaries, and (d) record clerks in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  Such information is not collected centrally, but we are aware of some problems affecting certain grades in particular areas. Apart from action by local management, measures to alleviate these problems have been taken or are under discussion in the appropriate Whitley councils.

  Benefits
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give, for a single person, the basic rate of unemployment and supplementary benefits, broken down to component amounts and the areas those amounts are intended to cover.
  123
  Mr. Lyell
  The standard weekly rate of unemployment benefit is £31·45 for a person under pension age. This benefit is intended to provide a measure of compensation for loss of earnings for people who become unemployed and is not related to a claimant's needs or requirements.

  The principal basic weekly rates of supplementary benefit for a single unemployed person are as follows:

  Circumstances

  Rate £

  1. Householder;

  30·40

  2. Member of someone else's household; aged 18 years and over

  24·35

  3. Member of someone else's household; aged 16–17 years

  18·75

  These rates are not made up of separately calculated component parts but are composite amounts intended to cover all items of normal expenditure on day-to-day living expenses. It is for the claimant to decide how much is allocated to particular areas of expenditure.

  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the total number of claimants applying to his Department for benefit resident in (a) Orkney and (b) Shetland for each year from 1979 to 1986.

  Mr. Lyell
  Separate figures are not available for Orkney and Shetland, nor are they available prior to 1983–84. The total number of benefit claims made by residents in Orkney and Shetland are included in the figures for the Lerwick and Wick offices as follows:

  Lerwick ILO Benefit Claims received

  Benefit

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Sickness/Invalidity benefit

  489

  439

  555

  353

  Injury Benefit

  15

  —

  —

  —

  Maternity Benefit

  276

  194

  235

  255

  1Retirement Pension

  669

  1,304

  1,091

  922

  Widows Benefit

  14

  22

  23

  47

  Death Grants

  230

  226

  239

  208

  Disablement Benefit

  7

  18

  7

  8

  Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension

  7

  31

  —

  —

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  —

  —

  12

  5

  1Supplementary Benefit

  1,488

  1,802

  1,616

  1,662

  Wick ILO Benefit Claims received

  Benefit

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Sickness/Invalidity Benefit

  341

  1,061

  1,226

  876

  Injury Benefit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maternity Benefit

  194

  327

  440

  465

  1Retirement Pension

  1,121

  2,429

  3,520

  3,119

  Widows Benefit

  23

  55

  81

  77

  Death Grants

  206

  392

  767

  675

  Disablement Benefit

  1

  6

  18

  22

  Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension

  5

  22

  —

  —

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  —

  —

  66

  20

  1Supplementary Benefit

  5,172

  5,390

  5,499

  5,182

  1 Decisions processed not claims received.

  124
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are his latest estimates of family income supplement and housing benefit take-up.

  Mr. Lyell
  I have today placed in the Library copies of reports presenting take-up estimates for Family Income Supplement in 1983–84 and Housing Benefit in 1984. Full explanations are included of the methods and assumptions used in the estimates. Copies of the reports are also available on request from DHSS at Room 536A, New Court. 48 Carey Street, London WC2A 2LS, Telephone Number 01–831–6111 extension 2556.

  Benefits
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are presently in receipt of supplementary benefit in Coventry; what is the total number of people that benefit has to support, namely, claimants plus dependants; what were the comparable figures for 1979; what is the percentage change; and what percentage change has taken place in the number of his Department's staff over the same period.

  Mr. Lyell
  The city of Coventry is covered by two of the Department's local offices — Coventry (east) and Coventry (west) — but their boundaries are not conterminous.

  The table shows the numbers of people receiving supplementary benefit from those offices on the latest date for which information is available and on a comparable date in 1979:

  15 May 1979

  5 May 1987

  Increase (per cent.)

  Coventry(east)

  12,256

  22,012

  79·6

  Coventry(west)

  9,832

  17,877

  81·8

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

  I regret that information about the total number of people in Coventry supported by supplementary benefit is not available.

  The percentage change in staff allocated to supplementary benefit over the period 1979 to 1987 is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Coventry (east)

  +48·4

  Coventry (west)

  +74·1

  Direct comparisons between numbers of claimants and staff are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.

  Telford District Hospital
  Mr. Hawksley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the new Telford district hospital will open; and to what extent immediate use will he made of the accident and emergency facilities.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Socal Services if he will give figures for the bids for 1987–88 for money from the waiting list fund he announced on 6 November 1986 by (a) regional health authorities in total, (b) each regional health authority, (c) district health authorities in total and (d) each district health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  Regional health authorities initially submitted bids in December 1986 for projects to be supported from the 1987–88 allocation of the waiting list fund. The priority order of these bids was determined by regions. Some projects were later revised in the light of further discussions locally and with the Department. Since an important part of the process was to assess regional and district proposals to identify those which were best targeted and most cost-effective, it necessarily entailed districts putting to regions, and regions to the Department, bids for projects totalling in excess of the allocation for the year. The extent to which a district's or a region's proposed projects exceeded in total the planning guideline given in November varied according to local decision and comparisons would have no significance. Lists of the projects to be funded as agreed by regions in March 1987 have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent figures for numbers on hospital waiting lists after 1 April 1987 will be comparable with those for numbers on hospital waiting lists before 1 April 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as posible.

  Telephone Information Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the health topics for which there are telephone advice or information services wholly or partly subsidised by his Department; and if he has any plans to extend the range of telephone information services he subsidises.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to assess whether students or other young people under the age of 21 years should have free prescriptions or free dental treatment wholly or partly on the basis of their parents' income; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Ward Closures
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the temporary hospital ward closures of which his Department is aware since 1 September 1986 giving, in each case, the hospital and health authority involved, the number of beds closed, the period of closure and the reason for the closure.

  Mrs. Currie
  The day-to-day management of local hospital services is a matter for district health authorities.126
  Whilst for different reasons we may from time to time learn in general terms of temporary ward closures we do not keep a central record which is comprehensive in either coverage or detail.

  Normacol Standard
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make Normacol Standard available again on a National Health Service prescription.

  Mr. Newton
  At its meeting on 28 April the advisory committee on National Health Service drugs considered a submission from the makers of Normacol Standard for the drug to be returned to National Health Service prescription. We are considering the committee's recommendations.

  Tattoo Removal
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of 30 April to the hon. Member for Leicester, East, Official Report, column 221, if any information about waiting lists for operations for tattoo removal is held centrally; if he will take steps to collect detailed information from each health authority on this subject in future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Waiting list information is held centrally by consultant department and not according to intended method of treatment. While individual consultants and health authorities need to be aware of the composition of their waiting lists, information in this detail is not required nationally.

  Family Planning and Well Women Clinics (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey of 10 April, Official Report, column 507, if he will state in the Official Report his response to representations he has received from the North Hertfordshire community health council and from members of the public about the closure of family planning clinics and well women clinics in North Hertfordshire district health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about recruitment, retention, shortages and pay of speech therapists.

  Mr. Newton
  Information about recruitment, retention and any shortages is not collected centrally, but we are not aware of widespread problems affecting funded posts. Pay is a matter for the Whitley councils.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital (Admissions)
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the decision by St. Bartholomew's hospital to bar the admission of patients from outside its district will lead to a reallocation of funds to the areas affected.
  127
  Mr. Newton
  The allocation of resources to district health authorities within a region is a matter for the regional health authority concerned. Patient flows between regions are taken into account in allocating resources to regional health authorities.

  Kidney Dialysis
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what standards have been laid down by the European Community for kidney dialysis; and if a directive to this effect has been issued from Brussels by the Commission.

  Mrs. Currie
  No directive on this subject has been agreed by the European Community, but measures for the protection of dialysis patients by minimising the exposure to aluminium are set out in a resolution adopted in June 1986 by the Council of the European Communities and the representatives of the member states, meeting within the Council. The resolution was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJ No. C204, 23 July 1986, page 16) which is available in the Library.

  Chief Adjudication Officer (Report)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will make available the second annual report of the chief adjudication officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  The report is being published today. The publication of the report follows from the provisions of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, which sought to improve the quality of social security adjudication by a number of measures, including the requirement for the chief adjudication officer to report annually to the Secretary of State on the standards of social security adjudication. We are grateful to the chief adjudication officer for the efforts which he and his staff have put into the report. The report makes a number of constructive suggestions which we shall consider carefully.

  Mentally Disabled People (Sexuality and Contraception)
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in the light of the recent House of Lords decision on sterilisation, he will reconsider his response to the recommendation of the Social Services Committee in its Second Report of Session 1984–85 on Community Care, HC 13-I, that his Department institute an independent expert review of law and practice on sexuality and contraception in relation to mentally disabled people.

  Mr. Newton
  I understand that the authors of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee's handbook of contraceptive practice are already considering for their next edition what guidance on contraception might be given to mentally disordered people. Before deciding whether any further action is appropriate, the Government think it right to allow time for public discussion of the implications of the recent House of Lords judgment, concerning the sterilisation of a young girl with a mental handicap.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Bruce
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list by his Department's offices how many people applied for the extra £5 payment for exceptionally cold weather allowance made available for the weeks beginning 12 and 19 January; how many applications have been processed; and how many payments have been made.

  Mr. Major
  I shall let the hon. Member have the information that is available as soon as possible.

  Clinical Services (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about his policy in relation to the scope for and the applicability of competitive tendering for clinical services generally.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Post-operative Convalescence
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what changes have been made in policy or practice at departmental, regional or district level in relation to the provision on the National Health Service of convalescence after operations;

  (2) on what terms and under what conditions convalescence is available on the National Health Service after (a) hysterectomies and (b) other operations.

  Mrs. Currie
  Departmental policy remains that post-operative care should be available under the National Health Service for those patients for whom it is prescribed as medically necessary by a hospital consultant. The level and extent of provision of convalescence beds is a matter for local decision. Modern concepts of patient care and rehabilitation have resulted in a diminishing demand for convalescence in its traditional form.

  Patients (Notes)
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he has received reports of proposals by hospital consultants to charge for summaries of patients' notes held on computer to which access is required under the Data Protection Act;

  (2) whether his Department has given any advice about the charges to be levied by consultants within the National Health Service for the production of summaries of patients' notes held on computer to which access is required under the Data Protection Act.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am aware of the press reports speculating about the level of charge that might be made to hospital patients wishing to have information from their computerised case notes. The maximum amount of any fee which might he charged by a data user to a data subject for access to personal information held on computer, will be prescribed by regulations to be made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is not expected that the fee will be so high as generally to deter data subjects from exercising their rights.

  Consideration is currently being given to the administrative procedures which may be required in the National Health Service hospital service to implement

  129
  access. The question of charges for work undertaken by consultants has not yet been considered. To the extent that such charges may exceed the maximum prescribed fee, these will not be passed on to the patient.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Tom Cox
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people were receiving dialysis treatment at National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom on 31 March;

  (2) how many people are now awaiting dialysis treatment from National Health Service hospitals; and what is the average time a person has to wait to receive such treatment.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on the numbers of people receiving dialysis treatment is collected on an annual basis by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association. The latest figures available are for the year ending 31 December 1985, when a total of 12,154 patients were being treated. This is a 97 per cent. increase on the 1979 total.

  The length of time a patient has to wait for treatment and the numbers awaiting treatment are not recorded centrally.

  Abortions
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what representations he has received about the decision of Brent health authority to put its requirements for abortion services out to competitive tender;

  (2) if he will make a statement about his policy in relation to the scope for and the applicability of competitive tendering for abortion services;

  (3) if he will list the health authorities known to his Department to have contracted out their abortion services giving in each case the organisation and the clinic providing the service and the cost to the health authority;

  (4) if he will list the health authorities known to his Department to have engaged in competitive tendering exercises for their abortion services;

  (5) if he will give for each year since 1979 the total National Health Service expenditure on abortion services provided (a) in-house, (b) through charitable organisations and (c) through commercial organisations.

  Mr. Newton
  The statistical information requested is not available, since health authorities are not required to report on contractual arrangements they may make about clinical services with the private or voluntary sectors, and their accounts as submitted to the Department do not show separately the amount spent on abortions.

  I understand that Brent health authority already has an arrangement whereby some abortions are undertaken on an agency basis by a private nursing home approved for this purpose under the 1967 Abortion Act. It has now invited tenders for such an arrangement. I am not aware of any representations about the matter.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for each year since 1979 the total number of abortions on the National Health Service provided (a) in-house, (b) through charitable organisations and (c) through commercial organisations.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Infant Deaths (Croydon)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about infant deaths in Croydon.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received one letter from an hon. Member on this subject.

  Hospital Services, East Hertfordshire
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the ability of the hospital services in east Hertfordshire to cope with a major outbreak of infection or major emergency.

  Mrs. Currie
  Arrangements to cope with a major outbreak of infection or major emergency in east Hertfordshire are in the first instance the responsibility of the East Hertfordshire Health Authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman should he require details of any local contingency planning.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects the first breast cancer training centres to open.

  Mrs. Currie
  The location of four breast cancer screening centres to provide a national training facility has been discussed with regional health authorities. An announcement will be made very shortly.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects the regional breast cancer screening service in each region to come into operation.

  Mrs. Currie
  Each regional health authority has been asked to have at least one screening centre, each serving a population of about half a million, in operation by March 1988. General guidance on how they should set up and organise their first screening centres was issued on 31 March.

  The location of these centres should be decided before the end of May. Regional health authorities have also been asked to submit plans before the end of this year to extend the number of centres over the following two years to cover all eligible women by March 1990.

  Radiotherapy Unit, Southend
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters he has now received from the general public about the proposal by the North East Thames regional health authority to close the radiotherapy unit at Southend; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received 15 letters which have been referred by hon. Members, together with about 1,970 letters direct from members of the public.

  If Ministers are required to make a final decision on the proposal, we will take into account all representations which have been received.

  Hospital Chaplains
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospital chaplains have been officially appointed in each health region in England and Wales, broken down by ecclesiastical denomination.
  131
  Mrs. Currie
  The appointment of hospital chaplains is a matter for health authorities. Information on the number of part-time chaplains is not held centrally. Although we estimate there may be over 4,000 such appointments in England, there are no details of the denominations from which they come. The numbers of full-time chaplains in England are given in the table; three are from Free Church denominations and one is Roman Catholic, while the remainder are Anglicans. Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Numbers of whole-time chaplains employed in the NHS at 30 September

  Region

  Numbers

  Northern RHA

  10

  Yorkshire RHA

  10

  Trent RHA

  15

  East Anglian RHA

  4

  North West Thames RHA

  18

  North East Thames RHA

  16

  South East Thames RHA

  20

  South West Thames RHA

  17

  Wessex RHA

  13

  Oxford RHA

  6

  South Western RHA

  7

  West Midlands RHA

  18

  Mersey RHA

  10

  North Western RHA

  9

  London PG(T)

  3

  England Total

  176

  Source: DHSS Annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report, hospitals, broken down by health region in England and Wales, whose annual turnover of in-patients averages more than 25 per cent. of people of a religious faith other than Christian and which do not have the official services of a hospital chaplain whose denomination is non-Christian.

  Deaths from drowning, road accidents and horse-riding, England and Wales 1976–86

  Drowning (994·1)2

  Road accidents (E810–E829)2

  Horse riding3

  1976

  1,188

  6,115

  10

  1977

  1,081

  5,943

  8

  1978

  1,090

  6,772

  20

  1979

  1,156

  5,927

  8

  1980

  1,194

  5,905

  11

  1981

  1,134

  4,150

  10

  1982

  1,116

  5,380

  19

  1983

  1,077

  5,221

  18

  1984

  971

  5,172

  23

  1985

  985

  4,973

  15

  19861

  908

  4,895

  13

  1Provisional. Excludes registered deaths to non-residents of England and Wales

  2International Classification of Diseases 8th and 9th Revisions.

  3 Figures taken from a special OPCS study of sporting and leisure deaths. Because of a change in the collection of this data in 1982, figures prior to this year are not strictly comparable to those after; (for details of the changes in 1982, see OPCS Monitor DH4 84/3, "Fatal Accidents occuring during sporting and leisure activities, 1982".)

  Incontinence Advisers (Training)
  Mr. Carter-Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will examine the quality of education training for incontinence advisers; and if he will make a statement;
  132
  Mrs. Currie
  Information about the religious faith of hospital patients in England is not held centrally. I understand that most hospital chaplains are currently from Christian denominations, but I would encourage health authorities to meet sympathetically any requests for appointments from other faiths.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to improve the provision of chaplaincy services to non-Christian hospital in-patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  This is a matter for health authorities in the first instance. However, I recognise that we now live in a multi-faith society, not all of whose members will share the Christian concept of a hospital chaplain. I would encourage authorities to ensure that their chaplaincy services provide as appropriate for all faiths.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of' State for Social Services how many British medical students, who had not passed their university final examinations, qualified as doctors during the last five years by virtue of obtaining the licence in medicine and surgery of the Society of Apothecaries of London.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Deaths (Statistics)
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what have been the number of deaths from (a) drowning, (b) road accidents and (c) horse riding in each of the last 10 years in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is shown in the table.

  (2) if he will examine the educational documentation available for the training of incontinence advisers; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for health authorities to determine the training requirements of nurses as incontinence advisers. I understand that the English National Board for Nursing,
  133
  Midwifery and Health Visiting, the statutory body responsible for the provision of the education and training of nurses, provides the material for a course on the promotion of continence and the management of incontinence.

  Organ Donations
  Mr. Carter-Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions have taken place regarding required request for donations of cadaver organs; what estimate has been made in the possible increase in the supply of such organs which may follow the introduction of a system of required request; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I anticipate that the "required request" approach to organ donation will be considered by the working party under the chairmanship of Sir Raymond Hoffenberg, president of the Royal College of Physicians, which is at present examining ways of increasing the availability of cadaver organs. No reliable estimate is available at this stage of the possible increase in supply which might result from the introduction of a "required request" system.

  Clinics (Closures)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the planned closure of family planning and well-women services in Lewisham and north Southwark; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Seven representations have been received about family planning and well woman services in Lewisham and north Southwark; six from staff employed by the health authority and one from a member of the public.

  I understand that Lewisham and North Southwark health authority will be discussing possible changes to these and other services at its meeting on 18 May. If any significant changes are proposed by the health authority they will be the subject of full consultation in the normal way. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the health authority for further information.

  Day Nurseries
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which local authorities have reduced the number of places in day nurseries since 1979; and what has been the percentage reduction in each case.

  Mrs. Currie
  Thirty-six local authorities in England reduced the number of their day nursery places between 1981 and 1986; the percentage reduction in each case is given in the table. Detailed information for 1979 and 1980 is not readily available.

  The information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  134

  Percentage change in local authority provided day nursery places for authorities which reduced their provision between 1981 and 1986

  Local authority

  Percentage change 1981–861

  Durham

  -13·3

  North Tyneside

  2-1·1

  South Tyneside

  -39·0

  Sheffield

  -5·4

  Wakefield

  2-71·4

  Cheshire

  -1·8

  Bolton

  -12·6

  Oldham

  -8·6

  Stockport

  -7·9

  Knowsley

  -35·7

  St. Helens

  2-9·1

  Wirral

  -4·5

  Coventry

  -24·1

  Nottinghamshire

  -1·8

  Berkshire

  2-62·7

  Cambridgeshire

  -2·8

  Hertfordshire

  -46·4

  Suffolk

  2-100·0

  Hammersmith

  -9·3

  Wandsworth

  -6·6

  Westminster

  -8·0

  Barking

  -10·3

  Ealing

  -2·8

  Enfield

  -4·8

  Havering

  -18·4

  Hillingdon

  -19·6

  Merton

  -14·4

  Newham

  -1·2

  Richmond upon Thames

  -4·6

  Waltham Forest

  -1·8

  Dorset

  -4·8

  Hampshire

  -7·1

  Kent

  2-53·1

  East Sussex

  -40·9

  Devon

  2-75·7

  Gloucestershire

  2-54·7

  1 For some authorities the percentage change is based on estimated figures for 1981 and 1986.

  2 In these authorities there were less than 100 day nursery places provided by the local authority in 1986 and so the percentage changes are based on relatively small numbers.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress is being made in the use of core and cluster housing for former patients of mental and mental handicap hospitals who are now living in the community.

  Mrs. Currie
  There are no central statistics on the numbers of former patients in mental illness and mental handicap hospitals who are now living in core and cluster housing schemes. It is not possible, therefore, to indicate progress in numerical terms.

  Core and cluster housing is one of a range of accommodation options available to health and local authorities as they develop modern local services. Other forms of provision, such as residential care homes, hostels, group homes, supported lodgings and ordinary flats and houses, all have a part to play in creating the accessible and comprehensive services that our policy envisages. The information available to us confirms that authorities are making steady progress in providing these community-oriented services.

  One example is the Chichester project, as part of our £16 million care in the community pilot projects exercise, which will provide up to 30 places for former Graylingwell patients in core and cluster housing.

  Acid Rain
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what research has been performed in Britain to investigate any possible links between acid deposition and the following ailments: dialysis dementia, dialysis osteomalacia, dialysis dystrophy. and Alzheimer's disease; and if he will summarise the results.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 6 May 1987, c. 428]: Acid rain normally leads to the deposition of mildly acidic substances based on oxides of carbon, nitrogen and sulphur. It is suggested that an increased level of aluminium in water sources may occur because acidic solutions can leach aluminium from the soil, rocks and sediments, but there is no direct evidence of a link between acid rain and aluminium concentrations in water sources. Water undertakers monitor and adjust the level of aluminium in supply to conform with the requirements of European Community directive 80/778 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, and therefore levels in supply generally do not reflect levels in sources.

  Aluminium in dialysis fluids is known to be a cause of dialysis dementia, dialysis osteomalacia and dialysis dystrophy. So that dialysis patients may be safeguarded, water undertakings have been asked to notify health authorities if, for technical reasons, aluminium levels in water supplies are raised; in these circumstances, water used for dialysis would be expected to be treated to remove excess aluminium.

  Aluminium is not readily absorbed through the digestive tract, and from this source is not considered to have adverse health effects on the general population. The suggestion that it may be related to Alzheimer's disease is being investigated by a number of Medical Research Council research units. The MRC is the main Government-funded agency for United Kingdom biomedical research receiving a grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. The director of the Medical Research Council neuroendocrinology unit at Newcastle recently stated that there is no evidence that aluminium by itself is the cause of Alzheimer's disease, and that much evidence points to the contrary.

  Ambulance Service (London)
  Mr. Nigel Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what study has been made of the impact of the reducion in non-emergency ambulance services of the London ambulance service on the administration and efficiency of out-patient departments in hospitals which they serve.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 6 May 1987, c. 430]: I am not aware of any specific study. We would, however, expect all health authorities as part of their normal management responsibility to monitor the efficiency of the arrangements for bringing patients to out-patient departments and to discuss problems with the appropriate ambulance service.

  I understand that the London ambulance service is now meeting all requests for non-emergency transport. Where there are problems action is being taken to improve the quality of the service, that is, to ensure patients arrive on time for appointments and do not have long waits for transport home.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

  The Prime Minister
  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.

  Guinness plc
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister if she will acquire for the Library at 10 Downing street a copy of "Is Guinness Good for You — the Bid for Distillers — the Inside Story", by Peter Pugh, published by Financial Training; and if she will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's role in the Guinness takeover affair.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Darlington
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to pay an official visit to Darlington.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest information he has about the effect of neighbourhood watch schemes in Chatham.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are currently 32 neighbourhood watch schemes in Chatham, covering some 5,250 households. One of the first schemes in Kent was introduced in 1984 at Chatham's Davis estate, covering some 1,250 households. Since its introduction there has been a 57 per cent. reduction in all reported crime including a 58 per cent. reduction in burglaries. Many of the other schemes now active in Chatham have been initiated by local communities following the success of the pioneering scheme at the Davis estate.

  Mr. Lawler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the effect of neighbourhood watch schemes in the Bradford area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are now some 45 neighbourhood watch schemes in the Bradford area and there are some encouraging signs of success. For example, in the Wycke area, particularly notable for the close involvement of special constables in neighbourhood watch, there were four burglaries in the first nine months of 1986 compared with 24 in the same period of 1985. Auto crime has also shown a downward trend. Thefts of motor vehicles are down by 41 per cent. and thefts from motor vehicles are down by 11 per cent.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions his Department sponsored advertisements in national newspapers in the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used in these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Mr. Hurd
  Over the past three years the Home Office has advertised in every national newspaper and in a wise range of regional, local and ethnic minority newspapers. However, information is not readily available in the form requested and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Firearms (Frontier Controls)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration was given by the Council of Ministers to the proposals by the Commission to remove frontier controls on the movement of firearms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  No such proposals have yet been placed before the Council of Ministers. The proposal for an EC directive dealing with the movement of firearms across internal Community frontiers was discussed at the meeting of Trevi Ministers on 28 April. We agreed to inform the European Commission of our view that any new measures to facilitate the free movement of goods within the Community should not inhibit national authorities making such checks as they thought appropriate on the movement of firearms across Community frontiers.

  Tamils
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will update his reply of 7 April, Official Report, column 130, regarding release of Tamil detainees, given to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East.

  Mr. Waddington
  On 11 May, 23 of the 64 Sri Lankans who sought entry on arrival on 13 February were still detained in the following places:

  Number

  Harmondsworth

  5

  Foston Hall

  10

  Latchmere House

  8

  Since my reply of 7 April, temporary admission was authorised for a further eight on the following dates:

  Five on 16 April 1987.

  Three on 24 April 1987.

  One was granted bail on 7 May 1987.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Alexander
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been made to the Interception of Communication Tribunal since 10 April 1986; and in how many of these cases the tribunal concluded that there had been a contravention of sections 2 to 5 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  Mr. Hurd
  There have been 41 applications for a tribunal investigation under section 7(2) of the 138
  Interception of Communications Act 1985 during the period 10 April 1986 to 9 April 1987. Investigation of 36 applications has been completed: on no occasion has the tribunal concluded that there has been a contravention of sections 2 to 5 of the Act.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tourism (VAT)
  Mr. Ashby
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the tourist industry of the extension announced in the Budget of value added tax to the gross margins earned by tour operators on sales tours within the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Incoming and internal tourists are already charged United Kingdom VAT on the full price paid for goods and services liable at the standard rate of tax. The scheme should not affect the total amount of VAT chargeable by the United Kingdom sector of the tourist industry, but it will affect the way in which the tax is accounted for to Customs and Excise by tour operators supplying United Kingdom tours.

  Outgoing tourists proceeding to other member states and buying from United Kingdom tour operators will pay a small element of United Kingdom VAT for the first time from I April 1988. It is difficult to predict accurately the effect on tour operators' prices because the Association of British Travel Agents has been unable to supply an estimated weighted average of what its members' gross margins on standard-rated supplies will be. However, assuming that the extra VAT is passed on in full, it is estimated that the price of typical packages to destinations in other member states will be increased by about 1 per cent. This is unlikely to have any significant effect on the number of packages sold.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Yeo
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's intentions in relation to the Finance Bill.

  Mr. Lawson
  The Government propose to reintroduce all those provisions which have had to be left out of the shortened Finance Bill as early as possible in the next Parliament. For those measures which would have taken effect from Royal Assent to the original Bill, the operative date will be Royal Assent to the new legislation. In other cases it is intended to retain the operative date proposed in the original Bill.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish for Great Britain and for each region, for Scotland and Wales, his latest figure for the amounts paid in regional development grants in the financial year 1986–87; and if he will publish his estimate for the amount he expects to spend in Great Britain and for each region, Scotland and Wales, on regional development grants in 1987–88.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  Provisional figures for payments of regional development grants in 1986–87 are as follows:
  139

  Area

  £ million

  North East

  89·8

  North West

  113·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  27·2

  East Midlands

  8·4

  South West

  14·6

  Scotland

  170·0

  Wales

  88·9

  Great Britain Total

  512·6

  Provision for expenditure on RDGs in 1987–88, as set out in the Supply Estimates, is as follows:

  £ million

  England

  108·5

  Scotland

  69·0

  Wales

  33·6

  Total

  211·1

  Notes:

  (1) All figures are gross, before deducting recoveries and EC receipts.

  (2) Estimates for future RDG expenditure are produced only for England as a whole and are not broken down by region.

  As the Prime Minister pointed out in her letter of 12 February to the hon. Gentleman, this projected fall in expenditure is the result of the Government's 1984 decision to replace the old RDG scheme, which supported capital investment without reference to employment, by a new and more cost-effective scheme linked to the creation of jobs.

  Satellite Information Services
  Mr. Hayes
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the various links between the big four bookmakers, Satellite Information Services and their position in the racing and betting industries.

  Mr. Howard
  The Director General of Fair Trading is currently considering whether he should make a complex monopoly reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 in relation to the supply of off-course bookmaking services. Complaints from a number of bodies connected with horse and greyhound racing (including the National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd. and smaller bookmakers) about the possible effects of the Satellite Information Services operation are being taken into account as one of the matters on which the Director General's decision will be based.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions his Department sponsored advertisements in national newspapers in the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used in these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cosmetics
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why the Council of Ministers decided to harmonise legislation on cosmetic products; if he will provide details of the form and content of the agreed Community labelling which cosmetic products will row he required to display; and if he will make a statement on The cosmetic products which are covered by the legislation.

  Mr. Howard
  There is an important international trade in cosmetics, and the EC cosmetic products directive is intended to remove barriers to trade in the Community and to ensure that the public throughout the Community are protected from dangerous ingredients. The directive operates by prohibiting the use of certain substances in cosmetics, specifying those which may be used, but with restrictions and specifying warning labelling where necessary. Cosmetic products covered by the directive are all those applied to the external surface of the body to clean, perfume, decorate or maintain it.

  Radio Paging Service
  Mr. Peter Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will increase the radio spectrum allocation available to the national radio paging service operated by British Telecommunications.

  Mr. Pattie
  Not at present, but, in anticipation of growing needs as customer demand expands and services develop, I have earmarked an additional channel for future use by the BT service, subject to the company demonstrating to my satisfaction that it has a commercial need and to any other conditions which are generally applicable at the time. I would expect to seek the advice of the Director General of Telecommunications on these questions. I do not expect the additional channel to be brought into commercial use until BT's competitors have had the opportunity to establish themselves in the market.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what moneys are owed by his Department: to the London Residuary Body in respect of Greater London council activities prior to abolition.

  Mr. Butcher
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 May 1987, c. 23]: A detailed answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, if there are any such moneys I have no reason for believing they are significant.

  Komatsu (Hydraulic Excavators)
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 6 May, Official Report, column 418, about hydraulic excavators what information is available to his Department about the quantity and value of components imported by Komatsu in any recent period.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 May 1987, c. 21]: Information relating to individual importers is held by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, but is not normally made available to anyone outside that Department. Components for hydraulic excavators are not separately identified in the Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Advertising (Space Satellites)
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from observatories and from astronomers about the impact on their work of the launching into space of satellites for the purpose of advertising; if he proposes to take any action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pattie
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1987, c. 418]: The British National Space Centre has received representations from United Kingdom astronomers, both individually and collectively through the Royal Astronomical Society, on the potential threats to astronomy posed by various plans to launch reflecting satellites into space for advertising or other purposes. The Goverment believe that the launch of such objects should become subject to an internationally accepted code of practice. We are considering, initially with our partners in ESA, how best to pursue such an arrangement.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the latest figures available to him of the percentage unemployment rates for each of the 50 regions of the European Community with the worst unemployment rates.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest available comparisons of unemployment rates among regions of the European Community, which

  April 1979–March 1986

  April 1986–December 1986

  All sales

  Flats

  All sales

  Flats

  Greater London Council

  115,198

  11,079

  —

  —

  City of London

  807

  761

  185

  183

  Barking and Dagenham

  6,043

  95

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Barnet

  3,707

  815

  498

  158

  Bexley

  2,162

  104

  227

  31

  Brent

  11,313

  1182

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Bromley

  4,288

  434

  561

  95

  Camden

  526

  349

  113

  94

  Croydon

  4,209

  1166

  542

  59

  Ealing

  13,997

  1417

  1144

  129

  Enfield

  3,656

  483

  400

  99

  Greenwich

  2,349

  114

  1203

  115

  Hackney

  1561

  10

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,682

  678

  233

  151

  Haringey

  1,898

  232

  327

  70

  Harrow

  1,579

  181

  191

  52

  Havering

  4,829

  307

  192

  17

  Hillingdon

  13,599

  1238

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Hounslow

  2,285

  128

  211

  48

  Islington

  1826

  1344

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Kensington and Chelsea

  608

  382

  127

  122

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,372

  272

  107

  40

  Lambeth

  11,045

  1220

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Lewisham

  11,986

  1170

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Merton

  3,053

  337

  345

  76

  Newham

  12,794

  10

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Redbridge

  12,511

  1324

  195

  78

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,482

  334

  114

  42

  Southwark

  1,482

  377

  1138

  146

  Sutton

  1,928

  268

  229

  33

  Tower Hamlets

  1492

  1107

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Waltham Forest

  12,226

  1220

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Wandsworth

  8,837

  4,913

  1,073

  867

  Westminster

  11,395

  11,016

  338

  272

  n.a. = Not available.

  1 Incomplete total of sales.

  142
  relate to April 1985, are published in "Basic Statistics of the Community", 24th Edition, which is available in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Properties (Repairs)
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his present estimate of (a) the total cost of outstanding repairs to council properties and (b) the cost of outstanding repairs to council properties in each local authority.

  Mr. Tracey
  The 1986 "English House Condition Survey", now being analysed, will provide up-to-date information on the extent of disrepair in council properties nationally. It is for individual local authorities to monitor the repairs outstanding in the properties they own.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council (a) houses and (b) flats were sold by each London borough between May 1979 and May 1986; how many have been sold since then; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tracey
  The sales of dwellings reported by the London authorities are given in the table.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the number of households on local authority housing waiting lists in each London borough, as at 1 April 1987.

  Mr. Tracey
  The information for 1987 is not yet available.

  Livestock Units
  Mr. Jackson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his reasons for extending planning controls to livestock units.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) on 13 November 1986, at columns 3–4.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number of homeless people in Coventry, the west midlands and nationally at the latest available date, in 1983 and in 1979, respectively.

  Mr. Tracey
  Local authorities reported accepting responsibility for securing accommodation for the following numbers of households during the years 1979, 1983 and 1986:

  Year

  Coventry

  West Midlands Region

  England

  1979

  151

  6,410

  57,200

  1983

  358

  9,340

  78,240

  1986

  397

  11,780

  102,980

  The figures for 1979 are not directly comparable to those for 1983 and 1986, because of a change in the method of reporting.

  Housing
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his latest estimate of the numbers of houses, also expressed as a percentage of the total, in Coventry, the west midlands and nationally which are (a) sub-standard dwellings: unfit, (b) fit but lacking one or more basic amenity and (c) non-substandard dwellings in need of renovation;

  (2) what was Coventry city council's bid to central Government for housing expenditure; and what was his Department's allocation, for each year since 1979, expressed in 1987 prices.

  Mr. Tracey
  I shall answer this question shortly.

  Housing Management
  Mr. Knowles
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps the Government have taken to encourage the development of new housing management courses, following their announcement in February of funding for studentships at the Salford centre for housing studies.
  144
  Mr. John Patten
  Following negotiations between my Department, the Institute of Housing, the University of Bristol and Bristol Polytechnic, a new full-time, o-year postgraduate course in housing studies will be launched at Bristol next autumn. It will meet the necessary professional criteria.

  My right hon. Friend intends to provide funding through the Economic and Social Research Council for 15 studentships a year on this course, beginning in 1987. A contribution will also be made towards the setting-up and development costs.

  The studentships will provide for maintenance and fees in the first year and for fees only in the second year, when the students are on placement.

  This initiative is particularly welcome because of the close co-operation between the university and the polytechic.

  Similar studentships for housing diploma courses are already being provided at the Salford centre for housing studies, the London school of economics and Sheffield polytechnic.

  I hope to see more courses which are worthy of our support come forward.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions his Department sponsored advertisements in national newspapers in the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used in these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department, including the Property Services Agency, has advertised nationally in the following newspapers. Local newspapers are listed when they have formed part of the newspaper campaigns. (The lists do not include advertising on recruitment, tendering and statutory orders).

  Financial year—1984–85

  Subject—Right to Buy

  National Newspapers

  Daily Mirror

  Daily Star

  The Sun

  Sunday People

  News of the World

  Local Newspapers

  Newcastle Evening Chronicle

  Sheffield Star

  Hull Daily Mail

  Leeds Evening Post

  The Standard (London)

  Coventry Evening Telegraph

  Sandwell Evening Mail

  Wolverhampton Express and Star

  Huddersfield Daily Examiner

  Manchester Evening News

  Subject—Rates Act

  National Dailies

  (Southern Edition only)

  Daily Express

  Daily Mail

  Daily Mirror

  Daily Star

  The Sun

  145

  Guardian

  National Dailies

  (National)

  Daily Telegraph

  Times

  National Sundays

  (Southern edition only)

  Mail on Sunday

  News of the World

  Sunday Express

  Sunday Mirror

  Sunday People

  National Sundays

  (National)

  Observer

  Sunday Telegraph

  Sunday Times

  Local Newspapers

  Brent Recorder

  Harrow/Wembley Informer

  Independent-Harrow/Wembley

  Greenwich Mainline

  Greenwich News Shopper

  Haringey Advertiser

  Haringey Independent

  Islington Advertiser

  Basildon Evening Echo

  Billericay Gazette

  Brentwood Gazette and Mid Essex Recorder

  Hampstead and District Advertiser

  Standard Recorder

  Basildon

  Billericay

  Wickford

  Yellow Advertiser—Basildon Edition

  Billericay and Wickford Advertiser plus Brentwood Advertiser

  Greater London Greater Press Group

  Leicester Mercury

  Loughborough Echo

  Leicester Mail

  Leicester Trader

  Sunday Extra (Leicester)

  North Leicester Shopper

  Liverpool Echo

  Liverpool Post

  Mersey Regional Newspapers

  Southport Visitor Group

  Wirral Newspaper Group

  St Helens Star Series

  Ormskirk Advertiser Group

  The News (Portsmouth)

  Street Life (Portsmouth-Gosport-Fareham-Waterlooville)

  West Sussex Gazette

  Swindon Evening Advertiser

  Wiltshire Gazette and Herald

  Wiltshire Star and Cirencester Advertiser

  Swindon and District Messenger

  Sheffield Star

  Sheffield Morning Telegraph

  Sheffield Weekly Gazette

  South Yorkshire Times

  Worksop Guardian Series

  Barnsley Chronicle

  Barnsley Independent

  Barnsley Chronicle Shopper

  Hemsworth and South Elmsall Express

  Doncaster Free Press

  Doncaster Advertiser

  Rotherham and South Yorkshire Advertiser and Messenger

  Financial Year—1985–86

  Subject—Right to Buy

  National Newspapers
  146

  Daily Mirror

  The Sun

  Sunday Mirror

  Sunday People

  Sunday (News of the World)

  Financial Year—1986–87

  Subject—Right to Buy

  National Newspapers

  The Sun

  Daily Mirror

  Daily Star

  News of the World

  Sunday Mirror

  Sunday People

  Parking Fines
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state (a) the total amount paid by his Department in 1986 in respect of parking fines incurred by ministerial vehicles and (b) provide a breakdown by Government Department in terms of offence, fine, date and location.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1987, c. 459]: The sums paid in parking fines in respect of Government car service vehicles in 1986 was £3,134 for 279 offences; a significant reduction on 1985.

  The details by Department are as follows:

  Number

  Scottish Office

  166

  Department of Energy

  37

  Welsh Office

  22

  Department of Employment

  6

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  6

  Department of the Environment

  5

  Department of Transport

  6

  Department of Health & Social Security

  6

  Home Office

  2

  Lord Advocates Office

  1

  Department of Trade and Industry

  4

  Management and Personnel Office

  7

  Northern Ireland Office

  1

  Department of Education and Science

  3

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  2

  Treasury Solicitors

  1

  Central Office of Information

  1

  ACAS

  1

  Ministry of Defence

  1

  Privy Council

  1

  279

  A further breakdown could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Residuary Bodies
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of consents sought by residuary bodies for disposal of land or buildings for less than the best price offered.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1987, c. 459]: Applications have been made in the following cases:

  Greater Manchester Residuary Body:

  The Greater Manchester Museum of Science and Industry; 18 residential properties in various districts.

  Merseyside Residuary Body:

  Land at Caryle Street, Liverpool; Gardners Row Business Centre, Liverpool.

  West Yorkshire Residuary Body:

  Land at Humboldt Street, Bradford.
  147
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of all applications for the acquisition of land made to his Department by residuary bodies since their establishment.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1987, c. 459]: Applications were made in the following cases:

  London Residuary Body:

  A sub-undcrlease of part of the first floor of 20 Albert Embankment SE1 55Ib High Road N17; Land at the rear of Western Arms Public House, W10; Part of 14–20 Glass Street, EC2.

  Greater Manchester Residuary Body:

  Part of County Hall Car Park, 32–40 Bloom Street, Manchester; sub-lease of 19 and 21 Dicconson Street, Wigan.

  Tyne and Wear Residuary Body:

  Part of 23 Megstone Court, Killingworth; seven sites in Gateshead area.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has had from traders outside enterprise zones about unfair retail competition from within such zones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987, c. 559]: No record is kept of the number of representations received about enterprise zones, but I am well aware of the concern expressed by some businesses outside the zones.

  Trees
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the health of yew trees in Britain; and what information he has as to how many years' needles a healthy tree of this species should usually be holding.

  Mr. John MacKay
  I have been asked to reply.

  Like all trees, yew is subject to a range of diseases and disorders. The most noteworthy event in recent years was the browning of foliage which occurred in parts of the country in the spring of 1986, following the very cold February of that year.

  No systematic study of needle retention has been made. Loss of needles which arc two or more years of age occurs on some trees from time to time, but this has not been linked to any reduction in shoot growth.

  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for surveying the health of Britain's trees in 1987.

  Mr. John MacKay
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Forestry Commission's plans for surveys of tree health in 1987, some of which will be carried out in cooperation with other bodies, are described in Forestry Commission Research Information Note 117/87/SSS published on 5 May. I have arranged for copies of the note to be placed in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Research Expenditure
  Mr. Knox
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 1 April, Official Report, column
  148
  509,if he will specify the items included in current road safety research expenditure referred to in that answer; and if he will make a statement on levels of research expenditure for future years, following his recent review.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The road safety research budget for 1987–88 has been increased by £100,000, bringing the allocated budget on road safety research to £5,914,000. The extra funds will be used to expand our existing programmes, particularly in motorcycle safety. This is the first step towards the major expansion of the road safety research budget recommended by the interdepartmental review of road safety— which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport sent to the chairman of the Transport Committee last week. A copy is in the Library.

  I am still considering the appropriate level of expenditure for subsequent years. I am writing to my hon. Friend.

  A1 Improvements
  Mr. Trotter
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the improvements that are taking place, planned and proposed for the A1 road between Doncaster and Scotch Corner; and what is his estimate of the likely cost of these improvements.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have just announced that the Al between Dishforth and Scotch Corner will be widened to three lanes. This scheme brings the total value of our investment in the Al in Yorkshire to £126·2 million. A schedule of schemes from Bramham to Scotch Corner is as follows.

  The need for improvements between Bramham and Scotch Corner is being examined as part of the east of Leeds study, on which I hope to make an announcement later this year.

  In addition a programme of safety measures is currently in hand, which includes safety barriers, gap closures and improved signing.

  A1 trunk road

  Improvements currently under construction

  £ million

  1. Baldersby junction improvement

  2·8 to be completed Summer 1987

  2. Wetherby bypass (includes three junctions between Wetherby and Walshford)

  11·8 to be completed Summer 1988

  Improvements in preparation

  1. Bramham to Wetherby

  10·1 Planned start of works—1989

  2. Wetherby to Dishforth

  49·3

  Planned start of works—1989 (four contracts, four year construction)

  3. Dishforth interchange

  6·2

  Planned start of works—1988

  4. Dishforth to Scotch Corner phase 1 Gatenby lane

  1·5 Planned start of works—1990

  5. Dishforth to Scotch Corner phase II junction improvements

  14·5 Planned start of works—1991

  6. Dishforth to Scotch Corner carriageway improvements

  30·0 Planned start of works—1991 onwards

  Total value

  126·2

  Motorways (Surface)
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has yet determined whether concrete or tarmacadam is the more cost-effective surfacing for new motorways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is impossible and unnecessary to make a national decision on which material is the most cost effective. Recent research on performance and whole-life costs has shown that, within the limits of the information available, both materials can give equally satisfactory performance. Their relative merits for any given construction scheme depend on local conditions, and a number of designs and materials are included in the Department's standards and specifications to meet these conditions. Tenders for suitable designs in both forms of construction are sought on a competitive basis and the one of lowest initial cost is accepted. It is planned to extend research to examine the feasibility of evaluating individual tenders to take account of all whole life costs, including those arising from traffic delays which may be sensitive to local conditions.

  Motorway Noise (Double Glazing)
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are his current criteria for determining whether householders living near a new stretch of motorway are eligible for double glazing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The criteria applying to dwellings near a new motorway are those in the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975. Regulation 3 requires that traffic noise at a facade of a property shall rise by at least ldB(A) to 68dB(A) or more and that noise from the new highway shall contribute at least IdB(A) to the overall increase.

  I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a booklet which explains the position in more detail.

  Heathrow Flight Paths
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the present controls on flight paths from Heathrow airport, in view of a recent near miss involving Concorde; whether the density of air traffic at Heathrow is approaching a level which would he considered a hazard to safety; if he will ask the Civil Aviation Authority to inquire urgently into the situation at Heathrow; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  The Civil Aviation Authority fulfils its responsibilities for air traffic control through the National Air Traffic Services. In the London area, air traffic control is exercised by the NATS from the London air traffic control centre at West Drayton and from air traffic control units at the three London airports. The arrival and departure routes to and from those airports, including Heathrow, form part of a complex airspace system in which pilots fly in accordance with prescribed air traffic control procedures. Following the recent incident in which a Concorde was involved, the relevant ATC procedures have been reviewed and confirmed to be satisfactory.

  With regard to the increase in air traffic at Heathrow, air traffic management measures are taken to ensure that in busy periods the capacity limits of the airport are not exceeded. These measures include a European-based
  150
  system of flow control where, if necessary, aircraft are kept on the ground until an airspace slot becomes available. I am assured by the Civil Aviation Authority that the NATS would not allow the pressure of demand in any way to jeopardise the safe operation of aircraft at Heathrow or elsewhere in the United Kingdom airspace for which it is responsible.

  Level Crossing Accidents (Aston by Stone)
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the request by the Stafford borough council for an inquiry into two potentially fatal incidents at the level crossing at Aston by Stone in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No incidents or accidents have been reported to the Railway Inspectorate since the automatic half-Barrier crossing was commissioned in 1983, and consequently there has been no request for an inquiry by this Department. If there is concern it would be appropriate for British Rail and Stafford borough council to discuss it.

  ROSPA
  Mr. David Atkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has made a new agreement with ROSPA for its road safety work in England.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I pay tribute to the work ROSPA has achieved in the past and to the challenge it has set for the future.

  A new agreement has just been signed. It follows extensive discussion with ROSPA, and reflects ROSPA's new marketing-led, business-orientated approach to road safety. The views of the local authority associations have been taken into account. ROSPA has set itself ambitious but achievable targets for streamlining and improving cost-effectiveness. Grant for England will be for £530,000 in 1987–88 but will reduce as ROSPA achieves its longterm plans. Additional grant will continue to be available for specific activities which offer good value for money.

WALES

  Community Care
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any method of knowing the number of employees of (a) local authorities and (b) other public bodies funded in part or in whole from Exchequer funds, who are engaged wholly or in part in providing care services within the community for elderly or disabled people in Wales.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  The required information is not available centrally. Details of staffs of health authorities and local authorities social services departments are published annually by the Welsh Office, but the numbers engaged solely on care for the disabled and elderly cannot be separately identified.

  Physical and Sensory Disabilities
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total annual expenditure by social

  151
  services departments in Wales on people with physical and sensory disabilities in each of the last 10 years at 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987,c. 547]: The information held by the Department does not enable the total cost of all local authority services provided to people with physical and sensory disabilities to be identified.

  The following table shows separately the annual current expenditure on residential services for this group of people together with total current expenditure on all other services used by physically and sensorially disabled people but from which an expenditure figure for services used exclusively by this group cannot be separately identified.

  Current Expenditure1—Wales

  (1986–87 prices)2

  Year

  Homes for the younger physically handicapped, blind and deaf

  All Other relevant services3

  £000's

  £000's

  1976–77

  1,941

  47,156

  1977–78

  1,958

  46,928

  1978–79

  2,359

  48,989

  1979–80

  2,229

  51,373

  1980–81

  2,440

  51,245

  1981–82

  2,572

  51,196

  1982–83

  2,803

  51,006

  1983–84

  2,916

  54,712

  1984–85

  2,909

  55,419

  1985–86

  2,301

  55,752

  1Current expenditure is provided net of sales, fees, charges and other income.

  2Figures are gross current expenditure revalued to 1986–87 prices using the gross domestic product deflator.

  3Comprises expenditure on residential accommodation for the elderly and all adult day care excluding that provided in adult training centres, together with current expenditure on meals, home helps, laundry services, aids, adaptations, telephones and holidays. Expenditure on training administration and field social work is excluded.

DEFENCE

  WEU Meeting (Luxembourg)
  Sir Dudley Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the part his Department played in the Western European Union meeting in Luxembourg on 27 and 28 April.

  Mr. Stanley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 30 April, at column 197, and to the communiqué of the meeting, a copy of which is in the Library. This series of meetings affords an opportunity for collective discussion by the Foreign and Defence Ministers from the member nations, and on this occasion I represented my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who was on an official visit to Turkey. I contributed in particular to the exchange of views on East-West relations and arms control, particularly INF, referred to in my hon. Friend's reply.

  Military Exercise (Brittany)
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence on whose authority military students from Sandhurst were sent on an exercise to Brittany in late March and early April, with an objective in their training exercise to pursue and combat Breton autonomists; and if the object of this exercise was cleared with the French Government beforehand.

  Mr. Freeman
  Students from the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst participate in an annual training exercise authorised by the Ministry of Defence at a training area in Brittany. All exercises involving British forces personnel overseas are cleared in outline in advance with the Government of the host country, but some details of this exercise were inappropriate, and will not be repeated.

  Far East Pilgrimage
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make available to interested parties a permanent reminder of the far east pilgrimage which his Department and the Royal British Legion organised in November 1985.

  Mr. Stanley
  I am pleased to announce that a video has been made of the 1985 veterans and widows pilgrimage to the far east entitled "For Their Tomorrow". Copies of the video will be given on request and at no cost to far east former prisoners of war, other far east veterans and to the widows of those who served in the far east. It is hoped that the video will provide a lasting memory of the pilgrimage both for those who took part and for those unable to make the journey. Requests for a copy of the video from far east veterans, former prisoners of war or widows should be addressed to:

  Assistant Chief of Public Relations (Resources)

  Defence Public Relations Staff

  Ministry of Defence

  Main Building

  Whitehall

  London

  SW1A 2HB

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Gloucester District Land Registry
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the delays in achieving registration at the Gloucester district land registry of titles in Cropthorne road, Shirley, originally applied for at the Harrow district land registry in December 1985 on behalf of London and Auckland Estates Limited and on the consequential delay affecting Mr. F. J. Morgan of 95 Cropthorne Road in the constituency of Solihull.

  The Attorney-General
  The land registry received no request to expedite this complex series of applications involving several hundred properties in different areas. Evidence concerning certain documents of title was not supplied by the applicant company's solicitors until February 1987. The registration in respect of 95 Cropthorne road has been completed.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Oxfam
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give additional financial support for Oxfam's overseas development work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1986–87 the Government channelled almost £2 million through Oxfam for disaster relief and assistance to refugees; and we provided a grant of £1,724,250 for Oxfam under the joint funding scheme for long-term development work. The needs of disaster and refugee work vary from year to year and cannot be forecast. Support for Oxfam under the joint funding scheme has been increased to £1,925,000 in the current financial year. The resources available for the scheme as a whole have been more than doubled in the last four years, and we shall keep under review the possibility of providing further increases, for Oxfam as well as all the other agencies concerned, in the future.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Blair
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid and other financial assistance has been given to Sri Lanka for each year from 1980 to the present day; what are the conditions relating to human rights that are attached to the giving of such aid or financial assistance; and whether, in the light of the present situation in Sri Lanka, he is reconsidering the amount of such aid or financial assistance.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  British bilateral aid to Sri Lanka for 1980–86 was as follows:

  £000

  1980

  32,863

  1981

  26,272

  Postgraduate students in Universities in Great Britain

  Academic year beginning in

  Full-time and sandwich

  Part-time1

  Home students

  Students from abroad

  Home students

  Students from abroad

  (000's)

  (000's)

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  (000's)

  1976

  32·2

  18·1

  64·0

  36·0

  23·0

  1977

  30·8

  18·0

  63·1

  36·9

  24·0

  1978

  30·9

  18·3

  62·8

  37·2

  25·0

  1979

  30·3

  17·3

  63·7

  36·3

  26·6

  1980

  311

  16·4

  65·5

  34·5

  28·2

  1981

  30·7

  16·2

  65·5

  34·5

  29·0

  1982

  29·5

  15·9

  64·9

  35·1

  29·1

  1983

  30·7

  16·8

  64·6

  35"·4

  29·8

  1984

  31·2

  17·7

  63·8

  36·2

  30·6

  1985

  32·5

  20·1

  61·8

  38·2

  31·7

  1Including Open University.

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of foreign language assistants in British schools in the current year; and how many there have been in each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of foreign language assistants in schools and colleges in the United Kingdom in the current academic year is 2,490.
  154

  £000

  1982

  33,287

  1983

  29,461

  1984

  26,203

  1985

  17,316

  1986

  15,345

  Sri Lanka also receives assistance from multilateral organisations such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Community and several United Nations agencies, to which Britain contributes resources.

  The level of our aid to Sri Lanka has declined from the exceptionally high level reached while we were helping finance the Victoria dam project. No conditions relating to human rights have been attached to our aid, which is intended to benefit all sections of the community in Sri Lanka. The observance of human rights is a factor which we and other Western donors take into account in giving aid to any country. All our aid programmes are regularly reviewed, but we have no plans at present to reconsider the amount of aid we give to Sri Lanka.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Postgraduate Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many and what percentage of postgraduate students studying in British universities are (a) United Kingdom home students and (b) from outside the United Kingdom; and what these figures have been in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Walden
  Information on full-time and sandwich postgraduate students studying in British universities is shown in the following table. The total numbers each year of part-time postgraduates, including those in the Open University, are also included.

  Numbers in each of the last 10 Years are as follows:

  Number

  1985–86

  2,409

  1984–85

  2,495

  1983–84

  2,496

  1982–83

  2,498

  1981–82

  2,589

  1980–81

  2,750

  155

  Number

  1979–80

  2,992

  1978–79

  3,158

  1977–78

  3,655

  1976–77

  3,530

  Advertisements
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science on how many occasions his Department sponsored advertisements in national newspapers in the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used in these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Fees and Charges
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish his Department's review of local education authority fees and charges.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Charges for educational "extras" were included in the recent review of all local authority fees and charges. The Government have not yet completed consideration of the results of that review.

  Non-Special Schools
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much local education authorities have spent buying places at non-special fee-charging schools in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The figures, in cash, were as follows:

  £million (England only)

  1981–82

  30

  1982–83

  25

  1983–84

  20

  1984–85

  17

  1985–86

  14

  1985–86 is the latest year for which outturn information is available.

  Latin and Greek
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many state schools in (a) England and (b) Wales teach as a compulsory subject Latin or Greek.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the following data from the 1984 secondary school staffing survey show, for each year group, the number of schools in a sample of about 10 per cent. of schools in England which taught classics as either a compulsory or an optional subject. Provision in schools in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  156

  Year group

  Number of schools with classics

  Number of schools in sample

  Per cent. of schools in sample with classics

  1

  56

  3,683

  1·5

  2

  598

  3,982

  15

  3

  917

  3,642

  25

  4

  948

  3,621

  26

  5

  949

  3,625

  26

  6th Form

  671

  2,295

  29

  University of Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table giving the numbers of United Kingdom students who were awarded degrees and diplomas from the University of Wales in the following subjects in the years 1997 and 1986, or the most recent year for which figures are available:(a)social, administrative and business studies, (b) engineering and technology and (c) science.

  Mr. Walden
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987, c. 544]: The information is as follows :

  University of Wales Students of United Kingdom domicile

  Degrees and diplomas awarded

  (a) Social adminstrative and business studies

  (b) Engineering and techonolgy

  (c) Science

  1979

  First degrees

  1,173

  359

  829

  Higher degrees

  67

  53

  161

  Higher diplomas

  155

  1

  6

  1984

  First degrees

  1,155

  393

  976

  Higher degrees

  84

  46

  155

  Higher diplomas

  97

  5

  13

  Figures for 1985 are on a different subject classification and are therefore not comparable. In 1985 there were 917, 419 and 1,014 first degrees, 65, 56, and 147 higher degrees, and 73, three and 10 higher diplomas awarded to United Kingdom students in the new subject categories social administrative and business studies, engineering and technology and science, respectively.

EMPLOYMENT

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Sedgemore
  asked the Paymaster General what recent representations he has received concerning his Green Paper, "Trade Unions and Their Members."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have received 105 representations on the Green Paper, "Trade Unions and Their Members" in the period up to today, including comments from employers, Trade Unions, various other representative organisations, and individuals.

  Mr. Evans
  asked the Paymaster General when he next proposes to meet trade union leaders to discuss his recently published Green Paper, "Trade Unions and Their Members."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The TUC have told me that they plan to seek a meeting in due course but have not yet done so. The Scottish TUC has also asked for a meeting. I will of course be happy to meet both groups when they are able to suggest convenient dates.

  Tourism
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  asked the Paymaster General what information he has on the amount of income that has been generated by tourism in the South-East Tourist Board area in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Trippier
  Tourist spending in the South-East tourist board area increased from £370 million in 1978 to £755 million in 1985. In the East Midlands tourist board area, spending increased from £145 million in 1978 to over £375 million in 1985.

  A table giving full information has been placed in the library.

  Mr. Couchman
  asked the Paymaster General whether he will estimate the value of capital investment in major tourism and leisure projects in 1986.

  Mr. Trippier
  A recent English tourist board survey suggests that in the last six months of 1986 at least £960 million worth of tourism and leisure developments were opened or under construction in England.

  Mr. Holt
  asked the Paymaster General what information he has on the amount of income that has been generated by tourism in the Northumbria Tourist Board area in each year since 1978.

  Mr. John Browne
  asked the Paymaster General what information he has on the amount of income that has been generated by tourism in the Southern Tourist Board area in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Trippier
  A table giving this information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholas winterton
  asked the Paymaster General what effect he estimates the Licensing (Restaurant Meals) Act 1987 will have on tourism expenditure in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  No such estimates are available. However we share the restaurant trade's optimism that this measure will lead to a marked boost in their business, much of it due to increased tourist spending.

  Training Schemes
  Mrs. Shields
  asked the Paymaster General what research his Department is undertaking to assess the differences in the success rates of training schemes in helping young people into jobs.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Manpower Services Commission conducts a regular follow-up survey of all YTS leavers. The results which show the destination of leavers some three months after leaving, are placed in the Library.

  Hotel and Catering Industry
  Mr. Bevan
  asked the Paymaster General how many new jobs he estimates will be created at all levels in the hotel and catering industry by the end of the decade.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government do not produce forecasts of future employment levels, which depend on many factors. However, during the period between December 1985 and December 1986 employment in hotels and catering increased by 17,000.

  If present trends continue, there should be scope for many more jobs in the industry in the period up to 1990.
  158
  Mr. Gale
  asked the Paymaster General what Government initiatives are planned to help to fill the 40,000 vacancies estimated by the Hotel and Catering Training Board to have been left unfilled in the hotel and catering industry every year.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government, through the Manpower Services Commission, will be helping employers in the hotel and catering industry to recruit and train the labour they need as it does with all sectors of the economy. In addition to the recruitment service provided by the MSC's jobcentre network, the MSC's vocational and educational training group provides financial and other support. In particular, the development of training and initiatives is considered a high priority, principally by funding places on both YTS and job training schemes for hotel and catering occuptions. The MSC also supports initiatives by the hotel and catering training board to structure the training and career arrangements so providing it with a better qualified work force.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  asked the Paymaster General if he will estimate what the intake on the hotel and catering job training scheme is likely to be.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I expect the new job training scheme to make a major contribution to meeting local skill needs in the hotel and catering industry. The hotel and catering training board is already operating as a managing agent in one of the pilot areas, and I expect many employers in the industry to become involved in the scheme as providers of practical work experience.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Paymaster General what is the lastest available figure for those out of work for a year or more.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On 8 January 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of climants who had been unemployed for over one year was 1,334,000, which represents 40·5 per cent. of the total.

  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Paymaster General when he expects unemployment to fall below 3 million: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The Government do not make forecasts of unemployment, but, if present trends continue, adult unemployment is likely to fall below 3 million within the next few months.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Paymaster General what is the latest available figure for unemployment in Greater London.

  Mr. Lee
  On 12 March 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the Greater London area was 383,086.

  Mr. Bruce
  asked the Paymaster General if he will state the latest figure for full-time equivalent jobs created since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The Department's employed labour force series is not sufficiently detailed to support the accurate calculation of full time equivalent job estimates. The series would not reflect the importance of increasing labour market flexibility which has contributed to the continuing growth of part time jobs and has benefited both employers
  159
  and employe es. However, estimates from the labour force survey show an increase of 4½ per cent. between spring 1983 and spring 1986 in the person hours usually worked per week in the economy of Great Britain.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Paymaster General how many people presently on the Government's job training schemes have remained on the unemployment register.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  People on the new job training scheme are in full-time training and are not required to be available for work. They are therefore excluded from the unemployment count as would anybody else be in the same circumstances.

  Mr. Dykes
  asked the Paymaster General if he will commission a fundamental study into long-term trends in net real unemployment in the United Kingdom, relating it to the comparisons available in other large EEC member state economies.

  Mr. Lee
  No study is necessary. The available information on unemployment already includes estimates from the annual Labour Force Survey which is conducted on a similar basis in all EC countries. Standardised unemployment rates for major industrial countries are published monthly by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

  Mr. Beith
  asked the Paymaster General what are the most recent percentage figures for (a) total unemployment and (b) male unemployment in the Alnwick and Amble area.

  Mr. Lee
  On 12 March 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the Alnwick and Amble travelto-work area expressed as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed was 19·8 per cent. The corresponding rate for male claimants was 22·7 per cent.

  Mr. Duffy
  asked the Paymaster General if he will indicate in percentage terms the number of unemployed in (a) the Sheffield travel-to-work area and (b) the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  Employees by whether full1 or part-time2, Ethnic origin and occupation

  Great Britain, Spring 1985

  Ethnic origin/broad occupational group

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  White

  Managerial and professional

  3,335

  32·1

  1,176

  26·2

  248

  39·3

  772

  18·6

  Clerical and related

  643

  6·2

  1,843

  41·0

  29

  4·5

  900

  21·7

  Other non-manual

  645

  6·2

  298

  6·6

  75

  11·8

  598

  14·4

  Craft and similar

  2,676

  25·8

  271

  6·0

  39

  6·2

  60

  1·4

  General labourers

  211

  2·0

  19

  0·4

  12

  1·9

  6—

  6—

  Other manual

  2,833

  27·3

  883

  19·6

  227

  35·9

  1,815

  43·7

  All occupations3

  10,382

  100·0

  4,493

  100·0

  631

  100·0

  4,153

  100·0

  Non-White

  Managerial and professional

  90

  24·3

  52

  26·3

  10

  41·1

  18

  21·4

  Clerical and related

  34

  9·1

  56

  27·9

  6—

  6—

  12

  15·0

  Other non-manual

  14

  3·8

  13

  6·6

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Craft and similar

  84

  22·7

  22

  11·1

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  General labourers

  10

  2·7

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Other manual

  138

  37·2

  56

  27·8

  6—

  6—

  38

  46·4

  All occupations3

  371

  100·0

  199

  100·0

  25

  100·0

  83

  100·0

  Of which:

  (i) West Indian/Guyanese

  Managerial and professional

  6—

  6—

  35

  30·6

  —

  —

  6—

  6—

  Clerical and related

  6—

  6—

  23

  28·5

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  160
  Mr. Lee
  On 12 May 1987. the number of unemployed claimants in the Sheffield travel-to-work area, expressed as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed, was 15·8 per cent. The comparable rate for the Yorkshire and Humberside region was 14·7 per cent. The number of unemployed claimants in the Yorkshire and Humberside region expressed as a percentage of the total working population was 13·2 per cent.

  Mr. Speller
  asked the Paymaster General how many people in England were in paid employment at the end of April 1979 and at the end of the latest month in 1987 for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures available for the dates specified. The available information is as follows:

  Employees in employment in England

  June 1979

  19,503,000

  December 1986

  18,525,000

  The figures are not adjusted for the effects of seasonal variation.

  Mr. Flannery
  asked the Paymaster General what is the latest figure for the number of unemployed.

  Mr. Lee
  On 12 March 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,143,370.

  Ms. Clare Short
  asked the Paymaster General if he will publish figures from the 1985 labour force survey, showing separately for part-time and full-time workers the numbers and percentages of employees aged 16 years and over by ethnic origin, occupational group and sex.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The 1985 "Labour Force Survey" estimates are as shown in the table:
  161

  Ethnic origin/broad occupational group

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Other non-manual

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Craft and similar

  32

  32·2

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  General labourers

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Other manual

  42

  42·6

  26

  32·1

  6—

  6—

  18

  58·7

  All occupations3

  98

  100·0

  82

  100·0

  6—

  6—

  31

  100·0

  (ii) Indian

  Managerial and professional

  36

  32·8

  11

  18·3

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Clerical and related

  11

  9·8

  15

  24·6

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Other non-manual

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Craft and similar

  24

  21·6

  14

  22·7

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  General labourers

  6—

  6—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other manual

  31

  28·5

  16

  25·9

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  All occupations3

  109

  100·0

  61

  100·0

  6—

  6—

  22

  100·0

  (iii) Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  Managerial and professional

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Clerical and related

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other non-manual

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Craft and similar

  15

  23·0

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  General labourers

  6—

  6—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other manual

  35

  55·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6—

  6—

  All occupations3

  63

  100·0

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  (iv) Other4

  Managerial and professional

  37

  37·1

  15

  28·9

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Clerical and related

  12

  11·7

  16

  30·9

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Other non-manual

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Craft and similar

  14

  14·1

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  General labourers

  6—

  6—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other manual

  30

  29·9

  13

  25·8

  6—

  6—

  11

  40·8

  All occupations3

  100

  100·0

  52

  100·0

  12

  100·0

  27

  100·0

  (v) All Ethnic Origins5

  Managerial and professional

  3,461

  31·9

  1,250

  26·3

  260

  39·3

  799

  18·7

  Clerical and related

  682

  6·3

  1,923

  40·4

  30

  4·6

  925

  21·6

  Other non-manual

  662

  6·1

  313

  6·6

  81

  12·3

  613

  14·3

  Craft and similar

  2,786

  25·7

  298

  6·3

  42

  6·3

  66

  1·6

  General labourers

  222

  2·0

  20

  0·4

  13

  2·0

  6—

  6—

  Other manual

  2,998

  27·6

  949

  20·0

  234

  35·3

  1,871

  43·7

  All occupations3

  10,853

  100·0

  4,757

  100·0

  663

  100·0

  4,280

  100·0

  1 Basic usual hours (i.e. excluding meal breaks and paid and unpaid overtime) of 31 or more per week.

  2Basic usual hours of 30 or less per week.

  3 Includes those who did not state their occupation.

  4 Includes African and mixed origin.

  5 Includes those who did not state their ethnic origin.

  6 Sample size too small to provide a reliable estimate.

  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Paymaster General what was the number of notified vacancies unfilled in the Coventry and Warwickshire area in each of the standard industrial classifications at the latest date, for which figures are available; how many were part-time; and what was the total number of unemployed at each job centre on the same date.

  Mr. Lee
  The following table contains the available information, which is also in the Library. The table gives the numbers of unfilled vacancies in the jobcentres that

  Unfilled vacancies by 1980 SIC at Jobcenlres in Coventry and Warwickshire as at 6 February 1987

  Coventry

  Bedworth

  Leamington

  Nuneaton

  Rugby

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  1

  0

  2

  0

  2

  1

  Energy/water supply industries

  7

  0

  3

  2

  0

  2

  162
  correspond to the local authority district of Coventry and the county of Warwickshire as at 6 February 1987, the latest date for which an industrial analysis of vacancies is available. Figures of part-time vacancies by standard industrial classification are not available. The unemployed are no longer required to register at jobcentres, and statistics of registrants at jobcentres do not distinguish the unemployed from those seeking a change of employment. Local unemployment figures from the current ward-based system are available in the Library.
  163

  Coventry

  Bedworth

  Leamington

  Nuneaton

  Rugby

  Slratford-on-Avon

  Extraction/manufacture: minerals/metals

  15

  3

  1

  7

  1

  1

  Metal goods/vehicle industries, etc.

  125

  26

  38

  43

  25

  26

  Other manufacturing industries

  69

  6

  32

  101

  15

  8

  Construction

  27

  5

  19

  38

  18

  26

  Distribution, hotels/catering; repairs

  279

  24

  144

  497

  100

  177

  Transport/communication

  66

  4

  27

  11

  6

  13

  Banking, finance, insurance, leasing, etc.

  71

  9

  50

  45

  58

  37

  Other services

  176

  15

  103

  104

  91

  59

  Total

  836

  92

  419

  848

  319

  350

  of which: part-time

  221

  17

  146

  306

  158

  87

  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Paymaster General what are the unemployment figures for Coventry categorised by sex, age and the duration of unemployment, for the latest date for which statistics are available.

  Age and duration analysis of the unemployed for statistical date 8 January 1987

  Coventry local authority area

  Duration of unemployment in weeks

  Under 17

  17

  18

  19

  20–24

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  55–59

  60 and over

  Total

  Males

  One or less

  6

  11

  19

  13

  82

  54

  25

  22

  17

  12

  23

  25

  27

  336

  Over 1 and up to 2

  4

  2

  6

  9

  28

  23

  12

  19

  10

  13

  12

  10

  6

  154

  Over 2 and up to 4

  13

  16

  29

  23

  120

  56

  44

  33

  25

  23

  23

  27

  26

  458

  Over 4 and up to 6

  13

  22

  22

  25

  119

  61

  37

  30

  37

  31

  25

  34

  19

  475

  Over 6 and up to 8

  9

  31

  24

  22

  95

  53

  33

  32

  28

  19

  31

  26

  19

  422

  Over 8 and up to 13

  27

  39

  43

  57

  263

  145

  84

  73

  58

  45

  58

  53

  45

  990

  Over 13 and up to 26

  101

  128

  178

  168

  516

  281

  174

  169

  119

  99

  112

  162

  182

  2,389

  Over 26 and up to 39

  7

  79

  82

  83

  334

  213

  119

  108

  71

  75

  57

  121

  110

  1,459

  Over 39 and up to 52

  2

  65

  54

  49

  216

  140

  107

  65

  66

  56

  51

  81

  86

  1,038

  Over 52 and up to 65

  0

  19

  54

  51

  157

  125

  88

  79

  57

  54

  33

  32

  41

  790

  Over 65 and up to 78

  0

  57

  68

  57

  177

  121

  69

  66

  65

  45

  26

  57

  13

  821

  Over 78 and up to 104

  0

  7

  52

  73

  256

  154

  123

  118

  78

  73

  52

  81

  9

  1,076

  Over 104 and up to 156

  0

  0

  55

  109

  386

  268

  201

  156

  134

  113

  109

  153

  15

  1,699

  Over 156 and up to 208

  0

  0

  0

  22

  336

  198

  141

  151

  141

  96

  167

  177

  10

  1,439

  Over 208 and up to 260

  0

  0

  0

  0

  238

  159

  142

  129

  130

  105

  241

  172

  13

  1,329

  Over 260

  0

  0

  0

  0

  191

  346

  342

  321

  330

  290

  290

  374

  31

  2,515

  Total males

  182

  476

  686

  761

  3,514

  2,397

  1,741

  1,571

  1,366

  1,149

  1,310

  1,585

  652

  17,390

  Females

  One or less

  8

  16

  19

  25

  82

  33

  13

  5

  7

  11

  8

  8

  0

  235

  Over 1 and up to 2

  2

  3

  5

  6

  26

  6

  7

  7

  8

  11

  4

  1

  0

  86

  Over 2 and up to 4

  9

  15

  19

  21

  65

  47

  21

  17

  10

  12

  14

  7

  0

  257

  Over 4 and up to 6

  10

  13

  18

  13

  62

  40

  27

  13

  7

  11

  9

  6

  0

  229

  Over 6 and up to 8

  2

  20

  14

  6

  56

  43

  18

  10

  12

  15

  8

  10

  0

  214

  Over 8 and up to 13

  18

  32

  48

  30

  165

  100

  47

  35

  35

  33

  20

  23

  0

  586

  Over 13 and up to 26

  94

  111

  183

  124

  297

  201

  120

  69

  57

  57

  51

  40

  0

  1,404

  Over 26 and up to 39

  7

  43

  77

  49

  266

  145

  95

  65

  51

  52

  37

  43

  0

  930

  Over 39 and up to 52

  3

  34

  38

  35

  143

  113

  60

  44

  39

  43

  34

  45

  0

  631

  Over 52 and up to 65

  0

  17

  35

  25

  97

  55

  32

  25

  21

  24

  18

  27

  0

  376

  Over 65 and up to 78

  0

  51

  76

  59

  84

  45

  18

  24

  19

  27

  22

  20

  0

  445

  Over 78 and up to 104

  0

  4

  53

  44

  91

  49

  28

  19

  38

  35

  41

  37

  0

  439

  Over 104 and up to 156

  0

  38

  64

  162

  51

  36

  30

  62

  53

  89

  52

  2

  639

  Over 156 and up to 208

  0

  0

  0

  19

  133

  34

  20

  21

  24

  31

  81

  57

  1

  421

  Over 208 and up to 260

  0

  0

  0

  0

  96

  19

  15

  15

  21

  25

  70

  60

  0

  321

  164
  Mr. Lee
  Following is the requested information which is available in the Library. Figures relate to 8 January 1987, the latest date for which an analysis of unemployment by age and duration is available.
  165

  Duration of unemployment in weeks

  Under17

  17

  18

  19

  20–24

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  50–59

  60 and over

  Total

  Over 260

  0

  0

  0

  65

  69

  44

  18

  27

  48

  59

  82

  1

  413

  Total females

  153

  359

  623

  520

  1,890

  1,050

  601

  417

  438

  488

  565

  518

  4

  7,626

  Foreign Visitors
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  asked the Paymaster General what estimate he has made as to how many foreign business travellers to the United Kingdom there were in 1986 compared to the number of foreign holiday-makers.

  Mr. Trippier
  There were about 3·2 million business visits made by overseas residents to the United Kingdom in 1986, compared with about 5·9 million visits by foreign holidaymakers. In addition there were 2·9 million visits to the United Kingdom for the purpose of visiting friends and relatives, and 1·8 million for other purposes including study.

  English Tourist Board
  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Paymaster General if he has any plans to reorganise the 12 regions of the English Tourist Board to coincide with the eight Manpower Services Commission English regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. Neither my Department nor the English tourist board have any plans to propose changes to the existing boundaries of the 12 regional tourist boards.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Paymaster General which regions in England show the biggest percentage reductions in jobs in the manufacturing sector since 1979.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Between December 1979 and December 1986 the north, Yorkshire and Humberside and north-east regions have experienced the biggest percentage net reductions in the number of employees in employment in the manufacturing industries.

  Some of the decrease in the number of employees in employment in manufacturing will be the result of reclassification of jobs such as industrial cleaning, catering, computer services and road haulage, previously done by manufacturer's own employees and now done by subcontractors. This developing feature of our economy has the effect of exaggerating the extent of the move from manufacturing to service sector employment.

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  asked the Paymaster General how many people are presently receiving training under the new job training scheme.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On 24 April 1987, 2,337 people were taking part in the new job training scheme.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Paymaster General what indications he has so far received concerning the progress of the job training scheme.

  Mr. George
  asked the Paymaster General what indications he has so far received concerning the progress of the job training scheme.
  166
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton
  asked the Paymaster General what indications he has so far received concerning the progress of the job training scheme.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Where the new job training scheme has already been established it is proving an attractive option for long-term unemployed people. A wide range of managing agents are coming forward to participate in the national extended scheme and plans are now well advanced for the provision of training opportunities in all areas of the country.

  Mr. Freud
  asked the Paymaster General what measures he is taking to guarantee the quality of training on the job training scheme.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government and the MSC are committed to providing high quality training which leads to recognised vocational qualifications under the job training scheme, and to this end the Manpower Services Commission has agreed a comprehensive short and longer term quality assurance strategy which includes:

  —introduction of the new status of approved training organisation (adult) for managing agents who wish to deliver new JTS programmes. Agents will need to meet exacting criteria in order to qualify.

  —involvement of the training standards advisory service to provide professional and independent assessment of new JTS.

  —monitoring by local MSC officials, with reporting back to area manpower boards.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Paymaster General what recent representations he has received about the community programme.

  Mr. Lee
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about the community programme. The programme is one of our most successful schemes for helping long-term unemployed people and will, this year, provide places for over 300,000 people.

  Business Travel
  Mr. Cash
  asked the Paymaster General what Government initiatives have been taken to increase business travel to the United Kingdom from key European markets.

  Mr. Tippier
  The number of business travellers to the United Kingdom rose by 7 per cent. in 1986 compared to 1985, and represented almost 25 per cent. of all visitors to the United Kingdom. The British Tourist Authority, which the Government support by grant-in-aid which is charged with promoting all aspects of inward tourism, has recently appointed two business travel managers to cover Scandinavia, and the Benelux countries and France. They will specifically promote business and incentive travel to the United Kingdom. They have also allocated additional resources to this sector in Germany and Austria and will continue to promote conference and exhibition facilities in the United Kingdom through their 10 other European offices.

  Job Creation
  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement concerning the progress of Government schemes to help the unemployed move in order to find jobs.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on 4 March at column 566.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  asked the Paymaster General what funds he proposes to allocate to each of the Government's employment creation programmes in 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In 1987–88 the Government expect to spend over £3,000 million on employment, enterprise and training measures subject to Parliamentary approval. Full details for each measure were published in Class VII of the main estimates on 17 March. A copy is in the Library.

  Mr. Hawksley
  asked the Paymaster General how many people received help under the enterprise allowance scheme in the Telford area in the year ended 31 March 1987.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, in Shropshire, which includes Telford, 812 people joined the enterprise allowance scheme in the year ended 31 March 1987. There were 770 people in receipt of the allowance on 31 March 1987.

  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Paymaster General what measures his Department is currently introducing to reduce the level of unemployment in Coventry.

  Mr. Lee
  We shall continue to pursue sound economic policies for steady growth and low inflation which have so far produced more than a million new jobs since 1983. As part of this overall policy my Department and the Manpower Services Commission operate over 30 employment, enterprise and training measures which are described in the Action for Jobs booklet. With the exception of the career development loans scheme, which is currently being piloted in selected localities, all these measures are available in Coventry. My right hon. and learned Friend recently announced expansion of the very successful Inner Cities Initiative which will also benefit the unemployed in Coventry where one of the new task forces will operate.

  Tourism (Terrorism)
  Mr. Leigh
  asked the Paymaster General whether he will take steps to promote in the United Kingdom a scheme similar to the United States Government's national travellers security policy council, with a view to achieving a more active role for private enterprise in helping to combat terrorism and security problems, in so far as they impinge on tourism.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have no plans to do so.

  Manufacturing Job Losses
  Mr. Meadowcroft
  asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on regional differences in manufacturing job losses.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There has been a long-term trend away from manufacturing employment in most 168
  industrialised countries, which has been evident in all regions of the United Kingdom since 1966. The world recession of the early 1980s combined with overdue action by British industry to reduce damaging levels of overmanning which had built up in the 1960s and 1970s accelerated this process in the United Kingdom, especially in those areas which relied most heavily on manufacturing employment. Since mid-1983, however, the rate of decline in manufacturing employment has slowed markedly overall, varying between a fall of 9 per cent. in the South East and a rise of 6 per cent. in East Anglia (June 1983 to June 1986).

  In all regions where there has been a net loss of jobs in manufacturing since mid-1983 these losses have at least been offset by a rise in the number of jobs elsewhere in the economy. Some of the decrease in the number of employees in employment in manufacturing will be the result of re-classification of jobs such as industrial cleaning, catering, computer services and road haulage, previously done by manufacturer's own employees and now done by subcontractors. This developing feature of our economy has the effect of exaggerating the extent of the move from manufacturing to service sector employment.

  Tourist Information Centres
  Mr. Butterfill
  asked the Paymaster General what information he has as to how many tourist information centres there are operating in the United Kingdom; how many operate all year round and how many operate seasonally; and whether there are any plans to open any new centres.

  Mr. Trippier
  There are currently some 455 tourist information centres in the United Kingdom which operate all year round, and a further 336 centres which operate on a seasonal basis. I understand that a number of new centres are likely to open this year, including one at the South Mimms service station on the M25.

  YTS (Keighley)
  Mr. Waller
  asked the Paymaster General how many young people have participated in the YTS in the Keighley travel-to-work area since the scheme's inception.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. It is not possible to identify the Keighley travel-to-work area separately. However in the Bradford local authority district, which includesBradford, Keighley and Ilkley, 13,444 young people have joined YTS since its inception in April 1983.

  Tourism (Weather)
  Mr. Harris
  asked the Paymaster General what information he has as to the strategies being developed by the tourism industry aimed at minimising the effects of the British weather on the level of tourism.

  Mr. Trippier
  Both the English Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority are giving high priority in their marketing and development strategies to initiatives which encourage all year round tourism. The ETB is able to consider financial assistance under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 to encourage projects which provide all weather tourist facilities and amenities,
  169
  such as indoor resort complexes, all-year-round holiday villages and indoor leisure facilities for all types of tourist accommodation.

  Service Sector Jobs
  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Paymaster General what was the net loss or gain in service sector jobs in 1986.

  Mr. Lee
  Between December 1985 and December 1986 (the latest date for which figures are available) there was a net increase of 328,000 in the number of employees in employment and the self-employed in the service industries in Great Britain.

  YTS (Hotel and Catering)
  Mr. Watts
  asked the Paymaster General how many trainees who have successfully completed the hotel and catering YTS scheme have found jobs in the industry.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Just under 3,500 young people trained in the hotel and catering industry and completed their entitlement to YTS during the last full year, 1985–86. Of these around 36 per cent. were in employment, some three months after leaving with the same employer with whom they trained. In addition, a further 20 per cent. were in employment with a different employer. Some of the latter group may also have been working in parts of the hotel and catering industry.

  Restart
  Mr. Park
  asked the Paymaster General how many people have been called for interview under restart to date; and what percentage have gone on to receive full-time employment as a result.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  By 9 April 1,572,242 people had been called for a Restart interview, of whom 1,285,097 have already attended. We have no means of knowing precisely what proportion have gone on to full time employment as a result. These interviews aim at the selection of the best course open to the individual person from the wide range of employment, training and job-search opportunities available to help that individual return to employment. Of people interviewed, 73 per cent. agreed to pursue the offer made to them at their restart interview.

  Miss Juliet Kent (Wages)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the outcome of the case by the wages inspectorate for recovery of wages owed to Miss Juliet Kent of Birmingham.

  Mr. Trippier
  Judgement was given in favour of Miss Kent on 10 March 1987. I understand that the sum awarded by the court has not yet been paid.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Paymaster General how many construction workers were employed in the construction industry in Coventry, the west midlands and nationally at the latest available date, in 1983 and in 1979, respectively.
  170
  Mr. Lee
  Estimates for the West Midlands region and Great Britain for the dates in question are :

  Employees in employment in the construction industry.

  West Midlands

  Great Britain

  December 1979

  101,000

  1,207,000

  December 1983

  89,000

  1,026,000

  December 1986

  95,000

  1,007,000

  Employment estimates for areas smaller then the standard economic regions are produced only for dates when censuses of employment are taken. Censuses were taken in September 1981 and September 1984 but the local area estimates from the 1984 census are not yet available.

  Job Sharing Scheme
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Paymaster General what is the number of people per year that have taken advantage of the job sharing scheme in Coventry.

  Mr. Lee
  The new job share scheme was launched on 1 April 1987. Prior to this, the number of approved applications under the job splitting scheme in Coventry was:

  Number

  1983

  5

  1984

  2

  1985

  2

  1986

  2

  Parcels Service
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Paymaster General if he will instruct his enterprise and deregulation unit to conduct an urgent inquiry into the treatment by Government agencies of the express parcels services offered by the Post Office and by private courier concerns in competition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1987, c. 413] The enterprise and deregulation unit is involved in the discussions referred to by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) in his reply to my hon. Friend's related question on 6 May at column 418. I shall write to my hon. Friend on the outcome of these discussions.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Radiation
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations his Department has undertaken into the effect of radiation, from sources other than the Chernobyl disaster, on farming in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jopling
  The Ministry has for many years monitored radioactivity in the terrestrial and aquatic environment relating to major nuclear installations in England and Wales. From January 1986, an enhanced programme of monitoring for radioactivity in agricultural produce in the vicinity of such sites was established. Reports will be published annually.
  171
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how long he anticipates the radioactive lamb movement ban is likely to continue in force.

  Mr. Jopling
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on 27 April at column 67.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in how many areas in Cumbria there have been readings of radioactivity on lambs, which have shown an increase recently compared to corresponding readings taken in the autumn and this winter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jopling
  Recent live monitoring of sheep leaving the restricted areas of Cumbria has shown a decrease in radioactivity levels as against autumn and winter readings. We will be keeping a close watch on levels in new season's lambs. However, it is still too early for the effects of consumption of fresh vegetation to be seen.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions his Department sponsored advertisements in national newspapers in the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used in these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Mr. Jopling
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Bruce
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will increase the suckler cow premium to £33.40 per head at the earliest available opportunity.

  Mr. Jopling
  The agreement reached by the Agriculture Council in December on the reform of the beef regime included provision for an increase in the suckler cow premium, which targets support on the specialist beef sector. Now that the changes to the beef intervention system have come into effect and to enable producers to plan for the opening date of the 1987–88 scheme on 15 June, I am pleased to announce that the rate for the coming scheme year will be increased from £24·74 to £33·40 per head. The detailed arrangements for the scheme will be announced shortly.

  Farm Forestry and Cereals
  Mr. Ashby
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make it his policy to ensure that tenant farmers are consulted and allowed to participate on an equal basis with owner occupiers in any schemes for farm forestry and cereal set asides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Interests representing tenant farmers were consulted on our proposed farm woodland scheme and will be consulted in the coming months on our proposals for implementing the EC extensification scheme, which we hope will allow us to develop some of our ideas for cereals land diversion. The consultation document on the farm woodland scheme set out two 172
  possible ways in which tenants might participate in the scheme. These and other options will be considered further in the light of the responses to the consultation exercise.

  Agricultural Commodities
  Mr. Jackson
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his reasons for opposing the imposition of quotas on further agricultural commodities within the common agricultural policy.

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

  Cereals
  Mr. Jackson
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his reasons for favouring a cereals land diversion scheme which is voluntary rather than compulsory.

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

  Intervention Butter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the Council of Ministers approved the extension of regulation 1341/86 to enable intervention butter to be transferred from Germany to Italy; and if the Council was informed regarding the purpose for which such butter was to be used.

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

  New Zealand
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy on the import of agricultural produce from New Zealand.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987, c. 563] I assume my hon. Friend is referring to imports of butter from New Zealand on special terms.

  These arrangements derive from Protocol 18 of the United Kingdom Act of Accession to the European Community and from the declaration by Community Heads of Government in March 1975, although the quantities and detailed conditions fall to be determined periodically by the Council of Ministers. The Government support their continuation, because of the importance to New Zealand's economy of access for butter to the United Kingdom market.

  The quantity of butter which may be imported under these special arrangements has been progressively reduced from the initial quantity of 166,000 tonnes set in 1973 to 76,500 tonnes this year. It will be further reduced to 74,000 tonnes in 1988.

  Small Producers
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government have taken since 1979 to support small-scale agricultural producers.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987, c. 565] The Government's agricultural policy generally takes account of the range of agricultural activity in the United

  173
  Kingdom and of the variety of farm size and structure. However, measures introduced by the Government of particular benefit to smaller scale producers include:

  the extension of the less favoured areas in 1984;

  the introduction of, and the recent doubling of resources for environmentally sensitive areas;

  new opportunities for diversification with grant available for ancillary businesses on or adjacent to farms;

  arrangements to restore the milk quota received by producers with less than 200,000 litres of quota to their pre-quota level;

  making direct compensation payments in 1984–85 and 1985–86 to alleviate the effect of the milk co-responsibility levy on small-scale producers;

  obtaining over £3·3 million of EC aid to offset the effect of the cereals co-responsibility levy on small producers;

  reform of capital transfer tax to abolish the tax on capital gifts made between individuals during their lifetime;

  introduction of the agricultural improvement scheme which gives particular benefit to smaller farmers who draw up improvement plans, and provides for a 25 per cent. supplement on capital grants available under the scheme to many young new entrants to farming.

SCOTLAND

  Hospital Pharmacists
  Mr. Kennedy
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the establishment of hospital pharmacists in each health board in Scotland.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Information on the establishment of hospital pharmacists is not collected centrally.

  Colleges of Education (Financial Management Survey)
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the report on financial management survey relative to colleges of education, indicating what time has been given for consultation and when a final decision will be taken; if he will state the numbers of submissions so far made; and if he will make an interim statement on his conclusions.

  Mr. John MacKay
  I have arranged for copies of this report to be placed in the Library. The survey is one of a series aimed at producing improvements in the management of executive non-departmental public bodies, as part of the Government's financial management initiative.

  The report addresses management issues in the Scottish Education Department and in the colleges, and it has not therefore been issued as a consultative document, although college principals have been consulted on parts relevent to them. The Department shortly will issue an action plan to the colleges indicating the extent to which individual recommendations have been accepted and the suggested timetable for their implementation.

  Ninewells Hospital (Mammography Unit)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends that a mammography unit should be established at Ninewells hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Discussions are in progress with Health Boards about the locations of the first two or three centres for breast cancer screening and an announcement will be made once these discussions are complete.

  Stirling University
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been paid in grants by the Scottish Development Agency to Stirling university in each of the past three financial years; and for what projects the grants were given.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table:

  Gram (£000)

  Project

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Scottish Graduate Enterprise Scheme

  32

  —

  —

  Small Business Resource Centre

  —

  13

  24·5

  Scottish Graduate Enterprise Scheme

  —

  —

  30·0

  In addition a grant payment of £350,000 was paid to Stirling enterprise park (associated with Stirling university) under the local enterprise grants for urban projects scheme in March 1985.

  AIDS
  Mrs. McCurley
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to announce proposals for a curricular project on AIDS.

  Mr. John MacKay
  We believe teaching designed to avoid the spread of AIDS should be included in the curriculum of every pupil in a way appropriate to the age-groups concerned. To be effective such teaching should be part of a carefully planned programme of health and sex education.

  The most urgent needs are therefore for guidelines within which schools can plan a programme of health and sex education and then for curricular materials on AIDS and related issues which can be used by teachers, with appropriate in-service training, in the contexts such a programme will provide.

  The Scottish Home and Health Department has now agreed to collaborate with Strathclyde regional council on a curricular project designed to meet these needs. The project is modelled on the successful partnership which produced the "Drugwise 12–14" package. It will begin as soon as possible and run to June 1988. A contribution of £50,000 will be made by the Department to the salary costs of the project team, whose remit will be as follows:

  i. to devise, drawing from existing good practice and consulting as appropriate, a general health and social education framework covering all stages of education from pre 5 to 16. The framework should illustrate the sequencing and timing of topics, the approach to be taken to ensure that each stage builds on pupils' previous experience and knowledge, and the need to promote positive attitudes. The framework should show how sensitive issues such as smoking, alcohol, drugs, sexual behaviour and diseases such as AIDS can be dealt with in context. It should take into account the recommendations of the joint Consultative Committee on the Curriculum/Scottish Health Education Group Working party which is considering the provision of health education, including sex education, for the 10–14 age group;

  ii

  (a) to review existing materials relevant to teaching about AIDS, and to draft new materials as necessary; to prepare a programme of piloting and evaluation of such materials and to formulate guidance on the in-service training requirements of teachers expected to work with them. The preparation of materials should take into account the views of interested parties, including the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum, the Scottish Home and Health Department, the Scottish Health Education Group, teaching staff, parents, churches, Health Boards and other education

  175
  authorities. In preparing materials, the team should also take into account the possibility that parents may prefer to tackle certain of these issues directly with their children.

  (b) to devise finally detailed guidance on in-service training and a package of curricular materials for use in the classroom on AIDS and associated issues. The package should be capable of dissemination at national level for use in school health and social education programmes.

  The Department will appoint a broadly based consultative group to ensure that the direction of the project reflects a national consensus of opinion. As with Drugwise the materials which result from the project will be made available throughout Scotland.

  Penal Establishments
  Mr. Pollock
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has made for the future use of penal establishments in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have now completed a detailed review of the use of penal establishments in Scotland in the light of completion of new accommodation at Phase II of Shotts prison and the measures needed to reduce overcrowding in local prisons notably Aberdeen, Barlinnie, Edinburgh and Inverness prisons.

  Because of the Government's capital investment programme, 180 extra places became available last year when Greenock prison re-opened and 468 extra places will be available as Shotts prison phase II is occupied in the second half of this year. Since January 1985, there has been an increase of 40 per cent. in the average daily penal population serving long sentences. This increase, particularly in numbers of adult male prisoners, has put additional pressures on local prisons and on the existing training halls for long-term prisoners at Edinburgh, Perth, Greenock and Shotts prisons. Although additional capacity has been planned, changes in the use of some establishments were essential to match available places more closely to needs for different categories of inmate.

  In the earlier part of this year, urgent temporary measures were taken to reduce the pressure on Barlinnie and other local prisons by making use of under-occupied accommodation for young offenders. One hall at Glenochil YOI was used for this purpose from March and a second hall was taken into use for adult prisoners on a temporary basis from 6 April. With effect from 13 April, Noranside institution, which had been used as an open young offenders' institution, became an adult open prison and now houses just under 100 adult inmates.

  After consultation with the Trade Union Side of the Scottish Prison Service and comments from other interested parties, such as visiting committees for individual establishments, I have decided that the whole of Glenochil YOI should be used on a permanent basis as an adult prison and that Dumfries prison (apart from its local accommodation for remands) and Greenock prison should replace Glenochil as secure young offenders institutions. With the change of use, and the change of use for Noranside which has already taken place, about 300 places in the young offender system will have been transferred to use for adult prisoners. The final timetable, and detailed arrangements for the change of use of Glenochil YOI, Dumfries prison and Greenock prison are now being worked out and will be implemented as quickly as possible from June this year.
  176
  Friarton institution, which is being used for short-term adult prisoners at present, will be retained for adults for the time being. If additional places for convicted young offenders prove to be necessary, we will give further consideration to use of Friarton as a medium security young offenders institution.

  I am satisfied that these measures will substantially reduce recent levels of overcrowding in adult local prisons, provide a more suitable range of facilities and opportunities for long-term adult prisoners and young offenders, and enable essential repairs in older prison halls to proceed sooner than would otherwise be possible. The need for different kinds of accommodation will continue to be carefully monitored in relation to the size and balance of the population of Scottish penal establishments.

  Tourist Board
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the expenditure by the Scottish tourist board for each year since 1983 at home and overseas and also details of total expenditure by area tourist boards and other agencies on promoting tourism in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 May 1987, c. 43]: Total expenditure by the Scottish tourist board in supporting tourism development was as follows:

  Financial year

  (£ million)

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Domestic

  8·1

  9·8

  8·4

  8·7

  Overseas1

  —

  0·2

  0·3

  0·4

  Total

  8·1

  10·0

  8·7

  9·1

  1 No overseas expenditure in 1983–84.

  Comparable expenditure by area tourist boards, local authorities and the Highlands and Islands Development Board over the same period was as follows:

  Financial year

  (£ million)

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Area Tourist

  Boards1

  2—

  4·7

  5·1

  35·6

  Local

  current

  3·1

  2·8

  3·3

  33·6

  capital

  0·3

  0·2

  0·5

  30·3

  Highlands and Islands

  Development Board

  8·6

  8·2

  8·9

  8·8

  1 Includes financial contributions made by the Scottish Tourist Board, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and local authorities.

  2 1983–84 figures not available: ATB network in process of establishment.

  3 Provisional.

  Figures on expenditure by the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Development Agency are not available.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Southend Airport (Bus Link)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what response he has had to the representations made to the European Economic Community Commission regarding the refusal of the German authorities to give permission for a bus to operate from Ostend to Frankfurt and link with an air service from Southend airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have asked the Commission to review, as a matter of urgency, under article 14 of Regulation EC 517/72, the Federal Republic of Germany's refusal to authorise a British bus company to run a scheduled service between London and Frankfurt. We await a response from the Commission.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Servants (Wages and Conditions)
  Mr. Flannery
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact in Northern Ireland of the campaign by civil servants for improved wages and conditions.

  Mr. Scott
  The campaign of industrial action by Northern Ireland civil servants had its most serious impact during week commencing 13 April when Northern Ireland was affected by the trade union's regional programme of strike action.

  During that week 10 out of 34 social security offices plus two other central benefit offices were closed on Monday to Wednesday. This increased to 33 social security offices being closed on the Thursday and Friday. In addition, a number of Department of Economic Development job markets had to be closed. On the Monday to Wednesday the level of absence on strike action within the selected DHSS Offices was marginally in excess of 80 per cent. On the Thursday and Friday the overall level of absence across all departments was around 35 per cent.

  The major effect of this industrial action in the community was that a significant number of people did not receive their social security benefits during the week in question.

  Alcoholism (Health Funds)
  Mr. John David
  Taylor asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of public funds from (a) Department of Health and Social Services and (b) the area health boards have been made available each year for the past 10 years to (i) the Northern Ireland Council on Alcohol Ltd., (ii) the Council on Alcohol Related Problems and (iii) the Northland Centre in Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Northern Ireland Council on Alcohol

  Council on Alcohol Related Problems

  Northlands

  £

  £

  £

  (a) Funding from the Department of Health and Social Services

  1986–87

  66,426

  22,868

  87,200

  178

  Year

  Northern Ireland Council on Alcohol

  Council on Alcohol Related Problems

  Northlands

  £

  £

  £

  1985–86

  57,950·30

  22,202

  22,500

  1984–85

  55,599

  23,924

  17,000

  1983–84

  139,461

  18,887

  —

  1982–83

  47,168·50

  26,933

  664·50

  1981–82

  43,346

  15,224

  —

  1980–81

  36,350

  11,940

  —

  1979–80

  23,530

  4,000

  —

  1978–79

  15,000

  3,000

  —

  1977–78

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Funding from Health and Social Services Board

  1986–87

  19,428

  —

  45,000

  1985–86

  6,197

  —

  37,000

  1984–85

  8,000

  —

  37,000

  1983–84

  4,500

  508

  36,000

  1982–83

  —

  —

  34,000

  1981–82

  —

  —

  34,000

  1980–81

  —

  —

  30,000

  1979–80

  —

  —

  30,000

  1978–79

  —

  —

  20,000

  1977–78

  —

  —

  15,000

  Terrorism
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the total cost of resisting the terrorist campaign since 1969.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 May 1987, c. 392]: One cannot give any completely reliable figure for the total costs incurred by a number of different Departments and agencies in resisting the terrorist campaign since 1969. However, the following table gives some indication of the scale of expenditure involved:

  Year

  Additional Cost1 of Deploying the Armed Forces in support of the RUC (£'000)

  Expenditure1 by the NIO on Law, Order, Protective and Miscellaneous Services2 5 (£'000)

  1969–70

  1,500

  n/a

  1970–71

  6,500

  n/a

  1971–72

  14,000

  n/a

  1972–73

  29,000

  n/a

  1973–74

  33,000

  n/a

  1974–75

  45,000

  99,529

  1975–76

  60,000

  146,030

  1976–77

  65,000

  165,383

  1977–78

  69,000

  172,536

  1978–79

  81,000

  199,317

  1979–80

  96,000

  240,781

  1980–81

  111,000

  299,696

  1981–82

  3149,000

  334,446

  1982–83

  134,000

  351,177

  1983–84

  141,000

  365,959

  1984–85

  134,000

  394,382

  1985–86

  127,000

  436,333

  1986–87

  150,000

  4480,300

  Notes:

  n/a=not available.

  1 All figures are in actual terms.

  2The LOPMS budget includes expenditure on items (eg civil defence) not directly related to the terrorist campaign, and the bulk of LOPMS expenditure (eg on the RUC and on prisons) does not all arise from the terrorist campaign.

  3The basis for calculating the armed forces additional costs was changed in 1981–82.

  4 This figure is still an estimate.

  5Other Departments (eg the Lord Chancellor's Department and

  179
  the Attorney-General's office) incur expenditure in Northern Ireland which arises from the terrorist campaign and which is not included in this table.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. Archer
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were arrested by the police in Northern Ireland in 1986 under emergency legislation, and under other arrest powers; how many in each category complained whilst in police custody of irregular conduct by police officers during interview procedures; how many of any such complaints in each category were not subsequently pursued by complainants with the Police Complaints Board; and what proportion of those persons were arrested under emergency legislation who alleged irregular conduct by police officers during interview procedures were at the time being interviewed at (a) Castlereagh and (b) Gough police offices, respectively.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 May 1987, c. 536] In 1986, 2,212 people were arrested by the Royal Ulster Constabulary under the emergency legislation; 317 subsequently made allegations about irregular conduct by police officers. Of these, 51·4 per cent. (163) had been interviewed at Castlereagh and 382 per cent. (121) at Gough barracks police offices. The remainder had been interviewed elsewhere.

  During 1986 the Police Complaints Board dealt with 251 cases of complaints by persons arrested under emergency legislation; of these, 196 were subsequently not pursued by the complainants.

  Information requested about persons arrested under other arrest powers is not available in the form requested.

  However, in 1986 the Police Complaints Board received a total of 2,775 complaints; of these 1,111 were withdrawn by the complainants. In addition, during 1986 the board granted 521 requests from the RUC, under regulation 11 of the RUC (Complaints) Regulations 1977, to dispense with the requirements of section 13 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1970 and of article 5(1) and (4) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 as the complaints were anonymous, repetitious or incapable of investigation.

  Housing
  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are on the housing waiting list in the Armagh urban area and Keady urban area.

  Mr. Needham
  [pursuant to his reply,7 May 1987, c. 539]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I understand from the chairman that at 30 April 1987 there were 236 applications on the Housing Executive's waiting list for the Armagh urban area and 53 applications for the Keady area.

  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to how many new houses are to be built in the Armagh urban area and the Keady area in 1987–88 year.

  Mr. Needham
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 May 1987, c. 539]: This is a matter for the Housing Executive in the first instance, but I understand from the chairman that in the 1987–88 financial year the Housing Executive expects to complete 12 houses in the Armagh urban area and plans to start a further 12. No house completions or starts are planned in the Keady area in the same period.

  Beef
  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Anglo-Irish Beef (International) Ltd., Newry, has applied for grants for 16 to 18-year-olds soon to be employed there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 May 1987, c. 539]: Anglo-Irish Beef Packers (Newry) Ltd. has discussed the training of young workers aged 17 to 18 with the Department of Economic Development (DED) but have not yet made an application for assistance.

  All employers in Northern Ireland are entitled to apply for assistance towards the training of young employees under the youth training programme work scheme. Before eligible recruits can be taken on the DED must approve the plans made for their training and be satisfied that arrangements will be conducive to good training.

  Strip Searching
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many strip searches were made of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry, in March and April 1987, respectively; if he will give the number of persons involved and the number of times each person was searched; whether any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being concluded; and if he will indicate the reasons for the search, namely, making an appearance in court on remand and in which court, attending trial, inter-prison visit or other reasons;

  (2) how many strip searches were made of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry, in June 1986; if he will give the number of persons involved and the number of times each person was searched; whether any prison contraband, smuggled items or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and if he will indicate the reasons for the search, namely, making an appearance in court, and in which court, on remand, attending trial, inter-prison visit or other reasons.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987, column 568]: The information requested is as follows:

  1986

  1987

  June

  March

  April

  Total number of searches carried out

  36

  33

  49

  Total number of inmates searched

  23

  20

  27

  Number of prisoners searched once

  13

  9

  9

  Number of prisoners searched twice

  8

  9

  15

  Number of prisoners searched three times

  1

  2

  2

  Number of prisoners searched four times

  1

  —

  1

  First admission on remand/awaiting trial

  7

  2

  8

  First admission on sentence/final discharge

  18

  17

  25

  Attending Antrim remand court

  —

  —

  1

  Attending Armagh remand court

  —

  —

  1

  Attending Belfast remand court

  —

  6

  2

  Attending Larne remand court

  —

  1

  —

  Attending Newtownards remand court

  —

  2

  —

  Attending trial

  1

  —

  —

  Attending appeal

  —

  1

  1

  Bail court appearances

  5

  2

  7

  Going on or returning from home leave

  —

  2

  2

  Compassionate home leave

  4

  —

  —

  Inter-prison visits

  1

  —

  2

  181
  No prohibited article was found during these searches and no prisoner refused to be searched.

  Police Federation
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why he has not consulted the Northern Ireland Police Federation about measures to enhance security in Northern Ireland; and what steps he is now taking to respond to the 13 point proposals on this and related matters made recently to his Department and the Chief Constable by the secretary of the federation.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987, c. 568]: I am in regular contact with the federation and am aware of its views on a wide range of issues, including security policy. As I explained in the House on 6 May, at column 810, there is a distinction between Ministers listening to the federation's views on general security policy matters and the federation seeking to involve Ministers in operational judgments and decisions. Concerns of an operational nature must properly be passed through the Royal Ulster Constabulary chain of command to the Chief Constable using the normal management and consultation structures that exist for that purpose.

  I have not received the document to which my hon. Friend referred; but I understand that the Chief Constable
  182
  will be replying in due course to a letter about law and order issues which the federation's secretary sent to him on 24 April.

  Birds (EEC Directive)
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for Northern Ireland those sites which have been identified as meeting the criteria for designation under the EEC birds directive as special protection areas and under the Ramsar convention; when these sites will be designated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 May 1987, c. 27]: No sites have been identified as meeting the criteria for designation under the EC wild birds directive as special protection areas; survey and assessment of sites likely to meet the criteria is ongoing in association with an extensive survey of sites of scientific interest being undertaken by the Department.

  Under the Ramsar convention, parts of Lough Foyle and Strangford Lough meet the required criteria; designation will be considered following their designation as areas of special scientific interest. Lough Neagh and Lough Beg are already listed as Ramsar sites.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take the opportunity to inform the House that on Friday, 15th May I am to have the honour of attending upon His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester when he opens the new combined courts centre at Peterborough. Accordingly I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 15th May.

Lebanon: UNIFIL Mandate
Lord Chelwood: 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 is the present strength of the United Nations International Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), what prevents it from carrying out its present mandate and by how much it would need to be reinforced to provide protection for all Palestinian refugees living in camps in Lebanon.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, UNIFIL's current strength is approximately 5,700. The continued Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon and the resistance this provokes among the local population have prevented the full implementation of UNIFIL's mandate. Protection of the Palestinian refugee camps is not part of UNIFIL's mandate.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, while UNIFIL and UNWRA have done their best under near impossible conditions, may I ask my noble friend whether she can confirm that some 140,000 Palestinian refugees are in the camps? Is not that figure probably an underestimate? Secondly, does my noble friend share the quite widely held view that there is a serious risk that the Beirut camps might be beseiged again? To try to reduce this risk and dissuade Israel from terror raids on Ein Hilwe which has 30,000 helpless occupants, will the Government co-operate with the European Community in raising these questions in the Security Council?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I confirm that the number of refugees in the camps is approximately as my noble friend has described, but the total number is higher. I should not want to speculate on whether or not the camps might be beseiged again, as I believe my noble friend will understand. The Security Council is fully seized of the problem. We, as the Government,
536
have supported the Security Council statements of 13th February and 19th March calling for a ceasefire and for the relief agencies to be allowed access to the camps.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, against this tragic background, is the noble Baroness aware that Mr. Shimon Peres said recently that Israel fully supports UNIFIL and is further prepared to enter into negotiations with the Lebanon or with any other relevant partner in the area under the authority of Resolutions 242 and 338? To what extent do Her Majesty's Government support that initiative and what are they doing about it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have argued and said to Israel that she should complete the withdrawal from the Lebanon to enable UNIFIL to deploy to the international border because we recognise the valuable work that UNIFIL is doing. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will know, our own position and that of the Community is based on the ministerial statement of 23rd February in which we expressed support in principle for an international conference as a framework for negotiations between the parties directly concerned.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, would not the best way of easing the Palestine refugee situation be for their leader Arafat to recognise the state of Israel and also to indicate that the peace talks suggested by the Israeli Labour party leader have his full support?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, will be fully aware of the British Government's policy, which is based on the recognition of the state of Israel and the Palestinian's right to exist.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, apropos the stated support of Israel for UNIFIL, can the Government confirm that Israel is the only neighbour of Lebanon which is blamed by UNIFIL in its most recent six-monthly report to the United Nations and that to help Israel withdraw, as UNIFIL and we have asked, to its own border, it would be a good idea if whoever it is were to stop firing katyushas at them out of the area that they now occupy?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I answered in a previous question, the British Government's view is quite clear. We have urged Israel to complete withdrawal from the Lebanon to enable UNIFIL, whose work in very difficult circumstances we admire, to be deployed to the international border.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that, as with the invasion of Afghanistan, which this House has rightly condemned, so we ought to condemn the behaviour of the Israelis in south Lebanon where they have blatantly ignored the unanimous decision of Security Council Resolutions 408 and 409? We cannot say in this House that we support only resolutions of the Security Council that are against the Soviet Union.
Is the noble Baroness aware of the appalling reports in our British press of the slaying of men, women and

537
young children in south Lebanon by Israeli air forces allegedly attacking terrorists? Should we not raise our voice and make clear that, as with Afghanistan, we deplore this sort of behaviour?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think I would draw an analogy between the situation in the Lebanon and that in Afghanistan. The position of the British Government is as I have described it. We do not in any way condone the Israeli raids and the naval shelling of targets in southern Lebanon. The Israelis are well aware of our view that such actions only add to the cycle of violence in the area.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we warmly welcome the initiative of Her Majesty's Government towards a conference. Taking that side by side with the offer of Mr. Shimon Peres for talks, can the noble Baroness say what progress has been made in connection with the initiative and is there any hope that a conference on these appalling problems can be held soon?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord says about our wish for an international conference. Indeed we have made our view quite clear. We want to encourage and assist the parties to narrow the gap both on participation in the conference and on modalities so that a conference can be convened with a realistic chance of success. We have held important discussions with the parties and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed the issue with King Hussein on 9th April.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the threat to the Palestinians in the Beirut camps comes from the Amal militia? Is she aware that the Amal are armed with tanks and artillery and that, quite apart from its mandate, UNIFIL would as at present constituted be quite unable to provide the protection which we should all like to see provided?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's point that UNIFIL is not the right body to protect the camps in that sense. Its mandate does not cover their protection. We all share his widespread horror at the suffering that has been inflicted on the civilian population by the violence in the Lebanon.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, as the question of the recognition of Israel by Arafat has been raised, though that was not the object of my Question, would it not help a good deal if the Israeli Government ceased to look with total disdain on binding Security Council resolutions requiring their withdrawal from the occupied territories?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my noble friend will understand that I do not wish to get drawn further into this. The position is as I have stated it and it is built on Security Council Resolution 242.

Football Hooliganism
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
538
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there has been a reduction in the incidence of football hooliganism during the 1986–87 season compared with recent years.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, a detailed assessment of the incidence of football hooliganism will be made later this month following the completion of the Football League programme of matches. The Association of Chief Police Officers for England and Wales will provide my right honourable friend the Home Secretary with statistics on attendances. arrests and ejections at Football League matches and with its assessment of the position in relation to previous years. He will announce the result of this appraisal in due course.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Will he pass to the police congratulations on finding and bringing to trial the gang of five who were sentenced yesterday? Can he confirm that television video recordings have helped to identify the perpetrators of violence and that this could be a lesson and a warning to others who might be tempted to cause trouble?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question and I do so agree with him that the police officers involved deserve the highest praise for bringing a very difficult operation to a successful conclusion. We hope that this will be a warning to potential troublemakers.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the imposition of attendance centre orders, whether senior or junior, which have to be served on Saturday afternoons have had a beneficial effect on the perpetrators of football hooliganism?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if there is an attendance order on somebody who might cause trouble at a football ground and he is not allowed to cause trouble as a result of it, that surely must be beneficial.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether when the statistics are published they will include information about hooliganism by British subjects abroad? Can he also say whether they will give an indication of the number of lives lost as a result of this hooliganism?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure to what extent the statistics will contain the information that my noble friend wants, but I shall draw the points he makes to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, will similar statistics be produced by the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to Scotland? If they are, they will show quite clearly that what we are dealing with here as evidenced in the courts is an English disease. Is the noble Earl aware that there has been nothing but praise for the behaviour of the Scottish supporters who went to Gothenburg just the other week?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no objective assessment has yet been made for the current session in Scotland, but I agree with the noble Lord that the preliminary view is that improvement in football crowd behaviour have been maintained this season. It should be noted that there has been a considerable increase in attendances.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in joining in the general congratulations from these Benches both to the police and to the Scots, will the noble Earl inform the House whether from the reports that he has received so far it looks as though the alcohol provisions which came into recent legislation passed by Parliament have helped in keeping down hooliganism at football grounds?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we firmly believe that the legislation that this House passed not so long ago has been an enormous contribution. It was the police view earlier in the year that the welcome improvement in behaviour last season has generally been maintained this season.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will my noble friend also agree that the earlier legislation which banned drink at football grounds in Scotland showed the way and indicated that this would give rise to considerable improvement?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as so often happens, England has followed the lead of Scotland in this field.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that, of all the elements that can assist in reducing hooliganism, the supporters' clubs have a major part to play? While I understand the Minister saying that they have been part of the consultation process, will he not agree that concentration on encouraging supporters' clubs to be more vigilant not only about their members but about non-members whom they can identify would go a long way to reducing hooliganism?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Of course we wish to give support to the supporters' clubs because anything that can reduce violence and hooliganism at football matches must be encouraged.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, further to the widely accepted connection between under-age drinking and football hooliganism, is the Minister generally satisfied with the enforcement of the laws against under-age drinking which leads to these abuses?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the word "generally" takes the noble Viscount's question rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Restart Programme: Statistics
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
540
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of the registered unemployed so far interviewed under the restart programme have been removed from the register and for what categories of reasons.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, no one with a legitimate claim to benefit has been removed from the unemployment count after a restart interview.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has got into the habit of not answering the Question I ask. Will he confirm that in the letters sent to the recipients of this restart programme one sentence reads:
"People who do not attend interviews without good cause may lose their benefit"?
Can he tell the House how many of those who were called to interview and did not attend lost their benefit as a consequence?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, as I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is perfectly well aware, being available for work has been a condition of unemployment benefit since 1947. It was re-enacted in legislation in 1975, a date that the noble Lord may recognise as being a year when this particular Government were not in power. I believe that some 8,000 or so people have not appeared and therefore have lost their benefit, but I shall check on the figure.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the past the noble Lord has referred to this scheme as a gateway. Does he recall that in January 84 per cent. of those interviewed under the scheme did not proceed any further? They stayed unemployed. About 1 per cent. succeeded in getting jobs. Can the noble Lord say whether there has been any improvement in that situation since January?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, I have said to your Lordships' House—and it appears that I may have to say it yet again to noble Lords opposite—that this restart programme, which has interviewed 1.6 million people since it was introduced, is about helping unemployed people back into work; people whom I suspect noble Lords opposite would be quite happy to see receive benefit, and allowed to rot. I say this advisedly because we have found that the only way in which we can help those who have been discouraged from finding work because they perceive that it is difficult to find work is to bring them to an interview.
It is remarkable that 1 per cent. of those people go into jobs as a result of that interview. However, I must tell your Lordships that 89 per cent. of people attending restart interviews receive an offer of some sort to help them back into work; 73 per cent. accept that offer. We have to recognise that we have reversed the direction of long-term unemployment, as indeed we have reversed the direction of unemployment as a whole.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the figure he has just given us of 73 per cent.

541
taking some route to employment underlines the fact that the long-term unemployed are emphatically genuinely seeking employment?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have never in any way implied that those who have been out of work for a long time are not genuinely seeking employment. However, it appears that many of them have given up looking for employment and therefore it is important to bring them back. I also know that one in four of those seeking work—some 340,000 people—suffer from lack of skills of literacy and numeracy, and this makes their looking for work extremely difficult. There are many problems that we have to solve, and I believe that we are on the way to doing so.
Perhaps it will give noble Lords opposite comfort to know that I have read the following in a document called New Skills for Britain, which the Labour Party published on 19th March 1987:
"We will seek to bring together the restart counselling programme and other initiatives under the general rubric of the jobs, enterprise and training programme".
I see little difference between that and what this Government are actually doing.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not have the figures with him that may be understandable, but under the restart scheme is it possible that people who do not apply can have their unemployment benefit stopped? Is there any appeal for them if that course is undertaken by officialdom?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is perfectly possible that those who do not attend an interview can have their benefit stopped. That is possible because the condition for receiving benefit is that they should be available for work. Surely if people are available for work, they should also be available to attend a meeting at a job centre. Those who have been referred for failing to attend the interview comprise some 6 per cent. It so happens that at the end of the day 0.8 per cent. are actually disallowed for failing to attend the interview. I believe that this is a very small percentage of all those attending the restart interview. Restart is about helping long-term unemployed people back into work. It is not about anything else.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is the Secretary of State in a position to tell us how many long-term unemployed people have so far been helped back to work as a result of the additional job-start interviews now available at six-monthly intervals, to which he referred in his Statement to the House on 28th January last?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is a little early to say because these six-monthly interviews started only a week or two ago—in the main after Easter. I can tell your Lordships' House that some 320,764 people—some 20 per cent. of those written to—have left the register after receiving a letter from the Manpower Services Commission. Some 187,229, or 12 per cent., have left after having had an interview. I would not for one moment claim that all of this is a result of the restart programme because, although
542
noble Lords opposite often find it difficult to understand, many people leave the register in any event. We should not wish to take credit for any reduction in unemployment that we did not ourselves create.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Secretary of State says that he does not understand the difference between the Labour Party's policy on unemployment and his own policy. Is he aware, or will he confirm, that since this Government came to office in 1979 the staff of the jobcentres has been decreased by 2,000 during a period in which unemployment has trebled? Will he also confirm that when the restart programme was begun only 1,800 were employed to conduct the interviews? As a result of both these figures long queues have formed. Does he not understand that the Labour Party will ensure that those programmes which are put forward by a Labour Government will be adequately staffed and will not cut down to the detriment of the unemployed themselves?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think that the kindest way in which I can describe the assertions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is to say that they are total nonsense. We have substantially increased the staff of the jobcentres. We are well aware of how to conduct the restart interviews. No queues develop because interviews are by appointment. There may be an occasional short queue due to sickness or illness. We managed to interview 1.6 million people by the due date. If it is any consolation, what I saw in the Labour Party proposals—I know full well the distinction between that document and our programmes—is the general affirmation that restart is a sensible, practical way to help the long-term unemployed. It is only the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, who, I suspect, still tries to make this a party matter. Let us on all sides of the House agree that the unemployed deserve to be helped and should be helped.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say whether inquiries have been made of the people who fail to attend an interview before they are disqualified from benefit? If inquiries are made, what reasons are given?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, many inquiries are made: there is an appeals procedure by an independent officer. That is why some 6 per cent. of people were referred to the officer for failing to attend for interview and only 0.8 per cent. were ultimately disqualified.

Scientology Cult
3.2 p.m.
Lord Rodney: 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 action they are contemplating in view of the growing public concern arising out of the recent "Panorama" programme featuring the Cult of Scientology.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we think that the "Panorama" programme illustrated again the unpleasant and ludicrous character of Scientology. We are, however, aware of no particular need to take action over the British part of the organisation at this stage.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that Answer which I do not find satisfactory. I would not go so far as describing Scientology as "ludicrous". It is much more serious than that. In view of the fact that this cult and others are international and cross national frontiers, will Her Majesty's Government consider liaising with other governments on the possibility of controlling and containing these organisations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that my noble friend suggests that there must be international co-operation when there is an allegation of criminal behaviour. Of course I support him in that; criminal behaviour is a matter for the police.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while the question of civil liberties may arise in regard to questions of this kind, perhaps I may ask this question. Can the noble Earl assure the House that there is no question of Scientology, or any allied cause, achieving charitable status in this country? If that is not the position have the Government any plans to alter the charity law in order to make such a position impossible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; but there must always be a balance between freedom of expression and practice within the law on the one hand the need to safeguard from abuse the basic freedom of members of society on the other. We shall continue to watch that position with care. With regard to his second point on charitable status, I confirm that Scientology is not a charity, and that we have no proposals to change the position.
Lord Denning: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are over 100 such religious cults operating in this country, coming mostly from America? They exercise the most pernicious influence on our society, especially on family life, separating children from parents and making huge profits and fortunes for their founders. In these circumstances, is it not high time that there should be legislation to curb their activities, for example, by a licensing system under which they could be struck off if guilty of practices harmful to the state?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I, and I am sure the House, are well aware of the concern of the noble and learned Lord in this matter, and of his great knowledge in respect of it. He used the word "religious"; but I should put that word in inverted commas after watching the "Panorama" programme, where there seemed to be no qualification to claim that title. The noble and learned Lord also used the word "children". So far as we can detect, Scientology has been careful not to attract children, because if it did it would break the law and there would be a criminal
544
offence where action must be taken. It appears to be concentrating upon obtaining money and members from the older generation.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, bearing in mind the shadowy and nebulous nature of cults, will Her Majesty's Government consider maintaining so far as possible a register of the cults which are known to the Home Office in order to carry out that suggestion?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that we in the Home Office are aware of most of the cults operating in this country and we shall watch the position. However, if there is an allegation of criminal behaviour, I repeat that action will be taken by the police in the usual way.

Future Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, I told your Lordships last night that I would be making a further Statement today concerning Thursday's business. The business on Thursday will now be as follows:

Finance Bill: Second Reading and remaining stages.

Consolidated Fund Bill: Second Reading and remaining stages.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]: Consideration of Commons Amendments.

Family Law Reform Bill [H.L.]: Consideration of Commons Amendments.

Consumer Protection Bill [H.L.]: Consideration of Commons Amendments.

Local Government Bill: Second Reading and remaining stages.

Parliamentary and Other Pensions Bill: Second Reading and remaining stages.

Diplomatic and Consular Premises Bill: Second Reading and remaining stages.

Sheep and Goats (Removal to Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1987: Motion for approval.

Home Grown Cereals Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1987: Motion for approval.

Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1987: Motion for approval.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, before moving the first business Motion, I should point out to the House that the standing order numbers appearing on the Order Paper should be 38 and 44. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended for the remainder of this Session so far as is necessary to give Her Majesty's Government power to arrange the order of business; and that Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the same period.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Caithness to advance the Report stage of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill from Thursday next to this day.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Bill
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That notwithstanding Standing Order 86 (Notice of meeting), the Standing Orders Committee shall meet at half-past two o'clock on Wednesday, 13th May to consider the certificate from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills of yesterday.—(Viscount Whitelaw.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill
3.9 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Liability of carriers for passengers without proper documents]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("the sum of £1,000 or") and insert ("a sum not exceeding £1,000 or not exceeding")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the penalty in the Bill is described as being "the sum of £1,000". In Committee your Lordships seemed to be of the opinion that it was £1,000 or nothing in every case. I ventured to suggest that that appeared to be a piece of rigidity and did not enable the Home Secretary to demand a penalty lower than £1,000 if there were extenuating circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, expressed the view that surely it must be open to the Home Secretary to demand a lower penalty in an appropriate case. I take that to be the Government's opinion. If that is so, why not say so in the Bill by using the conventional words?
The conventional method of drafting a maximum penalty is surely to say, "a sum not exceeding so much". Then the matter is perfectly clear. To abandon the convention means that people may be left in doubt as to whether they really are faced here with a maximum penalty or a fixed penalty. The amendment removes any ambiguity, and I beg to move.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment and at the same time apologise to your Lordships for being unable to attend the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that I shall not be too guilty of repeating arguments already adduced. However, I am bound to tell your Lordships that a careful reading of the Committee proceedings proved disappointing. Although many eloquent speeches were
546
made, it seemed that the Bill was being rushed headlong through this House—with all its defects both of principle and of practical working unrepaired—as happened in the other place.
It is unfortunate, although one knows how anxious governments are to complete their business, that this Bill should be one of those to be rushed through. It is wholly wrong that, on the one hand, there is this concept of a fixed penalty, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said. but that later in the Bill the word "prescribed" gives the Secretary of State vast powers by statutory instrument to change the amount to any sum that he cares to think about.
The whole concept is one of placing on carriers an obligation that is properly that of the Government. The question of who shall, and who shall not, come into the country ought to be exercised by servants of the Crown under the jurisdiction of Parliament. It should not be left as the responsibility of individual carriers who may well incur substantial costs. I should have thought that the matter would give rise to considerable international difficulty in the European Community. I wonder whether the International Air Transport Authority has been consulted and what it has said. This is an additional obligation on the air carriers in respect of which substantial costs could be incurred. I wonder how well the exercising of this right on the territory of other sovereign states will go down among the international community. It seems to me that all this should be looked at very much more carefully.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I have a small point on this amendment but before raising it I must say how very sorry I am that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, was not able to be present with us last Thursday. The point about this amendment concerns multiple landings. It seems to me that a carrier might well feel it right to bring 10, 20 or even 50 people of one category at one time. I cannot believe it is right that the carrier's fine should be multiplied by the number of passengers. This would be punishing him for one miscalculation—or perhaps one act of mercy—in a quite excessive way.
Had we time, I am sure the noble Earl would agree to look sympathetically at this problem. Even in the present somewhat feverish climate, I suggest that if he found it possible to do that it would gain him great credit.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord McNair, looks at Clause 1, he will agree, I think, that there is no question of multiples because the maximum of £1,000—the liability to pay on demand—is related to a person; so it is as regards each person a maximum of £1,000.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, my noble friend the Minister said rightly on the last occasion that the Secretary of State would have power under this wording (as indeed he has) to make a demand of a sum less than £1,000. That really is the scope of the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, has raised a question which affects the structure of the Bill. That is quite beyond this amendment, but perhaps it ought to be

547
dealt with very shortly. The structure of the Bill affords totally adequate safeguards for the carrier, but not of course if he ignores the legislation. Indeed, on Second Reading, at col. 878, it was apparent from the Sealink document that certain carriers had threatened this.
It does not seem to be appreciated by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, that under the Bill there is no obligation to pay the fine on demand. There is only the liability to pay which can be challenged, and challenged on judicial review, on the basis that it has not been reasonably demanded because there has been no contravention of Clause 1 (1) or, for example, the Secretary of State, in breach of natural justice, has failed to hear representations that, on embarkation for the United Kingdom, apparently genuine documents were provided.
At the end of the day the liability to pay on demand can never be converted into an obligation because, if the carrier refuses to pay, that lies within the province of the civil court. There, the Secretary of State, in the ordinary way, must make good his case on the evidence. With all these safeguards, surely there is no objection to the structure, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, and there is no basis in the substance of the amendment, although I accept that the two are not related.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not accept this amendment. The Bill is absolutely all right as it stands.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, what a succinct and learned observation from the noble and learned Lord! It is equivalent to the most lengthy and eloquent speech. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will forgive me if I say that in extending the ambit of this amendment some confusion has possibly been infused into the debate. As I understood it, there was a simple amendment which was answered very clearly—or not so clearly—by the Minister; namely, that the penalty of £1,000 had not to be exacted in every case and that it was within the power of the Secretary of State to exact a penalty of a lesser sum if he so decided.
The noble Earl, has been kind enough on many occasions to give me hints from the Front Bench opposite. And he is giving me such a hint now. I am going to take advantage of it; and I shall ask the House to say this. If there is not a categorical assurance that the Secretary of State has the power to exact a lesser penalty, I believe the House will be in favour of this amendment. There is a clog, if I may put it that way, on the discretion we would want to give to the Secretary of State.
To give an example, would it not be quite absurd, where there was a flagrant case of a carrier making a profit out of some poor individual because he hoped that the man could somehow be smuggled through and he could not care less once he had arrived at our shores or our airports, if all that could be exacted by way of a penalty was £1,000?
Then there is the second case in which there is a little culpability in regard to the carrier who brings the passenger over. He ought to have seen that the
548
passport constituted a forgery but he employed an official who was less intelligent than was required in order to look at the passports and the passport had passed the scrutiny of that individual. Therefore, in order to teach the carrier that in future he ought to take a little more care about the officials whom he appoints to examine the passports, the Secretary of State decides to exact a small penalty. If that was not within his power, one would have the injustice or perhaps the complete nonsense that either the Secretary of State has to exact the same penalty against the most culpable character, as he does against the carrier whose story I have just told or, if he does not do that, then he cannot exact a penalty at all.
That cannot be right. Quite frankly—and if I am in error I am in very good company because the noble and learned Lord assented to my proposition on the last occasion—I assumed that the Secretary of State would have the power to exact a lighter penalty. If the advice given to the Minister is contrary to that assumption, this amendment must be right.
I do not think that this discussion ought to go into the question of the powers of the courts to look into the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—and I say this with deep deference—knows that I hold very different views from his regarding the powers of the courts to look into the evidence that causes the Minister to exact a penalty. I do not wish to debate this matter at this stage because it is irrelevant to this amendment, but I think that the only power of a county court, should a Minister try to sue for his penalty, would be to decide whether the Minister had gone through the right motions; it could not go into the question whether discretion had been correctly exercised.
What I have said in regard to this amendment and this penalty is rather material, if I may put it that way, and I think that the sensible way to proceed now is to listen to the Minister's reply as a result of the advice given to him about the Secretary of State's powers.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I have the disadvantage of not having any legal training and not being a lawyer in any sense. I ask this question purely for my own information and possibly to assist other noble Lords who suffer from the same disadvantage. What does the word "prescribe" mean? Does it mean that at any moment the Secretary of State can write down or promulgate a different fine in a particular case, or does it mean what it seems to mean to one with a very distant classical education, that it must be written down beforehand? In other words, does it mean that if, because of inflation, he wishes to change the sum of £1,000 he can announce that in future the sum will be £2,000 or, if matters go in a different direction, that it will be £500?
If it means that he must announce in advance the amount of the fine, it seems to me that my noble friend Lord Airedale has a very good point. On the other hand, if it means that on a mere motion or whim he can prescribe any level of fine that we wants, whether it be higher or lower, then there is no need for this amendment. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me on that point.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this amendment would allow a carrier who was liable to a charge under the Bill to be charged a sum of up to £1,000, that sum presumably being decided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
At this point I think it is worth confirming that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was absolutely right when he said that in theory there was a possibility of collecting only part of a penalty and forgoing the rest. Surely it is unreal to consider whether the facts require a penalty of less than £1,000. Either the facts justify forgoing the whole of the penalty or the penalty provided by Parliament should be collected. In theory, my right honourable friend could collect less than £1,000, but we believe that it would be wrong for carriers to be under the misapprehension that they might not be charged the full amount. In a matter of this kind that surely is the simplest, fairest and most direct procedure.
As at present drafted, the Bill allows liability to be established precisely and clearly. That liability is known and can be well understood both by the carrier and by the Home Secretary.
By making the charge infinitely variable up to £1,000 it would be impossible for the carrier to know his liability. It would require infinitely delicate judgments to be made by the Home Secretary as he tried to compare one circumstance with another and developed a sliding scale of charges. It would be an invitation to dispute and dissatisfaction as the carrier sought to argue that a lesser charge should be imposed.
Nor is it at all clear on what basis the Secretary of State should make those judgments. Should it be on the assumed culpability of the carrier—a matter of no doubt endless dispute—or on some judgment of the nature or undesirability of the passengers which I am not sure would find favour in all parts of this House? Or should it be a reflection of the seriousness of any immigration control issue which might arise?
No, my Lords, the amendment would be of no assistance to the carrier, nor to the passenger, nor indeed to the Home Secretary, and it would mistakenly suggest that the Bill was the place to draw up a league table of unacceptability. That is not the purpose of this Bill. The principle behind the Bill is that if a passenger requires leave to enter, does not have the documents required by the legislation but is nevertheless brought to this country by the carrier, the carrier is liable except for the specific savings in subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 1 of the Bill. Neither the Home Secretary nor the carrier should be encouraged to try to make judgments on whether, in any particular circumstances, a lesser payment would be appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, asked: "What about extenuating circumstances?" At this point I shall draw to his attention the fact that if the Home Secretary thinks that it would not be reasonable to charge a carrier, he should have the courage of his convictions and exercise discretion fully and wholeheartedly. Indeed, I can confirm, as probably the noble Lord heard at the Committee stage, that my right honourable friend has already done so.
Therefore we believe that it is best that the charge under this Bill should be an all or nothing charge, with
550
the proviso, which is already in Clause 1(3) of the Bill, that if the charge needs to be changed up or down, it should be possible to change it by statutory instrument. On that basis I invite your Lordships not to accept this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, for my clarification at all events if not to assist other Members of your Lordships' House, I wonder whether he would explain his remark that theoretically the Secretary of State could exact a lesser penalty? I took note of his words. Either he has the power to charge a lesser sum under an Act of Parliament, which is a very pragmatic proceeding, or he has not. I do not understand the use of the word "theoretically". Will he clarify this important matter—and say what will happen in the circumstances that I ventured to outline to your Lordships; namely, the case in which somebody has acted flagrantly in carrying somebody and made a huge profit out of it, and the case where a carrier employs a not too intelligent official who happens to think that a passport is genuine when it is in fact an obvious forgery? Does that mean that the Secretary of State has to exact precisely the same penalty in both cases or that he does not exact a penalty at all? Or is the Minister saying that there is the power to charge less and to exact a lower penalty, and that that is what he terms "theoretically"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me whether the Secretary of State has the power to vary the penalty. Yes, he has. But we believe that it should be an all or nothing charge, because that at least makes it absolutely clear, to solve all the uncertainties—and I highlighted but a few in my response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. We must make it absolutely clear to the carrier and to the passenger, and for the sake of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, that this must be a £1,000 fine. If there are mitigating circumstances, then of course my right honourable friend can use the discretion that he has available to him.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am extremely unhappy with the argument put forward by the Minister. It seems to go like this. This is a maximum penalty and not a fixed penalty, but we are not going to say so in the Act of Parliament because we want the carriers to suppose that it will be £1,000 every time. I do not believe that that is a strictly honest way to draft an Act of Parliament. If this is a maximum penalty, which we now know it is, the Act of Parliament ought to say so.
It should be open to the carrier to say to himself: "Because of the particular circumstances of this case, even if I am found to be wrong, I shall not be charged the maximum penalty." He ought to be allowed to know that. This furtive idea of concealing in an Act of Parliament that a maximum penalty is a maximum and not a fixed penalty I simply do not think is the right way to proceed in drafting a statute.
If we were not in the feverish circumstances today that were described by my noble friend Lord McNair, I should feel very strongly inclined to take this matter to a Division. I am very unhappy about it—
Lord Mishcon: Why not?
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am now being encouraged to think the other way. Very well, I cannot prevent noble Lords taking this matter to a Division if they so choose. That being so, I think perhaps we had better test it in a Division.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it seems to me that a very strange argument is being produced here—a fixed penalty for a fixed crime; that is to say, the failure of the carrier to carry out his responsibilities. The suggestion opposite is that if the carrier employs incompetent people in some parts of the world, or has shortsighted or defective officials, this is in some way an excuse. If there is one fixed maximum penalty, everybody knows where he stands. If there is a range of penalties, you could have a variety of semi-intelligent officials or a variety of defective employees who could be blamed.
Lord Mischcon: My Lords, would the noble Lord not think it discourteous of me and forgive me if I intervened only so that the House has in my view—a respectful view, I assure the House—a clear picture? The Minister is saying to the House, as I understand it, that this is not a fixed penalty. The words mean that the Secretary of State could exact a lower penalty if he wanted to. But we want to give the impression to the carriers that if they offend against this Bill they will have a penalty of £1,000. He is conceding that the Secretary of State may in certain circumstances award a lower penalty.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I understand fully the noble Lord's point, which is that under very special circumstances the discretion of the Secretary of State might apply. I am suggesting that to put in an amendment such as this, which is to give effect to certain types of argument put forward which I was outlining, would be an error. Although I accept that the Secretary of State's discretion is perfectly satisfactory in this field, to suggest to carriers that there are many gradations of competence of their employees, or for any other reason that may explain how they could get away with it, would be an error.
3.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 139.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Chitnis, L.

Amherst, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Aylestone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Banks, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Birk, B.

Denington, B.

Blackstone, B.

Diamond, L.

Blease, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Blyton, L.

Ennals, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Ezra, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Falkland, V.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Fitt, L.

Carter, L.

Foot, L.

552

Galpern, L.

Peston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Phillips, B.

Gloucester, Bp.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Greenway, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rugby, L.

Hams of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Hayter, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Somers, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stallard, L.

Hunt, L.

Stedman, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tordoff, L.

Leatherland, L.

Underhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Walston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Whaddon, L.

McNair, L.

White, B.

Mayhew, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Molloy, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mulley, L. [Teller.]

Winterbottom, L.

Oram, L.

Ypres, E

Parry, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gridley, L.

Allerton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alport, L.

Ampthill, L.

Halsbury, E.

Auckland, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bancroft, L.

Harvington, L.

Bauer, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hives, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hood, V.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bessborough, E.

Jessel, L.

Blake, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blyth, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Killearn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Brookes, L.

Kimberley, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Broxbourne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Caithness, E.

Lawrence, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Layton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lurgan, L.

Cayzer, L.

Lyell, L.

Chelwood, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Coleraine, L.

McFadzean, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Manchester, D.

Cox, B.

Mar, C.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

De Freyne, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Maude of Stratford-upon Avon, L.

Denning, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Dundee, E.

Mersey, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Middleton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Milverton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Molson, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Glanusk, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Munster, E.

Gray, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Norrie, L.

553

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Pender, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Portland, D.

Pritchard, L.

Strathspey, L.

Radnor, E.

Sudeley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swansea, L.

Reilly, L.

Swinton, E.

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

Rodney, L.

Teviot, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

St. Davids, V.

Torphichen, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Trafford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sandford, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sandys, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selborne, E.

Vickers, B.

Selkirk, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Wigram, L.

Sharples, B.

Windlesham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wise, L.

Slim, V.

Wolfson, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert—
("() No liability shall be incurred under subsection (1) above in respect of any person whom the owners or agents are obliged to carry as a result of an order from a foreign Government.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. Since Committee stage I have somewhat changed my ground. In my interventions then I was pleading the case of refugees, or people in grave and immediate danger. Today I plead the cause of the carriers. I must admit that the cause of the refugees is a little closer to my heart than that of the carriers, but I insist that there must be justice for the rich as well as for the poor and that it is just as wrong that a Bill which inflicts injustice on airlines and shipping lines should pass unamended through this House as one which inflicts injustice and perhaps danger on individuals.
The amendment suggests that a carrier should not be fined for bringing someone here with imperfect documentation if he does so at the order of a foreign government. It does not mean that we are obliged to accept the passenger. It does not prevent us from ordering a carrier to return the passenger at his, the carrier's, expense after paying the bill for that passenger's board and lodging during his sojourn in this country, both of which powers the Home Secretary already has without the help of this Bill. This only says that he should not be fined for doing something which he was ordered to do by a foreign power.
At Committee stage this amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He withdrew it so that he, I and others could consider the arguments which had been brought against it and decide whether to resubmit it. We came to the conclusion that the arguments were so lacking in logic and even in plausibility that we owed it to the carriers to try again.
In reading the Official Report my attention was first caught by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which was not, I must
554
regretfully say, one of his most cogent contributions. He stated in column 265:
"a government of one sovereign state is not obliged to recognise the order of another sovereign state save as bound by convention or treaty to which both states are parties".
As a statement of international law I would not presume to question that opinion. I merely point out that the amendment concerns whether an airline, not a sovereign state, is obliged to recognise that order of a state from which it is operating. We expect airlines operating from this country to do so when we give them orders. But this is a relatively minor point.
Following the passage which I quoted, the noble Lord continued:
"In the absence of acceptance of the principle on a reciprocal basis by some further protocol to the convention on refugees by the signatory states, we could very soon, at the behest or order of a foreign government, become the dumping depot of deportees; and deportees not only from the signatory states, who are all member states of the Council of Europe, which is pretty wide, but states anywhere in the world".
If that passage contains any slip of the tongue or lapse of memory—aberrations to which I am more prone than most people—I should not wish to make any capital out of such a human failing, but the passage contains at least one major misconception and at least one most uncharacteristic misstatement of fact.
First, the amendment did not mention refugees or the 1951 convention. Secondly, even if relevant to the amendment the convention had nothing whatever to do with the Council of Europe. I do not think the Council of Europe was even established in 1951. The phrase:
"and deportees not only from the signatory states, who are all members states of the Council of Europe",
must be either a failure of memory or a slip of the tongue. There are 21 member states of the Council of Europe. There are about 100 signatories of the convention.
As the passages I have quoted constituted the main gist or kernel of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, I cannot feel that it provided any very good reason why we should not resubmit the amendment today.
I turn now to the very short intervention from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning:
"What foreign government are we considering here? It may be a highly civilised one or it might be General Amin in East Africa. Is a shipping or airline company entitled to obey General Amin and carry someone to this country? No, I do not accept that."—[Official Report,7.5.87; col. 266.]
I re-quote:
"Is a shipping or airline company entitled to obey General Amin and carry someone to this country?"
How lucky we are that the noble and learned Lord was not operating an airline out of Entebbe when General Amin was in power. I fear that if he had been and he had felt entitled to disobey any orders that came his way he would not have lived to enrich this House with the fruits of his limitless experience and wisdom as he so frequently does.
It is surely putting an intolerable burden on carriers to expect them to ask themselves whether or not the government who are giving them orders are civilised and to risk the consequences of disobedience if they decide that they are not.

555
Last, but far from least, I come to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which contained six lines that I should like to read out and on which I should like to ask him a question. I quote:
"It would be possible for an unscrupulous carrier to argue that he had been compelled to carry someone when that was not really so. Given the many different systems of immigration control operating throughout the world, it would be quite impossible for the immigration service to check out such claims."—[Official Report, 7.5.87; col. 266.]
I repeat the quote:
"impossible for the immigration service to check out such claims."
What is meant here by the immigration service? That is surely an arm of the Home Office The noble Earl could not have been referring to an immigration officer at Heathrow, for example, whose job, as I understand it, is to examine passengers' papers and, if he finds them out of order, to detain the passenger and inform the Home Office. Would it not be the immigration service within the Home Office to which he would report? Yet we have the noble Earl's word for it that it would be quite impossible for the immigration service to check out such claims. I await the noble Earl's comments on that point; but I should be prepared to risk a bet that in his answer and in his reply to the amendment generally he will rely fairly heavily on the famous discretion of the Home Secretary.
In a speech occupying less than one column of Hansard the noble Earl used the word "discretion" no fewer than six times. We have heard it again and again throughout the passage of the Bill and even today. That led me to do a little mental doodling over the week-end about the word "discretion".
It is said that the better part of valour is discretion. I dismiss that and all similar quotations because that would be pure semantic gamesmanship and unworthy of this House as in those famous lines the word "discretion" is being used in a quite different sense to the one in which we are using it.
Then my invaluable dictionary produced a most apt and striking quotation. It comes from a speech in a law court in 1780. The advocate was one Lord Camden who was speaking about the discretion of a judge. However, I do not think that that invalidates the quotation because the Home Secretary, in theory, or his officials in fact, will surely be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when they make their decisions under the Bill. Lord Camden had this to say:
"The discretion of a judge is the law of tyrants: it is always unknown. It is different in different men. It is casual, and depends upon constitution; temper, passion. In the best it is oftentimes caprice; in the worst it is every vice, folly and passion to which human nature is liable."
I shall not go quite so far as that—certainly not when discussing the right honourable gentleman, the present Home Secretary. However, do not Lord Camden's words contain a warning which we should heed?
For a very long time we have been piling more and more burdens on the discretion of Secretaries of State. That may be due to the increasing complexity of life; it may be inevitable, but it can sometimes amount to legislative laziness. Instead of getting it right in the Bill we say: "It is too difficult, let us leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of State."
My last point is a question about a lamentable phenomenon of recent years which has come to be known as the "refugee in orbit". That is not a very apt description of what happens because it is really more a grim inter-governmental game of ping-pong with a human ball, two governments who are in dispute and a carrier who carries somebody to and fro. What happens all too often—I admit that this is not strictly relevant to the amendment, though very much so to the Bill—is that the carrier gets fed up and offloads his unwanted passenger at some intermediate refuelling station from which he is all too likely to be sent back to the country from which he is fleeing.
However, in the ordinary case of to and fro, is the carrier liable to be fined every time he tries to get rid of his unwanted passenger? Surely repeated fines for the same passenger are unthinkable.
I hope that I have made out a case for the amendment. The Bill is unfair to carriers. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, there is a certain engaging naivety about the amendment which we saw equally engagingly in the speech to which we have just had the pleasure of listening. It is surely obvious to your Lordships that there are governments in various parts of the world who would be very happy to enter into covert arrangements with carriers to facilitate the transmission of unwanted migrants to this country.
It would be only too easy for the carrier and the government to pre-arrange the whole thing and for the carrier to be furnished with impressive-looking orders, probably with a great seal on them, indicating that he had been ordered by the government of the country from which they came to carry those people.
That is not fantasy because if your Lordships know what is happening at the moment in Europe, they will realise that that is very much part of the general picture. A great many migrants from Asia, some of themTamils, some others, are coming into Europe rather curiously through Soviet Russia and East Germany, and passing through into West Germany which passes them hastily on. I know as a fact that people in Switzerland are deeply disturbed by the number of those unwanted immigrants who come by those routes.
It is quite obvious that those migrants have not arranged their journey themselves by so long and roundabout a route. They could not have paid for the long air passages involved in coming right round by Soviet Russia and through East Germany. It is quite obvious that there is such a trade. An amendment of this kind would leave us wide open to exactly that sort of abuse. It would make fools of the British Government if the steps which, in my view, they have rightly taken to restrict the flow of wholly unwanted immigrants were to be thwarted in this way by unfriendly governments.
The only other point I wish to make concerns an important question of principle. We are dealing with a Bill which will be the law of this country. The amendment would enable the orders of a foreign government to override the law of this country. For centuries we have resisted any such idea. That idea has only to be stated to be seen to be monstrous. I shall not be offensive to any country and name it, because we

557
can all think of governments who are good, bad and indifferent. But it is a monstrous idea that the orders of a foreign government can override the considered law of this country as passed through both Houses of Parliament. It is a monstrous idea and I hope that your Lordships will not waste much time on it.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this amendment was considered by your Lordships as Amendment No. 6 at Committee stage on the basis of unfairness to the deportee. As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has said that he did not find my arguments attractive on that occasion, assuredly I shall not repeat them; repetition is idle. However, I am comforted to know that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter did not find them wholly beside the mark.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, has changed his ground, as he will always frankly say. I shall change mine only to meet the changed ground that he has taken. I hope that today he will find my arguments on that changed ground a little more persuasive than they were on the original basis. As my noble friend the Minister rightly said (at col. 266 of the Official Report) in the passage quoted by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and as my friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter rightly observed, this amendment would open the door to abuse between the unscrupulous carrier and the dishonest official.
The new ground on which the amendment is put forward is that the Bill inflicts an injustice upon the carrier and that there must be justice for the carrier—the rich—as there is justice for the deportee. We are concerned with deportees. However, in this Bill—there is no sense in making a mockery of it—there is a reasonable and acceptable safeguard for the carriers who, in the words of the amendment:
"are obliged to carry as a result of an order from a foreign Government".
If there is a carrier who can satisfy the Secretary of State that there was an element of compulsion by which the voluntary exercise of his free will was overborne, it is open to the carrier who is in contravention of Clause 1 to make representations to the Secretary of State as to a benevolent exercise of administrative discretion. The person carried by the order of the foreign state is usually known as a deportee from that state. If this amendment were to be accepted and if that were so, the United Kingdom would—as I have said and reiterate and will not withdraw—become the dumping depot for deportees. Why?—because, as I hope the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and your Lordships will accept, there is no similar escape clause for an unscrupulous carrier in the legislation of other member states.
My noble friend the Minister said at Committee stage that there will be:
"cases in which the carrier can show that without any fault on his part he was compelled to carry someone",
and then discretion will be exercised under the existing regime. This Bill is merely a superimposition upon an existing regime. Your Lordships' House was given an assurance—it is no matter for mockery—of the due exercise of administrative discretion in such circumstances where there was no fault and where
558
there was compulsion. If the amendment is carried, there is no way in which serious abuse and evasion could be avoided. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, let me explain that I said I had shifted my ground; perhaps I should have said that I was playing a different role. I have not changed my mind at all. On Thursday last it happened that I was speaking on amendments where I was defending refugees. The amendment that we are now considering was always put forward from the point of view of carriers. I did not speak about it on Thursday. That was all I meant by saying that I had shifted my ground.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, let me assure the noble Lord that I have not changed my mind either. However, I tried to meet a shifted ground.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not accept this amendment. There is a simple solution. If the carrier is justified or if there are good grounds for carrying a person without documents, the Secretary of State will not enforce the £1,000 penalty. My noble friend Lord McNair spoke about discretion. Discretion in relation to a judge dealing with a judicial matter is one thing. Here we are dealing with the discretion of the Secretary of State who, in these matters of immigration and the like, is acting in terms of an administrative and executive discretion with which he is entrusted by Parliament and by our statutes. Therefore, we should not challenge his discretion. I am not in favour of the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe that the attitude of the House may be very much guided by the response of the Minister. I hope that he will repeat, in even stronger terms so that they are clearly on the record, that if a carrier is carrying a passenger under a genuine government order, be it by way of deportation or whatever—in other words, carrying him is a matter of compulsion—there is no doubt that in a proper case the Secretary of State would exercise discretion. If I may humbly suggest it, if the Secretary of State would give that categorical assurance on the record in even clearer terms than those uttered at Committee stage, many of us may be assisted.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has put forward in support of the amendment, which is identical to the one put down at Committee stage, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said.
The Government remain of the view that this is a matter best dealt with by sensible use of the Secretary of State's discretion rather than by way of a statutory exemption. I readily accept that there will be circumstances when a carrier, through no fault of his own, has no option but to comply with the order of a foreign government to carry a passenger to this country. That is not to say that the United Kingdom is bound to accept that person. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway rightly pointed out during the Committee stage that a sovereign state is not bound to

559
recognise the order of another state except as may be provided by treaty or other agreement. But clearly the carrier may be bound to accept such an order and it is the carrier at whom this amendment is directed.
The difficulty is that it would give a very wide saving for carriers and provide considerable scope for abuse. The foreign government order might be a result of the carrier's own original failure to comply with instructions from the government in question. He might, for example, have carried to that country someone whom he had been ordered not to. He might have failed to comply with earlier directions, for example, to take the passenger to another country. It might in the circumstancees have been possible for a carrier to comply with the orders of a foreign government and ensure that the passenger had the proper documentation.
In such circumstances it might well be right to expect the carrier to accept responsibility for bringing in such a passenger. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that that is unfair. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, the amendment opens up the possibility of an unscrupulous carrier coming to an arrangement with a representative of another government and so claiming that he had been compelled to carry someone here when that was not the case.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, wisely told the House about the difference in meaning between discretion for a judge and discretion for a Home Secretary. I merely stress the point that the noble and learned Lord made; and of course the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament while the judge is not in the same sense.
The Government do not believe that it would be right to give carriers a statutory exemption from liability in every case. Carriers should accept responsibility for passengers they are ordered to bring here if it is through their own fault or their own failure.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me to repeat what I said in Committee, that the Home Secretary will be ready to consider exercising discretion sensibly and reasonably where a carrier through no fault of his own has no alternative but to comply with the orders for a foreign government. Not only do I without reservation give that assurance again; I go further and say that it has already been exercised by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
In that event I am sure that the House will not want to accept the amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I cannot pretend to be altogether happy with the answer that we have had. I am particularly unhappy that the noble Earl has said nothing about the case of the refugee in orbit.
However, in the circumstances I bow to force majeure, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 26, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall by Order in Council establish an appeal tribunal to which carriers found liable to a penalty under this Act may appeal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to deal with the amendment shortly because the point is a very clear one. Indeed, I ventured to argue it in Committee and withdrew it in the light of the reply of the Minister, which I want in sheer courtesy to consider.
If I made a moderate case and not a strong case in Committee, I hope that I can make it a strong case on Report for the following reason. In the course of the discussion on Amendment No. 1, the Secretary of State said repeatedly that he wanted all carriers to know that the penalty that would be exacted, almost regardless of circumstances, if there was a breach of the provision of this Bill was the same penalty. If ever there was a case for some tribunal to listen to the carrier's plea—one would have thought very often a reasoned plea—that the penalty should not apply in his case either at all or in the flat sum of £1,000, the Secretary of State has made that case for me.
I think that if I went on arguing for a very long time, I should only be repeating the simple principle, that we have a reputation in our legislation that where people are ordered to pay some sort of penalty there ought in appropriate cases to be a right of appeal. This is new legislation and these are new powers, new penalties and new duties of carriers. In those circumstances, I hope that your Lordships will think that an appeal procedure is necessary and appropriate.
There is one weakness in the amendment, to which I want in honesty to admit. I have not said of what personnel the appeal tribunal should consist. I have left it with the bare words "an appeal tribunal". There will be no difficulty in that matter being considered in due course and an appropriate appeal tribunal being set up.
I hesitated, as I said in Committee, to try to designate an appeal tribunal because I did not want to waste the country's money by asking Parliament to approve a new tribunal to deal specifically with the matter. It seemed to me that the number of appeals that would come before it would not justify that.
I therefore hope that in the administrative bodies in the country we can find some tribunal able to deal with these matters, quite apart from its other work, whether a county court or whatever else it might be. I am hoping that it might not be a county court for reasons that I gave in Committee and do not want to repeat.
I trust that the amendment will be approved by the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that where there is a penalty there should be a right of appeal. That is common ground between us. However, the amendment, I fear, is based on a genuine misconception on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. This is perhaps why the noble Lord and I had a disagreement in Committee on the last occasion.
The origin of the misconception is the General Council of Shipping draft of 23rd March 1987. I am not taking against the noble Lord a drafting point on failure to designate the appeal tribunal. However, the amendment raises some serious problems, because there is a right of appeal under the regime as it stands in the Bill. The carrier cannot be—using the words of the amendment—"found liable" to a penalty other

561
than by a civil court if he refuses to pay and if, in the civil court, the Secretary of State establishes contravention on the evidence to the satisfaction of the judge. If it is the county court, there is an appeal to the High Court. If it is the High Court, there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal. There is no way in which any appeal tribunal could fit into this procedure.
If—and it is not quite clear—"found liable" in the amendment means that the Secretary of State considers that in view of apparent contravention there is a liability to pay and so makes a demand, the decision to make that demand, if such view could not have been reasonably entertained by the Secretary of State—and I am much relieved to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his place—or if, for example, the Secretary of State were to refuse to entertain representations that apparently genuine documents had been produced on embarkation, that would be contrary to natural justice. Then on judicial review that decision to make the demand would be quashed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I am interrupting the noble Lord's train of thought, which is always a very interesting one, I shall sit down and ask for his leave to interrupt him at another stage. Is he really saying to the House—and if so, will the Minister kindly deal with the matter—that, where submissions have been made in mitigation by a carrier, and the Secretary of State sends a short reply to the effect that they have been considered but the penalty is being exacted, a county court judge can then go into the matter all over again, even though correspondence had been shown to the judge to the effect that submissions had been made to the Secretary of State who had considered them and then decided against them? Is the noble Lord seriously saying to the House as a matter of law that, when the Secretary of State then sues for the penalty, the county court judge, the High Court judge on appeal or the Court of Appeal can look again at the matters in respect of which he had properly exercised his discretion but exercised it against the carrier?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. This situation stems from the fundamental disagreement, confusion, or misapprehension, as I seek to say today, on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The words "found liable" mean what they say. In the Bill it is stated perfectly plainly:
"liable to pay the Secretary of State on demand".
The liability to pay does not become an obligation to pay if the carrier refuses to pay. I am seriously suggesting to the noble Lord who asked me a question, but at the moment is otherwise engaged—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the fault is entirely mine.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as I said on the last occasion, if a carrier refuses to pay, the only way he can be made to pay is if the Secretary of State established contravention on the evidence in the county court. From that judgment there is an appeal.
562
As regards that aspect there is no question of discretion at all. It would result in total confusion to import the exercise of a discretion to proceed.
Either the Secretary of State is entitled to proceed and make his demand because there has been a contravention or he is not, and that is a matter for the court to decide.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble Lord will pardon the interruption—I promise him it will be for the last time—what he is saying is most serious, because it will be in the Official Report that he is indicating that it is the view of Parliament, and certainly his view. He is talking about where the Secretary of State exacts a penalty and the carrier says, "I do not accept your ruling. I am going to the county court, and I am going from there by way of appeal right the way up the judicial ladder to challenge the circumstances in which you have exacted the penalty—not your right or whether you have correctly gone through the procedure". If that is being said, and it is not answered by the Minister as being either the right or the wrong interpretation, Parliament will have misled the carriers who obviously look with great respect, as we all do, upon the noble Lord's speeches. On one view the carriers will have a completely wrong idea, and on the other a completely correct idea. I say frankly, and with great humility, that I disagree with the noble Lord's point of view. I leave it to the Minister to deal with the matter; otherwise we are confusing the issue from the point of view of the carrier's liability and his rights.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Before the Minister replies I should like to develop my argument and expose what I have consistently maintained was a false premise taken throughout by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He is perfectly entitled to take that point of view but it is, with respect to him, totally misconceived. Of course, there is no question of misleading the carriers. As the Minister said at Committee stage, the carrier can refuse to pay. If he refuses to pay, the Secretary of State must prove the contravention in the county court. If it is proved to the satisfaction of the judge, the Secretary of State can recover and the liability to pay in rugby terms is "converted" into an obligation. The obligation does not arise, if it is challenged, until it has been judicially accepted.
There is no question whatsoever of discretion arising in those county court proceedings. I was seeking to develop an alternative route. The carrier has two barrels. He can either refuse to pay and go to the county court, or he can say, "The Secretary of State should not have made this demand. No reasonable Secretary of State properly directed ought to have made this demand on the evidence", or, as I was seeking to suggest, "The Secretary of State did not comply with the fundamental requirements of natural justice, such as allowing the carrier to make representations along the lines that apparently genuine documents were produced".
As there are these safeguards, it would not be appropriate to set up an appeal tribunal from the decision of the Secretary of State to make a demand, as is proposed by this amendment. Failure by the

563
Secretary of State to exercise benevolent administrative discretion could not be brought before the divisional court on judicial review. If such is to be the function of this appellate tribunal it would be open to the most serious objection. The proposed amendment would in fact substitute the discretion of the appellate tribunal for the discretion of a Minister of State, which would be wholly unacceptable.
I apologise for the time I have taken to develop my argument but the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I are poles apart over this matter. We both entertain totally genuine reasons for being poles apart. However, I thought it right to develop my argument.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not accept this amendment. Let me imagine the Bill without it: then it is quite clear that the Secretary of State may bring proceedings in the High Court against the carrier for the £1,000 which has been demanded and not paid. In such proceedings the Secretary of State has to prove the elemental points as regards the man entering undocumented. On proving those matters, and on demand, the Secretary of State obtains his judgment. There could be an appeal against the judgment but with no hope of success. If the complaint is against the discretion of the Minister, that is not the subject of an appeal at all. The discretion, as I have said previously, is administrative and executive. It is not judicial and, therefore, there can be no appeal against it.
It seems to me that it is quite unnecessary to have this clause when the matter has already been taken care of.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and only because of the importance of the point, may I say with deep deference that he has said exactly what I was trying to say. In other words, once you get to the county court, if the Secretary of State proves that there has been a breach of this Bill, then the county court judge or the High Court judge has no alternative whatever but to say, "The Secretary of State said £1,000, and £1,000 it is." He cannot hear the defendant.
I was arguing—this is where the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as I understood him, differs from me—that, the necessity for the appeal tribunal was in order—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord Mishcon: May I just finish my sentence?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Surely it is in order to intervene at this stage of the proceedings. I cannot reply as I have made my speech.
A noble Lord: The noble Lord must seek the leave of the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, it is the Minister who seeks the leave of the House.
A noble Lord: No, anyone can.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was not trying to silence my argument. It is the last thing in the world that I would ever expect of him. I was saying—it is the whole purport of my address to your Lordships—that the necessity for an appeal tribunal is to be able to go to somebody and say, "Look, I submitted this to the Secretary of State" or "New evidence has come to light, and I want you to find that it is wrong to exact a penalty of £ 1,000 from me; you may think it should be only £250 or nothing at all." He has no right, and the noble and learned Lord has confirmed it, to do that in the county court.
There is no right of appeal and, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that was not the impression he gave the House. If he cares to amend it, I am certainly not against the noble Lord addressing the House again before I sit down, or before anybody else sits down. The point is that his argument was based upon something with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, does not agree and with which I, a very much humbler person in the legal profession, certainly do not agree.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, surely he accepts that I would never try to muzzle his argument unless I was in the position of being deprived of any reply. I hope the noble Lord accepts that.
Lord Mishcon: I do.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The position is again totally misunderstood by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Once you get into the county court, the discretion of the Minister, in so far as it is the discretion to make the demand, is wholly immaterial. It is the exercise of the benevolent discretion not to proceed. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is seeking to set up this tribunal to review, and that is the one thing which would be quite contrary to practice because it substitutes the discretion of a tribunal for the discretion of the Secretary of State.
If I have left the noble Lord or your Lordships' House in a state of confusion, all I can say is that I apologise. I can say no more. I hope that your Lordships will not, in any circumstances, accept this amendment.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am not sure that I had finished. In a way, I agree with everyone. There is certainly an appeal if the county court or the High Court judge finds that £1,000 is payable and it is not paid or is resisted. There is then an appeal either to the High Court or to the county court; there is no doubt about that. The only dispute is on the decision of the Minister whether or not to make a demand and the circumstances which he takes into account. The question is how far that can be queried.
I can understand the concern of my noble friend Lord Mishcon that there should be an appeal from that decision-making process. I do not agree with it for this reason. The decision in that respect is administrative and executive but not judicial. Therefore, it is essentially a matter for the Secretary of State save for

565
this one safeguard; that if the Secretary of State does anything grossly unfair or anything improper, or adopts a wrong procedure, you have a judicial review. The whole procedure is quite simple and straightforward and we do not need this amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the difficulty for noble Lords like myself who have no connection with any branch of the legal profession is that the Bill is drafted in such an indefinite way that we have no knowledge whatever of the manner in which the Secretary of State will exercise his discretion or, indeed, about the procedures which will be adopted. The noble Earl, in his reply to an earlier amendment, made it quite clear that the Secretary of State does have a discretion. However, in a very curious answer in reply to Amendment No. 1, when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked what was meant by the word "theoretically", the noble Earl replied that it meant that the Secretary of State had a discretion to do certain things in theory, but in practice he would never do them.
The logic of that would seem to be that the noble Earl himself ought to want to change the Bill so that the discretion no longer exists. But the difficulty I find is that there is nothing in the Bill to explain how the Secretary of State will deal with these matters. To what extent and in what way will he look at the evidence which is brought forward? Will the people who are complained about, who are perhaps later liable to this penalty, be given an opportunity of a hearing and of giving an oral explanation as to precisely what has happened? Many noble Lords will have anxiety about whether or not an individual case has been enquired into properly and whether or not justice has actually been done.
I have no doubt at all that when penalties such as these are levied on certain carriers there will be many who feel a profound sense of injustice and believe that they have been put in a position through no fault of their own. They will want to feel that their representations have been properly heard. It may be that they will be properly heard, but none of us will know. And since there is no appeal procedure, there is no way of ever finding out. That is why I hope that some procedure, such as that envisaged in the noble Lord's amendment, will be devised.
I accept that it may be difficult—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the precise nature and composition of the appeal tribunal is not specified —but I feel that what many of us would like to hear (and we would feel happier about the Bill if we did hear it) is that an opportunity exists to ensure that there can be second thoughts about an individual case in which the victim—if that is the right word—feels aggrieved and considers that he has been dealt with unjustly.
I hope that when the noble Earl replies he will be able to give us some encouragement and let us know that there will be some procedure whereby a case can be looked at again if the complainant feels that he has been dealt with unjustly or, indeed, if Members of either House of Parliament, in consultation with those people, feel that the matter has been dealt with unjustly and that the facts ought to be looked at again by the Secretary of State. It is possible that there will be cases where we are not satisfied with the manner in
566
which the Secretary of State's undoubted discretion has been exercised.
I hope that when he replies the noble Earl will be able to tell us that there is some procedure whereby he can assure us that in those particular cases there will be a method whereby the case can be looked at again and that we can all know that the case will be looked at again.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, may I make one point? We have talked a great deal about the legal aspects of the type of appeal that could be heard and ruled upon by a county court judge. But this amendment destroys the part of the Bill with reference to the discretion of the Home Secretary. It removes the discretionary powers in the sense that with an appeals tribunal, you are undermining or removing those powers.
It would be reasonable as an amendment to suggest that such powers should not be exercised by the Secretary of State at all, although in many other respects such powers are exercised. The amendment would remove such discretionary powers which, on a previous amendment, the noble Lord talked about strengthening because he did not wish to clog such powers. It seems to me that there is a considerable risk that the amendment would remove such discretionary powers and substitute this appeals tribunal. If I recall the Committee stage correctly, I believe that the noble Lord referred to two or three independent citizens. The amendment would transfer the Secretary of State's discretionary powers to two or three independent individuals.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand, or at least I think that I do, the thinking behind this amendment which has been the subject of some discussion among the legal eagles in this House. I, too, believe it to be misconceived and that an appeal tribunal is unnecessary in the circumstances provided under this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has often been called the best advocate in this House. I was swayed by his advocacy in Committee when he said that,
"it is not very sensible to set up a special tribunal to deal with a few appeals".—[0fficia Report,7/5/87; col. 282.]
The noble Lord qualified that this afternoon by saying that it was on cost grounds, but I believe that it is right in principle.
The effect of the amendment would be to interpose an appellate body between the Secretary of State and the county court in cases where evidence as to liability is in dispute, and to substitute an appeal tribunals' judgment for that of the Secretary of State on matters relating to the use of the Home Secretary's discretion. I believe that it is unnecessary for a tribunal to duplicate the responsibilities of the county court, and that it is not reasonable for a tribunal to subsitute its judgment in these matters for that of the Secretary of State.
The issues of fact that can arise are relatively straightforward. There is already ample provision for resolving them at law—at the county court. If a carrier disputes a charge imposed upon him because he does not believe he is liable in law, for example, because he believed that the passenger did not require leave to enter, he may decline to pay. Recovery of the debt

567
would then be a matter for action in the county court which would determine in the normal way whether a liability arose under the law.
On the other hand, a carrier may seek to argue that although he was admittedly liable in law, the Home Secretary should have exercised his discretion not to impose a charge. Surely, that is not a matter upon which an appeal tribunal is best placed to form a judgment. No question of law arises. If it is a question of fairness and compassion, it is right that the Home Secretary should accept responsibility for making the necessary judgments, as he is in the best position to take account not just of the particular circumstances of the case but of the wider issues which might reasonably form a part of his judgment.
I do not believe that an appeal tribunal, however formulated, would be an appropriate or indeed necessary forum for such judgments; nor would it represent an efficient or sensible use of resources. It would add a further cumbersome, expensive and unnecessary tier to what, under the Bill, are properly straightforward matters. There is a case for such tribunals when an individual's private future is at stake. Here we are not dealing with such matters, but with the potential financial liability of a carrying company. That is not cause for a separate administrative tribunal.
I believe therefore that disputes as to civil liability should continue to be dealt with in the normal way under this legislation, and that it is right that the exercise of discretion should be a matter for the Secretary of State's judgment. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will agree with me that it is far better for that discretion to be exercised by the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, rather than by a tribunal which is not. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right when he says that it is always open to a carrying company to ask for a judicial review of the Home Secretary's decisions, for example, on grounds that he acted unreasonably. We believe that an appeal tribunal is not required to deal with any case where a carrier feels that the Home Secretary acted wholly unreasonably.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question before he sits down? Are there any circumstances in which the Home Secretary would be prepared to look at a case again, or will it be that once he has made his judgment, that will be his judgment for all time? It is utterly final. Would he be prepared to look again at a case in which a person feels aggrieved?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not covering that point in my answer. I meant to. Of course it is open to the carrying companies to make such representations as they see fit to the Secretary of State. If they receive a notice saying that the Secretary of State intends to charge the carrier, the carrier can of course make representations. They will be considered. If there is further evidence that comes afresh to the carrying company as the noble Lord suggested, of course, it would be considered.
As I have said on a number of occasions, we wish to treat the carrying companies entirely fairly in such matters. That is why my right honourable friend the
568
Secretary of State has already exercised the discretion available to him under the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I am considerate enough not to make a further speech, I stand a chance of receiving more support from your Lordships than if I do. I merely intend to say that I believe that this is a matter of such importance that the opinion of the House should be tested.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 135.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Loyd of Kilgerran, L.

Amherst, E.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Mar, C.

Aylestone, L.

Meston, L.

Banks, L.

Mishcon, L.

Birk, B.

Molloy, L.

Blackstone, B.

Monson, L.

Blease, L.

Mulley, L.

Blyton, L.

Nathan, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Oram, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Parry, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Phillips, B.

Chitnis, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Denington, B.

Rea, L.

Diamond, L.

Rhodes, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Ennals, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Falkland, V.

Rugby, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell, E.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Grimond, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunt, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Listowel, E.

Winstanley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Winterbottom, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ypres, E.

NON-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Beloff, L.

Allerton, L.

Belstead, L.

Alport, L.

Bessborough, E.

Auckland, L.

Blake, L.

Bauer, L.

Blyth, L.

569

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brookes, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Caithness, E.

McFadzean, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Camock, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon

Cathcart, E.

Avon, L.

Chelwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Middleton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Milverton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Molson, L.

Cowley, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cox, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pike, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Porritt, L.

Denning, L.

Portland, D.

Dilhorne, V.

Radnor, E.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Rodney, L.

Ebbisham, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sandford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sandys, L.

Fortescue, E.

Selbourne, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Geddes, L.

Sharples, B.

Gishorough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glanusk, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gormanston, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Gray, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hailsham of Saint

Terrington, L.

Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Halsbury, E.

Teynham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Torpichen, L.

Harvington, L.

Trafford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Westbury, L.

Ilchester, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Jessel, L.

Wigram, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kimball, L.

Wise, L.

Kimberley, E.

Wolfson, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Young, B.

Kitchener, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.54 p.m.
Clause 2 [Short Title, interpretation, extent and commencement]:
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 4:
page 2, line 11, leave out ("4th March 1987") and insert ("the passing of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I brought forward this amendment at the Committee stage and it elicited some information from the noble Earl which obtained for our deliberations the only coverage I could find in the national press. I have put down the amendment
570
again because there are other questions that I want to ask him. It is a probing amendment, not that that makes the slightest difference. The first question concerns his answer at the Committee stage. He told us that 600 notifications had been sent out and that on 100 occasions notifications had not been sent out because the Home Secretary had exercised his discretion. I should like to know how this rate of arrivals between 5th March and when that information was given compares with the rate of arrivals in a comparable period before 5th March? In other words, does the noble Earl think that the Bill is working?
I was able to give the noble Earl notice of my other questions. First, of the 600 notifications that are mentioned, how many were cases of people who had asked for asylum? Secondly, how many of those 600 people were immediately deported? Thirdly, in what kinds of circumstances did the Home Secretary exercise his discretion not to levy a fine? My fourth question, which may be the most important, is: will the Home Office be keeping such records on the operation of this Bill when enacted to enable Ministers to answer questions about the various categories of passenger for whose carriage carriers have been found liable? I say no more. I shall be most interested to hear the answers of the noble Earl.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has asked a series of questions about the operation of the legislation, of which he was kind enough to give me advance notice this morning. Between 5th March and 26th April about 180 passengers have arrived at the ports to claim asylum, of whom just under 50 had the right documentation. At an average of about 25 port asylum applications a week this represents a considerable reduction in the figures for the previous month when applications were running at an average of about 60 a week. In the great majority of cases where a carrier has been notified of liability it was because a passenger had no valid visa. The general rule is that people without valid visas are refused entry and removed. Similarly, the great majority of cases where discretion has already been exercised involve passengers without a valid visa. Those where no warning letter was issued include many of the circumstances already described to the House: where a carrier has been compelled to bring someone here by an overseas authority through no fault of his own; where a stowaway has been brought and the carrier has done everything reasonable to stop unauthorised people from using his services; where a passenger came from within the common travel area; where a passenger not intending to seek entry to the United Kingdom had had to do so, for example, because he had missed an onward flight; where there was a genuine misunderstanding with a carrier; and a number of varied cases where there were particular compassionate circumstances—for example, following the Zeebrugge disaster or because someone had unexpectedly to accompany a very sick child.
It is not possible in all cases to link the figures for undocumented arrivals under the Bill with the subsequent immigration history of the individual passenger, but we shall continue to keep records of the type of cases in which we decide to exercise discretion and a breakdown of the reasons why a charge was made.

571
With that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, will be satisfied that we are keeping the situation very much under review and I am sure he will note that the Bill is working very satisfactorily.
5 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very full answer. I am not quick-witted enough to take in all the implications of the answer as he read it out so I shall look at it with great care tomorrow in the Official Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("(5) This Act shall cease to have effect on 4th March 1988 unless the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument extends the effect of this Act for a period which shall not exceed 12 months.
(6)The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument extend from year to year any order made under subsection (5) above.
(7)No instruments shall be made under subsections (5) or (6) above unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage I ventured to suggest that it would be wise, as this Bill was born out of an emergency, to treat it as an emergency measure and to limit its life to 12 months. The noble Earl made a very reasonable response to that request in that he pointed out that 12 months was rather a brief period. He reminded me—and it was kind of him to do so—that in my amendment I had not produced the effect I thought I had, which was to make the Act renewable annually. In other words, it would come to rest at the end of the 12-month period unless it was renewed for a further period of 12 months.
I am somewhat reminded of a review by James Agate, whose cynical words brought a great deal of pleasure to some people and a great deal of pain to others. He was reviewing a piece of musical comedy of which a relation of mine was the joint composer. He remembered to the very end of his days the words of James Agate, which were,
"At the end of the second scene of the first act one of the characters says, 'Methinks I should not be here'. Me took the hint: me went".
That was the pungent criticism of James Agate.
I similarly have taken the hint from the noble Earl. I now have down an amendment which would make the Act renewable year by year. If Parliament so decides or if Parliament otherwise decides, it comes to an end. As this legislation was born out of an emergency, I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, surely this is not an emergency measure as that is ordinarily understood. It is a permanent component part of our immigration control. As I understand it, the intention is that this pattern of Bill will be accepted throughout Europe on a recriprocal basis. In these circumstances the amendment surely would not be appropriate.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the honeyed words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon,
572
but despite the tasteful honey I find them as unpalatable as I found them at Committee stage. I do not believe that the Bill requires the annual parliamentary consideratation that the amendment proposes. I took careful note of what the noble Lord said on this matter during the Committee stage, when he sought to argue, quoting from a speech by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place, that the Bill was some kind of emergency measure. It is urgent but is not and has never been intended to be a temporary provision.
It is quite true that it was the arrival here late last year and early this year of large numbers of undocumented passengers that provided what my right honourable friend described as the immediate spur to this proposal. It would have been quite irresponsible of us simply to have ignored those events and taken no action to prevent their recurrence. That is why we acted quickly to introduce this Bill, not as an emergency procedure but as the swift response that this responsible Government demand.
But this Bill is intended to form a permanent part of our immigration control, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has just said, just as European Community Ministers have agreed to recommend the introduction of similar legislation in all member countries. It raises no novel points either in comparison with other countries' legislation, or indeed in our interpretation of the responsibilites of carrying countries. As your Lordships know, it builds on the long accepted responsibilities of carrying companies under the Immigration Act 1971. It raises no new issues. It seeks only to ensure that people who wish to come here have the documents which they need and which Parliament has approved before they set out.
These are not matters which need or which should be introduced as temporary provisions or which should of their nature be kept under regular parliamentary review. Of course in changing world conditions they may not be the whole answer, but they will remain an important and useful part of the armoury of immigration control for the foreseeable future. There is therefore nothing to be gained by looking at the matter again in 12 months' time and every 12 months thereafter. To do so would be an unnecessary burden on our parliamentary procedures which would not be justified by the intrinsic nature of the legislation and it would leave carriers in a state of continuing and annual uncertainty about Parliament's intentions.
That is not in the carriers' interest, nor in the interests of maintaining an orderly policy of immigration control. I regret to have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I can only advise the House not to accept this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I accept the expression of regret from the noble Earl. I too regret his reply but realise that there would be no point in this instance in testing the opinion of the House. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of today's date):
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the Bill passes through your Lordships' House, and, with the speed to which we shall be accustomed over the next few days, finds it way on to the statute book a few words are appropriate and not many more. From these Benches we have realised the whole time that two aspects ought to be fought: first, the attempted immigrant who cheats; and, secondly, the carrier who makes a fortune or endeavours to do so out of the misery of others. We join the Government in wanting to make provision in legislation to defeat both those sets of people.
We have tried to tight from these Benches to ensure that the genuine immigrant is not impeded from making his plea to a country which has never refused to listen to the pleas of those who are in danger of losing their lives or in fear of persecution. I believe that that was a right battle to fight. If I may say so, not only the House has been fair in listening to those arguments but in particular the Minister has been patient, tolerant and courteous in listening to them.
From these Benches I do not regret the aim of the battle that we waged but now the end of the battle is here and one can only pray, as I am sure will be the case, that the Secretary of State when reading of your Lordships' deliberations will decide to use the discretion of which we have heard so much with mercy and tolerance, as befits our country.
Lord McNair: My Lords, in wishing this Bill not so much bon voyage —perhaps mal de mer is a better expression—I should like to make one serious point. We have not opposed the principle of the Bill but I fear that unamended it will sooner or later have some tragic consequences. I am afraid that sooner or later somebody will not get on a flight or a ship because of this Bill, somebody who would otherwise have reached our shores and would have been given asylum had he done so. I just hope and pray that I am wrong.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should just like to congratulate the Government on the speed and efficacy of this legislation. It will do a great deal to stop those racketeers who have been making money out of innocent people.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I merely wish to endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said. There was a terrifying abuse and this Bill is a reasonable and measured response to curb it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Bill has benefited from the careful and full discussion that we have had both today and on two previous parliamentary occasions. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all noble Lords who took part in it and my noble friends and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning for the support that I have received. It is perhaps difficult to imagine two clauses being given more careful scrutiny.
For our part the Government welcome these opportunities to set out the case for this legislation and to do our best to dispel misapprehensions and misunderstandings. Our debates have, I believe,
574
helped to clarify and explain what is basically a short, simple but effective provision to deal with the problem of carriers accepting people for travel who do not have the basic documents for their journeys.
Your Lordships have understandably concentrated on the possible effect on genuine refugees. At each stage I have taken every opportunity to confirm the Government's continuing commitment to the 1951 Convention on Refugees and to show that in practice there is no necessary link between a genuine refugee and the absence of proper documentation. The vast majority of genuine refugees will not be affected in any way at all by this legislation.
I think there has been some measure of agreement in this House that we have a problem of asylum abuse which we share with many other countries in the Western world. I ask the House to recognise that we are not alone in concluding that legislation of this sort is the right response. Our response is fully in accord with the recommendations recently made to all the members of the Economic Community and with the action taken in many other parts of the world.
The strength and effectiveness of this measure lie in its simplicity and in the fact that its requirements are all-embracing. I am sure your Lordships have been right to resist attempts to import various savings into the Bill which would open up obvious and unacceptable loopholes. But I again assure your Lordships that the Home Secretary will use his powers to exercise discretion sensibly, reasonably and with good judgment. He will continue to maintain a good balance between compassion and the need to bring home to carriers their responsibilities.
I cannot accept that the Bill in any way detracts from the Government's continued commitment to providing for refugees under the 1951 convention. This country is rightly proud of its reputation for accepting genuine refugees and this Government's record is an honourable and generous one, as the figures show. Between 1979 and 1985 we granted refugee status or asylum to over 7,500 people—that is, an average of over 20 each week. This response represents a real and practical commitment to helping with the problem of genuine refugees.
In addition, we have played a key part in resettling a substantial number of Indo-Chinese refugees; and on 8th May my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced that the Government were ready to receive a further 468 from Hong Kong. We believe, as has happened before, that this commitment will help to pave the way to other countries offering further help. This is not the response of a government seeking to ignore the needs of genuine refugees and surely demonstrates in the clearest way possible the practical action which the Government are ready to take in dealing in a responsible and planned way with the needs of genuine refugees.
We have also made significant practical contributions to help the victims of various disasters—famine and civil war—throughout the world. Over the last financial year, we provided £32 million in aid to various programmes, many run under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and we have agreed with our European partners to play our part in a European

575
Community contribution equivalent to over £100 million for refugee assistance to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the years from 1986 to 1990.
I believe we would be right to give the Bill its Third Reading. Our debates and detailed consideration have shown it is a necessary response to a serious problem. They have shown too that this legislation has withstood a most searching examination by your Lordships and, as I have reported to the House, that it is working in a sensible, humane and effective way. I believe the evidence will continue to show that the Bill presents no threat to or reflection on this country's continued commitment to genuine refugees, which rightly this House holds dear, but that it will ensure that this country continues to have the effective control on immigration which I believe the whole House accepts that we need. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Criminal Justice Bill
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: 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 Corn mittee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Serious Fraud Office]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 15, after ("him") insert ("on reasonable grounds")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is the first of a number of amendments which have been tabled by the opposition parties to Part I of the Bill. We would have greatly liked to have scrutinised the Bill thoroughly and taken it through its usual stages during which it would have been considered line by line. We are, however, in unusual circumstances. Because of our determination to take steps to combat serious fraud of the type which has been increasingly exposed and which has, also, been going unpunished, we have agreed that we shall support the steps to be taken to combat it by giving a fair wind to Part I of the Bill.
We have put down amendments and we believe that the debate will show that at least some of them, which the Government have indicated they may well be willing to accept, will improve the protection of the individual appearing before the courts. That is the motivation of identifying some of them, even in these exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless we face a risk in the procedures being followed today that
576
constitutional harm may be done in an exercise of a kind which, in effect, drives a coach and four through our customary and necessary procedures and functions and our scrupulous care for the protection of civil liberties. That is a price which, alas, in these exceptional circumstances we have to pay.
Amendment No. 1 has, as its object, to require the Director of the Serious Fraud Office before mounting an investigation to have what appear to him to be reasonable grounds for doing so and only to act in those conditions. The amendment would harmonise with the conditions which are imposed on the exercise by the director of his Clause 2 powers. For example, under Clause 2 the director's powers are, under subsection (2),
"exercisable, but only for the purposes of an investigation under section 1 above, in any case in which it appears to him that there is good reason to do so for the purpose",
of the investigation. Therefore the individual has that safeguard before he becomes subject to the strong powers which the director is given under Clause 2.
Similarly there is a limitation on the exercise by the director of the powers under Clause 2 to require individuals to attend before him and be questioned. The director must have "reason to believe" that the individual whom he requires to attend has relevant information to give. Thus, as Clause 1(3) stands, the director could mount his investigation without the amendment I move, even though he had no reasonable grounds for the belief that the suspected offence involved serious or complex fraud. It is true that he could not avail himself of the exceptional powers under Clause 2 unless it appears to him that there is a reason for doing so, but that would not prevent him investigating without having recourse to these powers.
In addition, the inclusion of the words in the amendment "on reasonable grounds", would be consistent with the limitations on the director of the exercise of his Clause 2 powers. It would make clear and express what was elsewhere indicated to be necessary by the use of the words:
"there is good reason to do so".
I submit that it is necessary to make that requirement clear and that the director should not exercise any of his powers under this part of the Bill unless there appear to him to be reasonable grounds for doing so. I submit that this is a useful, tidy, sensible and helpful amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I hope that the Committee will not accept this amendment. The words "to him" appear in our legislation time after time. They give a discretion which is not challengeable in the courts and which ought not to be challengeable. If the words "on reasonable grounds" are inserted, there will be challenges by way of judicial review and the like. This is a special matter for the director. After all, he is the director of the Serious Fraud Office and surely it is for him to decide. He must investigate only offences which appear to him to involve serious or complex fraud. Surely the decision whether or not to investigate can be left to him.
The Earl of Caithness: It is somewhat of a tragedy that, after the tremendous support given to me by the

577
noble and learned Lord in respect of the previous legislation. I now seek to disagree with him. I fully understand the wish of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to ensure that SFO investigations are undertaken only on reasonable grounds. Our own fair assumption was that the director would, in any event, act reasonably and with circumspection before involving himself in investigations. However, we see no difficulty about making clear this foundation for action on the face of the Bill, and can accordingly recommend to the Committee that the amendment be accepted.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am- grateful to the noble Earl and it will give a fair wind to what will follow.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to,
Clause 2 [Director's investigation powers]: [Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 35, after ("him") insert ("(a)").
The noble Earl said: In the Second Reading debate on the Bill in this House the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, criticised the inhibition in Clause 2(8) on using compulsorily obtained information in court against the provider of that information. I said then that in this respect we had not followed the precedent in companies' legislation and the Financial Services Act under which statements made to DTI inspectors in the exercise of their powers were admissible as evidence of those making them. However, I promised to reflect further upon what had been said, and in particular about any doubt which the terms of Clause 2(8) might raise about the admissibility of statements made to the Serious Fraud Office which are inconsistent with the account given by the accused in court. This amendment is the product of our reflections.
Under the present law, if a witness, including the defendant, gives evidence of a fact directly relevant to the subject matter of the charge he can be cross-examined on the basis that on some previous occasion he had made an inconsistent statement. As I understand it, this rule applies to statements of every kind, including statements not taken on oath or under caution.
We think that it is important to put beyond doubt the admissibility of statements made to the Serious Fraud Office in the same way. However, the primary safeguard of Clause 2(8) will remain. If a defendant chooses not to give evidence in court, or gives answers consistent with those that he gave during an early investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, no statement made to the SFO will be admissible in evidence against him.
This is not what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, called for. However, as I said on Second Reading, we are hesitant to adopt the course he suggested because to do so might appear to infringe the principle that the accused should not be required to incriminate himself. However, where the defendant
578
gives evidence in court it seems perfectly sensible that his credibility should be able to be tested against lawfully obtained information supplied to the SFO under its statutory powers. Evidence of inconsistency will not of course tell the jury which story is true; nor is the jury obliged to believe either version. The purpose of the exercise will be to test the credibility of the witness.
In short, the purpose of these amendments—I should have told the Committee that I am also speaking to Amendment No. 5. and I apologise for not having done so earlier—is to remove any doubt that there may be about the admissibility of inconsistent statements so that suspects cannot play games with the SFO or the court, and to preserve the general safeguard against admissibility of statements made to the SFO by the accused, which Clause 2(8) provides. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert ("or
(b) on a prosecution for some other offence where in giving evidence he makes a statement inconsistent with it.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 16, at end insert ("provided that where such failure is on the grounds of reasonable belief that compliance would or would tend thereby to incriminate him such belief shall constitute such reasonable excuse.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government to state their position unequivocally in relation to the privilege against self-incrimination. Clause 2 removes the traditional right to silence. Anyone suspected of serious or complex fraud can be made subject to questioning, as can anyone whom the director has reason to believe has relevant information. I refer to Clause 2(1) and (2).
5.30 p.m.
Under Clause 2(13), anyone who does not comply with any requirement under the clause—for example, anyone who fails to answer questions or give information—commits a criminal offence. I move this amendment in order to ask: where stands the privilege against self-incrimination? That privilege traditionally applies to a witness in court proceedings. He does not require the privilege before court proceedings begin because he has an absolute right to silence. However, the defendent's right to silence disappears under this part of the Bill. He can be compulsorily questioned.
Clause 2(8) provides that a statement by a person in response to a requirement imposed by virtue of this section may only be used—and I emphasise "only"—in evidence against him on a prosecution for an offence under Clause 2(14). That is the offence of failure, without reasonable excuse, to answer questions. The statement as such cannot be used against him on his prosecution for an offence of fraud. However, that in no way protects him from incriminating himself. The answer to a particular question may well immediately lead the director on to other information and other evidence which could without

579
restriction be used against the defendant at his trial and have the effect of securing his conviction.
There is a question of principle here which I would submit should be determined in this Committee and not handed over to the courts for decision. The question is this. Is the individual who is being compulsorily questioned by the director, and compulsorily questioned under threat of criminal sanction, to be entitled to say at some point, "No, I will not answer that question because I say that the answer will have a tendency to incriminate me because of where it may lead"? Reading Clause 2(13), it provides that:
"Any person who without reasonable excuse tails to comply with a requirement imposed on him under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both".
The words, "without reasonable excuse" are there. I pose this question. Is it a reasonable excuse that the answer to the question may have a tendency to incriminate because it will lead the director to other incriminating evidence? I would submit that it is no answer to say, "Leave it to the courts to decide."
It is a question of principle for this Committee to decide whether a reasonable belief that a particular answer will tend to incriminate in the way that I have supposed and whether that reasonable belief should or should not constitute a reasonable excuse under Clause 2(13). I would think it should, but in any event I would invite the Government to state where they stand on this matter of principle which it appears ought to be decided in this Committee.
I would also make this prediction. If this provision remains as it stands, the courts may well say, "If Parliament had intended anything as well known as the privilege against self-incrimination, it would have said so in clear words. It did not say so and therefore it cannot have intended that and therefore we, the court, hold that 'reasonable excuse' comprehends no more than an inability to answer for some reason but not an unwillingness." I contrast inability with unwillingness to answer because of where the answer would lead the director. It seems that this is a question of principle on which we should have an answer.
Perhaps I may make it entirely plain before I sit down that I would not seek to divide the Committee on this amendment; but it is an important issue of principle on which a clear statement would be most welcome.
Lord Denning: I would be against this amendment. The privilege against self-incrimination has often been abused. A person often says he does not want to incriminate himself because he does not want to be incriminated. But in a way it is much better in this legislation to leave it simply on the ground, "without reasonable excuse", without making a special exception in regard to incrimination. Let that be dealt with by the judge who is always and ever dealing with the matter.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to support this amendment which has been moved so ably, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. "Any person" is the phrase used in this clause: Any person may be required to answer questions under
580
pain of six months' imprisonment if he refuses to answer. It is not only the person under investigation who is concerned. The draconian powers given to the inspectors or the personnel of the director's office here are tremendous in their scope. It is not only the suspect or the person under investigation who has to answer questions under pain of imprisonment. It is "any person", and that "any person" may be a completely innocent potential witness who the director thinks has some relevant evidence. The discretion of the questioning is entirely and solely in the hands of the director. If he thinks reasonably, that any person has relevant information, that person can be brought before the inspector and interrogated, under pain of imprisonment if he does not reply.
The protection which will be put forward by the Government is to be found in Clause 2(8). There it is said that any statement made during this interrogation cannot be used in criminal proceedings. That of course is a very strong protection and one which this Committee will remember was objected to strongly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, at Second Reading.
That is the only protection such a person has; but, as every lawyer in the Chamber will know, documents or information which may be disclosed as a result of this interrogation will not be covered by Clause 2(8). Documents and information will be held to be admissible on the precedents, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who has just said, "Leave it to the judge". If it is left to the judge, those documents and that information will be held to be admissible, and those documents and that information may be, on the face of it, incriminating or potentially incriminating evidence, not against the criminal but against the innocent person. Therefore I would support this amendment because it would appear that the documents and information that come from the interrogation have been lost sight of in this clause.
On the question of reasonable excuse, I would support what has just been said because certainly in criminal law the interpretation of the phrase "reasonable excuse" has tended more and more to be inability—not being able to comply—rather than ever having a discussion in court as to the inherent reasonableness of the excuse put forward. Therefore that is very small protection for the person being so interrogated. On those grounds, I should like to add to what has been said already in support of this amendment.
Baroness Phillips: The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has again said, "Every lawyer in the Chamber knows". We are not all lawyers. I constantly find throughout the discussions on Bills such as this Criminal Justice Bill that the whole of the legally-trained Members of your Lordships' Chamber address everybody else as though they were equally part of that profession. Sitting here, remembering my experiences as a magistrate, I got the impression that many of the lawyers were there simply to confuse the people who sat on the Bench. I used to think at the beginning of a case that I knew what it was about. After I had listened for an hour to someone like the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I did not know what it was about. I should just like to ask him to explain how an innocent

581
person can incriminate himself. I cannot follow that logic. If one is innocent, any question that one answers cannot possibly be incriminating and result in being charged with an offence. Perhaps he can explain how that can be the case.
Lord Edmund-Davies: For the reasons that have already been stated, I venture to support this amendment. Apart from the very pungent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, in relation to "any person" mentioned at the beginning of subsection (13), we have to postulate under Amendment No. 7 as originally drafted the grounds of reasonable belief entertained by any person, whether he is a party or not, and that if
"compliance would or would tend thereby to incriminate him such belief shall constitute such reasonable excuse".
Yet when examining the matter, if some Olympian person or judge comes to the conclusion that the honestly held belief in point of actuality was not a reasonable excuse, notwithstanding that conclusion the accused is liable to be sentenced to six months' imprisonment. That does not seem to me to be justice, and accordingly I support the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: This amendment goes to the very heart of one of the major difficulties that we must address in legislating for the Serious Fraud Office to have the powers which are effective in rooting out fraud but are not oppressive toward those whose affairs are investigated. It is understandable that there should be concern about the position of the suspect and the consequences of self-incriminating answers given in the face of the compulsory powers in Clauses 2(2) and 2(3). The Government have given much thought to this. Our starting point is that these powers are necessary if the SFO is to be able to clear the trail of a complex fraud. The accumulation of documents and answers to a wide range of questions is vital; that is why we have opted for compulsory powers with a criminal sanction for non-compliance on the model of the powers exercised by DTI inspectors under the Companies Act and the Financial Services Act.
But there is one significant respect in which we have not followed the approach in companies legislation. In my view it goes a good way toward meeting the concern that has been so well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine., which underlies this amendment.
Under the Companies Act 1985—and I refer to Section 447(8)—and the Financial Services Act 1986, Section 105(5), statements made in compliance with the compulsory requirements are in due course admissible as evidence against those making them. Under Clause 2(8) such statements will not generally be admissible as evidence against those making them, although, if they are inconsistent with an account that the defendant chooses to give in court, we believe that the normal rules about prior inconsistent statements might result in their admission.
The effect of all this is that in questioning suspects the SFO will be able to operate in two ways. If the suspect is willing to answer questions voluntarily, he will be formally cautioned by the police or perhaps a member of the SFO and his statement, subject to the usual rules of admissibility, will be able to be used in evidence against him. That can be done under existing powers without any need for new provision.
582
If he is unwilling to answer questions voluntarily, he will be required to do so using the powers in Clause 2 but his answers will not be admissible as evidence against him in any subsequent trial. That seems to us to be a sensible balance. It maximises the SFO's ability to obtain the information that it needs, including information from suspects, but it preserves the right of the suspect not to have incriminating answers used in evidence against him.
Of course, the defence of "reasonable excuse" can always be raised in an individual case. Indeed, the court has recently shown its ability to address the precise point on the facts of an individual case in relation to journalistic material held in confidence. It must be right to leave the courts free to take a view on these matters rather than to impose a blanket defence on those from whom the SFO must be able to require information if it is to do the job that we all want it to do. I am sure that on that point there is no disagreement between any Members of the Committee.
It is for the reasons that I have outlined that at the moment we are unable to accept the amendment that has been moved.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to ask the Minister a question. Throughout his answer he has referred to "the suspect". The whole point of this amendment is that it deals with the innocent person who is not a suspect but is simply interrogated because he is thought to have relevant evidence. That is the distinction that we have made.
The Earl of Caithness: Although I used the word "suspect", my arguments must of course run for the case that the noble Lord has mentioned just now.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 3 [Disclosure of information]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 17, at end insert
("(bb) the Accountant in Bankruptcy;").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8. Clause 3(6) lists those who are specified as competent authorities to which information may be disclosed by the Serious Fraud Office. The amendment adds to that list the Accountant in Bankruptcy who is the Scottish equivalent of the Official Receiver. I am hopeful that the noble Lord opposite will welcome this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Notices of transfer and designated authorities]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 8A:
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(3) and (7A)").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move manuscript Amendment No. 8A, and at the same time I should like to speak to manuscript Amendment No. 8B. These are largely technical amendments. They ensure

583
that the witness order provisions applying in committal proceedings are applied in similar circumstances to those whose written statements are included in evidence in transferred statements; that is to say that a magistrates' court may make a witness order for the witness's subsequent attendance at a crown court trial. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Notices of transfer—procedure]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved manuscript Amendment No. 8B:
Page 9, line 31, at end insert
("(7A) For the purposes of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965–

(a)any magistrates' court for the petty sessions area for which the court from which a case was transferred sits shall be treated as examining magistrates' and

(b)a person whose written statement is tendered in evidence for the purposes of the notice of transfer shall be treated as a person who has been examined by the court.").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Dismissal of transferred charge]:
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 10, line 23, after ("written") insert ("or oral").
The noble Lord said: This is a very short amendment and concerns a very short point, which is to make sense of Clause 6(6). Clause 6 deals with the application by a defendant whose case has been transferred directly to the Crown Court under Clause 4 without any committal proceedings before the justices and it is an application which can be made to the judge to have the case dismissed on the ground that the evidence produced by the prosecution is insufficient to justify a trial. That is a submission which would normally be made to the magistrates. This is the shortened procedure and the submission is made to the judge in the Crown Court. This is, of course, an important right which, as I said, is normally made before the magistrates. It is particularly important in complex fraud where thousands of pounds in costs and months of suspense may be avoided by throwing out a weak case at that stage.
Under Clause 6(1), an application can be made orally or in writing. Under Clause 6(6), we find spelt out the considerations to which the judge should have regard when he is deciding whether or not to throw it out. It reads:

"(a) to the evidence tendered by the prosecution;

(b) to any written statement tendered by the defence … and

(c)to any oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution or the defence".

One does not see there any reference to an impassioned appeal by the advocate to the judge asking him to dismiss the case. Therefore I am submitting in this amendment that the word "oral"
584
should follow the word "written" in subsection (6) (b) so that the paragraph will read,
"to any written or oral statement".
I beg to move.
Lord Renton: This is a short but important point and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has given very strong reasons in favour of it. I wish to support him.
The Earl of Caithness: I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, who is supported by my noble friend Lord Renton. However, I am advised that the very fear that the noble Lord has is catered for by Clause 6(6) (c), to which he referred a moment ago. Therefore his amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Renton: No, with great respect that cannot be so, because there is a difference between evidence given orally and statements made orally but not on oath. Those advising my noble friend have obviously overlooked that difference.
Baroness Phillips: Perhaps one of these noble Lords who have all the explanations for every Act of Parliament could assist. The paragraph reads:
"to any oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution or the defence".
What is the difference between a statement and evidence?
Lord Renton: If I may say so, there is a great deal of difference. One is made on oath and the other is not.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should be extremely upset if I made a submission to a judge and then was submitted to a sharp cross-examination by my opponent because I had given evidence which on the face of it was not true.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that I can clarify the situation for the Committee. As I understand it, the procedure does not allow for oral application. The procedure should be in writing. Therefore the word "oral" does not apply.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: With the greatest respect to the Minister, if he looks at Clause 6 he will see
"(1) Where notice of transfer has been given, the person charged may at any time before he is arraigned apply orally or in writing to the Crown Court for the charge to be dismissed".
That is precisely opposite to what the Minister has just said.
Lord Renton: As the noble Lord said, for years it has been the practice of the courts to allow oral statements to be made either by the accused or by an advocate on his behalf, whether a barrister or a solicitor. Are we really, by a backdoor method, going to change that long-established procedure? It would be sheer nonsense to try to do so and the noble Lord's amendment makes sure that we are not doing so.
Lord Edmund-Davies: It will add greatly to the complexity of the advocate's role if he is to be stopped from letting out all he has to address to the court. He would die of apoplexy. It is a great danger.
The Earl of Caithness: I think that the time has come to tell your Lordships that I have given this amendment very careful consideration. I feel that the noble Lord has a point and I am very happy to accept his amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power to order preparatory hearing]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments No. 11 to 14:
Page 10, line 33, leave out from ("beginning") to ("it") in line 34.
Page 10, line 34, leave out ("of the offence charged") and insert ("on an indictment").
Page 10, line 46, leave out ("defence") and insert ("person indicted or, if the indictment charges a number of persons, any of them").
Page 11, line 8, leave out ("defence") and insert ("person indicted or, if the indictment charges a number of persons, any of them").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 and, at the same time, will speak to Nos. 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35. These amendments are mainly related to a single issue and arise from discussions with the Criminal Bar Association. It suggested that the use of the word "defence" throughout Clauses 7 to 10, which allowed a court to impose obligations at the preparatory hearing, meant that a defence lawyer could be facing conflicting orders from the court and his client. These amendments replace "defence" with "the defendant" and separate counsel and solicitors from such a conflict.
I am sorry that these amendments seem to be inordinately complex to achieve a single, though very important, distinction between the defendant and his lawyer. They must, of course, also take account of those cases where there are two or more defendants or several counts on the indictment. The last amendment is a drafting alteration to clarify the way in which periods of time may be set for compliance with orders for specific preparatory hearing work. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Commencement of trial and arraignment]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 11, line 16, leave out ("The person charged shall accordingly be arraigned") and insert ("Arraignment shall accordingly take place")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [The preparatory hearing]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 11, line 19, at end insert—
("(1 A) The judge may adjourn a preparatory hearing from time to time.")
The noble Earl said: This amendment simply puts beyond doubt the judge's power to adjourn a preparatory hearing as he could adjourn the trial once a jury is called in. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am terribly apologetic about taking up any time at this late stage of this Parliament, but I understand that judges have always had power to adjourn cases at any time and it surprises me that this amendment is at all necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 22:
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("defence") and insert ("defendant or, if there is more than one, each of them")
Page 11, line 32, leave out ("each count") and insert ("any of the counts")
Page 11, line 37, leave out ("to the court and the defence in that form") and insert ("in that form to the court and to the defendant or, if there is more than one, to each of them")
Page I I, line 39, leave out ("defence") and insert ("defendant or, if there is more than one, each of them")
Page 11, line 46, leave out ("defence") and insert ("defendant or, if there is more than one, by any of them")
Page 12, line 2, leave out ("defence") and insert ("defendant or, if there is more than one, each of them")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 12, line 3, leave out from ("a") to end of line 6 and insert ("statement in writing setting out in general terms the nature of his defence and indicating the principal matters on which he takes issue with the prosecution:")
The noble Lord said: In our view, on this side of the Committee, this is by far the most important amendment affecting Part I of the Bill. It deals with the degree to which an accused person may be ordered by the trial judge to disclose the particulars of his case before his trial begins. Whereas we are totally committed to the efficient and effective investigation and prosecution of serious fraud, and are anxious to see Part I of this Bill on the statute book, we are equally committed to the maintenance of civil rights. Clause 9(4) raises fundamental questions affecting the right of silence and the onus of proof, which go to the very heart of a criminal trial. As drafted paragraph (i) is unacceptable to us. Therefore, we have tabled this amendment.
The amendment which is now tabled is a fresh version of the amendment we originally tabled; it replaces the original Amendment No. 25. If I understand the situation correctly following prolonged negotiations, it may well be that this amendment which I now move proves acceptable to the Government. If that is the case, we should be most grateful for their appreciation of our very genuine concern.
Clause 7 introduces a new power enabling a judge at trial to order what is called a preparatory hearing before the trial proper. The purpose of that is to identify the issues, settle matters in dispute as to the law and admissibility of evidence and generally to get

587
the whole case into a clear, slimmed-down state fit for a jury to try and fit to present to a jury. That is in every way an admirable aim.
Clause 9 with which we are dealing, sets out the judge's powers at that preparatory hearing. Under Clause 9(3), he can order the prosecution to supply a case statement which should set out their case in detail. Under Clause 9(4)(b) he may order the defence to disclose a number of matters set out in that clause in paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). It is paragraph (i) that this amendment deals with.
The mischief lies in Clause 9(4)(b)(i), coupled, as it is, with the Sanctions in Clause 10 that arise for noncompliance with the order of the judge. The wording of the present Clause 9(4)(b)(i) is that a judge may order the defence:
"to give the court and the prosecution a written summary of the defence case in response to each of the principal allegations in the case statement".
that is by the prosecution
"specifying the principal facts upon which the defence propose to rely".
The Government have reiterated that they have no wish to undermine the accused's right of silence nor to derogate from the fundamental principle of the criminal law that it is for the prosecution to prove the case to the satisfaction of the jury. But to demand of the defence before the trial begins those particulars which I have just read out is to make substantial inroads into the accused's right of silence. If those facts depend on the knowledge and the observation of the accused himself, must that not force him into the witness box? That would mean that the prosecution could trim their case before trial and put each item of the defence case to their witnesses, who might then adjust their evidence accordingly.
That matter was raised by the Roskill Committee—it greatly troubled them—at paragraph 6.75. I would suggest that it might put defence counsel into an impossible position if he has a duty to the court to disclose and to obey the judge's direction and also has a duty to the client to act on his instructions, which might be not to disclose. No advocate should be put in a position where he must indicate to the prosecution where lie the defects in the prosecution's case; nor should he be put under a duty to strengthen the case against his own client. Our system remains adversarial; it has not yet become inquisitorial. For example, if the accused elects to give no evidence, under the clause as at present drafted he might be convicted of the offence simply for failing to comply with the order of the judge under the sanctions in Clause 10. It would seem likely that the prosecution would soon concentrate on discrediting the defence case rather than on proving its own.
For all those reasons—and there are many others—in our opinion, this subsection is unacceptable. Nevertheless, we take the view that in the fight against serious fraud—which we support to the hilt—the defence should be expected to assist in the proper administration of justice. They should make a general disclosure of their case or, as the Roskill Report put it, at paragraph 6.82, disclose the nature of their case in general terms, thus avoiding the prosecution being taken by surprise when the defence
588
put forward their case; but at the same time the right of silence and the duty of the prosecution to prove the case should be preserved in their entire integrity.
This amendment achieves both those ends. It means that the defence do not have to give a line-by-line detailed reply to the prosecution case statement, which statement can be made as detailed as the prosecution care to make it. It means that the defence must define in writing the general nature of their case and identify the principal issues which in their view will arise during the trial.
On that basis, I propose this amendment. I must add, however, that we take the view, and always have done, that Clauses 9 and 10 go together, for in Clause 10 we find the sanctions for failure to comply with the direction of the judge in Clause 9. In due course I shall be moving Amendment No. 37A which we believe follows on from this clause as amended. I merely say that in order to indicate now what is to come. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I have to advise your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 24, 25 or 26.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I rise to support the amendment. I do so with absolute reliance upon its importance. In view of the stress which we place upon it—this was communicated to the noble Lord opposite—we made it clear that if there was no giving ground on this, it might put in peril our whole attitude towards Part I of the Bill. I feel I should say that. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was not seeking to indicate that this was merely a brilliant suggestion emanating from the Alliance Benches, because we have made this a condition of our agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, in his admirable speech indicated, the traditional principle of the criminal law has been that the defendant is under no obligation to co-operate with the police or the prosecuting authorities and that at the trial he can require the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt without advance disclosure of the defence, which the prosecution learns only as it gradually unfolds during the cross-examination. However, we accept that in serious and complex fraud cases of the kind with which the Bill is concerned the defence should exceptionally make known in general terms the nature of its case in advance of the trial.
The reasons which have been adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, so clearly and so forcibly are overwhelming. The requirement in the clause as it now stands, which is that the defence may be ordered:
"to give the court and the prosecution a written summary of the defence case in response to each of the principal allegations in the case statement, specifying the principal facts upon which the defence propose to rely",
would impose an intolerable and, I submit, an unfair burden upon the defence. The alternative now proposed in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, remedies the matter to a considerable degree and receives our support.
The Earl of Caithness: It is always nice at this time to see such solidarity between the Labour Party and the Alliance. That is well to be noted.
The amendment bears on perhaps what is the most sensitive aspect of the preparatory hearing process; namely, the fact that to assist in the hearing the defendant can be required to disclose an outline of his defence. It is also an essential part of the process because without the co-operation of the defendant the preparatory hearing will not yield the considerable benefits which the Roskill Committee foresaw. Those benefits are, as the members of the Committee will recall, that points of law will be able to be resolved in advance of the jury being sworn, that issues which are not in dispute are identified and that those issues which are in dispute are presented in a form that should ease the task of the jury.
If the defendant were able to opt out of the preparatory hearing, it would be a case of Hamlet without the prince. We therefore attach considerable importance to the defendant being required to play his part in the preparatory stage and, like the Roskill Committee, we do not believe that such a requirement would infringe on the right to silence. Nevertheless, we are ready to consider the terms in which the requirement on the defence is expressed. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for explaining the purpose of their amendments so clearly. Indeed, as both of them said, there has been some discussion on this matter in advance.
The amendment would make the requirement on the defendant a little less specific than it is in the Bill as it stands, but it would preserve the essence of what we and the Roskill Committee had in mind. On the whole it seems to us to be an improvement on the original, and I am glad to be able to say that the Government would not wish to stand in the way of the amendment being made.
Lord Renton: Before any other noble Lord gets up to thank my noble friend, I wish to assure Members of the Committee that even under the amendment as we accept it the matter will not arise unless the judge in the exercise of his discretion (under line 2 of page 12) has decided that there is a prima facie case for the defence to answer. It is important that we should bear that in mind when such a new departure is taking place in our criminal procedure.
Lord Wigoder: I wish simply to comment that the solidarity to which the Minister referred is the solidarity not only of the Alliance who originated the amendment and the Labour Party who support it but apparently of the Government as well.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 26 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 35:
Page 12, line 8, leave out ("they have") and insert ("he has").
Page 12, line 10, leave out ("the defence may wish") and insert ("he wishes").
Page 12, line 11, leave out ("they intend") and insert ("he intends").
Page 12, line 14, leave out ("they agree") and insert ("he agrees").
Page 12, leave out lines 23 and 24, and insert ("who will give evidence").
Page 12, line 26, leave out ("defence") and insert ("defendant or, if there is more than one, all of them").
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("defence") and insert ("person giving them").
Page 12, line 30, after ("require") insert ("him to give").
Page 12, line 31, after ("which") insert ("any specified requirement contained in").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 27 to 35 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Provisions relating to later stages of trial]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 13, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("other") in line 6 and insert ("Where there has been a preparatory hearing, any party may depart from the case which he disclosed at the hearing but, in the event of such a departure or of failure to comply with a requirement imposed at the hearing, the judge or, with the leave of the judge, any").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 36 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 39, 40, 41 and 42. These are drafting amendments. They are consistent with the objectives of other amendments which distinguish between defendant and defence counsel. They also alter the drafting of the clause to make clearer the safeguard which is provided, such as that the case for the defence disclosed at the preparatory hearing should be revealed to the jury only with the leave of the judge. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I call the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, to move Amendment No. 37. Is it not moved?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I understand that there are four amendments grouped together. I should like to speak to all of them at the same time.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am now calling Amendment No. 37, which is the first amendment under the noble Lord's name. There are two other amendments, Nos. 37A and 37B, and my advice is that he wanted to call Amendment No. 37B.
Lord Tordoff: If the Chair will permit me, it is certainly proper, is it not, for the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, to speak to Amendment No. 37 coupled with the other amendments and perhaps seek the Committee's permission to withdraw that at a later stage so that general discussion on the whole area can take place.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: As I understand it, Amendment No. 37 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B, whch are manuscript amendments, and Amendment No. 38. With the leave

591
of the Committee, I shall speak to all four. In due course, when the Government have replied, I shall seek to move one of them and not to pursue the others, if the Committee thinks that that is a proper procedure.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 13, line 7, leave out ("the jury may draw such inference as they think fit").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 37 while discussing with it Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B. This clause is, as I said, linked closely with Clause 9. It spells out the sanction which may arise if either party fails to comply with any requirement demanded by the judge under Clause 9 or if either party departs from the case disclosed before trial. This clutch of amendments indicates, as the Committee may well have guessed, an intense period of negotiation with the Government, as we feel strongly about the broad extent of the words appearing in the Bill at the moment.
I understand that it is possible that one of those amendments may still be found acceptable to the Government at this late stage. The right which is given to the jury as a result of a failure to comply with any requirement imposed on the defence at the preliminary hearing is set out in Clause 10(1), which reads thus:
"The prosecution and defence shall have a right, subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, to depart from the case disclosed by them at the preparatory hearing, but if they do so or fail to comply with any requirement imposed on them at the hearing, the judge or the other party may make such comment as appears to him to be appropriate and the jury may draw such inference as they think fit".
Those words are so broad that it would appear that, if they wished to do so, the jury would be entitled to draw an inference of guilt against the accused person simply and solely on the basis that he had failed to obey an order of the judge at the preliminary hearing. The words are,
"the jury may draw such inference as they think fit",
or any inference of any kind that it would appear to them fit to draw in the circumstances. Those words in the statute, unvarnished as they stand, would leave the judge complete discretion to say to the jury, "You can draw any inference you think it fit to draw".
It is in order to limit those words that the various amendments have been put down. The circumstances might arise, for instance, in which there was very little evidence in a case—perhaps too little to satisfy the jury of guilt. But simply because of the behaviour of the accused in failing to comply with the judge's directions or failing to carry out some directions which he gave them over disclosure, the jury would be told—and the judge would only have to read out the words in the statute—that the jury might draw any inference they liked, if they saw fit, because of his attitude at the preliminary hearing.
In discussions with the Minister and the Government, an attempt was made to come to a compromise on Amendment No. 37, which simply seeks to leave out the whole of those words. An attempt was made in Amendment No. 37A to amend the words rather than to leave them out by adding the word "reasonable"
592
before the word "inference". The line would then read:
"The jury may draw such reasonable inference as they think fit".
That would go some way to limiting what the jury could do; it would of course make it possible to take the matter to appeal if it were said in the summing up that they could draw an inference which, on the face of it, was unreasonable. They would therefore be in some way limited as to the inference they could draw.
That was one of the suggestions as to compromise which I understood, at a late moment this afternoon, would in all probability not be acceptable to the Government. Therefore, Amendment No. 37B was put down as a second manuscript amendment. That amendment adds the words "as appears proper" so that the line would read:
"the jury may draw such inference as appears proper",
rather than the words:
"such inference as they think fit".
Lord Renton: Will the noble Lord be so kind as to explain—this is a complicated matter—whether he is not moving Amendment No. 37 as it stands on the Marshalled List but is moving an alternative to that amendment in Amendment No. 37B? I did not follow that.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. I think the position at the moment is that we are debating Amendment No. 37 and, along with that, Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B. That is a perfectly normal procedure in your Lordships' Committee. We await the Government's response to that group of amendments before my noble friend decides what he will do as regards Amendment No. 37. At that point, I believe that matters will become clear to the Committee. However, the debate is on the generality of that part of Clause 10.
Lord Renton: That is an unusual course but a sensible one in the circumstances. I have to confess that I find this subsection a bit of a muddle, even if it is not amended. However, the muddle that I find is not one which is dealt with by any of the amendments put down.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Is he interrupting the speech of the mover? I have not yet called the amendment.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I was listening, as I always do, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton; I was also wondering when he was going to come to the end of his interruption. I am glad that the procedure adopted has been described as a sensible one and in those circumstances I hope that the House will allow me to continue under that procedure and to await the reply of the Government before deciding which of the amendments I shall seek to move.
Dealing with Amendment No. 37B, which adds the words "as appears proper", if those words are more acceptable to the Government than the words in the previous amendment, then it would be a grain of comfort in that once again the power of the jury would

593
be limited in some way to drawing an inference which appeared proper in all the circumstances; in other words, to draw an inference of guilt from the misbehaviour of the defendant in not complying with a direction would clearly not be proper, and one could argue on that basis, which would represent some progress in limiting the power. I do not mention Amendment No. 38, which I have no intention of moving in the circumstances.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The amendment proposed, page 13, line 7, is to leave out ("the jury may draw such inference as they think fit"). Also, I apologise to the noble Lord: I misread my instructions and I was wrong.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I briefly rise to support Amendment No. 37B? That amendment seems to me to be wholly proper, totally adequate and to afford no reasonable criticism of the Bill as it stands.
Lord Renton: May I now, with great humility, try to explain the difficulty that I have about this subsection, whether or not the amendments are accepted? If my noble friend could address his mind to that, as well as giving us the long-awaited reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I should be grateful.
Perhaps I may read the relevant part of the subsection. It says:
"the judge or the other party"—
as I understand it, that means the prosecution or the defence—
"may make such comment as appear to him to he appropriate".
The word "him" presumably can refer to the judge and must refer to him only. How, until he has heard them, is the poor judge to decide whether such comments are reasonable and therefore to be permitted? He cannot stop them until they have been made. I find this a great difficulty in the new procedure. I should have thought that the words "to him" could well be left out altogether. One has the expression "appropriate", anyway. I am not sure that "reasonable" adds much to it. Anything that is unreasonable will not be appropriate. Therefore, in my view Amendment No. 37A would be unnecessary.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The word "reasonable" was to go in the later part of the clause, namely,
"the jury may draw such reasonable inference".
It is not an amendment to:
"the judge or the other party".
It is in respect of the jury.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his correction. The "reasonable" is more reasonable in the place mentioned by the noble Lord.
I come now to the intentions expressed by the noble Lord. Theia, is not very much in it either way, I should have thought. The real difficulty arises—we have no
594
amendment for dealing with this—from the strange proposition that,
"the judge or the other party may make such comment as appears to him to be appropriate".
This will give rise to difficulty in practice. If my noble friend can, quickly obtaining advice between now and Report, have this dealt with, it would help the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I think, and would certainly help me.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: May I deal with the point of my noble friend Lord Renton first? As I understand the Bill, the words "to him" mean whoever is making the comment. It is not solely the judge; it could include the other party. It could be:
"the judge or the other party may make such comment as appears to the judge or the other party to be appropriate and the jury may draw such inference as they think fit"
as printed in the Bill before us. I hope that that clarifies the situation for my noble friend.
The sanctions for not complying with the judge's order at a preparatory hearing or departing without good reason from the case disclosed then are an aspect of the procedure to which the Roskill Committee gave a great deal of thought. The committee was in no doubt that the sanction on adverse comment should be available in appropriate cases. The committee at paragraph 6.82 of the report said:
"Any failure to disclose the defence outline at that stage should be capable of attracting comment from the prosecution and the judge of the trial. The jury should be entitled to take account of, and draw any appropriate inferences from, the defendant's failure to disclose a particular line of defence on which he relies at his trial.".
Clause 10, as amended, is intended to meet that end. There would clearly be some cases where there would be no inference that the jury could sensibly draw. In others the fact that, for example, the defendant had changed his story in a very suggestive or self-serving way might well be a matter that the jury could reasonably regard as relevant to the credibility of the new account.
The government amendment, which I have just moved and which the Committee has accepted, tightens up the clause by allowing adverse comment by the parties only with the leave of the judge. This means that there will be a degree of judicial control on the process which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, will agree goes some way towards meeting the concern that he enunciated. One might also expect the judge to assist the jury in his summing up by guiding it on the kinds of inferences that it might be sensible for it to draw. Beyond that, we doubt whether it helps very much to try to define in statute the inferences that the jury can properly draw. Juries do not, generally speaking, operate in a legalistic way. They make up their minds according to the matters that have been placed before them.
I turn to manuscript Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. As the noble Lord says, this has been the subject of some discussion outside the Chamber. We are not on reflection attracted by the idea of inserting the word "reasonable" as proposed in Amendment No. 37A

595
because one cannot read the jury's mind. A requirement of reasonableness could lead to somewhat arid disputes on appeal.
However, we see attractions in Amendment No. 37B which proposes to alter the words at the end of the subsection so that the jury would be able to draw such inference as appeared proper rather than as it thought fit. This would be consistent with the language of Section 62 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allows the court, when someone has refused to provide an intimate sample, to draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper. It would, we agree, provide the judge with a peg on which he could hang guidance to the jury on what it might regard as constituting a proper inference.
I am therefore glad to say that we are able to accept Amendment No. 37B, supported by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. We hope that it will go a long way towards reassuring the noble Lord and that as a result he may be able to withdraw Amendment No. 37, not move Amendment No. 37A and move Amendment No. 37B, which I shall be pleased to accept on behalf of the Government.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I thank the noble Earl for his co-operation. I say only that I fear it may not take me a long way along the road to reassurance; but it will take me a short way, for which I am grateful.
I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 37. I shall not move Amendment No. 37A, and I propose to move Amendment No. 37B.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37A not moved.]
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 37B:
Page 13, line 8, leave out ("as they think fit") and insert ("as appears proper").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved..]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 42:
Page 13, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
Page 13, line 19, leave out (", if any, to which the defence have departed from the") and insert ("of any departure from a").
Page 13, line 21, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) to whether there was any justification for it.").
Page 13, line 22. at end insert—
("(3A) Except as provided by this section no part—

(a)of a Statement supplied under section 9(4) above; or

(b)of any other information relating to the case for the defendant or, if there is more than one, the case for any of them, which was given at the preparatory hearing.

may be disclosed at a stage in the trial after the jury have been sworn without the consent of the person who supplied or gave it.".
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 36.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I draw your Lordships' attention to the misprint in Amendment No. 42 in paragraph (a), which should read:
"of a statement supplied under section 9(4) above".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Charges of and penalty for conspiracy to defraud].
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 15, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A) In section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, the words from "and" to the end are hereby repealed.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, and at the same time speak toAmendments Nos. 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 170, 173, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183 and 185. This daunting group of amendments contains amendments which are necessary to leave intact only the provisions required for the enactment of Part I of the Bill, including those associated provisions in schedules which are technically necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Denning Lord Denning had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
("Fraud Trials Tribunal.
.—(1)In any case which appears to the Attorney-General to involve issues of complex fraud suitable for trial by a tribunal, the "Fraud Trials Tribunal", he may apply to a Judge of the High Court for an order that the case be tried by that Tribunal instead of by a Judge and Jury.

(2)If the High Court Judge makes an order under subsection 1 above the case shall be transferred to the Tribunal which shall thenceforward give all directions as to the hearing of the case and shall have all such powers of sentencing as if the case had been tried by Judge and Jury.

(3)The Tribunal shall consist of a Judge and two lay members selected from a panel of persons who have skill and expertise in business generally and experience of complex business transactions.

(4)The Lord Chancellor shall make rules constituting the Tribunal and regulating its practice and procedure.")

The noble and learned Lord said: I put down this amendment because one of the most important recommendations of the Roskill Commission was that there should be a special frauds tribunal consisting of a judge and two experts to deal with the cases of complex and serious fraud. On Second Reading the Government said that they would be pleased to consider the matter further. I know it is a matter of controversy, therefore in the circumstances that have arisen I shall not now move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 13 [First-hand hearsay.]:
The Earl of Caithness: I beg to oppose the Question, That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill, and at the same time would also oppose Clauses 14 and 15 standing part of the Bill.
Clause 13 negatived.
Clauses.14 and 15 negatived.
Clause 16 [Statements in documents that appear to have been prepared for purposes of criminal proceedings or investigations]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clauses 16 and 17 negatived.
Clause 18 [Letters of request]:
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
Clause 18 negatived.
Clause 19 [Expert reports]:
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
Clause 19 negatived.
Clause 20 [Power to make Crown Court Rules as to form of evidence and as to glossaries]:
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
Clause 20 negatived.
Clause 21 [Evidence through videq, links]:
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 59 not moved.]
Clause 21 negatived.
After Clause 21:
[Amendment Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Use of written evidence of persons under 14 in committal proceedings]:
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clauses 22 to 28 negatived.
Clause 29 [Reference of sentencing questions to Court of Appeal]:
[Amendment Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
Clause 29 negatived.
After Clause 29:
[Amendment Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
Clauses 30 to 32 negatived.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 33 [Restrictions on the imposition of custodial sentences on offenders under 21]:
[Amendment No. 67 not moved..]
Clause 33 negatived.
After Clause 33:
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clauses 34 and 35 negatived.
After Clause 35:
[Amendments Nos. Nos. 69 to 73 not moved.]
Clauses 36 to 39 negatived.
Clause 40 [Increased periods of imprisonment for default]:
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 40 negatived.
Clause 41 [Review of postponement of warrant of commitment]:
[Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 not moved.]
Clauses 41 and 42 negatived.
After Clause 42:
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Clause 43 negatived.
Clause 44 [Fixed penalty notices]
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Clauses 44 and 45 negatived.
Clause 46 [Power to deprive offenders of property]:
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Clauses 46 to 60 negatived.
After Clause 60:
[Amendment No. 80 not moved..]
Clauses 61 to 79 negatived.
Clause 80 [The compensation scheme]:
[Amendments Nos. 81 to 94 not moved.]
Clause 80 negatived.
Clause 81 negatived.
Clause 82 [Powers to withhold and reduce compensation]:
[Amendments Nos. 95 to 99 not moved.]
Clause 82 negatived.
Clause 83 [Right of appeal by way of case stated]:
[Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 not moved.]
Clause 83 negatived.
Clauses 84 to 87 negatived.
After Clause 87:
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 88 negatived.
Clause 89 [Abolition of peremptory challenge]:
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 89 negatived.
Clauses 90 and 91 negatived.
Affer Clause 91:
[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
Clauses 92 to 94 negatived.
After Clause 94:
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Clause 95 negatived.
After Clause 95:
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Clauses 96 to 115 negatived.
The Deputy Chairman of Committee (Lord Alport):
We now come to Clause 116, which does not appear on the Marshalled List but which must be there.
Clause 116 negatived.
Clause 117 [Application to Service courts etc. of provisions relating to evidence]:
[Amendments Nos. 109 to 113 not moved.]
Clause 117 negatived.
Clauses 118 to 123 negatived.
Clause 124 [Groundless appeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 not moved.]
Clause 124 negatived.
Clause 125 [Anonymity in rape etc. cases]:
[Amendments Nos. 116 to 118 not moved..]
Clause 125 negatived.
Clauses 126 to 130 negatived.
After Clause 130:
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Clause 131 [Northern Ireland]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 83, line 2, leave out from ("to") to end of line 6 and insert (" 12").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 132 agreed to.
Clause 133 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 83, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 134 [Commencement]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 122 to 124:
Page 83, line 19, leave out ("subsections (3) and (4)") and insert ("subsection (5)").
Page 83, line 26, leave out from ("force") to end of line 34.
Page 83, leave out lines 37 to 39.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 83. line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 84.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 84, line 8, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 135 [Extent]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 84, leave out lines 31 to 43.
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 85, leave out line 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 85, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 85. line 8, leave out subsections (6) to (9).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 85, line 29, leave out ("or repeal").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 85, line 30, leave out ("or 13").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 85, leave out line 31.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 140, 141 and 142:
Page 85, line 32, leave out ("any enactment to which this subsection applies") and insert ("section 2 above-).
Page 85, line 34, leave out ("or to the Isle of Man").
Page 85, line 36, leave out subsection (12).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 136 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Serious Fraud Office]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 87, line 42, leave out ("of witnesses").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment to Schedule 1, and expands the category of persons whose costs and expenses of attending criminal proceedings at the request of the Serious Fraud Office may be met. By this means, the expenses of, for instance, parents of child witnesses or those accompanying disabled witnesses may be met. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Documentary Evidence-Supplementary]:
Schedule 2 negatived.
Schedule 3 [Service courts-Suspended and Partly Suspended Sentences of Imprisonment]:
Schedule 3 negatived.
Schedule 4 [Offences in Respect of which Magistrates' Courts may make Confiscation Orders]:
Schedule 4 negatived.
Schedule 5 [Amendments of Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986]:
[Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 not moved.]
Schedule 5 negatived.
Schedule 6 [The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board]:
Schedule 6 negatived.
Schedule 7 [Claims for compensation]:
[Amendments Nos. 146 to 157 not moved.]
Schedule 7 negatived.
Schedule 8 [Supervision]:
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Schedule 8 negatived.
Schedule 9 [Amendments of Backing al Warrants (Republic. of Ireland) Act 1965 and Fugitive Offenders. 4ct 1967];
Schedule 9 negatived.
Schedule 10 [Administration of the probation service etc.]:
[Amendments Nos 159 and 160 not moved.]
Schedule 10 negatived.
Schedule 11 [Service courts etc.]
[Amendments Nos. 161 to 169 not moved.]
Schedule 11 negatived.
Schedule 12 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 117, leave out lines 28 to 49
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 118, leave out lines 16 to 48
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 174 and 175 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 119, leave out lines 7 to 13
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 119, line 15, leave out from beginning to ("(right") in line 47 on page 120 and insert—
("13. At the end of subsection (I) of section 33 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved manuscript Amendment No. 177A:
Page 120, line 49, at end insert
("21A. In section 36 of that Act (bail on appeal by defendant) after the word "Lords", there shall be inserted the words "other than a person appealing or applying for leave to appeal from a decision on an appeal under section 9(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (appeals against orders or rulings at preparatory hearings),".
21 B. In section 38 of that Act (presence of defendant at hearing) after the word "who" there shall be inserted the words "has been convicted of an offence and".")
The noble Earl said: I apologise for the late tabling of this technical amendment. There are two other technical amendments in manuscript. They are Amendments Nos. 179A and 184A. These amendments form a provision in Clause 9 for an interlocutory appeal on points of law to the Court of Appeal and, in certain circumstances, onwards to your Lordships' House at a preparatory hearing. The amendments ensure that the appeals attract the appropriate legal aid and cost provisions for defendants. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 121, leave out lines Ito 34
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 121, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 on page 122
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 179A:
Page 122, line 29, at end insert—
("32A. The following subsection shall be inserted after section 28(8) of that Act—
"(8A) The Crown Court or the criminal division of the Court of Appeal may order that a person shall be given legal aid for the purpose—

(a)of an application for leave to appeal under section 9(10) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (appeals against orders or rulings at preparatory hearings); or

(b)of an appeal under that subsection.".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 180 and 181:
Page 122, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 123.
Page 123, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 on page 124.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 125, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 126.
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 184A:
Page 126, line 17, at end insert—
("60A. The following subsection shall be inserted after section 16(4) of that Act—
"(4A) The court may also make a defendant's costs order in favour of the accused on an appeal under section 9(10) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (appeals against orders or rulings at preparatory hearings).").
60B. At the end of subsection (2)(b) of section 18 of that Act (award of costs against accused) there shall be added "or
(c) an appeal or application for leave to appeal under section 9(10) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987;".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 126, leave out lines 18 to 29.
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 186 not moved.]
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Repeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 187 to 196 not moved.]
Schedule 13 negatived.
In the Title:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 197:
Line 2, leave out from ("fraud") to ("and") in line 20.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
7.15 p.m.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of today's date); Report received.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in order to clarify the proceedings from Committee I believe that I should have moved Amendment No. 130. I originally intended to, and then did not, move this amendment. It should have been moved in order to make Clause 135 complete. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it should be incorporated into the Bill at this stage.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I think we all thought that at the time.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, this now becomes a manuscript amendment on Report, and will be recorded in Hansard accordingly.
Clause 135 [Extent]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 84, leave out line 47.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, seldom in the long and glorious history of this House has there been such a Session of legislative devastation. From these Benches we certainly wish to congratulate the Deputy Chairman at the Committee stage who conducted his office with aplomb and capability and quite obvious enjoyment.
As we reach the Third Reading of this rather hustled legislation, it is necessary only to draw attention once more to the fact that this must never be used as a precedent for rushing through legislation especially in your Lordships' House bearing in mind that we are, in our primary duties, a House where we revise legislation. There are extenuating and difficult circumstances. Quite obviously, if we were not to have agreed to this procedure without precedent, we should have lost Part I of the Bill. As has already been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, we on this side of the House wanted, without any doubt, to assist so far as we properly could in seeing that the Serious Fraud Office was set up and that it could exercise its duties and powers as soon as possible in order that the stain (which unfortunately has been imprinted upon an otherwise very clean City in its reputation throughout the world) should be dealt with promptly and accurately as it has not been possible to do in past months. It is in those circumstances that we reach the Third Reading of the Bill. I shall say one more thing before sitting down. It will be the joy of my friends on the Front Bench of the Labour Party in the future to draw the attention of the Minister, on whatever side of the House he may be sitting, to the fact, if ever certain clauses of the Bill are before us again, that he voted with such a good voice against all those clauses forming part of his Bill.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I suspect that within the past half hour, for all anybody in the Committee may know, including the Minister, we may well have repealed both Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. It has been a half hour of almost total gibberish, in the course of which—and this is not really such a laughing matter—a whole series of starred amendments, of which no one had any notice until this morning when the Marshalled List was issued, have been passed through this Chamber without a word of explanation or comment. I suspect that none of us had any idea of the implication of the detail of what it is we have passed. That strengthens my sense of unease about the whole of the proceedings this afternoon.
It has been perfectly apparent that we have been going through the stages of a Bill having negotiated between all the parties in the corridors outside the Chamber yesterday afternoon, yesterday evening and this morning the detail of what was to happen. Of course I can understand the reasons for that. I know perfectly well that politicians in all the parties are about to set out for all parts of the country and they want to be able to say that where fraud is going on in the City of London their party is behind the drive to stamp it out. All the parties want to say that—the Alliance as much as anybody else. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that this part of the Bill now comes before this Chamber in the very undesirable way that it has.
It is undesirable for the reason that has already been made clear. We have failed in our duty as a House to

605
exercise our proper legislative function. This is a criminal statute. It is a measure of the criminal law. We all know from history how important it is that the criminal law should be absolutely right. That means that it should be examined with scrupulous care not merely in Committee but at Report stage and Third Reading in both Houses of Parliament, and particularly in your Lordships' House where there are noble and learned Law Lords who can bring a wealth of expertise on legal matters that is not available to the other place. We have abandoned the whole of that; we have shot through the Bill; we have negotiated amendments between ourselves outside in corridors; and nobody knows what the result will be during the next few years.
It hardly needs me to point out that some 75 years ago the Official Secrets Act 1911 was passed with much the same speed and we have all been regretting it every since. It was done in good faith and in a way which people thought at that time was absolutely correct. The reasons why we have got into this difficulty—and I understand them—are twofold. First, the Prime Minister with a large and, so far as I know, entirely stable majority in the other place has chosen to go to the country about a year before she need have done. That is her prerogative and it would be impertinent of me even to begin to criticise it; and of course I do not do so. But the result has been that the centrepiece of the Government's legislation of this Session has collapsed in the rather lamentable way we have seen today. That is the first problem.
The second problem is that right from the beginning this Bill had far too much in it. There should have been a whole series of separate Bills. There should have been a separate Bill on fraud, a separate Bill on evidence, a separate Bill on confiscation and certainly a separate Bill on extradition. Indeed if we had had a separate Bill on fraud brought forward after the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, many months ago now, that Bill would have gone through both Houses in all its stages with proper, careful consideration and would no doubt have been a worthy addition to the criminal law instead of this rushed version with which we have had to put up this afternoon.
I appreciate that the circumstances are exceptional. Everyone will say that this is not a precedent until it happens next time when it will then come to be regarded as a precedent. Whichever government come to power after the election, I can only hope, first, that if the Bill is reintroduced, it comes back to your Lordships' House which is the obvious recipient of this Bill, it having been examined in another place; and, secondly, it comes back in a series of digestible portions so that we can properly exercise the functions for which we are here.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the Bill leaves your Lordships' House somewhat slimmer than when it arrived; but in the short time available before Parliament is dissolved I believe that we have done a good job in saving a highly significant and coherent part of it. As it now stands, the Bill provides for significant changes and reforms to help the criminal justice system tackle large scale fraud vigorously. The new
606
serious fraud office should help to focus effort and expertise on the investigation and prosecution of such cases. The streamlined court procedures recommended by the Roskill Committee will enable serious fraud trials to be brought rapidly into the jurisdiction of the Crown Court where it will be possible for the issues to be refined and clarified by a formal preparatory stage. The change in the ambit of the charge of conspiracy to defraud is a modest but important reform which will make it easier for the prosecution to bring the right charge in the more serious cases.
I am grateful for the constructive spirit in which the Committee shared our aims, and I too should like to pay tribute to the Lord Chairman for the excellent work that he did. I acknowledge that there has been less opportunity to debate these provisions than would normally have been the case; but it is a measure of the importance we all attach to the fight against fraud that we have been willing to forgo that opportunity. It is, I would suggest, no more and no less than the country would expect. Your Lordships know that we are always open to constructive proposals for change, and although I am confident that they do what is required of them, I can assure the House that these provisions are no exception. Of course we should have wished to go further and bring the whole of the Bill as introduced to the statute book; but I am confident that that can be done before very long. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will join me in good voice in getting those parts of the Bill on to the statute book ere long.
I was a little disappointed by what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said. There was considerable discussion on Part I of the Bill. Admittedly, the remaining parts which were consequential on the agreement were not discussed. But that was the nature of the agreement. They are there to be discussed for another day because I am sure that before long your Lordships will have another Criminal Justice Bill and I hope that I shall have the honour of being in this position to introduce it and get the support of noble Lords opposite in seeking to put it on to the statute book.
I shall not detain the House further. We send this Bill to another place in the knowledge that we are sending a clear signal of our seriousness of purpose in tackling major fraud and in the confidence that this measure makes a very important contribution to that end. I commend the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a third time and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill
Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1987
7.30 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 7th May be

607
approved. It has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has made no comment on it.
I do not intend to detain your Lordships long in seeking your support for this measure which will benefit candidates at all future parliamentary and local government elections. The amount of money a candidate may spend on the conduct or management of an election is presently restricted by Sections 76 and 197 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended by the Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1986. Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of this order are intended to increase the current limits at parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom, local government elections in Great Britain and ward elections in the City of London in line with changes in the value of money since the last order was made on 1st March 1986. Articles 4 and 7 will provide a corresponding increase of 5.6 per cent. for candidates at ILEA elections and elections by liverymen in common hall to take account of the increase in the retail price index since they were fixed on 16th July 1985 by the Local Government Act 1985 and the Representation of the People Act 1985 respectively.
Article 1 provides for the order to take effect on the day after the day on which it is made. This is in keeping with past practice and will enable parliamentary candidates in constituencies with, say, 60,000 electors to spend an extra £190 above the current maximum of £4,920 in borough constituencies and £5,460 in county constituencies at the next general election. It will also enable candidates who are in the midst of a campaign at a local government, ILEA or City of London election to fill a casual vacancy to incur expenditure to the new limits set by Articles 4 to 7 of the order. It will not, however, retrospectively authorise expenses in excess of the present limits which have been incurred before it takes effect.
Consideration was given last autumn to the possible need to increase the limits at local elections in time for this year's elections on 7th May. However, no representations for such an increase had been made and there was nothing to suggest that the increase in the retail price index since 1st March 1986 would be sufficienty large to justify making an order at that time. Indeed, it was subsequently confirmed that the index only rose by 1.8 per cent. between that date and 31st October 1986. We accordingly decided to take no action on that occasion.
In April, however, the Home Secretary decided to increase the limits at parliamentary elections by 4 per cent. to take account of inflation between March 1986 and 31st March 1987 because of a general expectation that those limits would be increased before the next general election. He also decided that, although such an order clearly could not be made in time for the local elections on 7th May, it would still be desirable to increase the limits for local government, ILEA elections and City of London elections at the same time to benefit candidates at elections to fill casual vacancies and ordinary elections held after that date.
I should also stress that the making of this order will not preclude the making of another one for next year's
608
local elections, should this be necessary to allow the candidates to conduct an effective campaign. I therefore recommend these proposals to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House be approved—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this is a sensible order, which we approve. I assume that it has been subject to the usual consultation with the other political parties. It might be of interest to your Lordships to know that, as I notice there is a reference to increased expenses for parliamentary elections, it reminded me that early this year I received an appeal to subscribe to the funds of the constituency parties for the Conservative Party's general election expenses and to join in a campaign to get a capital fund going in order to build up the Conservative fighting fund. The letter was from an investment trust, the chairman and chief executive, and it said that no doubt we shared the same views in the same circumstances etc. I should like to inform the House that this in no way implies that I failed in my duties as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I am looking forward on 12th June to the best possible golden wedding present of a Labour victory.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) (No. 2) Order 1987
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved. For brevity I shall call it the No. 2 order. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the order and has approved it.
We are considering here this evening the recommendations contained in a report made by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England. The commission has the statutory duty to keep the distribution of seats under continuous review. It has to review the whole country every 10 to 15 years, and the last of these general reviews was completed and implemented in 1983. However, in the interval between general reviews, changes are made to local authority boundaries at parish, district and county levels which mean that constituency boundaries no longer coincide with local government boundaries. The commission has been working to remove these anomalies to avoid the confusion and inconvenience they cause to electors, local authorities and political organisations.
The draft order before your Lordships' House is similar in structure to those considered on previous occasions. Article 2 substitutes the constituencies in the schedule for those set out in the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1983. Article 1(2) enables the order to come into force forthwith once it is made by Her Majesty in Council. Thus the new boundaries will be available for the general election.
The No. 2 order deals with two constituencies in Berkshire that were originally included in an earlier review by the commission. This House considered the other 40 constituencies in this review on 17th March this year and the commission's recommendations

609
were implemented in the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987. A separate report was made on these two constituencies because the proposals were considered at a local inquiry in February. The assistant commissioner who conducted the inquiry concluded that the commission had been right to recommend that the newly enlarged parish of Finchampstead should be placed in the constituency of Reading, East, rather than being left divided between Reading, East and Wokingham. This would not only enable the ties within the newly created parish to be developed but also would reduce the disparity between the electorates of the two constituencies from 12,033 to 6,991.
I invite your Lordships to approve this draft order for implementing the commission's proposals in full.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved. [19th report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Bill
7.38 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: 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 Gisborough.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("this Act is") and insert ("the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 was").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. For brevity, and I am sure for clarity, this is a plea for retrospection. The arguments have been well rehearsed. The Minister and I had a useful exchange. I was sorry that he was unable to be here last week, and I understand that, but we had rehearsed the arguments some 12 months before.
Let me say in his presence that I am grateful for the outcome of the review which took place and which finally led to the Government supporting the Bill that we have here. There is no argument from any quarter in this or the other House that the Government have acted not only properly but fairly and generously as to the future. I want that to appear on the record.
We are concerned not only to bring people into the scope of new legislation but about the omission of deserving people. It seems ironic that the case for the future is made on the evidence from the past. The case that has been accepted by the Government and their inquiry is that it is right and proper to provide serving members of the armed forces with the opportunity (if they so wish and believe that it is their best recourse)
610
to go to the courts in order to obtain what they consider to be the best redress of a grievance.
There are dangers in doing so which must be weighed by the servicemen who feel so aggrieved and their advisers. However, there is a body of people whose experiences it would be too gruesome to read into the record yet again: they have already been read into the record in this House and in other places. In my view, the Minister ought not to rest wholly on the grounds that retrospective legislation is bad or inappropriate. He and a number of his Ministerial colleagues have not hesitated in this Parliament, and no doubt in other parliaments, to say that the circumstances of an issue at a particular time are right for retrospection. Here we are seeking to persuade the Minister to make the Bill effective not from the time that it is passed, which will be very soon, but from 1947.
On the face of this Bill there are various financial provisions under the heading "Financial and public service manpower effects of the Bill", and various sums are mentioned. I am not in a position to query them. The sums are not massive but at the same time I appreciate that they are considerable when one realises that prior to this Bill there were no provisions of this kind at all. I honestly say to the Minister and his colleagues that I hope that the Government, in the last few days of this Parliament, can find it within their heart to produce whatever further sums of money are required. One does not know, because even for the future the wording on the face of the Bill indicates the uncertainty in trying to calculate the sums for the next 10 years. Even if I am right, we are talking in terms of 13 million over the next 10 years. I have no idea what the amount will be in respect of the past 40 years.
In my view, the case was powerfully argued by my good friend Mr. Jack Ashley, and by Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. Denzil Davies. I believe that it was listened to sympathetically by Members all round the House. I know that there is anxiety in another place that the Bill should not be lost. It is certainly not my intention to do anything which will cause that to happen. I believe that those who have suffered—not merely those who have been injured but also their families and friends—are entitled to be given the opportunity to test in a court of law their right to more adequate compensation than that which they received previously under any other system and which the Government and the Minister have fairly told the House has been available to them. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I support the amendment moved briefly but comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I am sorry that I was not present at Second Reading but I read the debate with great interest. I feel very strongly that this Bill is entirely an all-party affair. Its provisions offer nothing but gain to the services, with one exception. The Bill creates what I shall say are three categories but which I believe should be one category. The benefits which are to be given under the Bill prospectively should apply retrospectively from 1947, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has said.

611
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who cannot be here today, effectively described that a friend of his had said that there were in a military hospital a number of soldiers who had suffered similar injuries during military service. They received three different kinds of compensation from three different funds. There was also the possibility of a fourth soldier who may have had the wrong leg amputated by a doctor and he would have been compensated, if at all, in yet another way.
To my mind the Bill creates three further categories. For anyone who has suffered any injury, categorisation is pretty horrific. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, described the soldiers in a hospital. I remember that in the old days it was unthinkable that a soldier should have a right of action for negligence in respect of military service. Soldiers who had no right of action were in hospitals with those who had been injured in civilian life. Some received large compensation, some little compensation and some none at all. The unfairness of life came home to the soldiers when they mixed with civilians in a way which had not struck them before.
The way in which opinion changes is illustrated by this Bill. It is a reversal of what we had all previously thought and I think that today we are all happy about it. The categories into which the Bill divides people are, first, those who benefit under the Bill as drafted and will receive its benefits after Royal Assent. They will have a legal entitlement to sue for negligence. Secondly, there are those who benefit on an ex gratia basis under the special arrangements being made in regard to claims between 8th December 1986—which is the date of the announcement of this legislation—and the date of Royal Assent of the Bill in 1987. Thirdly, there are those who are denied the benefit of claiming because their claim dates between 1947 and 1987.
I believe that justice is clearly not being done between those three categories of servicemen and that we ought to be doing something to put it right. Mr. Jack Ashley moved that proposal in the House of Commons. During the debate in Committee I think that the argument was hardly countered by anyone present. It was only the vote on party lines which made his effort unsuccessful.
The amendment is being repeated today. It may be that for some reason or another, which I cannot understand, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, does not feel able to accept the amendment because it might not be agreed to in the House of Commons. There seems to me to be no argument on that matter because this is non-party business and I feel sure that the amendment will be agreed to without controversy. However, if that opinion is taken by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the Minister, I suggest that three courses are available. The first course is that which has been advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and myself—and which I think is by far the best case—and it is to accept the amendment.
If that course is excluded there is the suggestion of the Member in another place who introduced the Bill, Mr. Winston Churchill, of establishing a fund to compensate victims between 1947 and 1988. I think
612
that that is worthy of consideration but a limited fund might well not be the answer.
The third alternative—and perhaps this is the one which is really viable and which I would recommend to the Committee if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is not acceptable—would be to extend the ex gratia proposal which has been put forward by the Secretary of State in another place in respect of those who are affected since the date of the announcement on 8th December last year until Royal Assent to the Bill this year so that the provisions he is going to make for them to have ex gratia payments in respect of admissible claims should be extended further back from 8th December last year to the date of the passing of the Act in 1947. If that were done I should be entirely happy and this unfortunate division of servicemen into three categories would be eliminated. I think that is second best, and with those words I should like to support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Henderson, for bringing forward this amendment, for a number of reasons. Like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I listened to the speech of my noble friend Lord Meston at an earlier stage of the Bill and I was much moved by the matters he described to us, as indeed I think were a number of your Lordships in all parts of the Chamber. I think I am right in saying that my noble friends on these Benches would all wish to see the adoption of an amendment like this or of one of the courses of action which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, because we believe that this is something which should be done.
I am also glad that this amendment has been brought forward at a very late stage in this dying Parliament, in the knowledge of course that we may not be able to make a great deal of progress with it for reasons which are understandable. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would understand if the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, who has done such excellent work in bringing the Bill thus far, does not wish in any way to imperil it. That would be understandable, though perhaps regrettable, because one hopes that some course of action could be found whereby difficulties could be avoided because of the timing.
I think it is perhaps a good thing that this amendment has been brought forward, if only to demonstrate that your Lordships' Committee genuinely tries to do its very best on matters of this kind. I have always been told that this is a revising Chamber. When I sat for about half an hour during the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill earlier and listened to the Committee revising some 120 amendments in about 25 minutes, it seemed to me that the scrutiny we were giving them was not perhaps quite as close as the general public might have been led to believe. However, I think it is important that we do not allow the Bill to go further without making the points that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Henderson. It is a matter on which there is all-party support in both Houses of Parliament. I too have read most carefully the speeches of Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Cartwright and

613
others, and it seemed to me that the general mood was that something of this kind ought to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, outlined three possible courses of action. I and my noble friends on these Benches would undoubtedly prefer the first of those courses and we see no serious obstacles to its adoption; namely, the acceptance of this amendment. But if that cannot be done for reasons which we would understand, I hope that the opportunity will be seized for adopting one of the other two courses.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): I wonder whether I might intervene at this moment to indicate where the Government stand. I am afraid I must tell the Committee that it would be quite wrong to try to make the repeal for which this Bill provides retrospective in the way that is proposed in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Winstanley. I am afraid the Government are unable to agree to what is proposed.
The reason why retrospection would be wrong was clearly stated by my noble friends Lord Gisborough and Lord Glenarthur last Wednesday when your Lordships gave this Bill a Second Reading. In view of their importance, perhaps I should repeat them briefly. First, there is the general presumption that legislation is for the future and not for the past. Secondly, although the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred last week to examples of where the Government, in his view, had legislated retrospectively on issues favourable to them, nevertheless, I think, with respect, that he may have missed the point and failed to distinguish between legislation which might confer retrospectively rights and benefits on individuals and legislation which, under his proposal, would impose retrospective legal liability upon individuals for their actions.
Surely it would be both wrong and unfair to turn back the legal clock and impose upon service personnel, who need not now concern themselves over the possibility that their acts or omissions may give rise to civil actions, legal liability for their past actions, even though the Crown as their employer might relieve them of any financial risk by settling claims and paying the damages awarded by a court. What about those former service personnel, long since retired, who might have to be told that they will need to shoulder the burden of civil liability for what they did so many years ago?
Perhaps I can illustrate this point by hypothetical example. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, had a distinguished war service in the Royal Marines, and he told your Lordships about it last week during our consideration of the Bill on Second Reading. I was sorry to learn that he was badly injured during his service. Suppose that he had been transferred from the Royal Marines into the Royal Army Service Corps in the year just after the war, say, after the Crown Proceedings Act was passed in 1947. Let us further suppose that an army vehicle he was driving had overturned, injuring a passenger who was an army comrade. Under the terms of Section 10 of the 1947 Act, as we have heard, the driver would be immune
614
from legal liability for his actions, and perhaps his negligence, in causing the accident and would probably have forgotten all about the incident.
Under this amendment the noble Lord would now have us turn back the legal clock some 40 years and say to that driver, "You are now legally liable for your actions so long ago". Although the Ministry of Defence will pay the cost of any claim which that driver's injured passenger might now make in respect of the injuries he sustained all that time ago, nevertheless, formal legal liability and all that that entails would lie for ever on the shoulders of the driver of that vehicle. It might even mean court appearances if a writ is issued. Is it fair or reasonable to turn back the clock in this way and make such a serviceman or ex-serviceman legally liable for what he may have done so long ago? I believe it is not. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall wait until the Minister has finished.
Lord Trefgarne: Thirdly, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, acknowledged in your Lordships' debate last week the practical difficulties that could be encountered. It must be recognised that the imposition of retrospective provisions would create severe problems and would lead no doubt to many examples of unfairness, since the Ministry of Defence, and ultimately the courts, would be unable to consider and properly assess those old cases where the necessary evidence and witnesses are no longer available. Even in comparatively recent cases of death, injury or illness, prospective claimants will not have considered the possibility of raising a common law claim because of the bar established by Section 10 of the 1947 Act. So material evidence, essential when pursuing a claim through the courts, may well have been lost.
I turn now to the question of a possible regime of ex gratia payments. We have dealt at some length with the question of whether the Bill should contain provisions to make its effects retrospective, and I have endeavoured to explain the Government's view. But I should perhaps remind the Committee—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, acknowledged this—that when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 8th December last the Government's intention to repeal Section 10, he made it clear that he would consider claims arising from incidents which occurred from that date, not on the basis of legal liability, since the existence of Section 10 would prevent that, but on an ex gratia basis.
I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence is now dealing with a number of claims on that basis and that this interim scheme will continue to operate in respect of deaths, illnesses or injuries resulting from incidents in the period of time between the Government's announcement last December and the date of the Bill's enactment. It has been suggested by some noble Lords and indeed by others outside your Lordships' Chamber that by somehow extending the ex gratia scheme back in time beyond the date of the Government's announcement in December, we might thereby be able to help those who suffered illness or injury before December.

615
I am afraid that that approach is not a practicable one. I ask those who would argue for an ex gratia scheme for dealing with past cases where the cut-off line for considering old claims would be drawn. Whatever line was drawn would be totally arbitrary and some claims would always fall on the wrong side of it. Furthermore, the same consideration would apply to dealing with old claims on an ex gratia basis as to dealing with them within the framework of retrospective legislation. Many old cases would be impossible to assess because the evidence and witnesses are just not available. How would Parliament be able to justify the establishment of such a system that is riddled with potential injustices and unfairness?
It would be unfortunate if our early approval of this very valuable measure were to be clouded by consideration of how, in an ideal world, we might assist further those individuals who are suffering from the effects of accidents in the past. Whatever criticisms might be levelled at the provisions of this Bill, it is worth pointing out that there is a good system of financial benefits available to ensure that those unfortunate ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen who have been injured in the past and the beloved dependents of those who have been so tragically killed are not left without any form of assistance.
The system of automatic payment of disability and pension benefits will continue to operate with those eligible being entitled to lump sums and, where applicable, annual pensions. These benefits are linked to the retail price index, are largely tax free and do not involve the hazards and expense of the individuals concerned having to resort to the courts in litigation. Despite the fact that those people who were injured before 8th December last will not be able to pursue claims for common law damages, we have an adequate system for meeting the needs of those concerned. We shall continue to review that system of benefits to ensure that they remain adequate for the needs of those involved.
The Committee will, of course, wish to consider this amendment on its merits. However, it is my duty to inform the Committee that if the amendment is accepted there will be no prospect of this Bill receiving the Royal Assent in this Parliament. Although the Government fully support the Bill, I am unable to give any undertaking as to when such a Bill would find a place in the Government's legislative programme for the new Parliament. The choice before the Committee this evening is therefore between accepting the Bill as it stands, and it commands a broad measure of support and will be widely welcomed as a genuine reform for the benefit of our servicemen, and losing the Bill with at best uncertainty about the timing of its reintroduction.
The Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Gisborough deserves swift pasasge in what remains of this Parliament. I commend it most strongly to the Committee as it stands. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: It is easy to have a lot of superficial sympathy for the amendment that has been
616
moved. On the face of it, we should all like to have retrospection if possible. But it has been fully explained how totally impracticable that would be. There would be the problem of a lack of witnesses, who may have died or dispersed. And even if witnesses were available, their memory of events that happened so many years ago would be very faulty and the decisions reached by boards would bear no relation to the facts at the time.
I support the remarks of my noble friend the Minister. This Bill is needed and has universal support. It would be a great shame if it were lost by virtue of an amendment being carried, that would kill it for the Session and perhaps for a long time. I hope that the proposers will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I should like to begin by recognising immediately the seriousness and significance of the Minister's remarks that although we appear to have a choice, in effect, we have no choice at all. Like many of those who have spoken in this discussion and in another place, I appreciate the enormity of the step that the Minister took on 8th December last year. No one will lose sight of that.
We were hoping to build upon it. The Minister says that if we seek to do so and succeed, in effect we shall kill the Bill. Certainly, I am not willing to do that. However, the Minister needs to reflect seriously upon his conception of an adequate system for those who suffered an injury before 8th December and on what his ministerial colleague said last week was a satisfactory system.
This morning I received a letter from Mrs. Carol Mills, who is the secretary of STAG (Section Ten Action Group) and whose name is well known in relation to this issue. She says:
"It distresses me more than I can say that, as far as the severely disabled members of STAG are concerned, the existing pensions and awards"—
that is the adequate system—
"should be considered satisfactory. If it were true, they would not have felt it necessary to campaign so vigorously for the repeal of Section 10 and the Government would certainly not have agreed to It.
There is a difference between us, and a dilemma. I can well understand the Minister feeling that the system is satisfactory. He has enormous responsibilities. But I am not speaking on behalf of the Ministry. I am speaking on behalf of the people who have been injured or maimed and whose lives have been wrecked. They take a different view. We are seeking to persuade the Minister and the Government that their claims are sufficiently strong at least to allow them to be tested in a court.
The Minister is absolutely right that after 40 years it will entail great difficulty. But it will be their great difficulty and not that of the Ministry. When the Minister defends the nominal individual who has to face the court—I shall come back to his remarks about that later—there will, of course, be problems. There will be problems in any case, apart from problems of trying to find evidence, documentary or personal. There would be problems after four years, let alone 40 years. Of course the difficulty is enormous. But we are seeking to ensure the principle of having the right to do it.

617
Fair and kind comments were made by the Minister about my experience in 1944, which I described to the House last month. But what about the poor man who years ago was involved in a terrible accident? No finger of blame was pointed at him at the time, but he then finds that 40 years later he is summoned to court and charged with negligence of a terrible kind. I venture to suggest that, faced with the knowledge that someone has suffered for 40 years as a consequence of an accident in which he was involved, that man will be able to relieve his mind of the burden of responsibility because he was acting within the services. I think that he will be somewhat satisfied that after 40 years the damage that was done has been compensated and the grievance that was suffered has been redressed.
We are discussing hypothetical cases, but I imagine that someone who has been proved liable in a court of law will be aware that the injuries suffered can never by put right by a sum of money, whatever that sum is. I think that he will find it easier to live with his conscience if it has been assuaged by a decision of the court.
The Minister asked where one draws the line. He drew the line on ex gratia payments as of tonight or of tomorrow or when this Bill becomes an Act. He drew that line at 8th December when he made the announcement. If that announcement had been made a week earlier one assumes that fewer people would have been affected. We suggest that the line should have been drawn at the date when the previous Act was passed. We understand that 40 years constitutes an enormous length of time but all the evidence that we have does not concern what happened to people after December 8th or will happen to them after 22nd May. We have evidence of what happened to people before December 8th and after 1947.
But I take what the Minister has said and, whatever else other people may say, I am satisfied. I know that the Ministers responsible, not merely the Minister who has taken the Bill through this place but the Minister in another place, Mr. Freeman, listen very attentively and deserve the gratitude of many people. In the future, those people will be able to rely upon this repeal to get their redress.
Certainly no one has come out of this in bad odour. I understand the problems of the Government, and I simply say that I hope that Parliament will be able to find some means in future to add an additional veneer to the Bill, which I wish well when it gets on to the statute book. That veneer is one of compassion and mercy of people who have suffered through no fault of their own and who will continue to suffer in the future, not from a hurt but from a grievance and from a bitterness that they have not got their justice. Unless anyone else wishes to speak, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment. Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of today's date), Bill read a third time and passed.

Diplomatic and Consular Premises Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Deer Bill
8.13 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Motion agreed.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of today's date), Bill read a third time and passed.

Agricultural Training Board Bill
Read a third time and passed.

Registered Establishments (Scotland) Bill
8.15 p.m.
Report received.
Then Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of today's date):
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In so doing, I should like to thank your Lordships for enabling the Bill's passage and for agreeing to the small but important improvements made to the Bill in this House. The Bill is all the better for that. The provisions on appeals against conditions of registration now encompass conditions made at any time, and a formal system exists for the notification by local authorities of their intention to make such conditions. In addition, the provisions on charging for registration have been extended to place health boards in a similar position as regards the scope of charges to local authorities under other provisions in the Bill.
It has so happened that our consideration of this Bill has coincided with a very busy time and long hours spent on a major piece of Scottish legislation. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, have found time to give careful attention to the Bill and I am most grateful to them. I am sorry that the reprogramming of today's business means that neither noble Lord can be in his place this evening, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for his presence on the Front Bench opposite. I should also like to thank the Government, and notably my noble friend the Minister, for their assistance, encouragement and support. Last, but by no means least, I express gratitude to the officials of the Scottish Office who have done so much work on the Bill and have been a very great help to me.
My honourable friend Mr. Albert McQuarrie, the Member for Banff and Buchan, is well known for his

619
energy and expertise in the promotion of Private Member's Bills. It seems to me that in introducing this Bill he has again rendered an excellent service to us in Scotland. As it now stands, the Bill considerably enhances the existing legislation on the registration of social work establishments and nursing homes. It is my hope that the effect of the new arrangements will prove of considerable benefit to the authorities concerned, to the establishments and nursing homes concerned and, above all, to their customers. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
8.18 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, it would be usual for my noble friends Lord Ross of Marnock or Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, or both, to stand at this Dispatch Box upon this occasion. But as the noble Baroness mentioned, and as I now confirm, both have an inescapable prior engagement this evening, not perhaps entirely unconnected with the events of this week. So I find myself standing on this side of the Table, although for many years I often stood in front of where the noble Earl now sits. But I am sure that he too will stand at the Dispatch Box if only for a moment.
I come late to the Bill, but I notice that it is quite technical in character and complex in nature. Indeed I detected from a more than casual reading of Hansard that my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock succeeded in posing a number of quite penetrating questions relating to Clause 2, questions which I thought evinced a measure of confusion between the noble Baroness and the then government spokesman. The noble Lord who sits opposite most kindly copied to me a letter which he had sent earlier to my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock. It appears from that that the important point which he raised under Clause 2 received a very comprehensive reply from the Scottish Office. I acknowledge that publicly and thank the Minister for his consideration.
It only remains for me to say that I consider that the noble Baroness has very competently and with considerable graciousness of spirit carried a most complicated yet important piece of Scottish legislation through your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Carnegy referred to the part played in introducing the Bill in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Albert McQuarrie. I am sure that we would all wish to join her in expressing our thanks to him.
With regard to the proceedings in this House, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Carnegy on her successful piloting of the Bill, particularly when so much of her valuable time has been devoted lately to another piece of proposed Scottish legislation with which a number of your Lordships here tonight are also concerned and which, to borrow from the terminology of Clause 1 of this Bill, has had to be almost our "sole or main" object of attention over the last few weeks while its detailed discussion has certainly constituted our "whole or substantial function"!
620
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for taking such a keen interest in the substance of the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for his support and kind remarks this evening. Like my noble friend Lady Carnegy, I too hope that those concerned with the registration and operation of establishments covered by the Bill will value the improvements which it contains to the existing provisions in this area.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for his very generous remarks. I agree with him that his noble friend's questions at Committee stage were exceedingly penetrating. I am glad that he feels that the letters which my noble friend on the Front Bench wrote to him have cleared up such points as we were not able totally to clarify at that stage.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Brighton Marine Palace and Pier (Finance, Etc.) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Swanage Yacht Haven Bill [H.L.]
Committed to a Select Committee.
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment.

Family Law Reform Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eight o'clock.

  RoSPA: ROAD SAFETY WORK AGREEMENT
  RoSPA: ROAD SAFETY WORK AGREEMENT
  CAYMAN ISLANDS: IMPORTATION OF WILD SEA TURTLES
  CAYMAN ISLANDS: IMPORTATION OF WILD SEA TURTLES
  WANDSWORTH: LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING SALES
  WANDSWORTH: LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING SALES
  LONGFORD RIVER: CONSERVATION MEASURES
  LONGFORD RIVER: CONSERVATION MEASURES
  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1978: REFUSAL OF CERTIFICATES
  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1978: REFUSAL OF CERTIFICATES
  RIVER YEO: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT SCHEME
  RIVER YEO: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT SCHEME